Who was Shakespeare?

108 views
Skip to first unread message

George

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 7:54:15 AM12/22/03
to
Hi to all of you!

I am a student currently studying Shakespeare in a Foreign Language
School in Lovech, Bulgaria. Unfortunately, we are not studying English
Literature in as much details as I would like to so I decided to write
to this group and ask someone to help me!

I found out that there are 5 purported authors of Shakespeare's
authors - Marlowe, Bacon, The Earl of Oxford and last but not least
the Earl of Derby! Can you give me some more information about why
they are do purported to be the author of William Shakespeare's plays?
I would be very grateful if you do that!!!

Please e-mail me at: pene...@sv-bg.com or se...@email2me.net

Thanking you in advance!!!

Best wishes,

George. :-)

Peter Farey

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 9:59:57 AM12/22/03
to
George wrote:
>
> Hi to all of you!
>
> I am a student currently studying Shakespeare in a Foreign
> Language School in Lovech, Bulgaria. Unfortunately, we are
> not studying English Literature in as much details as I
> would like to so I decided to write to this group and ask
> someone to help me!
>
> I found out that there are 5 purported authors of Shake-

> speare's authors - Marlowe, Bacon, The Earl of Oxford and
> last but not least the Earl of Derby! Can you give me some
> more information about why they are do purported to be the
> author of William Shakespeare's plays?
> I would be very grateful if you do that!!!
>
> Please e-mail me at: pene...@sv-bg.com or se...@email2me.net
>
> Thanking you in advance!!!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> George. :-)


Hi George,

As long as you are studying Shakespeare and have any chance
of taking exams on the subject, there is no question at all
about who wrote the plays - it was William Shakespeare of
Stratford upon Avon. Just forget all of this rubbish about
who else may or may not have written them, All you have to
do is study the plays themselves: the stories, the people
in them, the underlying meanings, the imagery he uses, and
(as far as you can) the language. Get to love them, as most
of us posting here do.

Later on (and long after the exams, but not till then) you
may begin to think that there is something not quite *right*
about the story of who wrote the plays. Come back to us then,
and there will probably still be several of us around who
will be only too happy to explain to you exactly why we
share those doubts!


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


Bob Grumman

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 12:17:56 PM12/22/03
to
In article <4ef7c7a6.03122...@posting.google.com>, George says...

>
>Hi to all of you!
>
>I am a student currently studying Shakespeare in a Foreign Language
>School in Lovech, Bulgaria. Unfortunately, we are not studying English
>Literature in as much details as I would like to so I decided to write
>to this group and ask someone to help me!
>
>I found out that there are 5 purported authors of Shakespeare's
>authors - Marlowe, Bacon, The Earl of Oxford and last but not least
>the Earl of Derby! Can you give me some more information about why
>they are do purported to be the author of William Shakespeare's plays?
>I would be very grateful if you do that!!!

It's very difficult to explain why anyone would say that Shakespeare did not
write the plays his name is on, and all the hard evidence says he wrote. In
fact, I'm writing an entire book on the question. I think there are two main
reasons: (1) certain kinds of people enjoy going against established opinion and
making a splash; (2) certain kinds of people sincerely can't understand how
anyone can achieve great works of literature without extensive formal education,
or the equivalent (and Shakespeare had no more than a grammar school education,
if even that).

--Bob G.

bookburn

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 1:32:33 PM12/22/03
to

"George" <se...@email2me.net> wrote in message
news:4ef7c7a6.03122...@posting.google.com...

You are brave to cope with authorship controversy as well as
language problems in the study of Shakespeare. Most of us have
trouble reading the original Early Modern English language, no
doubt.

Actually, I understand there are a few other main contenders for
the true identity of Shakespeare, including Queen Elizabeth, with
as many as 30 proposed at some time or other.

As I understand it, a main reason for substituting someone else
for Shakespeare of Stratford is failure to understand how a
commoner without much formal education could become the greatest
writer in the English language. Doubting that some kind of
"natural genius" could account for this, authorship critics then
reason negatively that there is insufficient proof of Stratman's
literacy, acknowledgment by contemporaries, or publication in his
name. In the case for Bacon or Marlowe as claimant, advocates
are able to successfully argue for their exceptional literary
powers and known involvement in secret conspiracies, and
proponents then go on to find revealing clues and riddles in
Shakespeare's works. Oxford is credited with the education,
sophistication, familiarity with nobility assumed to be required,
plus direct involvement with the theaters and Court of Elizabeth.

My view is that Shakespeare from Stratford is the author, as
proved by his will, identifying his two partners in the theater
business, and the First Folio publication, produced by the same
two business partners with supporting testimonies by expert
witnesses such as Ben Jonson. It's clear that the writing
attributed to Shakespeare is produced by one person with distinct
traits of style, not multiple authors in a group conspiracy.

bookburn


peter m hanson

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 4:39:24 PM12/22/03
to
> As long as you are studying Shakespeare and have any chance
> of taking exams on the subject, there is no question at all
> about who wrote the plays - it was William Shakespeare of
> Stratford upon Avon. Just forget all of this rubbish about
> who else may or may not have written them, All you have to
> do is study the plays themselves: the stories, the people
> in them, the underlying meanings, the imagery he uses, and
> (as far as you can) the language.


