The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition responds

[Peter F.]

At a press conference in Los Angeles this morning (Monday),
Michael York will announce the release of the Shakespeare
Authorship Coalition's response to "60 Minutes with Shake-
speare". This was the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust's
attack upon what they are pleased to call "The Shakespeare
Authorship Conspiracy Theory" and the "Anti-Shakespearians"
who support it.

Responses are provided to each of their 60 "answers" (in
fact 61, as Prince Charles was roped in at the last moment)
and the whole thing, titled "Exposing an Industry in Denial"
may be read at <https://doubtaboutwill.org/exposing>.

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

[Robin G.]

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

Sorry, but this is the same old same old those who don't believe Will
Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote Shakespeare trot out to
support their claims. Most of these folks don't have a clue about the
current research and writings of Early Modern scholars. Those who
deny Will wrote Shakespeare are busy turning biography into a fetish.
Biographical criticism is 20 years or more in the past.

Those who deny Will wrote Shakespeare were certain "Anonymous" was
bring crowds into the theatres and walk out converts to the cause.
Reality hit when the movie tanked. The historical flaws were glaring
and the screenplay was awful. It must of warmed the hearts of those
who have convinced themselves Marlowe wrote Shakespeare that in the
movie Kit was still living.

It wasn't Kit, Mary, Eddie or any of the 70 plus candidates who wrote
Shakespeare. William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon who wrote
Shakespeare.

[book...@yahoo.com]

It's significant that the Coalition have managed to instigate the
serious response by the SBT. The strategy is evidently to describe
alternate authorship attributions as anti-Stratman and conspiracy
theories.

Thus by defining the questions, answers are easier to come by. The 61
responses will no doubt be formidable and comprehensive, perhaps
constituting more substance in the Denial Industry now.

My only issues with Mr. Farey's thesis about Marlowe are:

1) It's one thing to propose Marlowe would have been as great as
Shakespeare, "if he had lived"; another to suggest he didn't die. This
is like Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter ostensibly re-dating the
Tempest before proceeding to conclude Oxford might have lived long
enough to have written it; and

2) The inquest's "faking Marlowe's death" means that he didn't die, as
opposed to concealing something about the circumstances and manner of
his death. That Marlowe was working with the Secret Service would
make that possible, IMO.

Anyway, nice to know PF is still keeping his end up. bookburn

[Peter F.]

"Robin G." wrote:

Much of it certainly consists of material that I have read
before, but by no means all of it. And there is some with
which I am in disagreement - though surprisingly little,
given the predominance of Oxfordian respondents.

Quite why you would expect it be new stuff escapes me,
though. What matters is that it all appears to have been
unknown to the SBT's "super 61", presumably as a result of
their having always insulated themselves from such naughty
notions and the arguments offered in their support.

Your saying that "It must of warmed the hearts of those

who have convinced themselves Marlowe wrote Shakespeare

that in the movie Kit was still living" amused me. Yes,
it must of. Although to be fair, they did have his throat
cut (I think) in some London backstreet later on in the
film. And this probably represents an ignorance of the
details surrounding Marlowe's supposed death matched only
by most of those who parrot out the old cry that Marlowe
couldn't have written the works because he was dead
before they were written. I exclude Charles Nicholl from
this, who knows full well that a strong case can be made
for Marlowe's survival, but who for one reason or another
forgot to mention it!

[Peter F.]

Bookburn wrote:
>
> It's significant that the Coalition have managed to
> instigate the serious response by the SBT. The strategy

> is evidently to describe alternate authorship attrib-

> utions as anti-Stratman and conspiracy theories.

Their strategy is to frame all such doubt as a single
"Shakepeare Authorship Conspiracy Theory" (when they know
full well that there is no such thing) and all doubters
as "Anti-Shakespearians," implying that we are attacking
their beloved author in some way, whereas they know that
our admiration for the author is not a whit less than any
of theirs. Semantic trickery, which only a fool would fall
for.

> Thus by defining the questions, answers are easier to
> come by. The 61 responses will no doubt be formidable and
> comprehensive, perhaps constituting more substance in the
> Denial Industry now.

I think that most of them are pretty good. It would be nice
to think that the more intelligent Stratfordians will read
them, rather than simply respond with the knee-jerk reaction
typified by Robin G.'s post.

> My only issues with Mr. Farey's thesis about Marlowe are:
> 1) It's one thing to propose Marlowe would have been as
> great as Shakespeare, "if he had lived"; another to suggest
> he didn't die. This is like Lynne Kositsky and Roger

> Stritmatter ostensibly re-dating the Tempest before proc-

> eeding to conclude Oxford might have lived long enough to
> have written it;

No, Don, it is nothing like that. It is convenient for
Stanley Wells, Charles Nicholl, et al. to portray the issue
of Marlowe's death as an intractable problem which stands in
the way of the Marlovian hypothesis being taken seriously.
What they in their self-satisfied ignorance apparently find
impossible to understand is that the faked death scenario is
a major part of the hypothesis *itself*, not a defensive
reaction to a problem with it.

One day, I hope, somebody will explain to me why the argument
I present in my recently updated essay "Marlowe's Sudden and
Fearful End" (at the site below) - and in particular how it
explains so many of the anomalies surrounding it - doesn't
raise serious doubts about Marlowe having actually died that
day. But I won't hold my breath.

> and
> 2) The inquest's "faking Marlowe's death" means that he
> didn't die, as opposed to concealing something about the
> circumstances and manner of his death. That Marlowe was
> working with the Secret Service would make that possible,
> IMO.

Indeed it would. And if someone can come up with a version
of his "death" based on this, and which takes account of all
the evidence available to us about, I would love to hear it.

> Anyway, nice to know PF is still keeping his end up.

I wish!

[Algernon H. Nuttsakk]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:34:48 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>
>
> "Robin G." wrote:
> >
> > "Peter F." wrote:
> > >
> > > At a press conference in Los Angeles this morning (Monday),
> > > Michael York will announce the release of the Shakespeare
> > > Authorship Coalition's response to "60 Minutes with Shake-
> > > speare". This was the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust's
> > > attack upon what they are pleased to call "The Shakespeare
> > > Authorship Conspiracy Theory" and the "Anti-Shakespearians"
> > > who support it.
> >
> > > Responses are provided to each of their 60 "answers" (in
> > > fact 61, as Prince Charles was roped in at the last moment)
> > > and the whole thing, titled "Exposing an Industry in Denial"
> > > may be read at <https://doubtaboutwill.org/exposing>.
> >
> > > Peter F.
> > > <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> > > <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
> >
> > Sorry, but this is the same old same old those who don't believe Will
> > Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote Shakespeare trot out to
> > support their claims. Most of these folks don't have a clue about the

> > current research and writings of Early Modern scholars. =A0Those who

> > deny Will wrote Shakespeare are busy turning biography into a fetish.
> > Biographical criticism is 20 years or more in the past.
> >
> > Those who deny Will wrote Shakespeare were certain "Anonymous" was
> > bring crowds into the theatres and walk out converts to the cause.

> > Reality hit when the movie tanked. =A0The historical flaws were glaring
> > and the screenplay was awful. =A0It must of warmed the hearts of those

> > who have convinced themselves Marlowe wrote Shakespeare that in the
> > movie Kit was still living.
> >
> > It wasn't Kit, Mary, Eddie or any of the 70 plus candidates who wrote

> > Shakespeare. =A0William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon who wrote

> > Shakespeare.
>
> Much of it certainly consists of material that I have read
> before, but by no means all of it. And there is some with
> which I am in disagreement - though surprisingly little,
> given the predominance of Oxfordian respondents.
>
> Quite why you would expect it be new stuff escapes me,
> though. What matters is that it all appears to have been
> unknown to the SBT's "super 61", presumably as a result of
> their having always insulated themselves from such naughty
> notions and the arguments offered in their support.
>
> Your saying that "It must of warmed the hearts of those
> who have convinced themselves Marlowe wrote Shakespeare
> that in the movie Kit was still living" amused me. Yes,
> it must of. Although to be fair, they did have his throat
> cut (I think) in some London backstreet later on in the
> film. And this probably represents an ignorance of the
> details surrounding Marlowe's supposed death matched only
> by most of those who parrot out the old cry that Marlowe
> couldn't have written the works because he was dead
> before they were written. I exclude Charles Nicholl from
> this, who knows full well that a strong case can be made
> for Marlowe's survival, but who for one reason or another
> forgot to mention it!
>
> Peter F.

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

Marlowe was a blasphemous prig, an outhouse
cleaner and the son of a cobbler, and his
disgusting lower-class origins immediately
rule him out as the author of "Henry V".
What did Marlowe know of cabbages and Kings?
Of cabbages he was no doubt an erudite expert
concerning their flavor, aroma and their
effect on his bowel movements, but of kings
he knew nothing.


AHN

[John W Kennedy]

Somehow or other, I've gotten onto their mailing list. I actually
received their notice before the press-embargo hour.

Folks, they're angry. Outraged, in fact, publicly casting themselves as
martyrs for Truth and Common Decency as I've never seen them do before.
I'm not saying the wasps' nest shouldn't have been kicked in
anticipation of "Anonymous", no matter how damp a squib it proved in
the event, but it's been well and truly kicked now.

--
John W Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"

[Peter F.]

John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> Robin G. wrote:
>

> > Peter F. wrote:
> > >
> > > At a press conference in Los Angeles this morning (Monday),
> > > Michael York will announce the release of the Shakespeare
> > > Authorship Coalition's response to "60 Minutes with Shake-
> > > speare". This was the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust's
> > > attack upon what they are pleased to call "The Shakespeare
> > > Authorship Conspiracy Theory" and the "Anti-Shakespearians"
> > > who support it.
> > >
> > > Responses are provided to each of their 60 "answers" (in
> > > fact 61, as Prince Charles was roped in at the last moment)
> > > and the whole thing, titled "Exposing an Industry in Denial"
> > > may be read at <https://doubtaboutwill.org/exposing>.
> >

Well said, John.

Not martyrs exactly, but "Common Decency" and a mutual discussion
about just what the "Truth" might be would have been nice.

And thanks for the C. S. Lewis quote. It is also about as perceptive
as
classing all such theories as "The Shakespeare Authorship Conspiracy
Theory" and then criticizing _that_.

[Tom Reedy]

On Nov 21, 7:58 am, "Peter F." <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> Bookburn wrote:
>
> > It's significant that the Coalition have managed to
> > instigate the serious response by the SBT. The strategy
> > is evidently to describe alternate authorship attrib-
> > utions as anti-Stratman and conspiracy theories.
>
> Their strategy is to frame all such doubt as a single
> "Shakepeare Authorship Conspiracy Theory" (when they know
> full well that there is no such thing) and all doubters
> as "Anti-Shakespearians," implying that we are attacking
> their beloved author in some way, whereas they know that
> our admiration for the author is not a whit less than any
> of theirs. Semantic trickery, which only a fool would fall
> for.

It is indeed semantic trickery, of the exact same nature as
classifying the conspiracy theorists as "anti-Stratfordians" and the
Shakespeare believers as "Stratfordians", as if there were some type
of parity between the two instead of one being a parody of the other.
Logically the "Stratfordians" should be "Shakespeareans", just as
Oxford believers are Oxfordians and Marlowe believers Marlovians.
Those who have no particular candidate should be "anti-
Shakespeareans".

> > Thus by defining the questions, answers are easier to
> > come by. The 61 responses will no doubt be formidable and
> > comprehensive, perhaps constituting more substance in the
> > Denial Industry now.
>
> I think that most of them are pretty good. It would be nice
> to think that the more intelligent Stratfordians will read
> them, rather than simply respond with the knee-jerk reaction
> typified by Robin G.'s post.

Which ones do you think are good? It's mostly the same old in-and-out
that I can see.

> > My only issues with Mr. Farey's thesis about Marlowe are:
> > 1) It's one thing to propose Marlowe would have been as
> > great as Shakespeare, "if he had lived"; another to suggest
> > he didn't die. This is like Lynne Kositsky and Roger
> > Stritmatter ostensibly re-dating the Tempest before proc-
> > eeding to conclude Oxford might have lived long enough to
> > have written it;
>
> No, Don, it is nothing like that. It is convenient for
> Stanley Wells, Charles Nicholl, et al. to portray the issue
> of Marlowe's death as an intractable problem which stands in
> the way of the Marlovian hypothesis being taken seriously.

It is not only Marlowe's death, it is the very real evidence for
William Shakespeare that stands in the way of any other candidate.
That evidence can only be explained by strained special pleading and
conspiracies.

> What they in their self-satisfied ignorance apparently find
> impossible to understand is that the faked death scenario is
> a major part of the hypothesis *itself*, not a defensive
> reaction to a problem with it.
>
> One day, I hope, somebody will explain to me why the argument
> I present in my recently updated essay "Marlowe's Sudden and
> Fearful End" (at the site below) - and in particular how it
> explains so many of the anomalies surrounding it - doesn't
> raise serious doubts about Marlowe having actually died that
> day. But I won't hold my breath.
>
> > and
> > 2) The inquest's "faking Marlowe's death" means that he
> > didn't die, as opposed to concealing something about the
> > circumstances and manner of his death.  That Marlowe was
> > working with the Secret Service would make that possible,
> > IMO.
>
> Indeed it would. And if someone can come up with a version
> of his "death" based on this, and which takes account of all
> the evidence available to us about, I would love to hear it.
>
> > Anyway, nice to know PF is still keeping his end up.
>
> I wish!

Don't despair, I'm getting there too!

TR

[Paul Crowley]

On 21/11/2011 13:58, Peter F. wrote:

> One day, I hope, somebody will explain to me why the argument
> I present in my recently updated essay "Marlowe's Sudden and
> Fearful End" (at the site below) - and in particular how it
> explains so many of the anomalies surrounding it - doesn't
> raise serious doubts about Marlowe having actually died that
> day. But I won't hold my breath.

I guess that most people are like me, and have no interest in
reading it -- or not until you give us a good reason to, such as
a plausible account of why a sober and sensible government
would partake in a 'faked death' conspiracy when -- even if
we accept your other suppositions that some kind of drastic
action was necessary -- such a government had so many
other options available.

Is there any evidence that ANY government (or other responsible
organisation -- or, heck, ANY other organisation, period) EVER
took part in a 'faked death' conspiracy?

The trouble about faked deaths is that, even in the modern
world, the supposedly dead person is routinely recognised,
or 'comes back to life' of his own accord. Who would want
to be known to have been a part of the organisation that was
responsible for so crazy a plan?

Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Nov 21, 8:58 am, "Peter F." <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> Bookburn wrote:
>
> > It's significant that the Coalition have managed to
> > instigate the serious response by the SBT. The strategy
> > is evidently to describe alternate authorship attrib-
> > utions as anti-Stratman and conspiracy theories.
>
> Their strategy is to frame all such doubt as a single
> "Shakepeare Authorship Conspiracy Theory" (when they know
> full well that there is no such thing)

That's like saying that because no biologist has exactly the same
understanding of the theory of evolution, that one can't refer to a
single theory of biology. All Marlovians have to believe in a double-
conspiracy, one to account for the faked death, and one to account for
the authorship hoax. So it makes perfect sense to speak of a
Marlovian Conspiracy Theory, as a special instance of the overall
Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theory, required of all anti-
Stratfordians however much they try to deny it. They are all anti-
Shakespeare, too, since "Shakespeare" was the Stratford man's name,
and to say that he was less than he has always been given credit for
being is surely to be against him.

> and all doubters
> as "Anti-Shakespearians," implying that we are attacking
> their beloved author in some way, whereas they know that
> our admiration for the author is not a whit less than any
> of theirs. Semantic trickery, which only a fool would fall for.

If I say Grant was a drunk whose wife, wearing his uniform and calling
herself, "General Grant," was responsible for all his victories, which
is obviously untrue, I would not be attacking Grant?

> > Thus by defining the questions, answers are easier to
> > come by. The 61 responses will no doubt be formidable and
> > comprehensive, perhaps constituting more substance in the
> > Denial Industry now.
>
> I think that most of them are pretty good. It would be nice
> to think that the more intelligent Stratfordians will read
> them, rather than simply respond with the knee-jerk reaction
> typified by Robin G.'s post.
>
> > My only issues with Mr. Farey's thesis about Marlowe are:
> > 1) It's one thing to propose Marlowe would have been as
> > great as Shakespeare, "if he had lived"; another to suggest
> > he didn't die. This is like Lynne Kositsky and Roger
> > Stritmatter ostensibly re-dating the Tempest before proc-
> > eeding to conclude Oxford might have lived long enough to
> > have written it;
>
> No, Don, it is nothing like that. It is convenient for
> Stanley Wells, Charles Nicholl, et al. to portray the issue
> of Marlowe's death as an intractable problem which stands in
> the way of the Marlovian hypothesis being taken seriously.

I don't think they or any sane person thinks his death stands in the
way of the Marlovian theory's being taken seriously. What stands in
its way is the complete absence of direct documentary evidence that
Marlowe wrote a word of Shakespeare's works combined with the copious
direct documentary evidence that Will Shakespeare did.

> What they in their self-satisfied ignorance apparently find
> impossible to understand is that the faked death scenario is
> a major part of the hypothesis *itself*, not a defensive
> reaction to a problem with it.

How about his going to Italy? Is that part of the hypothesis or an
attempt to explain why we have no direct documentary evidence that
anyone ever saw him alive after 1603? In any case, no matter how you
describe your two conspiracy theories, they remain two in number,and
you have to explain both.

> One day, I hope, somebody will explain to me why the argument
> I present in my recently updated essay "Marlowe's Sudden and
> Fearful End" (at the site below) - and in particular how it
> explains so many of the anomalies surrounding it - doesn't
> raise serious doubts about Marlowe having actually died that
> day. But I won't hold my breath.

Whose judgement will determine the validity of their explanation,
Pau . . ., I mean, Peter?

> > and
> > 2) The inquest's "faking Marlowe's death" means that he
> > didn't die, as opposed to concealing something about the
> > circumstances and manner of his death.  That Marlowe was
> > working with the Secret Service would make that possible,
> > IMO.
>
> Indeed it would. And if someone can come up with a version
> of his "death" based on this, and which takes account of all
> the evidence available to us about, I would love to hear it.
>
> > Anyway, nice to know PF is still keeping his end up.
>
> I wish!
>
> Peter F.

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

[Bob Grumman]

> I exclude Charles Nicholl from
> this, who knows full well that a strong case can be made
> for Marlowe's survival, but who for one reason or another
> forgot to mention it!
>
> Peter F.

You're implying that we now have a new conspiracy theory to go along
with the two begun in 1603 concerning Marlowe's death and who wrote
Shakespeare?

--Bob

[m.balarama]

On Nov 21, 8:35 am, Algernon H. Nuttsakk <algernonhnutts...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

he was a cambridge graduate-but was kiilled before all the plays were
written

[Bob Grumman]

On Nov 21, 9:35 am, Algernon H. Nuttsakk <algernonhnutts...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> AHN- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ah, so you don't believe he was the illegimate son of James of
Scotland, Professor?

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

> Shakespeare.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, propagandistic crap such as proporting to show why our side is
wrong to claim there's no doubt who wrote Shakespeare's works when
what we say is that there's no REASONABLE doubt about that, for just
one of probably a hundred examples.. Quite annoying. But as an
author with an improved edition of a book on the subject I'm finishing
in which I can quote and show the idiocy of the wacks' latest
expression of their delusions, I welcome the continuing squabble.
(The improvement, earlier announced to wide applause here, will
discuss what I call the conspiraplex, and show how similar the
authorship conspiraplex is to other well-known ones, including--
horrors--holocaust denial, although it's much nicer.)

--Bob

[John W Kennedy]

The current new strategy is to go back to the "knowledge of Italy"
meme. Fortunately, they're overreaching, putting forward the absurd
idea that the works of Shakespeare are all you need as a practical
tourist guide for years of travel in Italy. Since there isn't enough
practical tourist information in all of Shakespeare combined to
constitute a decent tourist guide to, say, Somersetshire, one doesn't
even have to check the individual facts to see that the argument falls
apart.

[John W Kennedy]

Not really.

To say, "This story involves space travel," for example, establishes
nothing about the plot, the characters, the language, the imagery, or
the mood of the work, or about any philosophical theses that it may
present. Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, and Olaf Stapledon, for instance,
inhabit wholly different countries of the mind. But all
anti-Shakespeare beliefs do have one central thesis: "The works of
Shakespeare were not written by William Shakespeare, but by some other
person," and all of them (as far as I know) bring in byzantine
conspiracy theories to explain why the truth had to be hidden.

[Tom Reedy]

OT, but as good as they were, none of these guys were as good as Tom
Disch.

TR

[Robin G.]

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

Why do you insist Charles Nicholl include something in his book he
does not believe? It's like insisting the author of a book on
evolution including something about creationism.

I have read and seen Marlowe, I have read and seen Shakespeare; I
never confuse one with the other.

[Peter F.]

Tom Reedy wrote:

>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Their strategy is to frame all such doubt as a single
> > "Shakepeare Authorship Conspiracy Theory" (when they know
> > full well that there is no such thing) and all doubters
> > as "Anti-Shakespearians," implying that we are attacking
> > their beloved author in some way, whereas they know that
> > our admiration for the author is not a whit less than any
> > of theirs. Semantic trickery, which only a fool would fall
> > for.
>
> It is indeed semantic trickery, of the exact same nature as
> classifying the conspiracy theorists as "anti-Stratfordians"
> and the Shakespeare believers as "Stratfordians", as if
> there were some type of parity between the two instead of
> one being a parody of the other.

Oh, funny. As far as I know, it was George Greenwood who, in
1908, first used the terms Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian.
Right at the start of his book "The Shakespeare Problem
Restated" he said that:

<quote>

In this work I have followed the convenient practice
of writing "Shakespeare" where I am speaking of
the author of the Plays and Poems, and "Shakspere"
where I refer to William Shakspere of Stratford
(whether he was or was not the author in question), except
in quotations, where I, of course, follow the originals.

I have also employed the word "Stratfordian" as a
compendious term to indicate one who holds the commonly
received opinion that Shakspere and Shakespeare are
identical, or as an epithet denoting such belief..."

<unquote>

and a little later he said "...still less do I assume any
sort of superiority for any section of the anti-Stratfordian
school..."

In neither case can I detect any sign of the terms being
chosen for a rhetorical purpose, just as a convenient short-
hand for the different schools of thought. His reference to
it being "the commonly received opinion" seems pretty fair
to me.

Since that time those two expressions have been easily the
most common way in which the difference has been described,
including in your own Shakespeare Authorship Question entry
in Wikipedia. The question then is whether Greenwood's use
of those terms was done to create a deliberately misleading
impression, as the SBT's choice undoubtedly is. And I would
claim that it was not.

> Logically the "Stratfordians" should be "Shakespeareans",
> just as Oxford believers are Oxfordians and Marlowe

> believers Marlovians. Those who have no particular cand-
> idate should be "anti-Shakespeareans".

That would have the advantage of consistency, but neverthe-
less gives the impression that we have something against
the author himself, which is simply not true. Personally
I would have no objection if it were "Shaksperian" and
"anti-Shaksperian", given that the man we are talking about
was apparently both baptized and buried as "Shakspere".
(I tend to prefer using the correct suffix "-ian", which would
normally replace the final "e", as in "Shakespearian" rather
than "Shakespearean".)

> > I think that most of them are pretty good. It would be nice
> > to think that the more intelligent Stratfordians will read
> > them, rather than simply respond with the knee-jerk reaction
> > typified by Robin G.'s post.
>
> Which ones do you think are good?

Most of them, as I said. As usual, I protested at the inclusion
of the changed monument and the Bohemian coast, but was
outgunned.

> It's mostly the same old in-and-out that I can see.

That you are familiar with the arguments in a way that few
can match seems quite irrelevant to me.

<snip>

> > No, Don, it is nothing like that. It is convenient for
> > Stanley Wells, Charles Nicholl, et al. to portray the issue
> > of Marlowe's death as an intractable problem which stands in
> > the way of the Marlovian hypothesis being taken seriously.
>
> It is not only Marlowe's death, it is the very real evidence
> for William Shakespeare that stands in the way of any other
> candidate. That evidence can only be explained by strained
> special pleading and conspiracies.

Yes of course that is true for all candidates, but "bookburn"
was commenting on my "thesis about Marlowe". Put very simply,
our main argument is:

(1) The details of Marlowe's recorded death lead us to conclude
that the most logical reason for those particular people to
have met at that particular place at that particular time was
to fake it.

(2) If Marlowe did survive, then the seamlessness of the trans-
ition from Marlowe's to Shakespeare's work, and the problems
with linking Shakespeare of Stratford with those works bearing
his name, lead us to conclude that they were most probably
written by Marlowe.

Yet the argument against us is always framed in terms of either
"what these people ignore is that Marlowe was dead when most of
the works were written" or "so they have had to dream up some
extraordinarily complex scheme by which he didn't really die
after all," which conveniently allows them to ignore the first
part of the case.

<snip>

[Peter F.]

Robin G. wrote:
>
> Peter F. wrote:
> >
> > I exclude Charles Nicholl from this, who knows full well
> > that a strong case can be made for Marlowe's survival,
> > but who for one reason or another forgot to mention it!
>

> Why do you insist Charles Nicholl include something in his
> book he does not believe? It's like insisting the author
> of a book on evolution including something about creationism.