William wrote Shakespeare!?

how boring; no way

art would have to get a real job again

peter

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 5:50:01 PM12/22/03
to
"George" <se...@email2me.net> wrote

George:
-------------------------------------------------------------
It all has something to do with: "the rallying of the poor
to resist Church and secular tyranny, and the appeal
of an elite strata of the faith to the aristocracy,"
-------------------------------------------------------------
<<The Grail legends, the Courts of Love, the troubadours, all blossomed
under the benign guidance of the gnostic Cathari. The spirit of the
land, then known as Oc, was that of tolerance and personal liberty, most
rare in any age. Much of their faith rested upon a form of Manicheaism
brought to Gaul in the 8th century by missionaries from Bulgaria and
Yugoslavia. The close affinity of Druidic teachings, the rallying of the
poor to resist Church and secular tyranny, and the appeal of an elite
strata of the faith to the aristocracy, made rich soil in which the
teachings could take root. Cathar doctrines, proselytized largely
by readings of the Gospel according to John, provided a highly
workable alternative to the confusion and misery that existed.>>

http://home.fireplug.net/~rshand/streams/gnosis/legend.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shake-speare wrote for the nobility &
the nobility worshipped:

M I T H R A S
the [O]ne [T]rue [C]hurch
-----------------------------------------------------
[C] [O] [ M ] {E D} (i E S)
------- [ H I S T ] {O R } (i E S)
--[T]-- [ R A ] g {E D} (i E S)
-------------------------------------------------------------
The first congregation of MITHRAS-worshipping Roman soldiers
existed in Rome under the command of General Pompey.

The Roman legions that sacked Solomon's Temple
also brought Mithraism to the Danube basin.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mithraism The Followers of MITHRAS
http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras1.htm

<<It has already been explained that in Iran Mithras had a militant
character, always ready for battle, prepared to assist others in their
fight for good and to bring them victory. One of the grades in the
mysteries was called Miles, the soldier. The Mithraic cult was a form
of military service; life on earth a campaign led by the victorious god.
It is therefore little wonder that soldiers of all ranks in the Roman
legions, orientals included, felt the lure of Mithras. Observance of the
cult guaranteed assistance to all who pledged their lives to the Roman
eagle. The assurance of divine aid on the battlefield, the military
discipline and the taking of an oath as part of that discipline, were
very important factors in the spread of the Mithras cult and its
official recognition. Material evidence from the second century A.D.
shows that wherever the Romans planted the standards, Mithras and his
cult followed. M. Valerius Maximianus is a case in point. He was born at
Poetovio (the modern Pettau or Ptuj) in the province of Dalmatia, now
north-western Yugoslavia, where there were three large Mithraic temples,
and as commander of the Thirteenth Legion (Legio XIII Gemina) he
consecrated an altar in a Mithraeum at Apulum (Alba Julia in Dacia,
modern Rumania). Subsequently as commander of the Third Legion (Legio
III Augusta) between the years A.D. 183 and 185 he consecrated altars at
Lambaesis in Numidia. There is throughout a strong connection between
the Danubian provinces, where the Mithras cult is widespread in the
outposts, and Africa. Evidence of Mithraism can be found at Troesmis
in Moesia and also in Sitifs (Setif) in Africa, both places where the
Second Legion (Legio II Herculia) was stationed at different times. M.
Aurelius Sabinus, who came from Carnuntum (Deutsch-Altenburg) east
of Vindobona (Vienna), where Mithras enjoyed profound reverence,
consecrated as commander an altar at Lambaesis, and L. Sextius Castus,
a centurion of the sixth Legion, who was in all probability of African
origin, erected a Mithraic altar at Rudchester.

The pattern of the soldiers following the legions, the legions
following the orders of their commanders and the Mithras cult following
the army is continually repeated. An inscription from Palaepolis on the
island of Andros shows how military service led to initiation. During
the occupation of this island, when troops were being transported to the
East for Septimius Serverus' expedition about A.D. 200, M. Aurelius
Rufinus dedicated a cave to Mithras. Rufinus was a select member
(evocatus) of the Praetorian Guard and as such he is also mentioned on
an inscription found at Siscia in Bulgaria, in which it is recorded that
he was a native of Bizye in Thrace. From examination of the extant
evidence we know that in these Balkan regions Mithraism did not extend
south of Bessapara and Philippolis. Rufinus therefore received his
Mithraic initiation in his native district, but only while on military
service, most probably in those regions where he served before joining
the Praetorian cohorts. In Rome itself there was a Mithraeum close to
the castra praetoria, paid for in all likelihood by public subscription,
but erected for the benefit of the Praetorian cohorts.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras1.htm

<<Two other figures are rarely absent from the bull-slaying.
Dressed in Persian clothes similar to those of Mithras,
they are placed on either side of the bull and stand