I don't recall "insisting" upon anything. Nor was I talking
about a book. Apparently your dismissal of the document which
is the subject of this thread as "same old same old" wasn't
based upon your having actually looked at it after all.
Tut, tut.

Should you ever decide to thumb through it, you will see that
Question 51 was addressed to Charles Nicholl, and it was to
his answer that I was referring. As for what he believes, I
can only go on what he wrote to me about my essay "Marlowe's
Sudden and Fearful End", which I sent to him not long after
the second edition of his "The Reckoning" was published.

> I have read and seen Marlowe, I have read and seen Shake-

> speare; I never confuse one with the other.

Me too and me neither. How about early and late Henry James?
Do you ever confuse one of them with the other?

[Peter F.]

Bob Grumman wrote:

>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Bookburn wrote:
> > >
> > > It's significant that the Coalition have managed to
> > > instigate the serious response by the SBT. The strategy
> > > is evidently to describe alternate authorship attrib-
> > > utions as anti-Stratman and conspiracy theories.
> >
> > Their strategy is to frame all such doubt as a single
> > "Shakepeare Authorship Conspiracy Theory" (when they know
> > full well that there is no such thing)
>
> That's like saying that because no biologist has exactly
> the same understanding of the theory of evolution, that
> one can't refer to a single theory of biology.

Bob, "a theory of biology" is not the the same as "The
Theory of Biology" (if there is such a thing). Do you really
not see that?

The only characteristic shared by all anti-Stratfordians is
that they doubt the traditional attribution, and therefore
think it likely that someone else wrote the plays and poems.
A corollary of this must be either that the name William
Shakespeare was used as a pseudonym, or that the man from
Stratford was used as a front for the true writer. Neither
of these hypotheses can be legitimately called a "conspiracy",
which, as you know, must have a purpose which is unlawful,
evil, criminal or reprehensible. It also falls way short of
being what would be correctly termed a "theory".

Despite this gruesome misuse of English, however, the
expression has been quite deliberately chosen because of
the inevitable semantic connection it has with the truly
ghastly "conspiracy theories" we all know and loathe. Why
descend to such levels unless they are genuinely worried?

> All Marlovians have to believe in a double-conspiracy,
> one to account for the faked death, and one to account for
> the authorship hoax.

Funnily enough, Marlowe's "faked death" is the only thing
I can think of in the whole authorship issue, and for all
of the countless claimants, which might *just* deserve the
name *conspiracy*. I suppose the question revolves around
exactly who would have been involved in the deception, and
the extent to which any law was broken in perpetrating it.
My own view is that it was set up by the whole Privy
Council, and was no more unlawful than the issue of fake
documents to those protected these days under a witness
protection program. Bear in mind that the inquest was
rendered void, so that any illegalities in the way it was
run, or any inaccuracies in the evidence given, could have
been dismissed just as easily as the verdict, had it been
challenged.

> So it makes perfect sense to speak of a Marlovian
> Conspiracy Theory, as a special instance of the overall
> Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theory, required of

> all anti-Stratfordians however much they try to deny it.

I love the non-sequiturish "So". No, Bob, it doesn't
follow, for the reasons given above.

> They are all anti-Shakespeare, too, since "Shakespeare"

> was the Stratford man's name, and to say that he was
> less than he has always been given credit for being is
> surely to be against him.

Enough of the pretend naivety, Bob. You know why we object
to being called anti-Shakespearians, and you know that the
expressions based on Stratford have been perfectly accept-
able in the past. But if game-playing is your thing...

> > and all doubters
> > as "Anti-Shakespearians," implying that we are attacking
> > their beloved author in some way, whereas they know that
> > our admiration for the author is not a whit less than any
> > of theirs. Semantic trickery, which only a fool would fall
> > for.
>
> If I say Grant was a drunk whose wife, wearing his uniform
> and calling herself, "General Grant," was responsible for
> all his victories, which is obviously untrue, I would not
> be attacking Grant?

I guess that the phrases "unfair analogy" and "circular
reasoning" mean absolutely nothing to you, do they?

<snip>

> > > My only issues with Mr. Farey's thesis about Marlowe are:
> > > 1) It's one thing to propose Marlowe would have been as
> > > great as Shakespeare, "if he had lived"; another to suggest
> > > he didn't die. This is like Lynne Kositsky and Roger
> > > Stritmatter ostensibly re-dating the Tempest before proc-
> > > eeding to conclude Oxford might have lived long enough to
> > > have written it;
> >
> > No, Don, it is nothing like that. It is convenient for
> > Stanley Wells, Charles Nicholl, et al. to portray the issue
> > of Marlowe's death as an intractable problem which stands in
> > the way of the Marlovian hypothesis being taken seriously.
>
> I don't think they or any sane person thinks his death stands
> in the way of the Marlovian theory's being taken seriously.

Then I suggest you read what Charles Nicholl says in answer to
Question 51 of the document we are supposed to be discussing,
and the Marlovian bit of Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells's
e-book "Shakespeare Bites Back".

> What stands in its way is the complete absence of direct

> documentary evidence that Marlowe wrote a word of Shake-

> speare's works combined with the copious direct documentary
> evidence that Will Shakespeare did.

Yes indeed. Of course this is a fairly formidable obstacle
to be overcome, but I think we have done so. However, the fact
is that these (presumably insane) people did in fact portray
Marlowe's "death" as standing in the way of the Marlovian
hypothesis. Embarrassing, eh?

> > What they in their self-satisfied ignorance apparently find
> > impossible to understand is that the faked death scenario is
> > a major part of the hypothesis *itself*, not a defensive
> > reaction to a problem with it.
>
> How about his going to Italy? Is that part of the hypothesis
> or an attempt to explain why we have no direct documentary
> evidence that anyone ever saw him alive after 1603?

When did I suggest that he went to Italy, Bob? Please remind
me. Although it is tempting to assume that this was where he
headed immediately following the supposed death (and many
Marlovians have trod that path) as far as I recall it is not
something that I have ever argued. I look forward to reading
this latest book, nevertheless, and may even be persuaded by it.

> In any case, no matter how you describe your two conspiracy

> theories, they remain two in number, and you have to explain
> both.

Ignoring this "conspiracy" crap, I have explained both. I have
also shown how each hypothesis provides an explanation for
*all* of the anomalies surrounding the two questions. That you
are still either unwilling or unable to address that particular
aspect of each argument is unfortunate but hardly unexpected.

> > One day, I hope, somebody will explain to me why the argument
> > I present in my recently updated essay "Marlowe's Sudden and
> > Fearful End" (at the site below) - and in particular how it
> > explains so many of the anomalies surrounding it - doesn't
> > raise serious doubts about Marlowe having actually died that
> > day. But I won't hold my breath.
>
> Whose judgement will determine the validity of their explanation,
> Pau . . ., I mean, Peter?

Whoever reads it, Bob. But this is difficult in the absence of
any such criticism of those particular arguments, even after all
these years. That you find my mode of argument indistinguishable
from Paul's says more about you, I'm afraid, than it does about me.

[Tom Reedy]

On Nov 22, 4:47 am, "Peter F." <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > Their strategy is to frame all such doubt as a single
> > > "Shakepeare Authorship Conspiracy Theory" (when they know
> > > full well that there is no such thing) and all doubters
> > > as "Anti-Shakespearians," implying that we are attacking
> > > their beloved author in some way, whereas they know that
> > > our admiration for the author is not a whit less than any
> > > of theirs. Semantic trickery, which only a fool would fall
> > > for.
>
> > It is indeed semantic trickery, of the exact same nature as
> > classifying the conspiracy theorists as "anti-Stratfordians"
> > and the Shakespeare believers as "Stratfordians", as if
> > there were some type of parity between the two instead of
> > one being a parody of the other.
>
> Oh, funny. As far as I know, it was George Greenwood who, in
> 1908, first used the terms Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian.
> Right at the start of his book "The Shakespeare Problem
> Restated" he said that:

No, it was used earlier in the 1880s. I've got the reference
somewhere; I researched it while helping to edit the Wikipedia SAQ
page.

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

[Tom Reedy]

For some reason I hit "send" instead of the scrolling tab.

Well yes of course we can take Greenwood at his word; he absolutely
used no rhetorical tricks in his writing.

> > Since that time those two expressions have been easily the
> > most common way in which the difference has been described,
> > including in your own Shakespeare Authorship Question entry
> > in Wikipedia. The question then is whether Greenwood's use
> > of those terms was done to create a deliberately misleading
> > impression, as the SBT's choice undoubtedly is. And I would
> > claim that it was not.
>
> > > Logically the "Stratfordians" should be "Shakespeareans",
> > > just as Oxford believers are Oxfordians and Marlowe
> > > believers Marlovians. Those who have no particular cand-
> > > idate should be "anti-Shakespeareans".
>
> > That would have the advantage of consistency, but neverthe-
> > less gives the impression that we have something against
> > the author himself, which is simply not true. Personally
> > I would have no objection if it were "Shaksperian" and
> > "anti-Shaksperian", given that the man we are talking about
> > was apparently both baptized and buried as "Shakspere".
> > (I tend to prefer using the correct suffix "-ian", which would
> > normally replace the final "e", as in "Shakespearian" rather
> > than "Shakespearean".)

I've noticed the "-ian" is a British and the "-ean" an American
convention.

> > > > I think that most of them are pretty good. It would be nice
> > > > to think that the more intelligent Stratfordians will read
> > > > them, rather than simply respond with the knee-jerk reaction
> > > > typified by Robin G.'s post.
>
> > > Which ones do you think are good?
>
> > Most of them, as I said. As usual, I protested at the inclusion
> > of the changed monument and the Bohemian coast, but was
> > outgunned.
>
> > > It's mostly the same old in-and-out that I can see.
>
> > That you are familiar with the arguments in a way that few
> > can match seems quite irrelevant to me.

I understand. Since specious arguments have worked to catch so many in
the past, there's certainly no reason to stop using them now,
especially since the underlying principle seems to be conquest by
democracy. And that strategy certainly was a conscious decision, made
first by Ogburn in the mid-1970s because the Oxfordians weren't
getting anywhere by arguing with academics. He aimed the message at
the popular media instead; they're much more receptive to controversy,
since their main purpose is to provide an audience for advertisers.

> > <snip>
>
> > > > No, Don, it is nothing like that. It is convenient for
> > > > Stanley Wells, Charles Nicholl, et al. to portray the issue
> > > > of Marlowe's death as an intractable problem which stands in
> > > > the way of the Marlovian hypothesis being taken seriously.
>
> > > It is not only Marlowe's death, it is the very real evidence
> > > for William Shakespeare that stands in the way of any other
> > > candidate. That evidence can only be explained by strained
> > > special pleading and conspiracies.
>
> > Yes of course that is true for all candidates, but "bookburn"
> > was commenting on my "thesis about Marlowe". Put very simply,
> > our main argument is:
>
> > (1) The details of Marlowe's recorded death lead us to conclude
> > that the most logical reason for those particular people to
> > have met at that particular place at that particular time was
> > to fake it.

It appears to me that you're jumping to a conclusion not warranted by
the reported events. The details of Marlowe's recorded death lead us

to conclude that the most logical reason for those particular people
to have met at that particular place at that particular time was to

murder Marlowe. Since Elizabeth and her administrators had no qualms
about executing members of the nobility or religious leaders, why
would they would make allowances for a lowly playwright who worked in
a notoriously dangerous profession for a while?

> > (2) If Marlowe did survive, then the seamlessness of the trans-
> > ition from Marlowe's to Shakespeare's work, and the problems
> > with linking Shakespeare of Stratford with those works bearing
> > his name, lead us to conclude that they were most probably
> > written by Marlowe.

Big "if", for which there is no evidence save speculation. the rest of
the Marlovian theory rests on that speculation.

> > Yet the argument against us is always framed in terms of either
> > "what these people ignore is that Marlowe was dead when most of
> > the works were written" or "so they have had to dream up some
> > extraordinarily complex scheme by which he didn't really die
> > after all," which conveniently allows them to ignore the first
> > part of the case.

That part of the case being extremely speculative and against all that
we know about Elizabeth's spy network. Other than that, you're golden.

TR

[Tom Reedy]

Peter, you'll be saddened to know that Jonathan Kay in his *Among the
truthers: a journey through the cognitive underworld of American life*
calls the SAQ "the most durable and ambitious literary conspiracy
theory of the twentieth century" (160), but you'll be cheered to know
that he doesn't think the believers are insane--he calls it a
"socially constructed conspiracist phenomenon". He says clinically
insane people are prominent at the beginning of popular conspiracy
theories, and gives L. Ron Hubbard and Delia Bacon as examples
(183-4).


It's an interesting read.

TR

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

[John W Kennedy]

On 2011-11-22 14:18:22 +0000, Peter F. said:
> Bob, "a theory of biology" is not the the same as "The
> Theory of Biology" (if there is such a thing). Do you really
> not see that?

There /have/ been theories of Biology, all of them now utterly
discarded by scientists, though still popular as ersatz religions. At
that, I suppose one can still regard as a theory of Biology the modern
position that Life is an emergent phenomenon.

> The only characteristic shared by all anti-Stratfordians is
> that they doubt the traditional attribution, and therefore
> think it likely that someone else wrote the plays and poems.

You have, on occasion, denied that this is true in your own case. But,
be that as it may, the doubt that William Shakespeare was Shakespeare
is where it all goes wrong to begin with. The plays, if they show
anything, show a rural upbringing, a grammar-school education, a
middle-class understanding of society, and an intimate knowledge of
theatre. They also show a profound understanding of psychology (in the
modern sense of the word); if I were briefed to suggest that
Shakespeare were something that the record does not show William
Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon to have been, I would advance the
possibility that he was a working RC pastor, one who heard a great many
confessions. But could such a man have written "Measure for Measure"
without being squicked by the Duke's too-thorough masquerade?

> A corollary of this must be either that the name William
> Shakespeare was used as a pseudonym, or that the man from
> Stratford was used as a front for the true writer.

And if Jane Austen didn't write her own works, she must have been a
front for the true writer, too. I've always liked the hypothesis that
George III was the true writer, in the throes of a delusion to the
effect that he was Samuel Richardson.

> Neither
> of these hypotheses can be legitimately called a "conspiracy",
> which, as you know, must have a purpose which is unlawful,
> evil, criminal or reprehensible.

The theories generally alleged /do/ involve purposes that are "unlawful,
evil, criminal or reprehensible," including yours.

[Bob Grumman]

Peter, my pocket dictionary defines "conspiracy" as "plot, ESP. an
illegal one," my caps. Not that it matters. Every sane person
knowledgeable about authorship theories knows that some kind of
complicated secret plotting to conceal a complicated hoax was
involved. How do you explain the monument as anything other than a
hoax perpetrated by secret plotters. Or Marlowe's faked death? All
authorship skeptics share what I call a conspiraplex and describe in
the upcoming third edition of my book. I see no good reason not to
call it, "the Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theory. The phrase,
"Shakespeare authorship," differentiates it from the conspiracy theory
that all conpsiracy nuts, such as the Roswell nuts, share.

Not wanting to repeat long threads you and I have contributed to, and
aware that you have enough to deal with from Robin and John and
perhaps others, I'll leave to alone now--unless something especially
annoys me.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

We don't need a logical reason for people to get together. People can
bump into each other--for reasons that can't be determined 400 years
later. They can stay together, spend a day together, for reasons that
can't be determined 400 years later. There are a multitude of
plausible reasons to explain it. They enjoyed each other's company.
Two of them thought they could cheat the other of some money.
Homosexual attraction was a factor. One of them knew of a place where
really goodmeals were served and wanted to show the others how bright
he was for knowing this. They wanted to discuss possible formation of
a business. They were spies interested in learning things from each
other. They had nothing better to do. THe had all been told by an
angel that the Lord would appear at the Deptford place they ended at.
Etc. The conspiracy nut, whether believing in murder or a faked death
will cherry pick one reason because it suits his delusional system and
stick to it, whether plausible or not.

--Bob

[Peter F.]

Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > (1) The details of Marlowe's recorded death lead us to conclude
> > that the most logical reason for those particular people to
> > have met at that particular place at that particular time was
> > to fake it.
>
> It appears to me that you're jumping to a conclusion not
> warranted by the reported events.

Tom, the more than 25,000 words I have written concerning
Marlowe's supposed death testify to my not having "jumped"
to this conclusion. I would nevertheless welcome any examp-
les you can give therein in which either the information or
the reasoning is wrong. See my essay "Marlowe's Sudden and
Fearful End" at the address below and the other related
articles of mine to which it provides links.

I find it the most logical conclusion because it is the
only one which apparently provides answers to all of the
rather strange features of the event itself and related
circumstances.

> The details of Marlowe's
> recorded death lead us to conclude that the most logical
> reason for those particular people to have met at that
> particular place at that particular time was to murder
> Marlowe. Since Elizabeth and her administrators had no

> qualms about executing members of the nobility or relig-

> ious leaders, why would they would make allowances for a
> lowly playwright who worked in a notoriously dangerous
> profession for a while?

For "lowly playwright" read "greatest playwright in England
at that time" and for "worked in a notoriously dangerous
profession" read "worked for them"? I don't know, Tom. For
me - although by no means all Marlovians agree with this -
the details suggest that it was a decision reached between
those mambers of the Privy Council who wanted him dead and
those who wanted him saved. I outline what I admit are my
speculations about this in my short piece "Marlowe and the
Privy Council" which, together with associated comments, are
at http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2011/05/marlowe-and-privy-council.html

[Peter F.]

Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter, you'll be saddened to know that Jonathan Kay in his

> *Among the truthers: a journey through the cognitive under-

> world of American life* calls the SAQ "the most durable and
> ambitious literary conspiracy theory of the twentieth
> century" (160), but you'll be cheered to know that he
> doesn't think the believers are insane--he calls it a
> "socially constructed conspiracist phenomenon". He says
> clinically insane people are prominent at the beginning of
> popular conspiracy theories, and gives L. Ron Hubbard and
> Delia Bacon as examples (183-4).
>
> It's an interesting read.

As indeed one would hope for from someone whose qualifications
cover metallurgical engineering, economics, Japanese language
and US law.

[Peter F.]

John W Kennedy wrote:

>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > The only characteristic shared by all anti-Stratfordians is
> > that they doubt the traditional attribution, and therefore
> > think it likely that someone else wrote the plays and poems.
>
> You have, on occasion, denied that this is true in your own
> case.

You are right. The word "therefore" isn't really appropriate
for Marlovians. But I still find it impossible to find any way
of making the word "conspiracy" relevant in either case.

<snip>

> > Neither of these hypotheses can be legitimately called a
> > "conspiracy", which, as you know, must have a purpose which
> > is unlawful, evil, criminal or reprehensible.
>
> The theories generally alleged /do/ involve purposes that are
> "unlawful, evil, criminal or reprehensible," including yours.

Since I clearly am unaware of how this can be (other than in
the way I mentioned for mine), I would appreciate some further
clarification of what just what you have in mind, especially as
regards the others.

[Peter F.]

Bob, the point I am making is a very simple one. Nobody
would think of applying the word "conspiracy" to the use of
a pseudonym these days, even if the true identity of the
author is kept secret. Nor would the word be used where a
ghost writer provides a text which someone else presents as
their own. So the only reason for using it in this case
is as a rhetorical trick to poison the well.

[Peter F.]

Oh strewth. There is an infinite number of possible reasons
for those people to have met at that place on that day, and
many of those possible reasons may indeed be illogical.
However, if one is trying to decide which of those possible
reasons is most likely to be the true one, then the accepted
way is to apply logical inference to all of the facts about
it which one has at one's disposal.

My conclusion as to which is the most logical explanation of
all of those facts is that it was all to do with faking his
death. To say that there were countless other reasons why
they *might* have been there is completely irrelevant to
that conclusion, unless one of them can be shown to provide
a *better* explanation.

[Tom Reedy]

Oh please. Your scenario is most certainly a conspiracy. And if, say,
the PM wrote plays using Derek Jacobi as a front, and he used
government resources to alter official government documents in order
to protest his identity, and if the Queen was also in on it and
ordered her underlings to do everything possible to ensure that the
secret was not found out, no person in his or her right mind would
dare NOT call it conspiracy.

TR

[book...@yahoo.com]

If "conspiracy" is basically a plan to deceive the public, or at least
some targeted group, then there are lots of conspiracies around,
especially involving writers and publishers, IMO.

After the advent of the dime novel, it was common for publishers to
farm out their formula featuring the same central characters and
pseudonym. I understand several well-known authors wrote for the pulp
fiction market for the money without having to use their real name.

Today, we have the Bachman series written by Steven King. I guess he
just had some 2nd rate stuff put aside and decided to publish without
his name on them. According to my Internet search, he has also use
the pen names John Swithen and Eleanor Druse. Robert Heinlein wrote
so many science fiction stories he use several pseudonyms so he could
publish several stories in the same magazine issue.

And their are interesting special circumstances where women publish
using men's' names, or at least androgynous ones. I believe J. K.
Rowling and George Eliot did that.

(BTW, J. K. Rowling isn't the only Scottish authoress living and
writing in Edenburgh these days. Kate Atkinson, who authors the Case
Histories series on PBS and Masterpiece Theatre, based on her novels,
is my kind of read. Jackson Brodie is a private detective with a
heart of gold; like Jane in The Mentalist, but with muscles. I may
try to read all her highly acclaimed novels this holiday season.)

Happy Thanksgiving, bookburn

[Peter F.]

Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>

> > Bob, the point I am making is a very simple one. Nobody
> > would think of applying the word "conspiracy" to the use of
> > a pseudonym these days, even if the true identity of the
> > author is kept secret. Nor would the word be used where a
> > ghost writer provides a text which someone else presents as
> > their own. So the only reason for using it in this case
> > is as a rhetorical trick to poison the well.
>
> Oh please. Your scenario is most certainly a conspiracy.
> And if, say, the PM wrote plays using Derek Jacobi as a
> front, and he used government resources to alter official
> government documents in order to protest his identity,

> and if the Queen was also in on it and ordered her under-

> lings to do everything possible to ensure that the secret
> was not found out, no person in his or her right mind
> would dare NOT call it conspiracy.

If you say so, Tom, but I don't recognize this as being at
all analogous to the scenario I am proposing. In any case,
I have already acknowledged that the Marlovian solution,
involving some or all of the members of the Privy Council,
may present a slightly different problem. What I am compl-
aining about is not that, but the use of the term "Shake-
speare Authorship Conspiracy Theory" to describe a general
belief that it was not William Shakespeare who wrote the
works, but someone else, as the SBT is doing. Whether it
was achieved by simply using the name as a pseudonym or
by using the man as a front the word "conspiracy", as it is
normally used in England, is equally inappropriate.

[Peter F.]

"bookburn" wrote:
>
> If "conspiracy" is basically a plan to deceive the public,

> or at least some targeted group ...

But it isn't. Or rather it isn't just that. As I pointed
out earlier, it would also have a purpose which is

unlawful, evil, criminal or reprehensible.

[book...@yahoo.com]

But the OED has

(quote)
conspiracy

1. a. The action of conspiring; combination of persons for an evil
or unlawful purpose.

1610 SHAKES. Temp. II. i. 301 Open-ey'd Conspiracie His time doth
take.

. . . .
2. a. . . . Also in phr. conspiracy of silence.

3. fig. Union or combination (of persons or things) for one end or
purpose; harmonious
action or effort; = conspiration (In a good or neutral sense.)
(unquote)

It seems to me that when one takes apart the term "con-spiracy", the
root L. meaning of OED:

L. conspirare lit. 'to breathe together', whence, 'to accord,
harmonize, agree, conbine or unite in a purpose, plot mischief
together secretly'.

Which leaves open the question of what we mean when we refer to "the
Stratman conspiracy", "the Oxford Shakespeare conspiracy", or "the
Marlowe inquest conspiracy", I think. bookburn

[Tom Reedy]

On Nov 24, 12:53 am, "Peter F." <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > Bob, the point I am making is a very simple one. Nobody
> > > would think of applying the word "conspiracy" to the use of
> > > a pseudonym these days, even if the true identity of the
> > > author is kept secret. Nor would the word be used where a
> > > ghost writer provides a text which someone else presents as
> > > their own. So the only reason for using it in this case
> > > is as a rhetorical trick to poison the well.
>
> > Oh please. Your scenario is most certainly a conspiracy.
> > And if, say, the PM wrote plays using Derek Jacobi as a
> > front, and he used government resources to alter official
> > government documents in order to protest his identity,
> > and if the Queen was also in on it and ordered her under-
> > lings to do everything possible to ensure that the secret
> > was not found out, no person in his or her right mind
> > would dare NOT call it conspiracy.
>
> If you say so, Tom, but I don't recognize this as being at
> all analogous to the scenario I am proposing.

Your scenario includes using government resources to further an
imposture, alteration of government documents, perjury, and the
collusion of government officials at high levels and the recruitment
of civilians to further help the coverup, and you don't recognize your
scenario as analogous to the one I described?

> In any case,
> I have already acknowledged that the Marlovian solution,
> involving some or all of the members of the Privy Council,
> may present a slightly different problem. What I am compl-
> aining about is not that, but the use of the term "Shake-
> speare Authorship Conspiracy Theory" to describe a general
> belief that it was not William Shakespeare who wrote the
> works, but someone else, as the SBT is doing. Whether it
> was achieved by simply using the name as a pseudonym or
> by using the man as a front the word "conspiracy", as it is
> normally used in England, is equally inappropriate.