*perfectly still with one leg in front of the other*

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/shaxmon.html

as if taking no part in the action. In some cases, however, one of them
holds the bull's tail, apparently in order to share its magic power or
to stimulate the growth of the corn ears sprouting from it. Sometimes
these figures are represented as shepherds who were present at
the birth of Mithras, but they differ in character from Attis, for each
carries a torch pointing either upward or downward, by which they
illustrate the ascending or descending path of Sol and Luna, the
rising and setting sources of light, life and death. Generally the
bearer with the uplifted torch is placed under Luna and his companion
under Sol. Their names-Cautes, symbol of the rising morning sun, and
Cautopates, the setting evening sun- have not yet been linguistically
explained, but their symbolism has been deduced from the various
representations. At the feet of Cautes there is sometimes a crowing cock
(which the Greek called the Persian bird), whose crowing puts evil
spirits to flight. Sometimes Cautopates is shown sitting in a highly
expressive attitude with his head resting on one hand, the very soul of
sadness, contrasting with the joyful (hilaris) Cautes. In the Santa
Prisca Mithraeum this symbolism is also expressed in the colour of
the niches in which their images were placed. Cautes stand in an
orange-coloured niche while Cautopates' niche is painted dark blue. Some
inscriptions even describe them as 'God' (deus) and rightly so, since we
know from the writings of pseudo-Dionysius the Aeropagite (fourth
century A.D.) that the two torch-bearers form a trinity with Mithras.
Consequently Cautes represents the position of the sun in the morning
(oriens), Mithras its course at midday and Cautopates its setting
(occidens). Mithras may have been worshipped regularly at noon and we
know that the sixteenth or middle day of the month was specially
dedicated to him. The figure of Mithras symbolises not only the rising
sun and the sun at its zenith but also the sinking orb; in this way
Mithras's influence and power were made manifest each day.

The teachings of Mithras, which are steeped in astrological
theories, paid much attention to the position of the sun in the zodiac.
When the sun stood in the sign of the bull-which indicates the beginning
of spring-Cautes was portrayed holding the bull's head in his hand, but
when Cautopates is seen with the scorpion we know that the sun has
passed into that sign and autumn has begun. In a few instances, as at
Santa Prisca, the two torch-bearers are placed beside an evergreen pine
tree, while at Pettau a row of three cypresses, trees sacred to the
Sun-god, indicate the Mithraic trinity. At Dieburg we see a tree with
three branches and three heads wearing Phrygian caps. These
representations are to be connected with others in which Mithras is
found alone and hiding in a tree, a scene which occurs both at
Dieburg & Heddernheim. Another clear allusion to the same trinity
is a large marble triangle in Santa Prisca containing a globe at its
centre. In short, the torch-bearers were so important that
their images were to be found in almost every sanctuary.
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer


Paul Crowley

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 5:57:27 PM12/22/03
to
"George" <se...@email2me.net> wrote in message
news:4ef7c7a6.03122...@posting.google.com...

> Hi to all of you!


>
> I am a student currently studying Shakespeare in a Foreign Language
> School in Lovech, Bulgaria. Unfortunately, we are not studying English
> Literature in as much details as I would like to so I decided to write
> to this group and ask someone to help me!
>
> I found out that there are 5 purported authors of Shakespeare's
> authors - Marlowe, Bacon, The Earl of Oxford and last but not least
> the Earl of Derby! Can you give me some more information about why
> they are do purported to be the author of William Shakespeare's plays?
> I would be very grateful if you do that!!!

The weaknesses of official candidate have been
recognised for a long time. His parents were
illiterate -- and so were his children! The small
rural town where he was brought up had a one-
teacher school, which pupils attended from
ages 7-13, learning only the basics. (And he
probably didn't attend at all.) There seems to
have been no one else to give him any help.
He married at 18 and had 3 kids by 21, so he
would not have started his 'career' in London
until he was in his mid- or late-twenties. He then
supposedly retired early in his mid-forties.

None of it makes sense -- and all that's
compounded by a near-complete absence of
any record indicating that this person was even
literate. No one ever seems to have met him --
as an author -- even though he is supposed to
have written the Merry Wives of Windsor at
the specific request of the Queen (to show
Falstaff in love) around 1595 and been
immensely successful and popular for some
twenty years after that.

The true story is that the author was a high-
ranking courtier, whose father and grand-
father had their own theatre company -- in the
family home. Theatre entered his bloodstream
before he began to talk. The story in Hamlet
is based on fact:

CLOWN: . . . . This same skull, sir, was Yorick's
skull, the king's jester. . . .
HAMLET: Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio:
a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he
hath borne me on his back a thousand times . . . . .

He had the best possible background and
education. His father died when he was 12,
and he became a ward of the Queen. She
recognised the greatness of his talent, but
could not allow him to publish under his own
name. In many ways, that suited him, because
he could write more-or-less what he liked.
And he (and his mistress) loved bawdy (and
scatology). The rising (and largely Puritanical)
middle-classes would have been scandalised
by all that -- yet the work was so good that it
had to be published. So the names of others
were used -- often they were Oxford's
secretaries. Later Marlowe's name was used
(after he was safely dead).