It probably is inappropriate, if accuracy of description is their
intention, but it isn't, as I thought I made clear above. They're
finally meeting Oxfordians on their own chosen battleground, the field
of propaganda to win the hearts and minds of the public, hardly any of
which cares very much about any of this. It makes me think that the
SBT is overreacting a bit; it's not like anybody but Oxfordians take
*Anonymous* as anything other than a mediocre movie. At the same time,
academe is finally acknowledging that they exist, and isn't that what
they've been wanting for so long? That the Shakespeare establishment
is universally dismissive should be no surprise.

[Peter F.]

Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh please. Your scenario is most certainly a conspiracy.
> > > And if, say, the PM wrote plays using Derek Jacobi as a
> > > front, and he used government resources to alter official
> > > government documents in order to protest his identity,
> > > and if the Queen was also in on it and ordered her under-
> > > lings to do everything possible to ensure that the secret
> > > was not found out, no person in his or her right mind
> > > would dare NOT call it conspiracy.
> >
> > If you say so, Tom, but I don't recognize this as being at
> > all analogous to the scenario I am proposing.
>
> Your scenario includes using government resources to further
> an imposture, alteration of government documents, perjury,
> and the collusion of government officials at high levels and
> the recruitment of civilians to further help the coverup,
> and you don't recognize your scenario as analogous to the
> one I described?

Not really, but whether I do or not is irrelevant, given my
acknowledgement that at least the faked death, if not the use
of a front for the works (which your scenario was all about),
might be considered a conspiracy.

<snip>

> It probably is inappropriate, if accuracy of description is
> their intention, but it isn't, as I thought I made clear above.

I know you did, Tom. It's just that neither Bob (whom I was
actually addressing when you joined in) nor John seem prepared
to accept that, and apparently deem it perfectly appropriate.
In fact I'm still waiting for John to explain why he said that
the theories generally alleged /do/ involve purposes that are

"unlawful, evil, criminal or reprehensible."

<snip>

[David L. Webb]

In article <jaeat3$344$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
Paul Crowley <dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> On 21/11/2011 13:58, Peter F. wrote:
>
> > One day, I hope, somebody will explain to me why the argument
> > I present in my recently updated essay "Marlowe's Sudden and
> > Fearful End" (at the site below) - and in particular how it
> > explains so many of the anomalies surrounding it - doesn't
> > raise serious doubts about Marlowe having actually died that
> > day. But I won't hold my breath.

> I guess that most people are like me,

Not a bit -- Mr. Crowley is truly one of a kind. Nobody else regards
Shakespeare's sonnets as commemorations of royal crapping competitions
and the like. Moreover, most people immediately recognized the "Ray
Mignot" sonnet as a crude pastiche -- the glaring grammatical gaffe in
the very first line was one conspicuous tipoff -- and so were not
transported into raptures by it.

> and have no interest in
> reading it -- or not until you give us a good reason to, such as
> a plausible account of why a sober and sensible government
> would partake in a 'faked death' conspiracy when -- even if
> we accept your other suppositions that some kind of drastic
> action was necessary -- such a government had so many
> other options available.

While I am by no means persuaded by Peter's essay, it is more
plausible by far than the supposed genuineness of the "Ray Mignot"
sonnet. That's probably because Peter, while he may interpret the facts
in manner that seems odd to me, has a connection with the real world
robust enough to acknowledge that while he is entitled to his own
opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts; by contrast, Mr. Crowley,
whose connection with objective reality is much more tenuous, seems
enamored of his own "facts."

> Is there any evidence that ANY government (or other responsible
> organisation -- or, heck, ANY other organisation, period) EVER
> took part in a 'faked death' conspiracy?
>
> The trouble about faked deaths is that, even in the modern
> world, the supposedly dead person is routinely recognised,
> or 'comes back to life' of his own accord. Who would want
> to be known to have been a part of the organisation that was
> responsible for so crazy a plan?
>
> Paul.

[John W Kennedy]

You do not regard a monstrous miscarriage of justice, compounded by
willful fraud under color of legal process as "reprehensible"?

[John W Kennedy]

On 2011-11-25 06:24:43 +0000, Tom Reedy said:
> It makes me think that the
> SBT is overreacting a bit; it's not like anybody but Oxfordians take
> *Anonymous* as anything other than a mediocre movie.

Ah, but that couldn't have been certainly known in advance. And, far
more importantly, no one could have been certain in advance that,
mediocre or not, it wouldn't have been as successful as the equally
nonsensical "Da Vinci Code".

[Peter F.]

John Kennedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > John W Kennedy wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter Farey wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The only characteristic shared by all anti-Stratfordians is
> > > > that they doubt the traditional attribution, and therefore
> > > > think it likely that someone else wrote the plays and poems.
> > >
> > > You have, on occasion, denied that this is true in your own
> > > case.
> >
> > You are right. The word "therefore" isn't really appropriate
> > for Marlovians. But I still find it impossible to find any way
> > of making the word "conspiracy" relevant in either case.
> >
> > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Neither of these hypotheses can be legitimately called a
> > > > "conspiracy", which, as you know, must have a purpose which
> > > > is unlawful, evil, criminal or reprehensible.
> > >
> > > The theories generally alleged /do/ involve purposes that are
> > > "unlawful, evil, criminal or reprehensible," including yours.
> >
> > Since I clearly am unaware of how this can be (other than in
> > the way I mentioned for mine), I would appreciate some further
> > clarification of what just what you have in mind, especially as
> > regards the others.
>
> You do not regard a monstrous miscarriage of justice, compounded
> by willful fraud under color of legal process as "reprehensible"?
>

Yes John, I have already acknowledged that possibility. But that
isn't the point. You said that the theories *generally alleged*
/do/ involve purposes that are "unlawful, evil, criminal or rep-
rehensible." The emphasis of "generally alleged" is mine. I then
asked for clarification *especially as regards the others*.
>
Will you therefore please explain to me how you find authorship
theory *in general* - which, as I say, simply "doubts the
traditional attribution" and "thinks it likely that someone else
wrote the plays and poems" - can be said to "involve purposes
that are "unlawful, evil, criminal or reprehensible" in any
conspiratorial sense.

[John W Kennedy]

Why, it all depends on the details, and I could spend the rest of my
life going through them. But nearly all of them, if only because of the
influence of Archer and Shaw on the modern psyche, suppose the plays to
be surreptitious political propaganda aimed undermining what the Whigs
would later call "the British Constitution". Just /how/ the British
constitution was to be undermined they seem to have trouble agreeing
on, whether by Divine Right autocracy or by liberal democracy, but
that's a relatively minor distinction compared to the notion that the
British constitution being under attack (a singularly fragile
constitution, I gather from my youthful subscription to "Punch", which
informed me here in the States of how Britain nearly tumbled into
outright facism when Prince Philip attempted to execute a coup d'état
by making an unguarded remark about the punishment of traffic
offenders).

According to "Anonymous", of course, this theory is not enough. Not
only must the plays have been an attack on English Liberty, they also
inadvertantly resulted in the failure of another conspiracy, viz., to
put the Cecil family on the throne. "...herein is contradiction
contradicted! It is the very marriage of pro with con; and no such
lopsided union either, as times go, for pro is not more unlike con than
man is unlike woman - yet men and women marry every day with none to
say, 'Oh, the pity of it!' but I and fools like me!"

[Peter F.]

>   -- C. S. Lewis.  "An Experiment in Criticism"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Interesting conclusion, but of course based upon a totally
incorrect premise. It is simply not true that nearly all of
them suppose the plays to be surreptitious political
propaganda. And even if it were, "nearly all" isn't enough
for it to justify the description "The Shakespeare
Authorship Conspiracy Theory".
>
Speaking of "Punch", I remember that on my first visit to
New York, way back in 1960, there was an exhibition - I
can't remember where - of cartoons just from that magazine
and from "The New Yorker". My travelling companion and I
couldn't help noticing how the American visitors were
hugely amused by the New Yorker ones but left unmoved
by those from Punch, whereas the British visitors (of which
there were quite a lot) were affected in exactly the
opposite way.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2011-11-28 12:28:05 +0000, Peter F. said:
> Interesting conclusion, but of course based upon a totally
> incorrect premise. It is simply not true that nearly all of
> them suppose the plays to be surreptitious political
> propaganda.

I cannot think offhand of one that doesn't boil down to that, seeing
that it's the stock explanation for the alleged covr-up.

> And even if it were, "nearly all" isn't enough
> for it to justify the description "The Shakespeare
> Authorship Conspiracy Theory".

> Speaking of "Punch", I remember that on my first visit to
> New York, way back in 1960, there was an exhibition - I
> can't remember where - of cartoons just from that magazine
> and from "The New Yorker". My travelling companion and I
> couldn't help noticing how the American visitors were
> hugely amused by the New Yorker ones but left unmoved
> by those from Punch, whereas the British visitors (of which
> there were quite a lot) were affected in exactly the
> opposite way.

Intriguing. I am very fond of both, and have been for pretty much my
entire life.

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Nov 28, 10:40 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2011-11-28 12:28:05 +0000, Peter F. said:
>
> > Interesting conclusion, but of course based upon a totally
> > incorrect premise. It is simply not true that nearly all of
> > them suppose the plays to be surreptitious political
> > propaganda.
>
> I cannot think offhand of one that doesn't boil down to that, seeing
> that it's the stock explanation for the alleged covr-up.
>
> >  And even if it were, "nearly all" isn't enough
> > for it to justify the description "The Shakespeare
> > Authorship Conspiracy Theory".
> > Speaking of "Punch", I remember that on my first visit to
> > New York, way back in 1960, there was an exhibition - I
> > can't remember where - of cartoons just from that magazine
> > and from "The New Yorker". My travelling companion and I
> > couldn't help noticing how the American visitors were
> > hugely amused by the New Yorker ones but left unmoved
> > by those from Punch, whereas the British visitors (of which
> > there were quite a lot) were affected in exactly the
> > opposite way.
>
> Intriguing. I am very fond of both, and have been for pretty much my
> entire life.
>

Dennis responds: Well, the only non-conspiracy theory about
Shakespeare accepts the trivial fact that Shakespeare wrote the plays
attributed to him while he was alive and within a few years of his
death, including Yorkshire Tragedy, London Prodigal, TLC, Troublesome
Raigne and all the bad quartos. The orthodox rely on a system of
conspiracy theories in their effort to contend that Shakespeare was
framed for a dozen lesser plays by "pirate actors" and "nefarious
printers." In reality, there were no conspiracies. Shakespeare wrote
the works attributed to him.

[TomFoster]

On Nov 30, 4:21 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"

Great. That's wonderfully clear. So he wrote all the works in the
First Folio then. Or am I missing something?

Tom

[neufer]

> Peter F. said:
>>
>> Interesting conclusion, but of course based upon a totally
>> incorrect premise. It is simply not true that nearly all of
>> them suppose the plays to be surreptitious political
>> propaganda.

John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>

> I cannot think offhand of one that doesn't boil down to that,
> seeing that it's the stock explanation for the alleged covr-up.

It's an excellent explanation for the cover-up.

> Peter F. said:
>>
>>  And even if it were, "nearly all" isn't enough
>> for it to justify the description "The Shakespeare
>> Authorship Conspiracy Theory".
>> Speaking of "Punch", I remember that on my first visit to
>> New York, way back in 1960, there was an exhibition - I
>> can't remember where - of cartoons just from that magazine
>> and from "The New Yorker". My travelling companion and I
>> couldn't help noticing how the American visitors were
>> hugely amused by the New Yorker ones but left unmoved
>> by those from Punch, whereas the British visitors (of which
>> there were quite a lot) were affected in exactly the
>> opposite way.

John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>

> Intriguing. I am very fond of both,
> and have been for pretty much my entire life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_humour

<<British humour is a somewhat general term applied to certain comedic
motifs that are often prevalent in comedic acts originating in the
United Kingdom and its current or former colonies. Comedy acts and
television programmes typical of British humour include Monty Python,
Benny Hill, and Keeping Up Appearances to name a few that have become
quite popular outside the United Kingdom. At times, however, such
humour can seem puzzling to non-British speakers of English. A strong
theme of sarcasm and self-deprecation runs throughout British Humour.
Emotion is often buried under humour in a way that seems insensitive
to other cultures. Jokes are told about everything and no subject is
taboo.

________ Smut and innuendo

Innuendo in British humour can be followed through history, it
features in Beowulf, and Chaucer, and folk songs are often littered
with it. Shakespeare wrote much comedy and was not above a little smut
to get a laugh, as in Hamlet act 4 scene v:

Young men will do't if they come to't / By Cock, they are to blame.

As shown by the capitalisation, Cock is here a contemporary euphemism
for God, neatly combining blasphemy with innuendo.

Following the Interregnum, theatre went through something of a
decline, until the Victorian era, Burlesque theatre rose in this time,
and combines sexuality and humour in its acts. Literature began to
become a more important medium with the printing press but remained
highbrow due to the price of books and low literacy rates. In the
nineteenth century magazines such as Punch began to be widely sold,
and innuendo featured in its cartoons and articles.

Coming into the twentieth century, the saucy postcard, as of Donald
McGill and Bamforths, were ubiquitous and nearly always based on a
sexual innuendo. This sort of humour was common in music halls and the
comedy music of George Fornby is rooted in this style. Many of the
comedians from music hall and wartime gang shows worked on the post-
war radio, and characters such as Julian and Sandy on Round the Horn,
heavily used innuendo in their acts.

As film and then television began to dominate entertainment, this
theme followed into the new media. The Carry On series was based
largely on this, and many of the sketches of The Two Ronnies are in
this vein, this sort of open smut was epitomised by Benny Hill. The
Nudge Nudge sketch by Monty Python even mocks this sort of sexual
humour.

As time progressed, more subtlety in sexual humour became fashionable
again, as in Not the Nine O'Clock News and Blackadder, while Bottom
and Viz continued the smuttier trend. In modern British comedy Frankie
Boyle and Julian Clary are prolific users of innuendo still.
------------------------------------------------------
________ Satire

Disrespect to members of the establishment and authority, typified by:

Beyond the Fringe, stage revue from the 1960s
That Was The Week That Was (TW3), late night TV satire
The Comic Strip Presents..., a series of short satirical films
Private Eye, satirical magazine
Not the Nine O'Clock News, satirical sketch show, notable for
launching the careers of Rowan Atkinson, Griff Rhys Jones, and Mel
Smith
Yes Minister, political sitcom
Spitting Image, TV puppet comedy lampooning the famous and
powerful
Brass Eye, a controversial alternative prime-time show
Discworld, a series of fantasy books written by Terry Pratchett,
heavy with irony criticizing various aspects of society
Have I Got News for You, a satirical panel game
The Young Ones, a cult sitcom starring Rik Mayall, Adrian
Edmondson, Nigel Planer and Christopher Ryan
Mock the Week, a satirical current affairs panel game.
The Day Today' Nineties Satire
Time Trumpet' Naughties Satire TV show
The Armando Iannucci Shows' Satirical TV show
------------------------------------------------------
________ Absurd

The absurd and the surreal, typified by:

Count Duckula, a cartoon show
The Goon Show, a surreal radio show
Spike Milligan's Q, a sketch show and a direct inspiration for
Monty Python
Monty Python, a comedy troupe, noted for performing sketches with
no conclusions
Green Wing, an experimental sitcom that utilises surrealism, sped-
up/slowed-down camera work, and ethereal, dream-like sequences.
Big Train, a sketch show with absurd situations performed in a
realistic, deadpan style.
Shooting Stars, a panel game with seemingly no rules
I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, a radio panel game with bizarre games,
notably Mornington Crescent and One Song to the Tune of Another
The Smell of Reeves and Mortimer, a variety show of sketches and
songs in the surrealist genre of comedy
Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, a musical group playing songs inspired by
the music of the 1920s and comic rock songs
The Mighty Boosh, a comic fantasy containing non-sequiturs and pop-
culture references
"Bus Driver's Prayer"
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in radio, book, TV series
and film
The Armando Iannucci Shows, a comedy sketch show utilising
surrealism
Bedazzled, a movie remake of the legend of Faust by Peter Cook and
Dudley Moore
Black Books, a sitcom about a Bookshop owner, flavoured with
surreal and nonsensical elements
Red Dwarf, a science fiction sitcom
Brittas Empire, Chris Barrie sitcom set in a leisure centre about
an annoying manager.
The Magic Roundabout A dub parody of a French children's cartoon
that gained a cult following.
------------------------------------------------------
________ Macabre

Black humour, in which topics and events that are usually treated
seriously are treated in a humorous or satirical manner, typified by:

The League of Gentlemen, a cult comedy revolving around the
bizarre inhabitants of fictional town Royston Vasey
Jam, an unsettling TV sketch comedy with an ambient music
soundtrack
Nighty Night, a TV series about a sociopathic arch-manipulator who
takes advantage of the people around her
Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, a horror comedy revolving around the
supernatural, and is set in a hospital in the 1980s
"Murder Most Horrid", a TV series in which Dawn French plays
murderers and victims.
"Snuff Box", a sketch show about a hangman (Matt Berry) and his
assistant (Rich Fulcher), who make jokes or light-hearted conversation
while hanging men.
Death at a Funeral, a 2007 black comedy film.
Kind Hearts and Coronets, a film about a man murdering his way to
a hereditary position, starring Alec Guinness in numerous rôles.
Four Lions, a film satirising Jihadi terrorists within British
Society.
------------------------------------------------------
________ Surreal and chaotic

Vic Reeves Big Night Out (1990 and 1991) a parody of the variety
shows which dominated the early years of television, but which were,
by the early 1990s, falling from grace.
Bottom (1991–1995) noted for its chaotic humour and highly violent
slapstick.
The Young Ones (1982–1984), a British sitcom about four students
living together. It combined traditional sitcom style with violent
slapstick, non sequitur plot-turns and surrealism.
------------------------------------------------------
________ Humour inherent in everyday life

The humour, not necessarily apparent to the participants, inherent in
everyday life, as seen in:

Gavin and Stacey
Only Fools and Horses
Hancock's Half Hour
Till Death Us Do Part
Steptoe and Son
Human Remains
I'm Alan Partridge
The Office
The Royle Family
Spaced (a sitcom depicting the realistic, everyday lives and
emotional dramas of two London-dwelling twentysomethings, also
incorporating aspects of surreal and absurd comedy)
Peep Show
The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin
One Foot In The Grave
Monkey Dust
The IT Crowd
The Inbetweeners
The Vicar of Dibley
The Giles cartoons
Goodness Gracious Me and The Kumars at No 42, TV programme
featuring an Indian family, starring Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal
Come Dine With Me, reality cookery programme where eccentric cooks
and their guests are often mocked by narrator Dave Lamb
------------------------------------------------------
________ Adults and children

The 'war' between parents/teachers and their children, typified by:

The Beano and The Dandy, comics of publisher D C Thomson
Just William, books by Richmal Crompton
Molesworth books by Geoffrey Willans and illustrated by Ronald
Searle
St Trinian's books and films also originated by Ronald Searle
Kevin the Teenager and Perry in Harry Enfield and Chums
My Family, British TV Series
Outnumbered, British TV Series
The Fast Show, notably Competitive Dad
------------------------------------------------------
________ British class system

The British class system, especially pompous or dim-witted members of
the upper/middle classes or embarrassingly blatant social climbers,
typified by:

Jeeves and Wooster, books by P. G. Wodehouse (later played by Fry
and Laurie)
Dad's Army, comedy TV series
Mr. Bean, comedy TV series, Movie
Fawlty Towers, comedy TV series
Keeping Up Appearances, comedy TV series
You Rang, M'Lord?, comedy TV series
Absolutely Fabulous, comedy TV series
To the Manor Born, comedy TV series
Blackadder, comedy TV series
The New Statesman, political comedy TV series
Yes Minister, political comedy TV series
Red Dwarf, science fiction comedy TV series and novels
The Fast Show, notably Ted & Ralph and The 13th Duke of Wymbourne
sketches
Are You Being Served, department store comedy TV series
Monty Python's Upper Class Twit of the Year sketch
------------------------------------------------------
________ Lovable rogue

The lovable rogue, often from the impoverished working class, trying
to 'beat the system' and better himself, typified by:

Arthur Daley in Minder
The Andy Capp cartoon strip created by Reginald Smythe
The Likely Lads
Steptoe and Son
Rising Damp
Open All Hours
Only Fools and Horses comedy TV series (1981–2003) starring David
Jason as Del Trotter
Flashman books
Norman Wisdom
Porridge
Blackadder, comedy TV series
Red Dwarf, science fiction comedy TV series and novels
Black Books
The Fast Show, notably Chris the Crafty Cockney sketch
Run Fatboy Run
------------------------------------------------------
________ Embarrassment of social ineptitude

The embarrassment of social ineptitude, typified by:

Mr. Bean, comedy TV series starring Rowan Atkinson
The Office comedy TV series starring Ricky Gervais
Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em, comedy TV series starring Michael
Crawford
Alan Partridge, comedy TV series starring Steve Coogan
Count Arthur Strong, radio show
Extras
One Foot In The Grave, comedy TV series, 1990 to 2000
Peep Show TV series
Miranda, BBC TV comedy series from 2009, staring Miranda Hart
The Inbetweeners, Channel 4 comedy series detailing the last years
of high school for a group of unpopular teenage boys
------------------------------------------------------
________ Race and regional stereotypes

The An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman joke format is one
common to many cultures, and is often used in English, including
having the nationalities switched around to take advantage of other
stereotypes. These stereotypes are somewhat fond, and these jokes
would not be taken as xenophobic, this sort of affectionate stereotype
is also exemplified by ‘Allo ‘Allo!, this programme, although set in
France in the second World War, and deliberately performed in over the
top accents, mocked British stereotypes as well as foreigners. This
also applies to a lot of the regional stereotypes in the UK. Regional
accent and dialect are used in such programmes as Hancock's Half Hour,
Auf Weidersehen, Pet and Red Dwarf, as such accents provide quick
characterisation and social cues.

Although racism was a part of British humour, it is now frowned upon,
and acts such as Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson are pilloried for
this. Most racist themes in popular comedy since the 1970’s are
targeted against the racist rather than in sympathy. Love Thy
Neighbour and Till Death Us Do Part were both series that dealt with
these issues when The United Kingdom was coming to terms with an
influx of immigrants. Fawlty Towers featured mistreatment of Spanish
waiter, Manuel, but the target was the bigotry of the lead character.
More recently, The Fast Show has mocked people of other races, notably
the Chanel 9 sketches, and Banzai has mimicked Japanese games shows,
with an exaggerated sense of violence, sex and public absurdity.
Goodness Gracious Me turned stereotypes on their heads in sketches
such as Going for an English and when bargaining over the price of a
newspaper.
------------------------------------------------------
________ Bullying and harsh sarcasm

Harsh sarcasm and bullying, though with the bully usually coming off
worse than the victim - typified by:

On the Buses, Arthur toward his wife, Olive
Blackadder, Edmund Blackadder toward his sidekick, Baldrick
The Young Ones, comedy TV series
Fawlty Towers, Basil Fawlty toward his waiter, Manuel
The New Statesman, satirising a domineering Conservative Member of
Parliament
The Thick of It, satirising the spin culture prevalent in Tony
Blair's heyday
Never Mind the Buzzcocks, satirical music based panel show
Mock The Week, satirical news based panel show
Black Books, where Bernard Black attacks his assistant, Manny
Bottom, in which Richie attacks Eddie with little or no
provocation, usually resulting in Eddie violently (often near-fatally)
retaliating.
The Ricky Gervais Show, Stephen Merchant and Ricky Gervais mocking
Karl Pilkington's unique outlook on life.
------------------------------------------------------
________ Parodies of stereotypes

Making fun of British stereotypes, typified by:

Beyond the Fringe
That Was the Week That Was (TW3), late night TV satire
Little Britain
The Fast Show
The Young Ones
Harry Enfield's Television Programme
French and Saunders
The Day Today
Brass Eye
Citizen Smith parodied the disaffected left-wing anarchist
Mind Your Language, late 1970s sitcom
Goodness Gracious Me
Monkey Dust
Blackadder
Monty Python
Hale and Pace
Ali G
------------------------------------------------------
________ Tolerance of, and affection for, the eccentric

Tolerance of, and affection for, the eccentric, especially when allied
to inventiveness

Heath Robinson cartoons
Professor Branestawm books
Wallace and Gromit animations
The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin, situation comedy starring
Leonard Rossiter
Morecambe and Wise, comedy show starring Eric Morecambe and Ernie
Wise
Last of the Summer Wine, the longest running TV comedy series in
the world. (Started 1973)
A Bit of Fry and Laurie, sketch show written by and starring
Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie noted for its eccentric and inventive use
of language
The Vicar of Dibley, a sitcom in which Dawn French plays a female
vicar whose parishioners are archetypically eccentric and mad
QI or Quite Interesting, a panel game where points are given for
being quite interesting and points are taken away for being incorrect
in an obvious way.
The Fast Show, notably Rowley Birkin QC sketch
------------------------------------------------------
________ Pranks and Practical Jokes

Usually, for television, the performance of a practical joke on an
unsuspecting person whilst being covertly filmed.