At one point, the poet used 'Will Shake-
speare' -- a gloriously punning pseudonym
(it has about 10 meanings expressing martial,
literary, personal and bawdy intentions).
He published some early works (V&A and
Lucrece) over this pseudonym, using a
printer called Richard Field. This printer
remarked that he knew a person with a name
roughly like that -- from his home town. The
authorities felt that they needed a real person
to 'take responsibility' for the works -- should
anyone ever seek to find the real author. So
they approached this man, and paid him large
sums of money to stay in the town and keep a
low profile. They appointed some 'guardians'
to watch over him. One was the lawyer,
Thomas Greene, who became Stratford's
'Town Clerk'. Another, probably, was John Hall,
who became the town doctor and later married
this man's illiterate --but wealthy -- elder
daughter.

The rising middle-classes 'bought' the cover-up.
Why wouldn't they? Of course, they understood
almost nothing of the true meaning nor of the
historical context of the poet's works -- neither
his plays nor his poems -- regarding the plays as
'fanciful stories' -- while at the same time in some
curious way -- dimly appreciating their true
greatness. They understood the poetry at the
level of a child's appreciation of nursery rhymes
-- with almost no comprehension of meaning.
And that situation has remained substantially
unchanged to the present day -- although now
we have a whole 'industry' of Shakespearean
academics -- closely analogous that of pig-
farming.

All this is vitally important to you, and to all of
us, because Elizabethan England was a turning
point for our whole civilisation. When Shake-
speare wrote, England was about as politically
significant as, say, Denmark, is today. No
foreigner bothered to learn the language, unless
he intended to stay.

Whereas now you are learning English, and your
whole generation, across the globe, is adopting
Anglo-Saxon forms of thought -- in technology,
science, religion, finance, dress, politics, music
and all other aspects of thought and culture.

It is no accident that the world's greatest literature
-- by far -- is in English. (And that is in spite of
the 400-year interim of profound Puritanical
repression.)

Shakespeare (and Queen Elizabeth, who was both
his mentor and political guardian) established a
literary culture of such strength that any kind of
political dictatorship became abhorrent and
virtually impossible to impose. That, in turn,
created great political stability (something that was
often far from obvious on the surface) leading, in
turn, to great economic, political and military
power.

Your teachers will, of course, not comprehend
a word of all this, being locked into the ancient
view of Shakespeare as an untaught, ignorant
peasant, who somehow acquired a 'magic pen'.

Just pity them.


Paul.

Paul Crowley

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 6:53:19 PM12/22/03
to
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:gGKFb.1883$HR....@news.indigo.ie...

> And that situation has remained substantially
> unchanged to the present day -- although now
> we have a whole 'industry' of Shakespearean
> academics -- closely analogous that of pig-
> farming.

Before anyone complains I want to apologise
for this wholly inappropriate analogy. It's
the sort of thing that happens in rushed
postings to this kind of forum. In no way
should pig-farmers and pigs be compared
to Stratfordian teachers and their students.
It is grossly unfair to honest, respectable
farmers and their decent, dumb animals.


Paul.


Bob Grumman

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 8:28:04 PM12/22/03
to
Just in case you take Paul Crowley seriously, George, let me point out the lies,
half-lies, errors and unsupported assertions in his reply to you:

>The weaknesses of official candidate have been
>recognised for a long time. His parents were
>illiterate --

half-lie; it is unknown how literate his parents were.

and so were his children!

lie. His daughter Susannah was literate.

> The small
>rural town where he was brought up had a one-
>teacher school,

Error. The school, which was a two- or three-minute walk from his home, has a
head teacher and assistants.

> which pupils attended from
>ages 7-13, learning only the basics.

half-lie: they learned about as much about the language and literary classics of
Rome as an undergraduate university student majoring in the classics would.

> (And he
>probably didn't attend at all.)

unsupported assertion. His father held the highest political office in his
town, for a while, and was a leading citizen of that town. It is highly
unlikely that he would not have sent his son to school.

> There seems to
>have been no one else to give him any help.

Ridiculous unsupported assertion. We can't know what help he may have gotten,
but small towns DID have SOME educated people in them back then. Not that one
needs a mentor to become great, as the totally untalented suppose.

>He married at 18 and had 3 kids by 21, so he
>would not have started his 'career' in London
>until he was in his mid- or late-twenties.

Error. Two of the kids were twins, and the marriage took one day. That's three
days altogether. Surely, he could have taken a day a year off from whatever
theatrical job he may have had three times. We have no way of knowing when his
career in London--or elsewhere--began.

> He then
>supposedly retired early in his mid-forties.

Unsupported assertion. He seems to have moved back to his hometow3n from London
sometime toward the end of his life, but whether he actually retired from
writing is unknown, though it seems close to certain he did retire from acting.