Candid Camera
Beadle's About
Game for a Laugh
------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

[Mark Steese]

TomFoster <hedle...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:57e59adf-0868-41c9-
87bb-eb4...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:

Not at all. It's just that when Shakespeare wrote something, all he was
actually doing was editing a work that someone else had written and
adding nothing of his own. That's why all the works 'attributed' to
Shakespeare are so different: the wonderful title-page hypothesis proves
that by writing all of them, he wrote none of them. We know this to be
true because Shakespeare had no college education. Nobody's sure who the
true genius behind the canon was, but the one thing all the proposed
candidates have in common is a college education:

Claimant: University:
Francis Bacon Cambridge
William Stanley Oxford
Edward de Vere Oxford
Edward Dyer Oxford
Christopher Marlowe Cambridge
Thomas North Cambridge
Thomas Sackville Oxford

Inheriting or being granted a noble title would also help someone write
Shakespeare's plays, but Marlowe's example shows that all one really
needed was a college education. How could someone without a college
education ever create literature? It's preposterous.
--
One amateur theologian even swore that Death Valley was literally the
roof of the Biblical Hell and that he could hear the "wails of the
damned" crying out from the "Devil's Domain" below. -Richard E.
Lingenfelter

[Bob Grumman]

A conspiracy is the use of an elaborate plan to produce by secret
means some effect in an event that is important to those involved in
it. Illegality/legality has nothing to do with it. It comes into a
discussion of conspiracies only because an attempt to produce an
effect illegally, and/or produce an illegal effect, will almost have
to involve a conspiracy whereas producing a desried effect that is
legal will much less likely require a conspiracy, using legal or
illegal methods. A proper definition would take a lot more words I'm
not up to. But common sense tells us all the schemes concealing
Shakespeare for a hundred or more years involve conspiracies in a
sense that Clemens's use of a pen-name, for example, was not.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I think the SBT response is mainly propagandistic, but not the use of
the term "Shakespeare Authorship Conspiracy Theory," or what it was.
No authorship theory proposes that nothing happened except one man's
using another as a front, or using a pseudonym that happened to be
some real man's name. The less sane scenario tries to get by with a
comparatively simple conspiracy theory, the more insane scenario has
come up with the laughable idea of a passive conspiracy--the
agreement, somehow, of scores of people to be polite and not mention
who really wrote the works of Shakespeare, and make sure no evidence
that would reveal the hoax would be available for posterity. It all
goes without a hitch until Delia Bacon sneaks past the trust.

The passive conspiracy theory only came into being thirty or forty
years ago, when the smarter wacks realized that the conspiracy theory
they believed in was taking too much punishment from the sane.

--Bob

--Bob

[book...@yahoo.com]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:30:11 +0000 (UTC), Mark Steese
<mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>TomFoster <hedle...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:57e59adf-0868-41c9-
>87bb-eb4...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Nov 30, 4:21 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 28, 10:40 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> In reality, there were no conspiracies. Shakespeare wrote
>>> the works attributed to him.
>>
>> Great. That's wonderfully clear. So he wrote all the works in the
>> First Folio then. Or am I missing something?
>
>Not at all. It's just that when Shakespeare wrote something, all he was
>actually doing was editing a work that someone else had written and
>adding nothing of his own. That's why all the works 'attributed' to
>Shakespeare are so different: the wonderful title-page hypothesis proves
>that by writing all of them, he wrote none of them. We know this to be
>true because Shakespeare had no college education. Nobody's sure who the
>true genius behind the canon was, but the one thing all the proposed
>candidates have in common is a college education:

Sure, they heard that a college education is worth much more in
lifetime income. Drudges like Shakespeare, Alleyne, and Jonson never
made it into the fraternity, that's why the Wits were so peeved.

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

Somewhat. Currently, orthodox scholars claim the *majority* of plays
attributed to Shakespeare while alive and up until 1620 were penned by
other people -- including Yorkshire Tragedy, London Prodigal, Thomas
Lord Cromwell, The Troublesome Ragine of King John, and all the bad
quartos. They say pirate actors created from memory (or rewrote for
the stage or some combination) all the bad quartos -- while dishonest
printers placed Shakespeare's name on the title page of the apocrypha
in order to fool the book-reading public and profit on his name. This
is a conspiracy theory that would involve umpteen anonymous actors --
and 15 established printers and publishers -- and that lasted over
decades. Actually, Shakespeare wrote the works with his name on the
title pages.
The Folio was printed 7 years after he died -- and it does contain
many Shakespearean adaptations. The editors and printers collected
many of the dramas in manuscript form from two of Shakes-peare’s
fellow actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, and evi-dently the
actors gave the editors and printers all of Shakespeare’s materials,
both the staged adaptations as well as a number of the longer,
original literary manuscripts that Shakespeare used as source-works.
And in many cases, the editors and printers opted to print the greater
work. It's odd though the people who talk so much about the importance
of title pages actually reject them for 12 different plays prior to
1620 -- as well as reject the authenticity of the Jaggard-Pavier
collection and the Third and Fourth Folios! And it is even more that
odd that those who complain about conspiracies actually rely on so
many to explain title pages they find inconvenient.

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Nov 30, 4:30 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:57e59adf-0868-41c9-
> 87bb-eb4b2d019...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:

>
> > On Nov 30, 4:21 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
> > <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 28, 10:40 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> In reality, there were no conspiracies. Shakespeare wrote
> >> the works attributed to him.
>
> > Great. That's wonderfully clear. So he wrote all the works in the
> > First Folio then. Or am I missing something?
>
> Not at all. It's just that when Shakespeare wrote something, all he was
> actually doing was editing a work that someone else had written and
> adding nothing of his own.

Dennis responds: You know that's completely false interpretation. The
bad quartos have lots of new material added by Shakespeare .Plus he is
the one that is completely rearranging scenes, condensing characters,
etc. The simple fact is conventional scholars reject a dozen
different plays attributed to Shakespeare prior to 1620. That's the
majority. And no amount of dancing or mischaracterizing is going to
hide that immovable fact.

That's why all the works 'attributed' to
> Shakespeare are so different: the wonderful title-page hypothesis proves
> that by writing all of them, he wrote none of them. We know this to be
> true because Shakespeare had no college education.

Dennis responds: Everyone agrees that many great literary artists
needed essentially no education whatsoever. Melville didn't need one
to write "Moby Dick." But you know what he did need to know?
Whaling. Twain didn't need one to write "Huckleberry Finn," but he
did need to know the Mississippi. Dickens didn't need one to write
"David Copperfield," but he did need to know child labor practices in
London, Dostoyevsky had one I think, but probably didn't need it to
write "Crime and Punishment," but you know what he did need to know?
A Siberian prison camp. London didn't need one to write, "Call of the
Wild," but you know what he did need to know? Gold prospecting in the
Yukon. And just as Melville knew whaling, and Twain knew the
Mississippi, and Conrad knew the Congo, and Dostoyevsky knew Siberian
prison camps, etc., etc., etc., the author of the canon had to know
the law, military, continental Europe, falconry, lawn bowling, and
Italian, French and Spanish. This is why the most well known doubters
have been Twain, Whitman, James, Emerson, etc. Professors of classics
may think Shakespeare just wrote about what he picked up in unknown
pamphlets, but that hasn't been true of a number of the *writers* of
classics.

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Nov 30, 5:49 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> A conspiracy is the use of an elaborate plan to produce by secret
> means some effect in an event that is important to those involved in
> it.

Dennis responds: Conspiracy also often has a connotation of fooling
the public, scheming to produce a mass delusion so that the public
thinks one thing, when something else entirely happened. The moon
landing, the JFK conspiracy theory, the 9/11 -- is the effort of
people scheming to get the public to believe the wrong thing. And that
really is the main characteristic of both anti-Stratfordian and
orthodox views of Shakespearean authorship. The notion that the
printers of "London Prodigal" schemed to place Shakespeare's name on
the title page -- and fool the public into thinking he wrote it (a
ruse that lasted more than a century) is just such a conspiracy
theory. And the same is true for the printers of Yorkshire Tragedy,
Thomas Lord Cromwell, Troublesome Raigne -- and the producers of the
supposed "False Folio." This is a system of conspiracy theories. In
reality, Shakespeare wrote the works that the contemporary public
believed he wrote.

[Mark Steese]

"den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote in
news:bcaf0fee-2404-4d0b...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

Of course. And he used his experience as a scrivener on Wall Street to
write "Bartleby the Scrivener," right? And he could never have written
"The Confidence Man" if he hadn't spent all that time sailing up and
down the Mississippi in a riverboat, right?

> Twain didn't need one to write "Huckleberry Finn," but he
> did need to know the Mississippi.

And Twain could never have written The Prince and the Pauper without his
time machine.

> Dickens didn't need one to write
> "David Copperfield," but he did need to know child labor practices in
> London,

Luckily for Dickens he also fought during the French Revolution, and was
thus able to write "A Tale of Two Cities."

> Dostoyevsky had one I think, but probably didn't need it to
> write "Crime and Punishment," but you know what he did need to know?
> A Siberian prison camp.

Luckily for him he also had the experience of planning and committing a
murder, right?

Kafka didn't need an education to write "The Metamorphosis," but he did
need to be able to be transformed into a monstrous beetle, right? H. G.
Wells didn't need an education to write "The Invisible Man," he just
relied on the knowledge he gained from accidentally turning himself
invisible one day. Poe didn't need an education to write "The Cask of
Amontillado," he just needed to personally experience walling someone up
in a cellar because you feel slighted by them.

Marlowe didn't need an education to write Doctor Faustus, but you know
what he did need to know? How to raise the Devil.

> London didn't need one to write, "Call of the Wild," but you know what
> he did need to know? Gold prospecting in the Yukon.

London didn't need one to write "The Iron Heel," but you know what he
did need to know? What it feels like to live in a fascist dictatorship
that may exist in the future. Orwell didn't need one to write "1984,"
but you know what he did need to know? What it feels like to live in a
totalitarian dictatorship that may exist in the future.

> And just as Melville knew whaling, and Twain knew the Mississippi, and
> Conrad knew the Congo, and Dostoyevsky knew Siberian prison camps,
> etc., etc., etc., the author of the canon had to know the law,
> military, continental Europe, falconry, lawn bowling, and Italian,
> French and Spanish.

Why? Tell us, Dennis, what difference would it make to the literary
quality of Shakespeare's works if all his knowledge of the law, the
military, continental Europe, falconry, lawn bowling, and Romance
languages was acquired second-, third-, or even fourth-hand, just as his
knowledge of the Wars of the Roses and ancient Greece and Rome *must*
have been acquired? Does the merit of *Hamlet* depend in any significant
way upon a handful of terms that Shakespeare may have derived from an
obscure English legal case? What deep emotional knowledge does
Shakespeare express about lawn bowling that he could only have gotten
through personal experience? I mean, this is fascinating stuff: in which
one of his works did Shakespeare do for lawn bowling what Twain did for
the Mississipi? Was it A Midsummer Night's Lawn Bowling, perhaps? Much
Ado About Lawn Bowling? Pericles Prince of Lawn Bowling? Do tell.

> This is why the most well known doubters have been Twain, Whitman,
> James, Emerson, etc.

Of those, the only one who actually expressed doubts about Shakespeare's
authorship of his own works was Twain. You should really stop relying on
Oxfordians for your information.

> Professors of classics may think Shakespeare just wrote about what he
> picked up in unknown pamphlets, but that hasn't been true of a number
> of the *writers* of classics.

The only professor of classics I ever met was interested in what
Shakespeare wrote, not in who Shakespeare was or how he came by his
knowledge of legal trivia. How many have you met?
--
There can be no doubt that the public--both in and out of the
courtroom--was as titillated by the mention of voodoo as they were by
the presence of Sharon's socks and undershirt. -Lynn Hudson

[ignoto]

On 1/12/11 11:14 AM, den...@northofshakespeare.com wrote:
> On Nov 30, 4:30 pm, Mark Steese<mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> TomFoster<hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:57e59adf-0868-41c9-
>> 87bb-eb4b2d019...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 4:21 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>>> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 28, 10:40 am, John W Kennedy<jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> In reality, there were no conspiracies. Shakespeare wrote
>>>> the works attributed to him.
>>
>>> Great. That's wonderfully clear. So he wrote all the works in the
>>> First Folio then. Or am I missing something?
>>
>> Not at all. It's just that when Shakespeare wrote something, all he was
>> actually doing was editing a work that someone else had written and
>> adding nothing of his own.
>
> Dennis responds: You know that's completely false interpretation. The
> bad quartos have lots of new material added by Shakespeare .Plus he is
> the one that is completely rearranging scenes, condensing characters,
> etc. The simple fact is conventional scholars reject a dozen
> different plays attributed to Shakespeare prior to 1620.

Gee, if you must insist on making stuff up, why stop at a mere dozen?
Why not 50? Why not 100?

> That's the
> majority. And no amount of dancing or mischaracterizing is going to
> hide that immovable fact.

Ok, then, name these dozen different plays attributed to Shakespeare
prior to 1620 that 'conventional' scholars reject.

Ign.

[TomFoster]

On Nov 30, 11:49 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"

Oh dear. Just when I thought we were getting things straight, you go
and muddy the waters again.

I wasn't talking about 'orthodox scholars' – whose opinions you accept
or reject whenever you feel like it. I was simply responding to your
statement that 'Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him'.

It now seems that what you meant was, 'Shakespeare wrote the works
attributed to him – except those works that I don't think he did
write'. Because the only reason I can see for your insisting on the
importance of title pages, then rejecting the title page of the First
Folio, is the well-known Diana Price strategy of arbitrarily deciding
that something printed seven years after his death doesn't count.

Tom

[Mark Steese]

"den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote in
news:c2b2b048-508a-4f6c...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 30, 5:49 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>> A conspiracy is the use of an elaborate plan to produce by secret
>> means some effect in an event that is important to those involved in
>> it.
>
> Dennis responds: Conspiracy also often has a connotation of fooling
> the public, scheming to produce a mass delusion so that the public
> thinks one thing, when something else entirely happened. The moon
> landing, the JFK conspiracy theory, the 9/11 -- is the effort of
> people scheming to get the public to believe the wrong thing. And that
> really is the main characteristic of both anti-Stratfordian and
> orthodox views of Shakespearean authorship. The notion that the
> printers of "London Prodigal" schemed to place Shakespeare's name on
> the title page -- and fool the public into thinking he wrote it (a
> ruse that lasted more than a century) is just such a conspiracy
> theory.

So, according to you, it would be just as irrational to speculate that
Nathaniel Butter deliberately published the 1605 quarto of *The London
Prodigall* with the wrong name on the title page in an attempt to
deceive the people who were buying quartos of plays in early 17th-
century London as it would be to believe that NASA faked the moon
landings in an attempt to deceive everyone in the entire world.

So, the 17th century public was as interested in who wrote the plays
attributed to William Shakespeare as the 20th century public was
interested in whether or not space travel is possible? Huh. I would've
thought that even in England, hardly anyone would have been especially
interested in whether or not Shakespeare really wrote *The London
Prodigall*, but apparently it was a matter of consuming public interest
across the globe, not merely around the Globe. Well, you learn something
new every day.

Moreover, I naïvely imagined that Butter could have deliberately
published a misattributed quarto without involving anyone else in the
deception, seeing as how the play wasn't entered into the Stationers'
Register, and the printer, Thomas Cotes, is unlikely to have been a
handwriting expert. But as I've mentioned, I don't know very much about
the London publishing scene in the 17th century, so if I'm mistaken
please provide corrective factual matter. You are, after all, clearly
more knowledgeable about publishing practices in 17th century London
than I am - otherwise, you could hardly be so sure that there were no
conspiracies, right? I mean, your opinion *is* based on years of
research and careful examination of the historical evidence pertaining
to 17th-century London publishing, right? You wouldn't just assert that
there were no conspiracies because you rejected the idea before you even
looked at the evidence, right?
--
The main house contained a carefully tuned piano at which Harris,
without any previous musical training, could play and thereby invoke his
Lily Queen into "electro-vital form." -Robert Hine

[Mark Steese]

"den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote in
news:bcaf0fee-2404-4d0b...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 30, 4:30 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:57e59adf-0868-41c9-
>> 87bb-eb4b2d019...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Nov 30, 4:21 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>> > <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 28, 10:40 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> In reality, there were no conspiracies. Shakespeare wrote
>> >> the works attributed to him.
>>
>> > Great. That's wonderfully clear. So he wrote all the works in the
>> > First Folio then. Or am I missing something?
>>
>> Not at all. It's just that when Shakespeare wrote something, all he
>> was actually doing was editing a work that someone else had written
>> and adding nothing of his own.
>
> Dennis responds: You know that's completely false interpretation.

You've argued that stylometric evidence shows that one author wrote the
core works of the Shakespeare canon, and you've argued that Thomas North
was that one author. Therefore, Shakespeare left no detectable traces of
his own style in the core works of the Shakespeare canon. Therefore, all

he was actually doing was editing a work that someone else had written
and adding nothing of his own.

Moreover, you've provided no stylometric evidence in support of your
hypothesis that the 'bad' quartos and the apocryphal plays are works
created by one author. Absent such evidence, we can only go by our own
eyes, which tell us that Q1 of *Hamlet*, *A Yorkshire Tragedy*, *The
Troublesome Raigne of King John*, *The London Prodigall*, *Thomas Lord
Cromwell*, etc., are decidedly not works that share a common style; thus
we are obliged to conclude that Shakespeare was once again merely

editing a work that someone else had written and adding nothing of his
own.

If that interpretation is, as you say, completely false, then tell us
what common stylistic markers are shared by all - or even a few - of the
works you attribute to William Shakespeare. What fingerprint phrases
have you found that link *The London Prodigall* to *The Troublesome
Raigne of King John* or *A Yorkshire Tragedy* or Q1 of *Hamlet* or any
of the other plays in your new Shakespearean canon?

[Bob Grumman]

> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The theory is not illegal, it's the conspiracy that is illegal or
involves illegal actions--for those who believe a conspiracy has to be
evil in some way, which I do not. There are also confidential
undertakings that are legal, such as what both major parties here are
carrying out to win the presidency in 2012, and are not conspiracies--
because only partly secret. That is, everyone is aware that the
republicrats are plotting, they just don't know the details. Smae
with secret military undertakings, I now see: everyone was aware that
the British were secretly doing things to defeat the Axis, but not
exactly what they were doing. The Shakespeare conspiracy is entirely
different, for--if it actually was going on--no one suspected anything
was going on except plays being written by a named, real man.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

On Nov 23, 4:56 am, "Peter F." <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > We don't need a logical reason for people to get together.  People can
> > bump into each other--for reasons that can't be determined 400 years
> > later.  They can stay together, spend a day together, for reasons that
> > can't be determined 400 years later.  There are a multitude of
> > plausible reasons to explain it.  They enjoyed each other's company.
> > Two of them thought they could cheat the other of some money.
> > Homosexual attraction was a factor.  One of them knew of a place where
> > really goodmeals were served and wanted to show the others how bright
> > he was for knowing this.  They wanted to discuss possible formation of
> > a business.  They were spies interested in learning things from each
> > other.  They had nothing better to do.  THe had all been told by an
> > angel that the Lord would appear at the Deptford place they ended at.
> > Etc.  The conspiracy nut, whether believing in murder or a faked death
> > will cherry pick one reason because it suits his delusional system and
> > stick to it, whether plausible or not.
>
> > --Bob
>
> Oh strewth. There is an infinite number of possible reasons
> for those people to have met at that place on that day, and
> many of those possible reasons may indeed be illogical.
> However, if one is trying to decide which of those possible
> reasons is most likely to be the true one, then the accepted
> way is to apply logical inference to all of the facts about
> it which one has at one's disposal.
>
> My conclusion as to which is the most logical explanation of
> all of those facts is that it was all to do with faking his
> death. To say that there were countless other reasons why
> they *might* have been there is completely irrelevant to
> that conclusion, unless one of them can be shown to provide
> a *better* explanation.


Or be sane and accept that we CANNOT arbitrarily choose one possible
explanation over any other one, so we must accept the fact that no
specific explanation is possible because of INSUFFICIENT DATA--
something I claim the the most committed anti-Stratfordians' wiring
make it impossible for them to do.

--Bob

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

On Nov 30, 11:21 am, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"

> the works attributed to him.- Hide quoted text -
>


Some printer's putting Shakespeare's name on the title-page of a play
he didn't write and no one's calling attention to the deception
because no one gave a damn is not a conspiracy, Dennis. Note the
difference between putting a man's name on the title-page of a play
others say is by the man is and putting a man's name on a title-page
that no one else of the time says is the author of the play, as is--
I'm pretty sure--the case with the apocryphal plays.

Not to mention that, as Tom points out, you're agreeing that
Shakespeare wrote the plays in the First Folio.

--Roger Stritmatter (Note: if Roger didn't write this post, it needn't
involve a conspiracy, although in this case I WAS paid to do it by the
Trust, and three men who accidentally overheard me agree to do it were
immediately terminated.)

[Bob Grumman]

On Nov 30, 6:49 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"

As I said in a previous post, falsely attributing some work does not
necessarily involved a conspiracy.

There is nothing whatever odd about accepting title page attributions
as evidence of attribution. But Shakespeare scholars have done more:
they've consulted OTHER EVIDENCE. A great deal of other evidence
verifies that Shakespeare was sole or principal author of the plays in
the First Folio completely lacking for the apocryphoa plays: the
testimony of eye witnesses like Heminges, Condell and Jonson, for
instance; the testimony of others such as Meres; sophisticated
stylistic analysis.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

On Nov 30, 7:22 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"

For all you know ONE printer put Shakespeare's name on The Yorkshire
Tragedy. No conspiracy. And possibly legitimate, as Shakespeare may
have edited the play to such an extent as to have made it his. The
stylist boys don't say much about what a work would look like that was
entirely written by one man, then entirely rewritten by another who
didn't bother to convert it into his normal style. In any case, it's
ridiculous to call a false attribution requiring no work at all to
carry out a conspiracy, much less to liken it to the conspiracy that
would have had to have been in force had someone other than
Shakespeare written plays that were acted and published and written
about for twenty years or so while Shakespeare was alive, and after he
died involved putting up a statue to him among other things.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

> > Dennis responds: Everyone agrees that many great literary artists
> > needed essentially no education whatsoever. Melville didn't need one
> > to write "Moby Dick."  But you know what he did need to know?
> > Whaling.
>
> Of course. And he used his experience as a scrivener on Wall Street to
> write "Bartleby the Scrivener," right? And he could never have written
> "The Confidence Man" if he hadn't spent all that time sailing up and
> down the Mississippi in a riverboat, right?

Just what did Shakespeare write that showed a knowledge of any place
except London that was anywhere near as deep and narratively
significant as Twain's knowledge of the Mississippi? Creative
literature like Shakespeare's plays needs much less knowledge of the
real world than autobiography like Life on the Mississippi--although
specialized knowledge can help.

--Bob

[Mark Steese]

Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
news:6aa4b357-208a-406c...@c13g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:

>> > Dennis responds: Everyone agrees that many great literary artists
>> > needed essentially no education whatsoever. Melville didn't need
>> > one to write "Moby Dick."  But you know what he did need to know?
>> > Whaling.
>>
>> Of course. And he used his experience as a scrivener on Wall Street
>> to write "Bartleby the Scrivener," right? And he could never have
>> written "The Confidence Man" if he hadn't spent all that time sailing
>> up and down the Mississippi in a riverboat, right?
>
> Just what did Shakespeare write that showed a knowledge of any place
> except London that was anywhere near as deep and narratively
> significant as Twain's knowledge of the Mississippi?

Shakes didn't even show much knowledge of London, especially compared to
Jonson (see The Alchemist, Bartholomew Fair, and the Staple of News for
examples of Jonson's deep knowledge of his native city).

> Creative literature like Shakespeare's plays needs much less knowledge
> of the real world than autobiography like Life on the
> Mississippi--although specialized knowledge can help.

Oh, Bob. Don't you realize that orthodox scholars have indoctrinated you
into believing that to cover up their shame over the fact that
Shakespeare really wrote *The London Prodigall*? If only you were an
outsider like Dennis, you'd never have been fooled by their lies.
--
The proud flag went up, hoisted on a staff in the center of the old
Sonoma Plaza. The crowds of Mexicans greeted it with laughter and
derision, taking the rather corpulent bear for a pig. -Lambert Florin

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Dec 1, 11:22 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:c2b2b048-508a-4f6c...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>

>
> > On Nov 30, 5:49 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >> A conspiracy is the use of an elaborate plan to produce by secret
> >> means some effect in an event that is important to those involved in
> >> it.

> > Dennis responds: Conspiracy also often has a connotation of fooling
> > the public, scheming to produce a mass delusion so that the public
> > thinks one thing, when something else entirely happened. The moon
> > landing, the JFK conspiracy theory, the 9/11 -- is the effort of
> > people scheming to get the public to believe the wrong thing. And that
> > really is the main characteristic of both anti-Stratfordian and
> > orthodox views of Shakespearean authorship.  The notion that the
> > printers of "London Prodigal" schemed to place Shakespeare's name on
> > the title page -- and fool the public into thinking he wrote it (a
> > ruse that lasted more than a century) is just such a conspiracy
> > theory.
>

Steese: > So, according to you, it would be just as irrational to

speculate that
> Nathaniel Butter deliberately published the 1605 quarto of *The London
> Prodigall* with the wrong name on the title page in an attempt to
> deceive the people who were buying quartos of plays in early 17th-
> century London as it would be to believe that NASA faked the moon
> landings in an attempt to deceive everyone in the entire world.

Dennis responds: (I'm smiling as I type: ) Previously, Steese defended
the orthodox view that five plays were falsely attributed to William
Shakespeare while he was alive (and seven more were rewritten by other
people and then sold to printers!) as "[not] impossible." Here he is
now trying to argue that at least it's not as silly
as the moon landing conspiracy theory. And I happily concede, Mark.
The notion that twelve plays were mistakenly attributed to Shakespeare
prior to 1620 -- and many were the result of pirate printers
conspiring to fool the public or larcenous actors trying to sell
rewritten versions -- and no one ever challenged the apocrypha for a
century or two -- is incredibly improbable. But at least it's not as
improbable as the moon landing hoax. ;)

>
> So, the 17th century public was as interested in who wrote the plays
> attributed to William Shakespeare as the 20th century public was
> interested in whether or not space travel is possible? Huh. I would've
> thought that even in England, hardly anyone would have been especially
> interested in whether or not Shakespeare really wrote *The London
> Prodigall*, but apparently it was a matter of consuming public interest
> across the globe, not merely around the Globe. Well, you learn something
> new every day.
>

> Moreover, I na vely imagined that Butter could have deliberately

> published a misattributed quarto without involving anyone else in the
> deception, seeing as how the play wasn't entered into the Stationers'
> Register, and the printer, Thomas Cotes, is unlikely to have been a
> handwriting expert. But as I've mentioned, I don't know very much about
> the London publishing scene in the 17th century, so if I'm mistaken
> please provide corrective factual matter. You are, after all, clearly
> more knowledgeable about publishing practices in 17th century London
> than I am - otherwise, you could hardly be so sure that there were no
> conspiracies, right?

Dennis responds: Well, Butter had to get the play from someone, right?
Or perhaps he's the anonymous author too? And glad you admit it was
based on conspiracies....

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Dec 1, 12:52 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> > > Dennis responds: Everyone agrees that many great literary artists
> > > needed essentially no education whatsoever. Melville didn't need one
> > > to write "Moby Dick."  But you know what he did need to know?
> > > Whaling.
>
> > Of course. And he used his experience as a scrivener on Wall Street to
> > write "Bartleby the Scrivener," right? And he could never have written
> > "The Confidence Man" if he hadn't spent all that time sailing up and
> > down the Mississippi in a riverboat, right?
>
> Just what did Shakespeare write that showed a knowledge of any place
> except London that was anywhere near as deep and narratively
> significant as Twain's knowledge of the Mississippi?

Dennis responds: He had to know the military and law as well as Twain
knew the Mississippi. And Twain made the exact same argument.
Specifically, he argued, this guy knows the law the way I know the
Mississippi (and steamboats.)

Creative
> literature like Shakespeare's plays needs much less knowledge of the
> real world than autobiography like Life on the Mississippi-

Dennis responds: No, no, no. I'm referring to Huckleberry Finn. Anyone
who reads Huck Finn knows for a fact that Twain knows the Mississippi
and the neighboring southern towns -- just as anyone who reads "Moby
Dick" knows the author knows whaling -- anybody who reads the "Old Man
and the Sea" knows Hemingway fished for marlin. And anyone who reads
Henry IV, 1, 2, Henry V, etc... knows the author knows something
about, for example, the following military terms:
petard tucket portage glaive sentinel armipotent pinnace demi-
cannon saltpetre kern bulwark vaward parle cuises strosser
battery ambuscado palisado curtal-axe halberd basilisk Welsh
hook chevalier Muskos-regiment ensign false fire Switzers
herald carrack garrison barb sutler falchion Almain galley
Hollander pennon guidon levy gorget Tuttle-Fields muster
battalia linstock montez-a-cheval culverin vambrace scimitar
portage yeoman gallowglass sticking-place bilbo truncheon horse-
of-Parthia imperator

...A writer can only write what he or she knows and lives, so all
great pieces of literature reflect the life, times, studies, and
specific circumstances of the author. This is why Twain refused to
believe William Shakespeare could have penned the canon. He knew that
those rare subjects that an author continuously infuses into his work,
those uncommon topics that work their way into his plots and sub-plots
and metaphors and marginalia, are subjects that must have been deeply
ingrained in the life of the writer. This is why all great oeuvres
are in some sense autobiographical. Herman Melville, author of Moby
Dick, sailed with a whaling ship around Cape Horn and across the
Pacific. John Steinbeck, author of Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and
Men, was born in Monterey Bay California and worked on farms and
ranches as a fruit-picker. Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace, was
a Russian aristocrat with an extensive military career, fighting in
the Crimean war. F. Scott Fitzgerald, author of The Great Gatsby,
went to Princeton and moved to New York after the Great War, living
extravagantly and throwing lavish parties for New York’s high
society. Ernest Hemingway, author of For Whom The Bell Tolls, lived
in Spain and reported on the Spanish Civil War. Jack London, author
of To Build a Fire and Call of the Wild, travelled to the Yukon at the
age of 21 for the Klondike Gold Rush and prospected for gold. Joseph
Conrad, author of Lord Jim and Heart of Darkness, was a globe-trekking
sailor, sailing in and around Southeast Asia and working for a stretch
as a steam-boat captain along the Congo River. Charles Dickens,
author of David Copperfield, had a riches-to-rags childhood, first
attending a private school, then working in a London boot-blacking
factory for ten hours a day at the age of twelve. Fyodor Dostoevsky,
author of Crime and Punishment, was a Russian intellectual who
converted to Christianity in a Siberian prison camp. Joseph Heller,
author of Catch-22, flew combat missions in World War II with the U.S.
Air Force. Mark Twain, author of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer,
was a riverboat captain along the Southern Mississippi, well
acquainted with southern towns neighboring the Big River and the
dialects and customs of the people who inhabit them.
In each case, the biographical details are just what you would expect
– and could easily have been determined through a study of the
author’s work. And these are not carefully chosen examples. It is,
in fact, difficult to find a single example of a great literary oeuvre
that does not betray the most significant experiences of the author.
Indeed, it is difficult to find an example in which the author’s life
and the most prominent leitmotif of his or her fiction is not palpably
and tightly intertwined.
Literary geniuses cannot help but write about the types of people,
places, and events that have moved them — and their familiarity with
their subjects allows them tantalizing insights and intricacies. So,
as is inevitably the case, rural geniuses pen rural masterpieces,
seafaring geniuses pen seafaring masterpieces, Yukon-wilderness
geniuses pen Yukon-wilderness masterpieces, New-York high-society
geniuses pen New York high-society masterpieces, etc. This is what
all prodigies throughout the history of literature have done. They
have written about lands that had dirtied their shoes and got under
their fingernails, about climes that caused them to shiver or sweat,
and about people whom they loved or hated and with whom they had
worked, dined, or fought. No other great literary artist has ever
tried to attempt what Stratfordians must believe.
But this classic case against Shakespeare is even stronger than this.
While all the evidence suggests that the author of the canon re-quired
first-hand experience with the court, law and military; it is still
not even clear how Shakespeare could have managed even second-hand
knowledge of these subjects. Did Shakespeare really read Plowden’s
Reports in Law French just for fun or to seem more lawyerly? Did he
really peruse now-lost manuals on falconry to seem more aristocratic?
Did he read travelogues on Continental Europe to seem more traveled?
Did he, on his own, learn Italian, French and Spanish – so he could
read the original sources of plays he was adapting? Did he study all
of the required military pamphlets in order to add esoteric military
details to his work? Did he really, while in his early 30's, assume
the guise of an old man when writing personal sonnets to friends and
lovers?
Fortunately, we can now accept the obvious answer to all of these
questions – and rid ourselves of the wide and troubling gap be-tween
the knowledge flaunted in the masterpieces and the life of William
Shakespeare. As all other analyses clarify, particularly a careful
study of title page attributions, contemporaneous references, and
satires by fellow playwrights, Shakespeare was not the original author
of the masterpieces. He merely adapted them for the stage.
(Quote from "North of Shakespeare")

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Dec 1, 11:47 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:bcaf0fee-2404-4d0b...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 4:30 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:57e59adf-0868-41c9-
> >> 87bb-eb4b2d019...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Nov 30, 4:21 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
> >> > <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 28, 10:40 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> In reality, there were no conspiracies. Shakespeare wrote
> >> >> the works attributed to him.
>
> >> > Great. That's wonderfully clear. So he wrote all the works in the
> >> > First Folio then. Or am I missing something?
>
> >> Not at all. It's just that when Shakespeare wrote something, all he
> >> was actually doing was editing a work that someone else had written
> >> and adding nothing of his own.
>
> > Dennis responds: You know that's completely false interpretation.
>
> You've argued that stylometric evidence shows that one author wrote the
> core works of the Shakespeare canon, and you've argued that Thomas North
> was that one author. Therefore, Shakespeare left no detectable traces of
> his own style in the core works of the Shakespeare canon.

Dennis responds: Yes, if I were you I would stop talking about title
pages too. But in any case, wrong. The "stylometric" analysis is an
umbrella standard involving maximums and minimums that demarcate
somewhat broad frequency ranges for numerous variables -- and the
ranges clearly extend from "North to North/Shakespeare mix." More
simply still, as MoV, HIV 1, HIV2, LLL, MAN, etc. are used to
delineate the ranges, the North/Shakespeare mix was included.

> Moreover, you've provided no stylometric evidence in support of your
> hypothesis that the 'bad' quartos and the apocryphal plays are works
> created by one author.

Dennis responds: Sabrina Feldman has focused quite a bit of attention
on that. Check "Apocryphal William Shakespeare."
But my next work will certainly add stylometric analyses to the
already avalanche of evidence provided by the title pages that went
unchallenged, the contemporary comments, the fact that Shakespeare's
company performed the plays, the identity of the processes that
brought about the adaptations (language simplification, abridgment,
addition of jokes, etc.) and etc...

Absent such evidence, we can only go by our own
> eyes, which tell us that Q1 of *Hamlet*, *A Yorkshire Tragedy*, *The
> Troublesome Raigne of King John*, *The London Prodigall*, *Thomas Lord
> Cromwell*, etc., are decidedly not works that share a common style; thus
> we are obliged to conclude that Shakespeare was once again merely
> editing a work that someone else had written and adding nothing of his
> own.
>
> If that interpretation is, as you say, completely false, then tell us
> what common stylistic markers are shared by all - or even a few - of the
> works you attribute to William Shakespeare. What fingerprint phrases
> have you found that link *The London Prodigall* to *The Troublesome
> Raigne of King John* or *A Yorkshire Tragedy* or Q1 of *Hamlet* or any
> of the other plays in your new Shakespearean canon?

Dennis responds: Okay, you got it. Coming up....

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Dec 1, 4:53 am, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.blah> wrote:
> On 1/12/11 11:14 AM, den...@northofshakespeare.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 4:30 pm, Mark Steese<mark_ste...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> TomFoster<hedley_...@hotmail.com>  wrote in news:57e59adf-0868-41c9-
> >> 87bb-eb4b2d019...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> On Nov 30, 4:21 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
> >>> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com>  wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 28, 10:40 am, John W Kennedy<jwke...@attglobal.net>  wrote:
>
> >>>> In reality, there were no conspiracies. Shakespeare wrote
> >>>> the works attributed to him.
>
> >>> Great. That's wonderfully clear. So he wrote all the works in the
> >>> First Folio then. Or am I missing something?
>
> >> Not at all. It's just that when Shakespeare wrote something, all he was
> >> actually doing was editing a work that someone else had written and
> >> adding nothing of his own.
>
> > Dennis responds: You know that's completely false interpretation. The
> > bad quartos have lots of new material added by Shakespeare .Plus he is
> > the one that is completely rearranging scenes, condensing characters,
> > etc.  The simple fact is conventional scholars reject a dozen
> > different plays attributed to Shakespeare prior to 1620.
>
> Gee, if you must insist on making stuff up, why stop at a mere dozen?
> Why not 50? Why not 100?

Dennis responds:
Scholars...do...reject...the..authenticity...of...the....bad....quartos...so...that's ...
7. Add that to the five apocrypha and you get twelve.
Ignoto doesn't like to count the seven bad quartos even though he
admits he believes that Shakespeare didn't write them and that they
represent someone else's adaptations. In Ignoto's view, with the bad
quartos, the title pages are correct, it's just that the plays that
follow them that are wrong. For Ignoto's sake, I'll amend: According
to conventional scholars -- anonymous authors wrote or adapted 12 of
the plays attributed to Shakespeare prior to 1620.

>
> > That's the
> > majority.  And no amount of dancing or mischaracterizing is going to
> > hide that immovable fact.
>
> Ok, then, name these dozen different plays attributed to Shakespeare
> prior to 1620 that 'conventional' scholars reject.

1) The Troublesome Raigne of King John (1591) / "written by W. Sh.
(Simmes-Helme, 1611) and "Written by W. Shakespeare" (Mathewes —
Dewe, 1622) / Queen’s Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying prin-ters/
publishers)

2) The Contention (Henry VI, Part 2) (1594) / "Written by William
Shake-Speare, gent" (Jaggard-Pavier, 1619) / Pembroke’s Men / Bad
Quarto (pirate actors and a greedy, lying printer/publisher)

3) True Tragedy (Henry VI, Part 3) (1595) / "Written by William Shake-
speare, Gent" (Jaggard-Pavier, 1619) / Pembroke’s Men / Bad Quarto
(pirate actors and a greedy, lying printer/publisher)

4) Locrine (1595) / **"Newly set forth, overseen and corrected. By
W.S."** (Creede, 1595) / Not mentioned / Anonymous (greedy, lying prin-
ter/publisher)

5) Richard III (1597) / "By William Shake-speare" (Simmes-Wise, 1598)
changed to **"Newly augmented, by William Shake-speare"** (Creede-
Wise, 1602) / Lord Chamberlain’s Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and
dishonest printer/publisher)

6) Henry V (1600) / Part of Shakespeare Collection (originally printed
by Creede; Jaggard-Pavier,1619) / Lord Chamberlain’s Men / Bad Quarto
(pirate actors and dishonest printer/publisher)

7) Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602) / "Written by W.S." (Cotton -Jones,
1602) / Lord Chamberlain’s Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying prin-ter/
publisher)

8) Merry Wives of Windsor (1602) / "By William Shakespeare"(Creede-
Johnson, 1602) / Lord Chamberlain’s Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors
and greedy, lying printer/publisher)

9) Hamlet (1603) / "By William Shake-Speare...as it hath been diverse
times acted..." (Simmes-Ling, 1603) / King’s Men / Bad Quarto (pirate
actors and greedy, lying printer/publisher)

10) London Prodigal (1605) / "By William Shakespeare" (Creede-Butter,
1605) / King’s Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher)

11) Yorkshire Tragedy (1608) / "By W. Shakespeare" (Braddock-Pavier,
1608) / King’s Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer / publisher)

12) Pericles (1609) / "By William Shakespeare" (White/Creede-Gosson,
1609) / King’s Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and dishonest prin-ter/
publisher)

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

Tom Foster:

> Oh dear. Just when I thought we were getting things straight, you go
> and muddy the waters again.
>
> I wasn't talking about 'orthodox scholars' – whose opinions you accept
> or reject whenever you feel like it. I was simply responding to your
> statement that  'Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him'.
>
> It now seems that what you meant was, 'Shakespeare wrote the works
> attributed to him – except those works that I don't think he did
> write'. Because the only reason I can see for your insisting on the
> importance of title pages, then rejecting the title page of the First
> Folio, is the well-known Diana Price strategy of arbitrarily deciding
> that something printed seven years after his death doesn't count.

Dennis responds: No, not at all. I know of no one -- and certainly no
conventional scholar today -- who thinks that the First Folio is 100%
pure. Everyone agrees certain sections of it are written by other
people. That doesn't mean we think the title page is therefore wrong.
The inclusion of non-authorial material in *collections* was not an
infrequent occurrence. But there were no conspiracies. Most of the
works in the First Folio are indeed Shakespearean adaptations.
And while I know you weren't talking about "orthodox scholars" or the
conventional view, it is still relevant to underscore how many
conspiracy theories they must invoke in order to reject the
authenticity of inconvenient title pages (that had never been
challenged when first printed or even a century later) in a thread
that is devoted specifically to that topic.

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

Dennis:
If Oxford and Shakespeare got together to fool the public into
thinking Shakespeare wrote MoV, that's a conspiracy.
If Creede and Butter (and the one who sold them the play) got together
to fool the public into thinking Shakespeare wrote London Prodigal,
that's a conspiracy.
If the actors who played Marcellus, Voltemand, the second grave-
digger, etc. got together to rewrite Hamlet from memory and make a
profit on Shakespeare's work, that's a conspiracy...
If Braddock and Pavier (and the one who sold them the play) got
together to fool the public into thinking Shakespeare wrote Yorkshire
Tragedy, that's a conspiracy.
If Cotton and Jones (and the one who sold them the play) got together
to fool the public into thinking Shakespeare wrote Thomas Lord
Cromwell, that's a conspiracy.
If Simmes and Helme (and the one who sold them the play) got together
to fool the public into thinking Shakespeare wrote Troublesome Raigne,
that's a conspiracy.
And you need six more for the rest of the bad quartos...

> There is nothing whatever odd about accepting title page attributions
> as evidence of attribution. But Shakespeare scholars have done more:
> they've consulted OTHER EVIDENCE.

Dennis responds: The evidence is stylistic analyses that show the
author of London Prodigal, YT, the bad quartos, etc., is not the same
as the original author of Romeo and Juliet, Henry V, RIII,. So right,
if the title pages printed while he was alive are correct and there
weren't an astronomically improbable, multi-decade, series of false
attributions, then this "OTHER EVIDENCE" just proves Shakespeare
didn't write the originals, he merely adapted them for the stage. In
other words, Shakespeare actually wrote the Hamlet that his theater
company performed -- and the one that was published with his name on
the title page in 1603. He didn't write the original of that play, the
one that would have been four hours long and unperformable, the one
that indicates fluency in French, and contains a spoof on the legal
reasoning of the 1564 Hales v Petit inheritance rights case.

A great deal of other evidence
> verifies that Shakespeare was sole or principal author of the plays in
> the First Folio completely lacking for the apocryphoa plays: the

> testimony of eye witnesses like Heminges, Condell , and Jonson,

Dennis responds: Heminges and Condell, Shakespeare's dear friends,
wrote in book jacket praise that Shakespeare was a swell fella and a
great writer. They never once intimated he wrote everything found in
the First Folio -- and if they had, everyone today would agree that it
was a lie. No scholar today thinks the Folio is 100% pure.
Jonson, in the only epigram in his one collection penned in
"Shakespearean" sonnet format, said the one who would be thought the
chief dramatist of his time "would buy the reversion of old plays" and
"marks not whose twas first" and was worried "after-times may judge it
to be his." Jonson also wrote the same thing about "Pericles" in a
poem that expressed the same sentiment. And he mocked Shakespeare as a
social climbing buffoon in EMOH.
Meres said Shakespeare wrote R&J and RIII -- but which R&J and RIII?
They would have to be the staged adaptations, as the masterpiece
versions had not yet been published when Meres wrote. Indeed, Meres
had to be referring to the adaptations in every case.
And you forgot Groatsworth of Wit, in which he is called an "upstart
crow" -- Horatian symbol of plagiarism -- "beautified with our
feathers" and then is associated with a plagiarized line from Henry
VI, Part 3. The line was taken and used in "True Tragedy," which was
attributed to Shakespeare with his name on the title page. The
Groatsworth comment marks Shakespeare as the plagiarizing author of
"True Tragedy.
You also forget the testimony of Ravenscroft who said he heard
directly from a theater insider that Shakespeare was not the original
author of "Titus Andronicus."
And all this follows from all the untitled title pages printed while
Shakespeare was alive. There were no conspiracies.

[PS. Bob, it's not too late to jump ship. The people who are first
in during a revolution get all the credit -- like Darwin, Wallace,
Huxley.... And those who oppose are often treated harshly by history
-- like Wilberforce and the like. Everything your book contains that
attacks conspiracy notions of anti-Stratfordians can stay. But why
don't you then remain consistent and attack the conspiracy theories of
the orthodox -- memorial reconstruction for the bad quartos, devious
printers for the apocrypha. Put forth strong arguments in that regard
and you can be remembered as a Huxley -- not a Wilberforce. Big
wink ;) ]

[Mark Steese]

"den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote in
news:4fb6d7e8-78bc-4d0b...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

Like the title pages of the 1609 quarto of Troilus and Cressida
("written by William Shakespeare") and the 1600 quartos of A Midsummer
Night's Dream and The Merchant of Venice ("written by William
Shakespeare")? Now that you mention it, you don't talk about those, do
you?

But in any case, wrong.

Dennis the denier denies again!

> The "stylometric" analysis is an umbrella standard involving maximums
> and minimums that demarcate somewhat broad frequency ranges for
> numerous variables -- and the ranges clearly extend from "North to
> North/Shakespeare mix." More simply still, as MoV, HIV 1, HIV2, LLL,
> MAN, etc. are used to delineate the ranges, the North/Shakespeare mix
> was included.

Someday you should really try to learn something about stylometry,
Dennis.

>> Absent such evidence, we can only go by our own eyes, which tell us
>> that Q1 of *Hamlet*, *A Yorkshire Tragedy*, *The Troublesome Raigne
>> of King John*, *The London Prodigall*, *Thomas Lord Cromwell*, etc.,
>> are decidedly not works that share a common style; thus we are
>> obliged to conclude that Shakespeare was once again merely editing a
>> work that someone else had written and adding nothing of his own.
>>
>> If that interpretation is, as you say, completely false, then tell us
>> what common stylistic markers are shared by all - or even a few - of
>> the works you attribute to William Shakespeare. What fingerprint
>> phrases have you found that link *The London Prodigall* to *The
>> Troublesome Raigne of King John* or *A Yorkshire Tragedy* or Q1 of
>> *Hamlet* or any of the other plays in your new Shakespearean canon?
>
> Dennis responds: Okay, you got it. Coming up....

Hee hee! I foresee hilarity ahead.
--
The "Kinkade Glow" could be seen as derived in spirit from the
"lustrous, pearly mist" that Mark Twain had derided in the Bierstadt
paintings, and, the level of execution to one side, there are certain
unsettling similarities between the two painters. -Joan Didion

[Mark Steese]

"den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote in
news:873a0316-ee6c-44a0...@f35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

Dennis thinks someone cares.

> Previously, Steese defended the orthodox view that five plays were
> falsely attributed to William Shakespeare while he was alive (and
> seven more were rewritten by other people and then sold to printers!)

Steese never defended the view that five plays were falsely attributed
to William Shakespeare while he was alive *or* the view that seven more
were rewritten by other people. Dennis knows this.

> as "[not] impossible." Here he is now trying to argue that at least
> it's not as silly as the moon landing conspiracy theory. And I
> happily concede, Mark.

Dennis thinks it's funny to misrepresent his opponents' arguments.

> The notion that twelve plays were mistakenly attributed to Shakespeare
> prior to 1620

Nobody but Dennis claims that twelve plays were mistakenly attributed to
Shakespeare prior to 1620. As he well knows, the "orthodox view" is that
the "bad" quartos, the "good" quartos, and the Folio texts of the
authentic Shakespeare plays all derive from the manuscript plays that
William Shakespeare wrote. The only plays published during Shakespeare's
lifetime that were both unambiguously attributed to him and almost
certainly not printed editions of his actual work (either solo or in
collaboration) are Sir John Oldcastle (1600), The London Prodigall
(1605), and A Yorkshire Tragedy (1608). Dennis apparently can't
distinguish between the numbers three and five; not that Dennis cares.

Interestingly, Dennis rarely, if ever, mentions the fact that even he
has been willing to concede that the 1600 quarto of Sir John Oldcastle
may have been mistakenly attributed to Shakespeare.

> -- and many were the result of pirate printers conspiring to fool the
> public or larcenous actors trying to sell rewritten versions -- and no
> one ever challenged the apocrypha for a century or two -- is
> incredibly improbable.

Dennis's straw men all seem to share that characteristic, for some
strange reason.

>> So, the 17th century public was as interested in who wrote the plays
>> attributed to William Shakespeare as the 20th century public was
>> interested in whether or not space travel is possible? Huh. I
>> would've thought that even in England, hardly anyone would have been
>> especially interested in whether or not Shakespeare really wrote *The
>> London Prodigall*, but apparently it was a matter of consuming public
>> interest across the globe, not merely around the Globe. Well, you
>> learn something new every day.
>>

>> Moreover, I naļvely imagined that Butter could have deliberately

>> published a misattributed quarto without involving anyone else in the
>> deception, seeing as how the play wasn't entered into the Stationers'
>> Register, and the printer, Thomas Cotes, is unlikely to have been a
>> handwriting expert. But as I've mentioned, I don't know very much
>> about the London publishing scene in the 17th century, so if I'm
>> mistaken please provide corrective factual matter. You are, after
>> all, clearly more knowledgeable about publishing practices in 17th
>> century London than I am - otherwise, you could hardly be so sure
>> that there were no conspiracies, right?
>
> Dennis responds: Well, Butter had to get the play from someone, right?