>None of it makes sense -- and all that's
>compounded by a near-complete absence of
>any record indicating that this person was even
>literate.

Lie. His gravestone says he wrote, and that he had "the art of Virgil." There
is other evidence that he was an actor, which means he almost certainly could
read. And we have six signatures of his, and a fragment of a manuscript that
may be in his handwriting.

>No one ever seems to have met him --
>as an author -- even though he is supposed to
>have written the Merry Wives of Windsor at
>the specific request of the Queen (to show
>Falstaff in love) around 1595 and been
>immensely successful and popular for some
>twenty years after that.

Half-lie. We have no records that anyone met William Shakespeare of Stratford,
the poet, but we have several records that people met William Shakespeare, the
poet.

>The true story is that the author was a high-
>ranking courtier, whose father and grand-
>father had their own theatre company -- in the
>family home. Theatre entered his bloodstream
>before he began to talk.

Unsupported assertions. There is no evidence for them, at all.


> The story in Hamlet
>is based on fact:
>
>CLOWN: . . . . This same skull, sir, was Yorick's
>skull, the king's jester. . . .
>HAMLET: Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio:
>a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he
>hath borne me on his back a thousand times . . . . .

Unsupported assertion (about a court jester, not someone in the theatre); there
is no evidence for it, at all.

>He had the best possible background and
>education. His father died when he was 12,
>and he became a ward of the Queen. She
>recognised the greatness of his talent, but
>could not allow him to publish under his own
>name.

Unsupported assertion. There is no evidence for this, at all.

>In many ways, that suited him, because
>he could write more-or-less what he liked.
>And he (and his mistress) loved bawdy (and
>scatology). The rising (and largely Puritanical)
>middle-classes would have been scandalised
>by all that -- yet the work was so good that it
>had to be published.

Unsupported assertion. There is no evidence for it, at all.

>So the names of others
>were used -- often they were Oxford's
>secretaries.

Completely unsupported assertions: there is no evidence for any of them, at all.

> Later Marlowe's name was used
>(after he was safely dead).

Ludicrous unsupported assertion. There is no evidence for it, at all.

>At one point, the poet used 'Will Shake-
>speare' -- a gloriously punning pseudonym
>(it has about 10 meanings expressing martial,
>literary, personal and bawdy intentions).

Half-Lie. It has nothing to do with literature.

>He published some early works (V&A and
>Lucrece) over this pseudonym, using a
>printer called Richard Field. This printer
>remarked that he knew a person with a name
>roughly like that -- from his home town.

Amazing unsupported assertion. There is no evidence for this, at all.

>The authorities felt that they needed a real person
>to 'take responsibility' for the works -- should
>anyone ever seek to find the real author. So
>they approached this man, and paid him large
>sums of money to stay in the town and keep a
>low profile. They appointed some 'guardians'
>to watch over him. One was the lawyer,
>Thomas Greene, who became Stratford's
>'Town Clerk'. Another, probably, was John Hall,
>who became the town doctor and later married
>this man's illiterate --but wealthy -- elder
>daughter.

A third reason that some people claim Shakespeare did not write the works his
name is on is their need to believe in conspiracy theories. Hence, the clutter
of unsupported assertions in the preceding description of the conspiracy Paul
Crowley believes in.

>The rising middle-classes 'bought' the cover-up.
>Why wouldn't they? Of course, they understood
>almost nothing of the true meaning nor of the
>historical context of the poet's works -- neither
>his plays nor his poems -- regarding the plays as
>'fanciful stories' -- while at the same time in some
>curious way -- dimly appreciating their true
>greatness. They understood the poetry at the
>level of a child's appreciation of nursery rhymes
>-- with almost no comprehension of meaning.
>And that situation has remained substantially
>unchanged to the present day -- although now
>we have a whole 'industry' of Shakespearean
>academics -- closely analogous that of pig-
>farming.

More unsupported assertions.

>All this is vitally important to you, and to all of
>us, because Elizabethan England was a turning
>point for our whole civilisation. When Shake-
>speare wrote, England was about as politically
>significant as, say, Denmark, is today. No
>foreigner bothered to learn the language, unless
>he intended to stay.
>
>Whereas now you are learning English, and your
>whole generation, across the globe, is adopting
>Anglo-Saxon forms of thought -- in technology,
>science, religion, finance, dress, politics, music
>and all other aspects of thought and culture.

>It is no accident that the world's greatest literature
>-- by far -- is in English. (And that is in spite of
>the 400-year interim of profound Puritanical
>repression.)

Unsupported asserions.

>Shakespeare (and Queen Elizabeth, who was both
>his mentor and political guardian) established a
>literary culture of such strength that any kind of
>political dictatorship became abhorrent and
>virtually impossible to impose. That, in turn,
>created great political stability (something that was
>often far from obvious on the surface) leading, in
>turn, to great economic, political and military
>power.

Unsupported assertions.

>Your teachers will, of course, not comprehend
>a word of all this, being locked into the ancient
>view of Shakespeare as an untaught, ignorant
>peasant, who somehow acquired a 'magic pen'.

Lie. No one believes Shakespeare was untaught, ignorant, or a peasant, or that
a "magic pen" was involved.

--Bob G.

Paul Crowley

unread,
Dec 23, 2003, 6:19:21 AM12/23/03
to
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:bs85n...@drn.newsguy.com...

> >The weaknesses of official candidate have been
> >recognised for a long time. His parents were
> >illiterate --
>
> half-lie; it is unknown how literate his parents were.

No one questions their illiteracy -- they signed
with marks.

> and so were his children!
>
> lie. His daughter Susannah was literate.

Not true. As a doctor's wife, she was expected
to be literate. But she could not recognise his
handwriting -- getting angry and embarrassed
when pressed on the matter. Her 'signature' is
clearly 'drawn' -- it is not on a line, each of the
three 'A's (in 'Susanna Hall' is different -- and
the two 'N's and two 'L's. Her younger sister
(Judith) was unquestionably illiterate; on that
basis alone, Susanna probably was as well.

> > The small
> >rural town where he was brought up had a one-
> >teacher school,
>
> Error. The school, which was a two- or three-minute walk from his home, has a
> head teacher and assistants.

It was in one small room. There are no records
of assistants.

> > which pupils attended from
> >ages 7-13, learning only the basics.
>
> half-lie: they learned about as much about the language and literary classics of
> Rome as an undergraduate university student majoring in the classics would.

Fantasy.

> > (And he
> >probably didn't attend at all.)
>
> unsupported assertion. His father held the highest political office in his
> town, for a while, and was a leading citizen of that town. It is highly
> unlikely that he would not have sent his son to school.

He may have done so, but nothing in the son's
later life suggests he had been to school. His
six 'signatures' are appallingly bad. He left not
another scrap in writing. He had to go to
Worcester when he was 18 to fix up a marriage
licence in a hurry. The clerk messed up the
record (writing down a completely wrong name
for his bride). That would hardly have
happened to a literate groom.

> > There seems to
> >have been no one else to give him any help.
>
> Ridiculous unsupported assertion. We can't know what help
> he may have gotten, but small towns DID have SOME educated
> people in them back then. Not that one needs a mentor to
> become great, as the totally untalented suppose.

Sure. When you have a 'magic pen' you
don't need any help.

> >He married at 18 and had 3 kids by 21, so he
> >would not have started his 'career' in London
> >until he was in his mid- or late-twenties.
>
> Error. Two of the kids were twins, and the marriage took one day. That's three
> days altogether. Surely, he could have taken a day a year off from whatever
> theatrical job he may have had three times. We have no way of knowing when his
> career in London--or elsewhere--began.

Typical Stratfordian 'reasoning'. No need
to connect with any reality.

> >None of it makes sense -- and all that's
> >compounded by a near-complete absence of
> >any record indicating that this person was even
> >literate.
>
> Lie. His gravestone says he wrote, and that he had "the art of Virgil."

The memorial says 'ARTE MARONEM' which
probably meant nothing to anyone local.
In any case, they were probably told that the
memorial was to his father: John Shakespeare.

> There
> is other evidence that he was an actor, which means he almost certainly could
> read.

The 'evidence' for that is very strange -- showing
him as TOP of the list of actors. That is clearly
false and was probably meant to tell us that the
whole thing was a lie.

> >No one ever seems to have met him --
> >as an author -- even though he is supposed to
> >have written the Merry Wives of Windsor at
> >the specific request of the Queen (to show
> >Falstaff in love) around 1595 and been
> >immensely successful and popular for some
> >twenty years after that.
>
> Half-lie. We have no records that anyone met William Shakespeare of Stratford,
> the poet, but we have several records that people met William Shakespeare, the
> poet.

Which are they?

> >The true story is that the author was a high-
> >ranking courtier, whose father and grand-
> >father had their own theatre company -- in the
> >family home. Theatre entered his bloodstream
> >before he began to talk.
>
> Unsupported assertions. There is no evidence for them, at all.

Nonsense. See Alan Nelson's book.

> > The story in Hamlet is based on fact:
> >
> >CLOWN: . . . . This same skull, sir, was Yorick's
> >skull, the king's jester. . . .
> >HAMLET: Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio:
> >a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he
> >hath borne me on his back a thousand times . . . . .
>
> Unsupported assertion (about a court jester, not someone in the theatre); there
> is no evidence for it, at all.

Oxford, as a child, would certainly have played
with the actors of his father's company --
living in the same house as them.

> >He had the best possible background and
> >education. His father died when he was 12,
> >and he became a ward of the Queen. She
> >recognised the greatness of his talent, but
> >could not allow him to publish under his own
> >name.
>
> Unsupported assertion. There is no evidence for this, at all.

Makes sense though.

> >In many ways, that suited him, because
> >he could write more-or-less what he liked.
> >And he (and his mistress) loved bawdy (and
> >scatology). The rising (and largely Puritanical)
> >middle-classes would have been scandalised
> >by all that -- yet the work was so good that it
> >had to be published.
>
> Unsupported assertion. There is no evidence for it, at all.