Right! And that someone could have provided it with Butter without
misrepresenting it as Shakespeare's work, right? I'm glad that Dennis is
conceding that Butter could have misattributed the work without
conspiring with anyone else. He's making progress!
--
It can be hard, sometimes, to come home to Van Nuys. -Sandra Tsing Loh

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

Bob: > Some printer's putting Shakespeare's name on the title-page of

a play
> he didn't write and no one's calling attention to the deception
> because no one gave a damn

Dennis responds: No one gave a damn? Why, wouldn't Shakespeare give a
damn? Why wouldn't the original author of the work give a damn? Why
wouldn't Shakespeare's friends or the real author's friends give a
damn? Why wouldn't readers who saw the play and knew who supposedly
wrote it give a damn?
And this entire thread is predicated on your argument of how
significant it is that no one ever said that Shakespeare was "not the
author of Hamlet and the other plays" at any point during the time
they were published and for over 250 years!
Well, it is also true that no one ever said Shakespeare was "not the
author of London Prodigal, Yorkshire Tragedy, Thomas Lord Cromwell,
etc." at any point during the time they were published and for over
two centuries. Why on Earth would "no one give a damn" about the
true authorship of some plays and not others?
And by the way, that statement you threw away so cavalierly -- "Some

printer's putting Shakespeare's name on the title-page of a play he

didn't write" -- so as to profit on his name has never happened before
to any other writer in history. Not once. So what do you think the
odds are that 15 different publishers and printers all got together
(or happened upon the idea independently) and decided to do this to
Shakespeare?

Bob "...is not a conspiracy, Dennis."
Yes, If Creede and Butter (and the one who sold them the play) got

together to fool the public into thinking Shakespeare wrote London
Prodigal, that's a conspiracy.

And yes, if the actors who played Marcellus, Voltemand, the second
grave-digger, etc. got together to rewrite Hamlet from memory and make

a profit on Shakespeare's work, that's a conspiracy...

The fact that the orthodox invoke 12 little conspiracies to explain
away all the unchallenged title pages printed prior to 1620 is not a
point in the orthodox's favor. This never occurred to any other
writer in history -- not once.

Bob:

Note the
> difference between putting a man's name on the title-page of a play
> others say is by the man is and putting a man's name on a title-page
> that no one else of the time says is the author of the play, as is--
> I'm pretty sure--the case with the apocryphal plays.

Dennis responds: The "tiger's heart" line marks Shakespeare as the
author of "True Tragedy" -- the plagiarized version of "Henry VI3."
It was "True Tragedy" that was printed while Shakespeare was alive --
and that was attributed to him. And the "tiger's heart" line was one
of "feathers" that the "upstart crow" had taken.
When Meres referred to RIII, R&J, etc., he had to have been referring
to the staged adaptations (i.e., the bad quartos) as the original,
authentic versions had not yet been printed.
And Post-haste in Histriomastix, who is the author of "Troilus and
Cressida" [with the line "shakes his furious spear"], is also made the
author of "The Prodigal Child" (and "The London Prodigal" was indeed a
story about a Prodigal Son. )

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Dec 1, 7:20 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:4fb6d7e8-78bc-4d0b...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 11:47 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
> >> inn

> > ews:bcaf0fee-2404-4d0b-9d1b-c1da0e902...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

'
Dennis responds: I never talk about MoV? Much of chapter 5 in North
of Shakespeare is devoted

>
>  But in any case, wrong.
>
> Dennis the denier denies again!

Dennis responds: My responses are to your efforts to contradict my
North of Shakespeare argument. So obviously I will challenge many of
your statements. And I also expect you to deny many of mine. But there
are times, Steese, as you well know, when the ring is through your
nose and you just start denying *every* statement in an unreflective
fashion -- and I have to spend time proving you wrong again and
again.

>
> > The "stylometric" analysis is an umbrella standard involving maximums
> > and minimums that demarcate somewhat broad frequency ranges for
> > numerous variables -- and the ranges clearly extend from "North to
> > North/Shakespeare mix."  More simply still, as MoV, HIV 1, HIV2, LLL,
> > MAN, etc. are used to delineate the ranges, the North/Shakespeare mix
> > was included.
>
> Someday you should really try to learn something about stylometry,
> Dennis.

Dennis respond: Well, that's not much of a response. But we can always
go to the authors themselves regarding these claims -- such as whether
they really prove only one author and no co authors.

>
> >> Absent such evidence, we can only go by our own eyes, which tell us
> >> that Q1 of *Hamlet*, *A Yorkshire Tragedy*, *The Troublesome Raigne
> >> of King John*, *The London Prodigall*, *Thomas Lord Cromwell*, etc.,
> >> are decidedly not works that share a common style; thus we are
> >> obliged to conclude that Shakespeare was once again merely editing a
> >> work that someone else had written and adding nothing of his own.
>
> >> If that interpretation is, as you say, completely false, then tell us
> >> what common stylistic markers are shared by all - or even a few - of
> >> the works you attribute to William Shakespeare. What fingerprint
> >> phrases have you found that link *The London Prodigall* to *The
> >> Troublesome Raigne of King John* or *A Yorkshire Tragedy* or Q1 of
> >> *Hamlet* or any of the other plays in your new Shakespearean canon?
>
> > Dennis responds: Okay, you got it. Coming up....
>
> Hee hee! I foresee hilarity ahead.

Dennis responds: Well, much of it has already been done by
conventional scholars --and it's not really debatable, so....

[Mark Steese]

"den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote in
news:6686dd1c-44ca-4e82...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 1, 12:52 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>> > > Dennis responds: Everyone agrees that many great literary artists
>> > > needed essentially no education whatsoever. Melville didn't need
>> > > one to write "Moby Dick."  But you know what he did need to know?
>> > > Whaling.
>>
>> > Of course. And he used his experience as a scrivener on Wall Street
>> > to write "Bartleby the Scrivener," right? And he could never have
>> > written "The Confidence Man" if he hadn't spent all that time
>> > sailing up and down the Mississippi in a riverboat, right?
>>
>> Just what did Shakespeare write that showed a knowledge of any place
>> except London that was anywhere near as deep and narratively
>> significant as Twain's knowledge of the Mississippi?
>
> Dennis responds: He had to know the military and law as well as Twain
> knew the Mississippi. And Twain made the exact same argument.
> Specifically, he argued, this guy knows the law the way I know the
> Mississippi (and steamboats.)

And if Twain had known as much about the military and the law as he knew
about the Mississippi, that might count for something. But Dennis would
rather take the word of an author born in a different nation and a
different century over a contemporary countryman of Shakespeare's, Ben
Jonson, who knew Shakespeare personally, who was quite the snob when it
came to the quality of his fellow writers' learning, and who felt no
compunction about likening Shakespeare to Aeschylus, Sophocles, and
Euripides, the greatest tragic playwrights Jonson could name.

>> Creative literature like Shakespeare's plays needs much less
>> knowledge of the real world than autobiography like Life on the
>> Mississippi-
>
> Dennis responds: No, no, no. I'm referring to Huckleberry Finn. Anyone
> who reads Huck Finn knows for a fact that Twain knows the Mississippi
> and the neighboring southern towns --

And anyone who reads The Prince and the Pauper knows for a fact that
Twain lived in Tudor England, right?

> just as anyone who reads "Moby Dick" knows the author knows whaling --

And anyone who reads Bartleby the Scrivener knows the author knows
scrivening, right?

> anybody who reads the "Old Man and the Sea" knows Hemingway fished for
> marlin.

And that he was an old Spanish man who had moved from the Canary Islands
to Cuba in his youth.

> And anyone who reads
> Henry IV, 1, 2, Henry V, etc... knows the author knows something
> about, for example, the following military terms:
> petard tucket portage glaive sentinel armipotent pinnace demi-
> cannon saltpetre kern bulwark vaward parle cuises strosser
> battery ambuscado palisado curtal-axe halberd basilisk Welsh
> hook chevalier Muskos-regiment ensign false fire Switzers
> herald carrack garrison barb sutler falchion Almain galley
> Hollander pennon guidon levy gorget Tuttle-Fields muster
> battalia linstock montez-a-cheval culverin vambrace scimitar
> portage yeoman gallowglass sticking-place bilbo truncheon horse-
> of-Parthia imperator

And Dennis thinks that one would have to be a soldier to know those
terms, even though he himself knows them.

> ...A writer can only write what he or she knows and lives, so all
> great pieces of literature reflect the life, times, studies, and
> specific circumstances of the author.

And there are, in fact, many aspects of Shakespeare's plays that reflect
the life, times, studies, and specific circumstances of William
Shakespeare, the player from Stratford-upon-Avon.

> This is why Twain refused to believe William Shakespeare could have
> penned the canon.

Dennis must have known and lived the life of Mark Twain - how else could
he know that?

> He knew that those rare subjects that an author continuously infuses
> into his work, those uncommon topics that work their way into his
> plots and sub-plots and metaphors and marginalia, are subjects that
> must have been deeply ingrained in the life of the writer.

And yet he, like Dennis, somehow missed the significance of the emphasis
on actors and acting that recurs throughout the canon, from Bottom's
troupe in A Midsummer Night's Dream to the players in Hamlet to
Falstaff's impersonation of Henry IV ("O Jesu, he doth it as like one of
these harlotry players as ever I see!"). Who but a professional actor
would have Cassius and Brutus reflect on the fact that in the future
actors in foreign lands will reenact the murder of Caesar on the stage?
Who else would have Cleopatra imagine that if she should agree to be
brought to Rome, "The quick comedians/Extemporally will stage us, and
present/Our Alexandrian revels: Antony/Shall be brought drunken forth,
and I shall see/Some squeaking Cleopatra boy my greatness/I' th' posture
of a whore." Certainly it was not a touch that occurred to Plutarch,
Jacques Amyot, or Thomas North!

> This is why all great oeuvres are in some sense autobiographical.

In what sense are the plays of Aeschylus autobiographical, Dennis? What
aspects of Euripides' life are reflected in his *Medea*? What can you
tell us of Virgil's life by reading the Eclogues and the Aeneid?

The relationship between a writer's work and life is complex and
difficult to disentangle, even when the writer is as flatly
autobiographical as Marcel Proust; although an author's life always does
inform his work, the fashion for autobiographical fictions only began in
the 19th century.

> Herman Melville, author of Moby Dick, sailed with a whaling ship
> around Cape Horn and across the Pacific. John Steinbeck, author of
> Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men, was born in Monterey Bay
> California and worked on farms and ranches as a fruit-picker.

Actually, Steinbeck was born in Salinas, Dennis. If he'd been born in
Monterey Bay he would've drowned.

That's exactly what they are. Dennis knows better than to pretend that
Christopher Marlowe, or Ben Jonson, or George Chapman, or Thomas
Middleton, or any of Shakespeare's other contemporaries in the theater,
was nothing more than a blank-verse memoirist. He steers clear of the
oeuvres of Congreve, Dryden, Pope, Swift, Defoe. All of their works were
informed by their lives, of course, but in quite different ways from all
of the 19th- and 20th-century authors named above.

> It is, in fact, difficult to find a single example of a great literary
> oeuvre that does not betray the most significant experiences of the
> author.

Unless one looks at the great literary oeuvres created before 1800, in
which case, one will find them all over the place.

> Indeed, it is difficult to find an example in which the author’s life
> and the most prominent leitmotif of his or her fiction is not palpably
> and tightly intertwined.

Unless one looks.

> Literary geniuses cannot help but write about the types of people,
> places, and events that have moved them — and their familiarity with
> their subjects allows them tantalizing insights and intricacies. So,
> as is inevitably the case, rural geniuses pen rural masterpieces,
> seafaring geniuses pen seafaring masterpieces, Yukon-wilderness
> geniuses pen Yukon-wilderness masterpieces, New-York high-society
> geniuses pen New York high-society masterpieces, etc. This is what
> all prodigies throughout the history of literature have done.

So the history of literature began with Moby-Dick? Hm.

> They have written about lands that had dirtied their shoes and got
> under their fingernails, about climes that caused them to shiver or
> sweat, and about people whom they loved or hated and with whom they
> had worked, dined, or fought. No other great literary artist has ever
> tried to attempt what Stratfordians must believe.

Of course not. No other great literary artist has ever tried to attempt
to write about, say, a voyage through Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven, or
tried to compose an epic poem about Satan and the Fall of Man. Ovid
wrote about lands that had dirtied his shoes, not Greek myths about
people metamorphosing into animals and trees.

> But this classic case against Shakespeare is even stronger than this.

I should hope so - it's not as though it could be weaker.

> While all the evidence suggests that the author of the canon re-quired
> first-hand experience with the court, law and military; it is still
> not even clear how Shakespeare could have managed even second-hand
> knowledge of these subjects. Did Shakespeare really read Plowden’s
> Reports in Law French just for fun or to seem more lawyerly?

Is there really any evidence that the author of Shakespeare's plays
needed to have read Plowden's Reports? No, there isn't. Did any of
Shakespeare's contemporaries find it in any way incomprehensible that
Shakespeare should have written a play supposedly containing arcane
allusions he could only have gleaned from Plowden? They most certainly
did not. Dennis reminds us over and over again that no one ever
questioned Shakespeare's authorship of *The London Prodigall* or *A
Yorkshire Tragedy*, and fails to remind us that no one ever questioned
Shakespeare's authorship of *Hamlet*, either. Dennis fails to remind us
that the dyed-in-the-wool elitist Ben Jonson's much-quoted lines about
"small Latin and less Greek" appear in the context of his likening of
Shakespeare to the greatest Classical playwrights:

And though thou had small Latine, and lesse Greeke,
From thence to honour thee, I would not seeke
For names, but call forth thund'ring Aeschilus,
Euripides, and Sophocles to us...

Anti-Shakespeareans typically dismiss these lines by saying that Jonson
was in on the conspiracy, but Dennis denies himself such luxuries; he
would have us believe that there is nothing in any way odd that the same
man whom he believes lacerated Shakespeare as "Poor Poet-Ape," also
praised him as a playwright in the same league as the greatest of all!

Equally impressively, Dennis asks us to believe that another
dyed-in-the-wool elitist, Gabriel Harvey, was referring to the Q1
version of *Hamlet* when he wrote that "The younger sort take much
delight in Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, but his Lucrece and his
tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke, have it in them to please the
wiser sort." I wonder when Dennis will calculate the probability that
Harvey sat through a performance of Q1 Hamlet and came away thinking
that it would "please the wiser sort" more than Venus and Adonis.

Nobody in Shakespeare's day, and nobody for centuries afterwards,
thought it was in any way remarkable that a player from
Stratford-upon-Avon should have proven himself to be a remarkably
talented playwright. Ravenscroft, whose doubts about the provenance of
Titus Andronicus Dennis never tires of mentioning, made no suggestion
that any of Shakespeare's *other* plays were inauthentic, and he only
entertained doubts about Titus because of its low quality - in other
words, he was rejecting it for exactly the same reason 18th-century
critics rejected *The London Prodigall*!

> Did he really peruse now-lost manuals on falconry to seem more
> aristocratic?

More aristocratic than what?

> Did he read travelogues on Continental Europe to seem more traveled?

No; and a good thing, too, seeing as how Shakespeare's concept of a
foreign country always turns out to be England with a few
foreign-sounding scraps pasted on it. Regardless of what land or what
time-period a Shakespeare play is set in, it's 16th-century England.
Shakespeare's ancient Rome is a place where carpenters and cobblers turn
out for the Lupercal and people once climbed to "battlements,/To tow'rs
and windows, yea, to chimney tops" to see Pompey pass by.

> Did he, on his own, learn Italian, French and Spanish – so he could
> read the original sources of plays he was adapting?

Did he need to? No.

> Did he study all of the required military pamphlets in order to add
> esoteric military details to his work?

Were those details esoteric in Shakespeare's day? They were not.

Did he really, while in his early 30's, assume
> the guise of an old man when writing personal sonnets to friends and
> lovers?

Did T.S. Eliot really write "Gerontion" before he turned 33? Did Alfred
Lord Tennyson really write "Tithonus" before he turned 25? Will Dennis
find a way to pretend that these examples are irrelevant but the example
of Jack London isn't? (The answer in each case is Yes.)

> Fortunately, we can now accept the obvious answer to all of these
> questions – and rid ourselves of the wide and troubling gap be-tween
> the knowledge flaunted in the masterpieces and the life of William
> Shakespeare.

Yes, we can rid ourselves of that "wide and troubling gap" by realizing
that it never existed.

> As all other analyses clarify, particularly a careful
> study of title page attributions, contemporaneous references, and
> satires by fellow playwrights, Shakespeare was not the original author
> of the masterpieces. He merely adapted them for the stage.

As all the evidence reveals, Shakespeare was the man who took a diverse
variety of source materials and transformed them into a series of
dramatic works of varying quality, some of which are bad, some mediocre,
and some among the finest works ever written in English. None of his
contemporaries thought it was strange that he should have done this, and
for centuries afterwards, neither did anyone else.

> (Quote from "North of Shakespeare")

Having openly cited himself as an authority for his own beliefs, Dennis
has now become the Tullyloo bird.
--
The Alps are grand in their beauty, Mount Shasta is sublime in its
desolation. -William H. Brewer

[Mark Steese]

"den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote in
news:b3970c45-3080-449b...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 1, 7:20 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
>> inn
> ews:4fb6d7e8-78bc-4d0b...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

>> > Dennis responds: Yes, if I were you I would stop talking about
>> > title pages too.
>>
>> Like the title pages of the 1609 quarto of Troilus and Cressida
>> ("written by William Shakespeare") and the 1600 quartos of A
>> Midsummer Night's Dream and The Merchant of Venice ("written by
>> William Shakespeare")? Now that you mention it, you don't talk about
>> those, do you?
> '
> Dennis responds: I never talk about MoV? Much of chapter 5 in North
> of Shakespeare is devoted

...to matters other than the title page of the 1600 quarto of The
Merchant of Venice. In fact, the title page of the 1600 quarto of The
Merchant of Venice is referenced exactly once in North of Shakespeare.
Granted, you do include the gloss "Genuinely by Shakespeare," but you
fail to clarify how a play that Shakespeare adapted from a "Northern
play" can be considered "genuinely by Shakespeare." As you yourself put
it, "The simple fact is that Shakespeare wrote *all* of them -- or more
precisely he organized, adapted, touched-up, reworked and edited all of
them, mostly from source-plays and usually with the help of hired
writers." So "written by William Shakespeare" is, for all intents and
purposes, meaningless, and William Shakespeare was not an author - but
you can't quite bring yourself to admit that that's what you think.

>>  But in any case, wrong.
>>
>> Dennis the denier denies again!
>
> Dennis responds: My responses are to your efforts to contradict my
> North of Shakespeare argument. So obviously I will challenge many of
> your statements. And I also expect you to deny many of mine. But there
> are times, Steese, as you well know, when the ring is through your
> nose and you just start denying *every* statement in an unreflective
> fashion -- and I have to spend time proving you wrong again and
> again.

In fact, I do get excessively enthusiastic and make statements that I
think are true at the time, but which I could have discovered were false
with a moment's research. You've even caught a few of them, and I thank
you for the corrections.

>> > The "stylometric" analysis is an umbrella standard involving
>> > maximums and minimums that demarcate somewhat broad frequency
>> > ranges for numerous variables -- and the ranges clearly extend from
>> > "North to North/Shakespeare mix."  More simply still, as MoV, HIV
>> > 1, HIV2, LLL, MAN, etc. are used to delineate the ranges, the
>> > North/Shakespeare mix was included.
>>
>> Someday you should really try to learn something about stylometry,
>> Dennis.
>
> Dennis respond: Well, that's not much of a response.

You didn't make much of an argument.

> But we can always go to the authors themselves regarding these claims
> -- such as whether they really prove only one author and no coauthors.

Are you planning to break out your Ouija board so we can interrogate Sam
Schoenbaum, Fred Mosteller, and Cyrus Hoy? Or does your knowledge of
stylometry begin and end with your having skimmed some information about
the Shakespeare Clinic, as your arguments suggest?

>> >> Absent such evidence, we can only go by our own eyes, which tell
>> >> us that Q1 of *Hamlet*, *A Yorkshire Tragedy*, *The Troublesome
>> >> Raigne of King John*, *The London Prodigall*, *Thomas Lord
>> >> Cromwell*, etc., are decidedly not works that share a common
>> >> style; thus we are obliged to conclude that Shakespeare was once
>> >> again merely editing a work that someone else had written and
>> >> adding nothing of his own.
>>
>> >> If that interpretation is, as you say, completely false, then tell
>> >> us what common stylistic markers are shared by all - or even a few
>> >> - of the works you attribute to William Shakespeare. What
>> >> fingerprint phrases have you found that link *The London
>> >> Prodigall* to *The Troublesome Raigne of King John* or *A
>> >> Yorkshire Tragedy* or Q1 of *Hamlet* or any of the other plays in
>> >> your new Shakespearean canon?
>>
>> > Dennis responds: Okay, you got it. Coming up....
>>
>> Hee hee! I foresee hilarity ahead.
>
> Dennis responds: Well, much of it has already been done by
> conventional scholars --and it's not really debatable, so...

Of course it's not really debatable, Dennis. We realize that you're just
humoring we poor deluded orthodoxen, even though we do try your patience
fearfully at times.
--
Experts insist that the reason these switches go bad is because they're
hardly ever used. In other words, the less wear a switch gets the
quicker it wears out. That's difficult to believe, but so are a lot of
things. -Dereck Williamson

[Dominic Hughes]

On Dec 1, 11:15 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Twain is a witness against himself.

Twain asserts that he is willing to have his argument against
Shakespeare "stand or fall, win or lose, by the verdict rendered by
the jury" on just one question: Was the author a lawyer? According to
Twain, if the answer is "yes" then William Shakespeare could not be
the author.

But Twain contradicts himself in a novel that he wrote in 1894,
*Pudd'nhead Wilson*. In a preface ("Whisper to the Reader") to that
novel, Twain says: A person who is ignorant of legal matters is always
liable to make mistakes when he tries to photograph a court scene with
his pen."

So far, that's a fair restatement of the point he was making in his
Shakespeare essay. However, he then goes on to say: "[A]nd so I was
not willing to let the law chapters in this book go to press without
first subjecting them to rigid and exhausting revision and correction
by a trained barrister." He contends that "[t}hese chapters are
right, now, in every detail, for they were rewritted under the
immediate eye" of a lawyer friend.

What is good for Twain is good for Shakespeare, and his practice in
his novel contradicts his claim about Shakespeare in the later essay.
The proof for Twain's inconsistency is in the Pudd'n.

Some other interesting facts:
1. Twain left school at the age of 12 when his afther died, and he
was largely self-taught.
2. Twain relied so much on George Greenwood's arguments that
Greenwood's London publisher charged Twain with plagiarism.

[...]

Speaking of examples, and a contemporary one at that:

This is from Hyder Rollins, Variorum II, on Richard Barnfield and the
Sonnets:

"RICHARD BARNFIELD's name was presented long ago.
DELIUS (Jahrbuch, 1865, I, 32), for example, referred to the sonnets
as an analog of Barnfield's Affectionate Shepheard, 1594. This notion
was restated by W. C. HAZLITT in 1902 (Shakespear, pp. 206 f.). POOLER
(ed. 1918, pp. xxxv f.) supplied details: in the sonnets to his male
friend Sh. was perhaps "taking a hint from Barnfield's Affectionate
Shepheard. In the person of the shepherd, Daphnis, Barnfield praises
the beauty of the boy Ganymede, warns him that this beauty is
perishable, declares his love for him, and laments that he has a rival
in a woman whose love is light. Moreover, he advises him to marry,
warns him against profligacy, expatiates on the courtier's fawning for
his prince's favour, and on change and decay....And he is even more
emphatic than Shakespeare in asserting that his own years are past the
best....[though he] was about 20....There are practically no
resemblances of phrase or rhythm."

How did he really, while in his early 20's, assume the guise of an old

man when writing personal sonnets to friends and
lovers?

[...]

Dom

[Bob Grumman]

> Dennis responds: No one gave a damn?  Why, wouldn't Shakespeare give a
> damn?

Why should he. There was nothing he could do about it, and it
wouldn't have hurt him finanacially or done much harm to his
reputation.

> Why wouldn't the original author of the work give a damn?

Same as above.

> Why wouldn't Shakespeare's friends or the real author's friends give a
> damn?  Why wouldn't readers who saw the play and knew who supposedly
> wrote it give a damn?

No and no. A few might have wondered about it, but the main thing for
everyone was that the plays be performed. Shakespeare's main concern
was that his company, and he, made money from his plays. All else was
a triviality--although he may have been bogthered by bad quartos
enough to let corrected versions be published. That wouldn't have
been a problem with the apocryphal plays. In fact, I can imagine
shakespeare finding one of those in a bookstore and laughing at what
was now being attirubted to him. He may well have taken pride in the
use of his name so often. We don't know, can't know, but my guess is
much better than yours because based on better evidence, which you
have been provided with.

>         And this entire thread is predicated on your argument of how
> significant it is that no one ever said that Shakespeare was "not the
> author of Hamlet and the other plays" at any point during the time
> they were published and for over 250 years!




>         Well, it is also true that no one ever said Shakespeare was "not the
> author of London Prodigal, Yorkshire Tragedy, Thomas Lord Cromwell,
> etc."  at any point during the time they were published and for over
> two centuries.   Why on Earth would "no one give a damn" about the
> true authorship of some plays and not others?

They were better, for one thing. But Heminges and Condell, to repeat,
did in effect say Shakespeare did not write the apocryphal plays since
they said they had collected and seen into print ALL of his plays.

>         And by the way, that statement you threw away so cavalierly -- "Some
> printer's putting Shakespeare's name on the title-page of a play he
> didn't write" -- so as to profit on his name has never happened before
> to any other writer in history.  Not once.  So what do you think the
> odds are that 15 different publishers and printers all got together
> (or happened upon the idea independently) and decided to do this to
> Shakespeare?

There are many explanations not involving a conspiracy, as the sane
define the term. One printer could have stolen Shakespeare's name to
make a buck, then others observed his success and done the same. For
all we know, one actor may have gotten hold of the apocryphal plays
one after another and sold them as Shakespeare's. That would be one
man lying.