What is unreasonable about any of it?

> >So the names of others
> >were used -- often they were Oxford's
> >secretaries.
>
> Completely unsupported assertions: there is no evidence for any of them, at all.

Oxford's secretaries published works while
they worked for him -- but stopped doing
so when they left his employ.

> > Later Marlowe's name was used
> >(after he was safely dead).
>
> Ludicrous unsupported assertion. There is no evidence for it, at all.

We know of no statement made while Marlowe
was alive which indicates that the was a writer
of any kind.

> >At one point, the poet used 'Will Shake-
> >speare' -- a gloriously punning pseudonym
> >(it has about 10 meanings expressing martial,
> >literary, personal and bawdy intentions).
>
> Half-Lie. It has nothing to do with literature.

The 'shaking spear' was a symbol of Pallas
Athena -- the virginal goddess of the Arts.
The name 'Will Shake-speare' articulates
the self-awareness of a great poet who was
in the process of creating the literature for
his virginal goddess.

> >He published some early works (V&A and
> >Lucrece) over this pseudonym, using a
> >printer called Richard Field. This printer
> >remarked that he knew a person with a name
> >roughly like that -- from his home town.
>
> Amazing unsupported assertion. There is no evidence for this, at all.

There is nothing in the least unreasonable
about it, though. Field did publish those
works. He did come from a town where
there was a 'William Shagsper' -- or some
such.

> >The authorities felt that they needed a real person
> >to 'take responsibility' for the works -- should
> >anyone ever seek to find the real author. So
> >they approached this man, and paid him large
> >sums of money to stay in the town and keep a
> >low profile. They appointed some 'guardians'
> >to watch over him. One was the lawyer,
> >Thomas Greene, who became Stratford's
> >'Town Clerk'. Another, probably, was John Hall,
> >who became the town doctor and later married
> >this man's illiterate --but wealthy -- elder
> >daughter.
>
> A third reason that some people claim Shakespeare did not write the works his
> name is on is their need to believe in conspiracy theories. Hence, the clutter
> of unsupported assertions in the preceding description of the conspiracy Paul
> Crowley believes in.

The presence of the learned, intelligent and
highly qualified, Thomas Greene and John
Hall, both living in New Place from around
1600, needs some explanation. Strats have
none at all.

> >The rising middle-classes 'bought' the cover-up.
> >Why wouldn't they? Of course, they understood
> >almost nothing of the true meaning nor of the
> >historical context of the poet's works -- neither
> >his plays nor his poems -- regarding the plays as
> >'fanciful stories' -- while at the same time in some
> >curious way -- dimly appreciating their true
> >greatness. They understood the poetry at the
> >level of a child's appreciation of nursery rhymes
> >-- with almost no comprehension of meaning.
> >And that situation has remained substantially
> >unchanged to the present day -- although now
> >we have a whole 'industry' of Shakespearean
> >academics -- closely analogous that of pig-
> >farming.
>
> More unsupported assertions.

But undeniable.

> >All this is vitally important to you, and to all of
> >us, because Elizabethan England was a turning
> >point for our whole civilisation. When Shake-
> >speare wrote, England was about as politically
> >significant as, say, Denmark, is today. No
> >foreigner bothered to learn the language, unless
> >he intended to stay.
> >
> >Whereas now you are learning English, and your
> >whole generation, across the globe, is adopting
> >Anglo-Saxon forms of thought -- in technology,
> >science, religion, finance, dress, politics, music
> >and all other aspects of thought and culture.
>
> >It is no accident that the world's greatest literature
> >-- by far -- is in English. (And that is in spite of
> >the 400-year interim of profound Puritanical
> >repression.)
>
> Unsupported asserions.

And undeniable.

> >Shakespeare (and Queen Elizabeth, who was both
> >his mentor and political guardian) established a
> >literary culture of such strength that any kind of
> >political dictatorship became abhorrent and
> >virtually impossible to impose. That, in turn,
> >created great political stability (something that was
> >often far from obvious on the surface) leading, in
> >turn, to great economic, political and military
> >power.
>
> Unsupported assertions.

Undeniable.

> >Your teachers will, of course, not comprehend
> >a word of all this, being locked into the ancient
> >view of Shakespeare as an untaught, ignorant
> >peasant, who somehow acquired a 'magic pen'.
>
> Lie. No one believes Shakespeare was untaught, ignorant, or a peasant, or that
> a "magic pen" was involved.

The 'magic pen' is the core belief of
Stratfordians. It's all you've got.


Paul.

Neil Brennen

unread,
Dec 23, 2003, 6:56:09 AM12/23/03
to

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:_xVFb.1911$HR....@news.indigo.ie...

Among other garbage, Creepy Crowley wrote:

The clerk messed up the
> record (writing down a completely wrong name
> for his bride). That would hardly have
> happened to a literate groom.