Finally, though, my statement holds: Shakespeare of Stratford is
beyond reasonable doubt the author of the plays in the First Folio
because no one explicitly questioned that he was for over two hundred
years and many explicitly said he was. If you want to use the same
argument to make him the author of other works, fine.

> Bob "...is not a conspiracy, Dennis."
>         Yes, If Creede and Butter (and the one who sold them the play) got
> together to fool the public into thinking Shakespeare wrote London
> Prodigal, that's a conspiracy.
>         And yes, if the actors who played Marcellus, Voltemand, the second
> grave-digger, etc. got together to rewrite Hamlet from memory and make
> a profit on Shakespeare's work, that's a conspiracy...
>         The fact that the orthodox invoke 12 little conspiracies to explain
> away all the unchallenged title pages printed prior to 1620 is not a
> point in the orthodox's favor.  This never occurred to any other
> writer in history -- not once.

You clearly don't know what a conspiracy is, in spite of mine and
others attempts to educate you.

Good-bye.

--Bob

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

> > On Dec 1, 11:22 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
> >> inn

> > ews:c2b2b048-508a-4f6c-bb99-b13a285a5...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

Steese: > Steese never defended the view that five plays were falsely

attributed
> to William Shakespeare while he was alive *or* the view that seven more
> were rewritten by other people. Dennis knows this.

Dennis responds: Oh, what a misleading denial! And notice you have
refused to correct the claim with any specifics. Notice you refuse to
cite exactly what you believe about the apocrypha and bad quartos in
order to correct the record -- because if you did it would be clear
you were merely quibbling with numbers. I guess the "rebuttal,"
--"That's not true I was only defending the fact that *8* plays were
misattributed to Shakespeare and I'm fuzzy about the other *4*" --
isn't quite as powerful as just a plain denial with no explanation or
specifics. Debate is supposed to be a transparent and face up game.

> > as "[not] impossible." Here he is now trying to argue that at least
> > it's not as silly as the moon landing conspiracy theory. And I
> > happily concede, Mark.
>
> Dennis thinks it's funny to misrepresent his opponents' arguments.

Dennis responds: And you refuse to explain exactly what you believe
again. Debate is supposed to be a face up game. Put your cards on
the table. In the meantime, here are your words defending the
orthodox view in multiple misattributions occurring over decades as
"[not] impossible]."
********************
Dennis: > And you think this happened accidentally or through
conspiracy again
> and again and again?
Steese: Is it impossible? It is not - your incredulity
notwithstanding.

Dennis: > How could that happen? Take a stab at it.
Steese: Why?

Dennis: > You refuse to even guess -- as you know there is
> no remotely realistic explanation for 15 different printers and
> publisher all accidentally or purposefully misattributing works to the
> same author. It's never happened once to any other author.

Steese: "I don't know enough about the circumstances under which the
quartos in
question were published to be able to hazard a guess as to how they
came to
be misattributed.'
*************************************
Now, if you would like to clarify exactly what you would believe, that
would be nice.

> > The notion that twelve plays were mistakenly attributed to Shakespeare
> > prior to 1620

Steese:

> Nobody but Dennis claims that twelve plays were mistakenly attributed to
> Shakespeare prior to 1620. As he well knows, the "orthodox view" is that
> the "bad" quartos, the "good" quartos, and the Folio texts of the
> authentic Shakespeare plays all derive from the manuscript plays that
> William Shakespeare wrote.

Dennis responds: Wow. Um, yes, the bad quartos "derive from the
manuscript plays," but the relevant point, quite obviously, is that
*they are NOT the manuscript plays** and, in the conventional view of
today and of the last century, it is believed they were NOT adapted
and rewritten by Shakespeare. The conventional view is that they are
NOT genuinely Shakespearean works.
(Now, watch Steese dance around the following question:)
So, yes or no, Steese, do you agree with Sabrina Feldman and me that
Shakespeare was the adapter who produced the "bad quartos" that were
attributed to him? Yes or no?

Steese: The only plays published during Shakespeare's

> lifetime that were both unambiguously attributed to him and almost
> certainly not printed editions of his actual work (either solo or in
> collaboration) are Sir John Oldcastle (1600), The London Prodigall
> (1605), and A Yorkshire Tragedy (1608). Dennis apparently can't
> distinguish between the numbers three and five; not that Dennis cares.

Dennis responds: You forget:
4) The Troublesome Raigne of King John (1591) / "written by W. Sh.

(Simmes-Helme, 1611) and "Written by W. Shakespeare" (Mathewes —
Dewe, 1622) / Queen’s Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying prin-ters/
publishers)

5) Locrine (1595) / **"Newly set forth, overseen and corrected. By

W.S."** (Creede, 1595) / Not mentioned / Anonymous (greedy, lying prin-
ter/publisher)

6) Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602) / "Written by W.S." (Cotton -Jones,

1602) / Lord Chamberlain’s Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying prin-ter/
publisher)

And the last two were attributed to Shakespeare in the Third and
Fourth Folios -- not that anyone really anyone could have been
confused for the "W.S." playwright of the Lord Chamberlain's Men.
So there's three more, which were all beyond all doubt attributed to
Shakespeare.

Steese:

> Interestingly, Dennis rarely, if ever, mentions the fact that even he
> has been willing to concede that the 1600 quarto of Sir John Oldcastle
> may have been mistakenly attributed to Shakespeare.

Dennis responds: You're right. I've been too generous there -- and
have only been so because there were two Sir John Oldcastles, one by
Shakespeare and another by Munday, so I granted the possibility of
confusion. But Sabrina has convinced me otherwise. So yep, that's
six apocrypha -- all of which appeared in the Third and Fourth Folios,
all of which were performed by Shakespeare's theater troupe, and all
of which were printed with Shakespeare's name or initials. And this
is to be combined with the bad quartos, each one of which scholars
reject as a Shakespearean original and claim to be adaptations by some
other anonymous authors.

> > -- and many were the result of pirate printers conspiring to fool the
> > public or larcenous actors trying to sell rewritten versions -- and no
> > one ever challenged the apocrypha for a century or two -- is
> > incredibly improbable.
>
> Dennis's straw men all seem to share that characteristic, for some
> strange reason.

'
Dennis responds: What straw men? And what "characteristic"?
"larcenous actors? For some bizarre reason, you actually challenged
that before. You do realize that the memorial reconstruction theory
is based on the notion that the actors had to work from their memory
because they were going behind the back of the theater troupe -- and
selling rewritten versions of Shakespeare's works for profit to
printers? If not, they wouldn't have had to work from their memory,
right? They could have just copied the script.

> >> So, the 17th century public was as interested in who wrote the plays
> >> attributed to William Shakespeare as the 20th century public was
> >> interested in whether or not space travel is possible? Huh. I
> >> would've thought that even in England, hardly anyone would have been
> >> especially interested in whether or not Shakespeare really wrote *The
> >> London Prodigall*, but apparently it was a matter of consuming public
> >> interest across the globe, not merely around the Globe. Well, you
> >> learn something new every day.
>

> >> Moreover, I na vely imagined that Butter could have deliberately

> >> published a misattributed quarto without involving anyone else in the
> >> deception, seeing as how the play wasn't entered into the Stationers'
> >> Register, and the printer, Thomas Cotes, is unlikely to have been a
> >> handwriting expert. But as I've mentioned, I don't know very much
> >> about the London publishing scene in the 17th century, so if I'm
> >> mistaken please provide corrective factual matter. You are, after
> >> all, clearly more knowledgeable about publishing practices in 17th
> >> century London than I am - otherwise, you could hardly be so sure
> >> that there were no conspiracies, right?
>
> > Dennis responds: Well, Butter had to get the play from someone, right?
>
> Right! And that someone could have provided it with Butter without
> misrepresenting it as Shakespeare's work, right?

Dennis responds: Well, one would think that the person who sold the
play was the author or someone with permission from the Lord
Chamberlain's Men. And if not then, he's doing something
underhanded. And one would think Butter would expect this producer of
the play to actually check the finished product, would he not? I
mean, this is not like Butter is producing plays in Vienna.
Shakespeare, the author, the procurer of the play, and the Lord
Chamberlain's Men all work daily right across London Bridge from the
printer, within walking distance of the shop. And they performed the
play there! And supposedly Creede, who printed other Shakespeare-
related works, including the good quarto of R&J, supposedly had no
idea who wrote the work either and also believed it was Shakespeare.
But let's go with your theory:
1) BUTTER, independently, hatches upon an idea to fool the public
into thinking Shakespeare wrote LONDON PRODIGAL -- and this even fools
his printer-partner. There is no record of anyone every challenging
him on it -- not Shakespeare, not the actual author, not the person
who got him the play, not anyone from Shakespeare's theater troupe.
**And this scheme goes unchallenged for more than a century when it
appears in the Third and Fourth Folio and is considered part of the
Shakespeare canon.**
2) Not knowing that Butter did this....
PAVIER, independently, hatches upon an idea to fool the public into
thinking Shakespeare wrote YORKSHIRE TRAGEDY-- and this even fools his
printer-partner. There is no record of anyone every challenging him
on it -- not Shakespeare, not the actual author, not the person who
got him the play, not anyone from Shakespeare's theater troupe. **And
this scheme goes unchallenged for more than a century when it appears
in the Third and Fourth Folio and is considered part of the
Shakespeare canon.**
3) Not knowing that Butter and Pavier would do this...
JONES, independently, hatches upon an idea to fool the public into
thinking Shakespeare wrote THOMAS LORD CROMWELL-- and this even fools
his printer-partner. There is no record of anyone every challenging
him on it -- not Shakespeare, not the actual author, not the person
who got him the play, not anyone from Shakespeare's theater troupe.
**And this scheme goes unchallenged for more than a century when it
appears in the Third and Fourth Folio and is considered part of the
Shakespeare canon.**
4) Not knowing that Butter and Pavier and Jones did this,
HELME, independently, hatches upon an idea to fool the public into
thinking Shakespeare wrote TROUBLESOME RAIGNE-- and this even fools
his printer-partner. There is no record of anyone every challenging
him on it -- not Shakespeare, not the actual author, not the person
who got him the play, not anyone from Shakespeare's theater troupe.
**And this scheme goes unchallenged for more than a decade when
Mathewes and Dewe reprint the 1622 with Shakespeare's name on the
title page. Indeed, some conventional scholars even argued into the
nineteenth and 20th century that Shakespeare wrote it. So it's
another successful, centuries long ruse -- all hatched independently
by various publishers scheming to fool the public and profit on
Shakespeare's name. **

Steese:

>I'm glad that Dennis is
> conceding that Butter could have misattributed the work without
> conspiring with anyone else. He's making progress!

Well, it's conventional theorists who have assumed the publisher and
printer were both involved, probably because it is silly to imagine
the one business partner is sneakily double-crossing the other and
doing something underhanded that could destroy their reputations and
lead to the confiscation of their plays. A number of them had a long
history together... But it doesn't matter. The notion that four
publishers all independently hatched the same scheme solo -- and
pulled it off solo -- and fooled people for centuries is no more
reasonable than the conventional conspiracy theories.

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Dec 1, 12:46 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 7:22 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 5:49 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > > A conspiracy is the use of an elaborate plan to produce by secret
> > > means some effect in an event that is important to those involved in
> > > it.
>
> > Dennis responds: Conspiracy also often has a connotation of fooling
> > the public, scheming to produce a mass delusion so that the public
> > thinks one thing, when something else entirely happened. The moon
> > landing, the JFK conspiracy theory, the 9/11 -- is the effort of
> > people scheming to get the public to believe the wrong thing. And that
> > really is the main characteristic of both anti-Stratfordian and
> > orthodox views of Shakespearean authorship.  The notion that the
> > printers of "London Prodigal" schemed to place Shakespeare's name on
> > the title page -- and fool the public into thinking he wrote it (a
> > ruse that lasted more than a century) is just such a conspiracy
> > theory.  And the same is true for the printers of Yorkshire Tragedy,
> > Thomas Lord Cromwell, Troublesome Raigne -- and the producers of the
> > supposed "False Folio." This is a system of conspiracy theories.  In
> > reality, Shakespeare wrote the works that the contemporary public
> > believed he wrote.
>
> For all you know ONE printer put Shakespeare's name on The Yorkshire
> Tragedy.  No conspiracy.

Dennis responds: Well, of course, what makes the whole thing so
spectacularly improbably is not whether one or two or three people
pulled off an authorship ruse that fooled readers and scholars for
more than a century, but the fact that a number of people
independently pulled off the same ruse. So let's ignore how the
question of how realistic is that the printer double crossed his
publisher -- as well as the person who sold them the play (who would
likely know who the author was) -- and lets ignore the fact that
Braddock and Pavier were not producing plays in Vienna. Shakespeare,

the author, the procurer of the play, and the Lord Chamberlain's Men
all work daily right across London Bridge from the printer, within
walking distance of the shop. And they performed the play there!

Wouldn't the printer be afraid of getting caught?
But let's go with your theory and lets assume just one person pulled
of the ruse in each case, so:

Bob: And possibly legitimate, as Shakespeare may

> have edited the play to such an extent as to have made it his.  The
> stylist boys don't say much about what a work would look like that was
> entirely written by one man, then entirely rewritten by another who
> didn't bother to convert it into his normal style.  In any case, it's
> ridiculous to call a false attribution requiring no work at all to
> carry out a conspiracy, much less to liken it to the conspiracy that
> would have had to have been in force had someone other than
> Shakespeare written plays that were acted and published and written
> about for twenty years or so while Shakespeare was alive,

Dennis responds: All the comments on Shakespeare confirm or are
consistent with the fact that he wrote the plays attributed to him.
Again, the Groatsworth comment marks Shakespeare as the plagiarizing
author of "True Tragedy" -- the play which includes the stolen feather
known as the "Tiger's heart" line. Jonson's "On Poet Ape" confirms his
method of play crafting. So does "Ode to Himself" which describes
"Pericles." Beaumont's comment is correct and devastating. And of
course, Ravenscroft states flat out that Shakespeare was not the
author of "Titus Andronicus."
Of course, one could dismiss all inconvenient title pages as
fraudulent and all inconvenient statements as lies -- but when the
statements supports the documents, this is not particularly
parsimonious.

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Dec 1, 11:15 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:6686dd1c-44ca-4e82...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Dec 1, 12:52 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >> > > Dennis responds: Everyone agrees that many great literary artists
> >> > > needed essentially no education whatsoever. Melville didn't need
> >> > > one to write "Moby Dick." But you know what he did need to know?
> >> > > Whaling.
>
> >> > Of course. And he used his experience as a scrivener on Wall Street
> >> > to write "Bartleby the Scrivener," right? And he could never have
> >> > written "The Confidence Man" if he hadn't spent all that time
> >> > sailing up and down the Mississippi in a riverboat, right?
>
> >> Just what did Shakespeare write that showed a knowledge of any place
> >> except London that was anywhere near as deep and narratively
> >> significant as Twain's knowledge of the Mississippi?
>
> > Dennis responds: He had to know the military and law as well as Twain
> > knew the Mississippi. And Twain made the exact same argument.
> > Specifically, he argued, this guy knows the law the way I know the
> > Mississippi (and steamboats.)
>
> And if Twain had known as much about the military and the law as he knew
> about the Mississippi, that might count for something.

Dennis: Well, experts in military and law also have said the exact
same thing and Twain and other very intelligent outsiders who know
what it takes to create great literature agreed with these arguments.
(Twain focused mostly on the law.)

But Dennis would
> rather take the word of an author born in a different nation and a
> different century over a contemporary countryman of Shakespeare's, Ben
> Jonson,

Dennis responds: No, no, no, it's you who rejects or makes endless
excuses for many of the contemporary comments like in On Poet Ape, the
only epigram in the published group in Shakespearean sonnet form and
mocks the one who would be thought the "chief-dramatist" and was
taking full authorial credit for "reversions of old plays," and "Ode
to Himself," which references to Pericles and addresses the same
style, or Jonson's attack on Shakespeare as a social climbing buffoon
with Sogliardo, or for that matter the comment in "Groatsworth" that
he was a plagiarizing crow and linking him with a plagiarized line, or
Beaumont's reference about his lines being "free" of "learning," or
the author of Parnassus, Part 2, who makes him "the favorite of the
rude half-educated strolling players," or Ravenscroft who said, flat
out, that Shakespeare did not write the original "Titus Andronicus."
Wait let me guess, as with all the misattributed title pages, you
have a dozen different explanations for all these comments. These
were really written about other people or actually meant something
else or were wrong --correct? That Shakespeare is one unlucky guy.

> >> Creative literature like Shakespeare's plays needs much less
> >> knowledge of the real world than autobiography like Life on the
> >> Mississippi-
>
> > Dennis responds: No, no, no. I'm referring to Huckleberry Finn. Anyone
> > who reads Huck Finn knows for a fact that Twain knows the Mississippi
> > and the neighboring southern towns --
>

Steese: > And anyone who reads The Prince and the Pauper knows for a

fact that
> Twain lived in Tudor England, right?

Dennis responds; 1) You obviously misunderstand the argument because
it refers to extremely detailed references and specifics that
completely inhabit a work and especially those that recur again and
again through an author's oeuvre --as does Twain's knowledge of the
Mississippi and Melville's knowledge of whaling and sailing or
London's knowledge of the Yukon, etc. 2) Even here, you still prove
my point. Twain wrote Prince and the Pauper after going to England --
just as he wrote "Roughing It" and "Jumping Frog..." after heading
west. In fact, you can roughly determine the dates and extent of his
travelling by looking at the chronology and subjects of his works.
Still, he was not familiar enough with England to pull off "Prince and
the Pauper." "Blame for its shortcomings is usually put on Twain for
not having been experienced enough in English society..." -- Robert H.
Hirst, "Who is Mark Twain?" So while you couldn't write a "dictionary
of Twain's knowledge and language of England," you could write one for
his terms and places of the Mississippi, just as we have dictionaries
of "Shakespeare's Military Language" and "Legal Language."

> > just as anyone who reads "Moby Dick" knows the author knows whaling --

Steese:

> And anyone who reads Bartleby the Scrivener knows the author knows
> scrivening, right?

Dennis responds: Thanks for proving my point again: Melville clearly
knew Wall Street lawyer's offices and their copyists. Many in his
family were lawyers, and his brother Alan's office was located at 10
Wall Street. Melville "was obviously familiar with such legal
distinctions [described in the work] and with the operations of a Wall
Street law office." -- "The Piazza tales," 575. This work also links
the duties and situation of the copyist with Melville's life. Now, we
know Dickens or Conrad couldn't have written these works -- as they
would know nothing about copyists in a Wall Street law office (and
they wouldn't have just tried to pick it up from pamphlets.) But the
little knowledge shown in this work is nothing compared to the
knowledge of sailing demonstrated throughout his other works -- or
that of law and the military in the canon.

> > anybody who reads the "Old Man and the Sea" knows Hemingway fished for
> > marlin.
>
> And that he was an old Spanish man who had moved from the Canary Islands
> to Cuba in his youth.

Dennis responds: LOL. Um, yeah, that actually was George Fuentes, who
did that -- who was the captain of Hemingway's boat while he was in
Cuba and had moved there from the Canary Islands and who was the
inspiration for the work. Are you sure aren't secretly on my side and
throwing softballs down the middle of the plate? Now, we know
Dostoyevsky couldn't have written this as he would know nothing
fishing for Marlin and Cubans and the Caribbean.

> > And anyone who reads
> > Henry IV, 1, 2, Henry V, etc... knows the author knows something
> > about, for example, the following military terms:
> > petard tucket portage glaive sentinel armipotent pinnace demi-
> > cannon saltpetre kern bulwark vaward parle cuises strosser
> > battery ambuscado palisado curtal-axe halberd basilisk Welsh
> > hook chevalier Muskos-regiment ensign false fire Switzers
> > herald carrack garrison barb sutler falchion Almain galley
> > Hollander pennon guidon levy gorget Tuttle-Fields muster
> > battalia linstock montez-a-cheval culverin vambrace scimitar
> > portage yeoman gallowglass sticking-place bilbo truncheon horse-
> > of-Parthia imperator
>

Steese: > And Dennis thinks that one would have to be a soldier to

know those
> terms, even though he himself knows them.

Dennis responds: I know them because I learned them through the canon,
but no one who has ever written so effectively on war and especially
such a war-obsessed work as "Henry V" -- filled with all the correct
terms, descriptions and minutiae (as with Melville's whaling ship and
Twain's Mississippi) has done so with no military experience
whatsoever. It's like believing Noel Coward wrote Moby Dick or
Charlotte Bronte wrote Huckleberry Finn....

> > ...A writer can only write what he or she knows and lives, so all
> > great pieces of literature reflect the life, times, studies, and
> > specific circumstances of the author.

Steese:

> And there are, in fact, many aspects of Shakespeare's plays that reflect
> the life, times, studies, and specific circumstances of William
> Shakespeare, the player from Stratford-upon-Avon.
>
> > This is why Twain refused to believe William Shakespeare could have
> > penned the canon.
>
> Dennis must have known and lived the life of Mark Twain - how else could
> he know that?

Dennis responds: You can pick up facts about certain subjects just
from reading; it is just that no great writer has focused his entire
literary oeuvre -- and filled it with endless, correct details --
about places he's never been and experiences he's never had and
professions with which he's not familiar. That's why Twain wrote
about the Mississippi, and Dostoyevsky about Siberia and Russia, and
Tolstoy about war and Melville about whaling and Conrad about the
Congo and Dickens about child labor in London, etc., etc., etc.... and
the author of the canon about the military, law, aristocratic
recreations....

>
> > He knew that those rare subjects that an author continuously infuses
> > into his work, those uncommon topics that work their way into his
> > plots and sub-plots and metaphors and marginalia, are subjects that
> > must have been deeply ingrained in the life of the writer.
>
> And yet he, like Dennis, somehow missed the significance of the emphasis
> on actors and acting that recurs throughout the canon, from Bottom's
> troupe in A Midsummer Night's Dream to the players in Hamlet to
> Falstaff's impersonation of Henry IV ("O Jesu, he doth it as like one of
> these harlotry players as ever I see!").

Dennis responds: The author obviously had to know actors and just as
obviously *mocks* and *disparages* actors in essentially every
situation. In the only work in which they compose one of the subplots
-- MND -- he treats them as uneducated, working-class buffoons. Total
idiots - whose names give away their working class heritage. Which of
these buffoons is Heminges and which Condell? "Cetain O Jesu, he doth
it as like one of these harlotry players as ever I see!" -- Another
obvious insult. Hamlet also looks down on them and explains to them
their craft so they don't screw up the play and notes how lousy many
actors are.

Who but a professional actor
> would have Cassius and Brutus reflect on the fact that in the future
> actors in foreign lands will reenact the murder of Caesar on the stage?
> Who else would have Cleopatra imagine that if she should agree to be
> brought to Rome, "The quick comedians/Extemporally will stage us, and
> present/Our Alexandrian revels: Antony/Shall be brought drunken forth,
> and I shall see/Some squeaking Cleopatra boy my greatness/I' th' posture
> of a whore."

Dennis responds: And this is even more disparaging than MND. In that
scene, Cleopatra is reacting in horror at the idea of being paraded
before smelly and gross commoners and then, gulp, played by common
actors. Indeed, that is one of the more interesting threads that runs
throughout the canon -- not just the repeated portrayal of commoners
as fickle, craven, brutish and stupid. But that they also smell. The
author notes this repeatedly. (I suppose, one may imagine that when
writing the plays Shakespeare merely took on the persona of an
aristocratic disparager of actors and commoners; just as one may
imagine that when he wrote the sonnets he often took on the guise of
an old man, near death. But it doesn't seem reasonable. )
Anway, so Steese contends that the very small handful of descriptions
of actors -- all of them derogatory -- is autobiographical. And it
is. The author did have to deal with actors putting on his plays --
and he obviously looked down on them. But of course he neglects the
extreme focus on the law and military and aristocratic recreations --
all throughout the canon. A reference to at least one trial occurs in
25 of the 37 plays and many have actual trials -- this according to
the 497 page dictionary of "Shakespeare's Legal Language" by Sokal and
Sokal. And as the Sokals write, "Thus on bare statistics it is
possible to argue that Shakespeare was law-obsessed." His works were
not "theater-obsessed," but "law obsessed." So it's hard to argue
that the works flaunt his familiarity with theater more than the law
or the military or aristocratic recreations.
The simplest thing to accept is that the title pages are correct.
Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. He just didn't write
-- and clearly couldn't have written -- the masterpieces.
Etc....

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

Dennis responds: Well, since the author of the canon put legal
metaphors into matters that had nothing to do with trials (including
into sonnets and the grave digger scene in Hamlet), it would be absurd
for him to guess at the metaphors and then have them later corrected
by a lawyer.

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Dec 1, 2:15 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote innews:6aa4b357-208a-406c...@c13g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > Dennis responds: Everyone agrees that many great literary artists
> >> > needed essentially no education whatsoever. Melville didn't need
> >> > one to write "Moby Dick."  But you know what he did need to know?
> >> > Whaling.
>
> >> Of course. And he used his experience as a scrivener on Wall Street
> >> to write "Bartleby the Scrivener," right? And he could never have
> >> written "The Confidence Man" if he hadn't spent all that time sailing
> >> up and down the Mississippi in a riverboat, right?
>
> > Just what did Shakespeare write that showed a knowledge of any place
> > except London that was anywhere near as deep and narratively
> > significant as Twain's knowledge of the Mississippi?
>
> Shakes didn't even show much knowledge of London, especially compared to
> Jonson (see The Alchemist, Bartholomew Fair, and the Staple of News for
> examples of Jonson's deep knowledge of his native city).
>
> > Creative literature like Shakespeare's plays needs much less knowledge
> > of the real world than autobiography like Life on the
> > Mississippi--although specialized knowledge can help.
>
> Oh, Bob. Don't you realize that orthodox scholars have indoctrinated you
> into believing that to cover up their shame over the fact that
> Shakespeare really wrote *The London Prodigall*?

Well, London Prodigal, and Troublesome Raigne, and Yorkshire Tragedy,
and Thomas Lord Cromwell, and Locrine and all the bad quartos.
It wasn't a bunch of conspiracies (or in the new iteration: it wasn't
a bunch of lone publishers all independently happening upon the same
scheme that ended up fooling readers and scholars for more than a
century, while no one else knew a thing...).

If only you were an
> outsider like Dennis, you'd never have been fooled by their lies.

Dennis responds: I'm really not sure many outsiders are really going
to ignore all those title pages and be fetched by the various
incredible explanations in trying to explain why five different
mediocre plays -- and seven inferior adaptations that were all
published under Shakespeare's name prior to 1620.

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Dec 1, 11:44 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:b3970c45-3080-449b...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Dec 1, 7:20 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
> >> inn

> > ews:4fb6d7e8-78bc-4d0b-aaa2-46b2fffde...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

> >> > Dennis responds: Yes, if I were you I would stop talking about
> >> > title pages too.
>
> >> Like the title pages of the 1609 quarto of Troilus and Cressida
> >> ("written by William Shakespeare") and the 1600 quartos of A
> >> Midsummer Night's Dream and The Merchant of Venice ("written by
> >> William Shakespeare")? Now that you mention it, you don't talk about
> >> those, do you?
> > '
> > Dennis responds:  I never talk about MoV?  Much of chapter 5 in North
> > of Shakespeare is devoted
>
> ...to matters other than the title page of the 1600 quarto of The
> Merchant of Venice. In fact, the title page of the 1600 quarto of The
> Merchant of Venice is referenced exactly once in North of Shakespeare.
> Granted, you do include the gloss "Genuinely by Shakespeare," but you
> fail to clarify how a play that Shakespeare adapted from a "Northern
> play" can be considered "genuinely by Shakespeare."

Dennis responds: ?? That's a rather shocking comment as I explain
again and again and again why that is the case. And you even refer to
it below. It's a very close adaptation of a Thomas North original,
containing his plot, characters, and many of his words and passages --
so it is marked as Shakespearean (just as the bad quartos of Hamlet,
HV, TT, C, RIII, would be if the originals had disappeared.)

As you yourself put
> it, "The simple fact is that Shakespeare wrote *all* of them -- or more
> precisely he organized, adapted, touched-up, reworked and edited all of
> them, mostly from source-plays and usually with the help of hired
> writers." So "written by William Shakespeare" is, for all intents and
> purposes, meaningless, and William Shakespeare was not an author - but
> you can't quite bring yourself to admit that that's what you think.

Dennis responds: ?? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about,
and I almost always do. MoV is Shakespeare's adaptation of a longer
lost play by North. So that's why it's called "by William
Shakespeare." So where are we mixed up?

>
> >>  But in any case, wrong.
>
> >> Dennis the denier denies again!
>
> > Dennis responds: My responses are to your efforts to contradict my
> > North of Shakespeare argument. So obviously I will challenge many of
> > your statements. And I also expect you to deny many of mine. But there
> > are times, Steese, as you well know, when the ring is through your
> > nose and you just start denying *every* statement in an unreflective
> > fashion -- and I have to spend time proving you wrong again and
> > again.
>
> In fact, I do get excessively enthusiastic and make statements that I
> think are true at the time, but which I could have discovered were false
> with a moment's research. You've even caught a few of them, and I thank
> you for the corrections.

Dennis response: Well that's very handsome of you.

>
> >> > The "stylometric" analysis is an umbrella standard involving
> >> > maximums and minimums that demarcate somewhat broad frequency
> >> > ranges for numerous variables -- and the ranges clearly extend from
> >> > "North to North/Shakespeare mix."  More simply still, as MoV, HIV
> >> > 1, HIV2, LLL, MAN, etc. are used to delineate the ranges, the
> >> > North/Shakespeare mix was included.
>
> >> Someday you should really try to learn something about stylometry,
> >> Dennis.
>
> > Dennis respond: Well, that's not much of a response.
>
> You didn't make much of an argument.
>
> > But we can always go to the authors themselves regarding these claims
> > -- such as whether they really prove only one author and no coauthors.
>
> Are you planning to break out your Ouija board so we can interrogate Sam
> Schoenbaum, Fred Mosteller, and Cyrus Hoy? Or does your knowledge of
> stylometry begin and end with your having skimmed some information about
> the Shakespeare Clinic, as your arguments suggest?

Dennis responds: We would go to the authors of that paper you already
referenced....

> >> >> Absent such evidence, we can only go by our own eyes, which tell
> >> >> us that Q1 of *Hamlet*, *A Yorkshire Tragedy*, *The Troublesome
> >> >> Raigne of King John*, *The London Prodigall*, *Thomas Lord
> >> >> Cromwell*, etc., are decidedly not works that share a common
> >> >> style; thus we are obliged to conclude that Shakespeare was once
> >> >> again merely editing a work that someone else had written and
> >> >> adding nothing of his own.
>
> >> >> If that interpretation is, as you say, completely false, then tell
> >> >> us what common stylistic markers are shared by all - or even a few
> >> >> - of the works you attribute to William Shakespeare. What
> >> >> fingerprint phrases have you found that link *The London
> >> >> Prodigall* to *The Troublesome Raigne of King John* or *A
> >> >> Yorkshire Tragedy* or Q1 of *Hamlet* or any of the other plays in
> >> >> your new Shakespearean canon?
>
> >> > Dennis responds: Okay, you got it. Coming up....
>
> >> Hee hee! I foresee hilarity ahead.
>
> > Dennis responds: Well, much of it has already been done by
> > conventional scholars --and it's not really debatable, so...
>
> Of course it's not really debatable, Dennis. We realize that you're just
> humoring we poor deluded orthodoxen, even though we do try your patience
> fearfully at times.

Dennis responds: True, true. ;)

[Bob Grumman]

>         [PS. Bob, it's not too late to jump ship.  The people who are first
> in during a revolution get all the credit -- like Darwin, Wallace,
> Huxley....  And those who oppose are often treated harshly by history
> -- like Wilberforce and the like.  Everything your book contains that
> attacks conspiracy notions of anti-Stratfordians can stay.  But why
> don't you then remain consistent and attack the conspiracy theories of
> the orthodox -- memorial reconstruction for the bad quartos, devious
> printers for the apocrypha.  Put forth strong arguments in that regard
> and you can be remembered as a Huxley -- not a Wilberforce. Big
> wink ;) ]

As I said, Dennis, your idea of a conspiracy theory is extremely
different from mine: just as the gunfight at the OK Corral was not a
war, the apparent misattribution of a few plays very few people have
cared about during the past few hundred years was not a conspiracy.
But in my book I get around any problem by defining the wacks I write
about as believing not in a conspiracy theory but in what I call a
conspiraplex. This I define as a belief in a ridiculously elaborate
plot to effect ends of significant cultural magnitude with just about
no evidence at all, and defending it with fanatic insanity, as
truthers, moon-landing deniers, Roswell Alien believers, those who
believe someone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays in the First
Folio (although he may "only" have been the primary author of a few),
and many others do. The main difference between the conspiracy theory
Oxfordians believe in and what you take to be the conspiracy theory
those of use who deny Shakespeare wrote all the apocryphal plays is
that the former is insane, the second not. Although there are many
other differences.

--Bob

[Den...@northofshakespeare.com]

On Dec 1, 12:52 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

> > > Dennis responds: Everyone agrees that many great literary artists
> > > needed essentially no education whatsoever. Melville didn't need one
> > > to write "Moby Dick."  But you know what he did need to know?
> > > Whaling.
>
> > Of course. And he used his experience as a scrivener on Wall Street to
> > write "Bartleby the Scrivener," right? And he could never have written
> > "The Confidence Man" if he hadn't spent all that time sailing up and
> > down the Mississippi in a riverboat, right?
>
> Just what did Shakespeare write that showed a knowledge of any place
> except London that was anywhere near as deep and narratively
> significant as Twain's knowledge of the Mississippi?

Dennis responds: I would say, Shakespeare showed as deep and
significant a knowledge of the law and military as Twain did about the
Mississippi. And Twain said it too, comparing Shakespeare's knowledge
of the law to his demonstrated knowledge of steamboats and the
Mississippi.) There are dictionaries devoted to Shakespeare's
military language and legal language. Here are some examples:

[Bob Grumman]

On Dec 1, 5:29 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"

> that is devoted specifically to that topic.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No written work is only one person's, but as written works go,
Shakespeare's First Folio plays, in my opinion, are all his--as their
master architext and primary text-producer, just as Look Homward,
Angel was all Thomas Wolfe's regardless of the rather extensive
edition Maxwell Perkins did on it.

--Bob

[Dominic Hughes]

On Dec 2, 4:58 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"

Well, since the author of the canon used more nautical language than
he did legal terms, by your vapid notions he must have been Walter
Raleigh.

What you think is absurd is absurd.

Here are a couple of books on the subject of Shakespeare and the law
that you might consider reading before pontificating as to what you
think is absurd:

1. *The Law of Property in Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama*; Paul S.
Clarkson & Clyde T. Warren, [1942]

2. *Shakespeare and the Lawyers* [1972]; O. Hood Phillips, a jurist,
legal scholar and educator. His opinion was that a "reading of
Elizabethan drama revealed that about half of Shakespeare's fellows
employed on the average more legalisms than he did, and some of them a
great many more. Most of them also exceed Shakespeare in the detail
and complexity of their legal problems and allusions, and with few
exceptions display a degree of accuracy at least no lower than his."

Dom

[Dominic Hughes]

On Dec 2, 4:54 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"

Why would you consider Twain, who admittedly had no legal training, as
an authoritative source on how deep and significant Shakespeare's
knowledge of the law might have been?

And why don't you explain how Stephen Crane, who wasn't even born
until six years after the end of the civil war, was able to so
realistically depict that war in *Red Badge of Courage*, so much so
that some people at the time assumed he must have been a veteran of
the conflict. Your analysis here is as idiotic as your attempts at
deciphering Groats-worth and Parnassus.

Dom

[Dominic Hughes]

Just to add a quick note:

J. W. Fortescue, one of the first to study Shakespeare's purported
military knowledge and its accuracy, found that the playwright's
treatment of the vocabulary of Elizabethan military titles was
singularly meager -- not only did he ignore important offices, but he
badly confused ranks. According to Fortescue, "Shakespeare had not
read the military literature of the day, but drew his knowledge wholly
from the soldiers whom he met in the streets of London." Another
investigator reached similar conclusions...see J. W. Draper's "Othello
and Elizabethan Army Life".

What this shows is that there were multiple sources for Shakespeare to
pick up military terminology and there is nothing absurd about his
ability to do so.

You are merely mining [pun intended] the anti-Strat religion again.

Dom

[Peter Groves]

On Dec 3, 9:14 am, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
<Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:

[desunt nonnulla]

> MoV is Shakespeare's adaptation of a longer
> lost play by North.

Yes, of course it is: all the imaginary evidence points that way. But
let's not forget that that in its turn was an adaptation of a much
longer lost play by Sir Thomas Wyatt (my imaginary evidence is as good
as yours).

Peter G.

[Mark Steese]

"den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote in
news:604598bb-5cbb-422f...@d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 1, 11:15 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
>> innews:6686dd1c-44ca-4e82...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>

>> > Dennis responds: He had to know the military and law as well as
>> > Twain knew the Mississippi. And Twain made the exact same argument.
>> > Specifically, he argued, this guy knows the law the way I know the
>> > Mississippi (and steamboats.)
>>
>> And if Twain had known as much about the military and the law as he
>> knew about the Mississippi, that might count for something.
>
> Dennis: Well, experts in military and law also have said the exact
> same thing

And other "experts in military and law" have disagreed - not that you
care.

>> But Dennis would rather take the word of an author born in a
>> different nation and a different century over a contemporary
>> countryman of Shakespeare's, Ben Jonson,
>
> Dennis responds: No, no, no,

Dennis the Denier denies again!

> it's you who rejects or makes endless excuses for many of the
> contemporary comments like in On Poet Ape, the only epigram in the
> published group in Shakespearean sonnet form and mocks the one who
> would be thought the "chief-dramatist" and was taking full authorial
> credit for "reversions of old plays,"

Dennis believes that "On Poet-Ape," a poem in which the name
'Shakespeare' does not appear, reflects Jonson's attitude towards
Shakespeare more accurately than the verse Jonson explicitly wrote about
Shakespeare for the First Folio. No one associated "On Poet-Ape" with
Shakespeare before 1799. Now watch Dennis reject or make endless excuses
for that fact, just as he deleted the rest of my comments about Jonson.
This is exactly the sort of behavior that reminds him of a pill bug when
I do it, though why he should defame those harmless crustaceans with
such invidious comparison is beyond my ken.

> and "Ode to Himself," which references to Pericles and addresses the
> same style, or Jonson's attack on Shakespeare as a social climbing
> buffoon with Sogliardo,

Dennis believes that these works, in which Shakespeare's name does not
appear, reflect Jonson's attitude towards Shakespeare more accurately
than his statement that "I loved the man, and do honor his memory, on
this side idolatry, as much as any. He was (indeed) honest, and of an
open and free nature; had an excellent phantasy, brave notions, and
gentle expressions; wherein he flowed with that facility, that sometimes
it was necessary he should be stopped: *Sufflaminandus erat*, as
Augustus said of Haterius."

Cards on the table, Dennis. You want to know what I believe? I believe
that Jonson honestly loved Shakespeare and considered him a great
writer. I believe that if *On Poet-Ape* was directed at any playwright
whose name is now remembered, then it was directed at Thomas Dekker. I
believe that while Jonson may have aimed a dart at Shakespeare with the
joke about Sogliardo's motto, he did not intend Sogliardo to represent
Shakespeare (and nobody at the time, or for over a hundred years
afterwards, thought Sogliardo represented Shakespeare). I believe that
William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon had sufficient knowledge to
write all of the 'original masterpieces' you think he was too
thick-witted and ignorant to create, and I believe that William
Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon *did* write all of those
masterpieces, as well as a fair amount of crap. I believe he did *not*
write *The London Prodigall*, and I believe that misattributing a
quarto, whether done accidentally or deliberately, would not have ruined
anyone's career or drawn the attention of the law.

I believe that an elitist like Gabriel Harvey would not have thought
that the Q1 Hamlet was a superior work to Venus and Adonis; I believe
that Thomas North never wrote a play in his life.

And now I have a couple of questions for you. According to you, Henry
Chettle and Thomas Nashe wrote *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* as a libelous
attack on the Norths and published it with a false attribution on the title
page. Since you believe that a printer could not have printed a falsely
attributed pamphlet without being in on the conspiracy, William Wright must
have been in on it, too. So why did Chettle and Nashe continue to publish,
and Wright continue to print, for years afterwards? And why weren't all the
copies of Groats-worth seized and destroyed?

> or for that matter the comment in "Groatsworth" that he was a
> plagiarizing crow and linking him with a plagiarized line, or
> Beaumont's reference about his lines being "free" of "learning," or
> the author of Parnassus, Part 2, who makes him "the favorite of the
> rude half-educated strolling players," or Ravenscroft who said, flat
> out, that Shakespeare did not write the original "Titus Andronicus."

Ravenscroft said, flat out, that the play you think was written by the
great genius Thomas North was "the most incorrect and indigested piece
in all his Works; it seems rather a heap of Rubbish than a Structure."
Why do you accept his opinion about the play's provenance and reject his
opinion about its quality?

>> > And anyone who reads
>> > Henry IV, 1, 2, Henry V, etc... knows the author knows something
>> > about, for example, the following military terms:
>> > petard tucket portage glaive sentinel armipotent pinnace
>> > demi- cannon saltpetre kern bulwark vaward parle cuises
>> > strosser battery ambuscado palisado curtal-axe halberd basilisk
>> > Welsh hook chevalier Muskos-regiment ensign false fire
>> > Switzers herald carrack garrison barb sutler falchion Almain
>> > galley Hollander pennon guidon levy gorget Tuttle-Fields
>> > muster battalia linstock montez-a-cheval culverin vambrace
>> > scimitar portage yeoman gallowglass sticking-place bilbo
>> > truncheon horse- of-Parthia imperator
>>
> Steese: > And Dennis thinks that one would have to be a soldier to
>> know those terms, even though he himself knows them.
>
> Dennis responds: I know them because I learned them through the canon,

By reading? Psh. No one ever learned anything by *reading*, Dennis. Next
you'll be telling me you learned about falconry from a pamphlet or
something.

> but no one who has ever written so effectively on war and especially
> such a war-obsessed work as "Henry V" -- filled with all the correct
> terms, descriptions and minutiae (as with Melville's whaling ship and
> Twain's Mississippi) has done so with no military experience
> whatsoever.

Not even Stephen Crane, the author of *The Red Badge of Courage*, one of
the most highly-acclaimed novels ever written about the American Civil
War -- Stephen Crane, who was born in 1871 in Newark, New Jersey, and
whose military experience consisted of the anecdotes he may have gleaned
from the soldiers who taught at Claverack College?

>> > ...A writer can only write what he or she knows and lives, so all
>> > great pieces of literature reflect the life, times, studies, and
>> > specific circumstances of the author.
>
> Steese:
>> And there are, in fact, many aspects of Shakespeare's plays that
>> reflect the life, times, studies, and specific circumstances of
>> William Shakespeare, the player from Stratford-upon-Avon.
>>
>> > This is why Twain refused to believe William Shakespeare could have
>> > penned the canon.
>>
>> Dennis must have known and lived the life of Mark Twain - how else
>> could he know that?
>
> Dennis responds: You can pick up facts about certain subjects just
> from reading; it is just that no great writer has focused his entire
> literary oeuvre -- and filled it with endless, correct details --
> about places he's never been and experiences he's never had and
> professions with which he's not familiar.

So Thomas North wasn't a great writer, then. Okay, I'll buy that.

> That's why Twain wrote about the Mississippi, and Dostoyevsky about
> Siberia and Russia, and Tolstoy about war and Melville about whaling
> and Conrad about the Congo and Dickens about child labor in London,
> etc., etc., etc.... and the author of the canon about the military,
> law, aristocratic recreations....

How many of Shakespeare's characters are lawyers, again? I remember a
character who pretends to be a lawyer, goes to court and presents a
series of farcically bad legal arguments, and prevails, but the canon
isn't exactly overflowing with attorneys.

How many of Shakespeare's characters are the younger sons of lawyers who
attained preference at court and received titles? Remind me.

>> > He knew that those rare subjects that an author continuously
>> > infuses into his work, those uncommon topics that work their way
>> > into his plots and sub-plots and metaphors and marginalia, are
>> > subjects that must have been deeply ingrained in the life of the
>> > writer.
>>
>> And yet he, like Dennis, somehow missed the significance of the
>> emphasis on actors and acting that recurs throughout the canon, from
>> Bottom's troupe in A Midsummer Night's Dream to the players in Hamlet
>> to Falstaff's impersonation of Henry IV ("O Jesu, he doth it as like
>> one of these harlotry players as ever I see!").
>
> Dennis responds: The author obviously had to know actors and just as
> obviously *mocks* and *disparages* actors in essentially every
> situation.

Just as Twain obviously *mocks* and *disparages* the people who live
along the Mississippi in essentially every situation. I mean, you have
*read* Huckleberry Finn, right? Pap Finn, the slave-catchers, the
Grangerfords, the Duke and the Dauphin...

> In the only work in which they compose one of the subplots
> -- MND -- he treats them as uneducated, working-class buffoons. Total
> idiots - whose names give away their working class heritage.

Whereas Shakespeare's great love of aristocratic soldiers is displayed
in the character of Sir John Falstaff, right?

> Which of these buffoons is Heminges and which Condell? "Cetain O
> Jesu, he doth it as like one of these harlotry players as ever I
> see!" -- Another obvious insult. Hamlet also looks down on them and
> explains to them their craft so they don't screw up the play and notes
> how lousy many actors are.

Which is exactly the attitude an actor who is also a playwright will
have towards his fellow actors, yes.

> Who but a professional actor
>> would have Cassius and Brutus reflect on the fact that in the future
>> actors in foreign lands will reenact the murder of Caesar on the
>> stage? Who else would have Cleopatra imagine that if she should agree
>> to be brought to Rome, "The quick comedians/Extemporally will stage
>> us, and present/Our Alexandrian revels: Antony/Shall be brought
>> drunken forth, and I shall see/Some squeaking Cleopatra boy my
>> greatness/I' th' posture of a whore."
>
> Dennis responds: And this is even more disparaging than MND. In that
> scene, Cleopatra is reacting in horror at the idea of being paraded
> before smelly and gross commoners and then, gulp, played by common
> actors. Indeed, that is one of the more interesting threads that runs
> throughout the canon -- not just the repeated portrayal of commoners
> as fickle, craven, brutish and stupid. But that they also smell.

Which is not something an aristocrat would notice, since an aristocrat
would spend his life in the company of other aristocrats. It's exactly
the kind of thing that an actor who spent his life in the company of
other actors would notice, though. The stink of the tiring-room at the
Globe must have been phenomenal.

Of course, Shakespeare was just as capable of portraying fickle, craven,
brutish and stupid nobles as commoners, and some of them have become his
most beloved characters, e.g., Sir John Falstaff. Would an aristocrat
have portrayed a knight as brutally as Shakespeare portrays Falstaff,
Dennis? Oh, wait, I know - North was avenging some slight an ancestor
had suffered at the hands of Sir John Fastolfe, right? That *would*
explain why Fastolfe's narrow escape from the French at Patay is
portrayed in *1 Henry VI* as a cowardly betrayal of Talbot.

> The author notes this repeatedly. (I suppose, one may imagine that
> when writing the plays Shakespeare merely took on the persona of an
> aristocratic disparager of actors and commoners; just as one may
> imagine that when he wrote the sonnets he often took on the guise of
> an old man, near death. But it doesn't seem reasonable.)

Dennis, have you read any of Jonson's plays other than *Epicoene*? How
many sympathetic portraits of commoners do you suppose Jonson, the
bricklayer's son, put into his plays? Jonson was also an actor. How many
sympathetic portraits of actors do you think he provided? The disdain
some aristocrats felt for the masses was largely theoretical: one had to
actually live and work for years and years in the company of stinking,
sweating, coarse-minded players before one could know them as well as
Shakespeare and Jonson did. Just as Twain had to know the various
grotesques who lived along the Mississippi before he could successfully
caricature them, Shakespeare had to know the various grotesques who
lived in London and rural England before *he* could successfully
caricature them.

And how reasonable does it seem to you that Tennyson wrote *Tithonus*
when he was in his twenties?

The woods decay, the woods decay and fall,
The vapours weep their burthen to the ground,
Man comes and tills the field and lies beneath,
And after many a summer dies the swan.
Me only cruel immortality
Consumes; I wither slowly in thine arms,
Here at the quiet limit of the world,
A white-haired shadow roaming like a dream
The ever-silent spaces of the East...
--
One amateur theologian even swore that Death Valley was literally the
roof of the Biblical Hell and that he could hear the "wails of the
damned" crying out from the "Devil's Domain" below.
-Richard E. Lingenfelter

[Mark Steese]

"den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote in
news:06f57952-76dd-4054...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

Which is the opposite of its being genuinely by Shakespeare, yes.

> containing his plot, characters, and many of his words and passages --
> so it is marked as Shakespearean (just as the bad quartos of Hamlet,
> HV, TT, C, RIII, would be if the originals had disappeared.)

The word "Shakespearian" was coined in the eighteenth century. The concept
of a style distinctive to the writing of Shakespeare didn't exist until a
century after the 1600 quarto of The Merchant of Venice with
"Written by William Shakespeare" on the title page was published. It's
mind-bogglingly bizarre of you to argue that an "adaptation" that barely
changed North's play at all would be considered "genuinely by Shakespeare"
because a century later the idea of the Shakespearean style would
develop. All the more so because, according to you, Shakespeare's
contemporaries publicly accused him of plagiarism. The Northian hypothesis
requires one to believe that Shakespeare's publishers considered it normal
to credit numerous published works to someone who was a known plagiarist,
but feared for the consequences to their reputations if they should,
whether by design or by accident, 'misattribute' a work to that publicly-
reviled thief.
--
Year after year you wrote up these stories, and they'd wind up archived
in a pile of cardboard boxes in the warehouse, flattening and drying
like pressed flowers under the weight of all the stories above them -
the unknown stratigraphy of your career. -Jordan Fisher Smith

[Mark Steese]

"den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote in
news:19bc6e1f-e23a-477f...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 1, 2:15 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote

>> innews:6aa4b357-208a-406c-a4
> 71-eaef...@c13g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:

Of course not, Dennis. It was a bunch of publishers attributing works
written by other people to an actor who had been publicly accused of
plagiarism, which fooled readers and scholars for more than a century,
while no one else knew a thing. That makes *much* more sense.