Utter rubbish. People are continually spelling my last name as "Brennan" or
some other spelling; that doesn't reflect on my literacy, or lack thereof.


Peter Groves

unread,
Dec 23, 2003, 7:10:08 AM12/23/03
to
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:gGKFb.1883$HR....@news.indigo.ie...

> "George" <se...@email2me.net> wrote in message
> news:4ef7c7a6.03122...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Hi to all of you!
> >
> > I am a student currently studying Shakespeare in a Foreign Language
> > School in Lovech, Bulgaria. Unfortunately, we are not studying English
> > Literature in as much details as I would like to so I decided to write
> > to this group and ask someone to help me!
> >
> > I found out that there are 5 purported authors of Shakespeare's
> > authors - Marlowe, Bacon, The Earl of Oxford and last but not least
> > the Earl of Derby! Can you give me some more information about why
> > they are do purported to be the author of William Shakespeare's plays?
> > I would be very grateful if you do that!!!
>
> The weaknesses of official candidate have been
> recognised for a long time. His parents were
> illiterate -- and so were his children! The small
> rural town where he was brought up had a one-
> teacher school, which pupils attended from
> ages 7-13, learning only the basics. (And he
> probably didn't attend at all.)

George, you'll get a lot of nonsense like this which you must learn to
disregard. Poor Paul isn't deliberately lying here, but I'm afraid he
hasn't had much education himself and really doesn't know very much. This
explains his exaggerated respect for formal learning.

Peter G.


Terry Ross

unread,
Dec 23, 2003, 10:06:29 AM12/23/03
to
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, George wrote:

> Hi to all of you!
>
> I am a student currently studying Shakespeare in a Foreign Language
> School in Lovech, Bulgaria. Unfortunately, we are not studying English
> Literature in as much details as I would like to so I decided to write
> to this group and ask someone to help me!
>
> I found out that there are 5 purported authors of Shakespeare's authors
> - Marlowe, Bacon, The Earl of Oxford and last but not least the Earl of
> Derby! Can you give me some more information about why they are do
> purported to be the author of William Shakespeare's plays? I would be
> very grateful if you do that!!!

The evidence in favor of the customary attribution of Shakespeare's works
to William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon is overwhelming. For a brief
overview of the evidence, see Tom Reedy and David Kathman's essay "How We
Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts" at
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/howdowe.html

That said, there have for the last 150 years been some people who don't
think Shakespeare could have had the social or intellectual background to
have written the works attributed to him, and dozens of alternative
"purported authors" have been proposed over the years. Some
antistratfordians (i.e., people who don't think Shakespeare wrote the
works attributed to him) believe their "purported author" wrote
Shakespeare's works all by himself; some think a group of "purported
authors" was responsible. You can find links to Internet pages supporting
the claims for many of the "purported authors" in the Bardlinks section of
the Shakespeare Authorship page: http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/#7

Here are a few reasons some people think a case can be made for the
"purported authors" you list:

Marlowe: he was one of the greatest writers among Shakespeare's
contemporaries, and he was killed at the age of 29. Some of those who
think Marlowe wrote not only his own but Shakespeare's works believe that
Marlowe's death was faked, and that he continued to write but used the
name "Shakespeare." Of all the "purported writers," Marlowe was the one
whose works show the greatest similarities to those of Shakespeare.

Bacon: the supporters of Bacon as Shakespeare claim that Shakespeare's
works reveal an extraordinary erudition, and that Bacon, who was one of
the most brilliant people of the age, was more likely than Shakespeare to
have learned everything the author of Shakespeare's works must have known.
In particular, Baconians argue that Shakespeare's plays display an
extraordinary knowledge of the law -- Bacon was Lord Chancellor;
Shakespeare is not known to have had any formal training in the law.

Oxford: Oxford was a poet and courtier, and he was praised for his skill
in comedy, although no play by him is known to have survived. The
supporters of Oxford as "purported author" note that most of Shakespeare's
plays feature well-born or wealthy characters, and claim that Oxford had
the kind of intimate knowledge of life among the upper classes that the
author of Shakespeare's plays must have had.

Derby: a contemporary reported that "Our Earle of Darby is busye in
penning commodyes for the common players." No such comedies have
survived; the supporters of Derby as "purported author" suggest that he
must have written plays that we now know as the works of Shakespeare.

Supporters of the various "purported authors" point to plot details in
Shakespeare's plays that they believe reflect the autobiography of the
"real" author. The "purported authors" had access to better formal
educations than William Shakespeare is likely to have had. A great deal
of energy has gone into the search for ciphers or other hidden messages in
Shakespeare's works that point to one or another of the "purported
authors."

Most of the kinds of arguments used by all antistratfordians were first
developed by Baconians in the last half of the 19th Century. At the
present time, the Oxfordian view is the most popular among that minority
of people who don't think Shakespeare wrote the works commonly attributed
to him.

By and large, Elizabethan literary historians -- those who have devoted
their lives and careers to the study of the era in which Shakespeare lived
and worked; those who know the most about the matter -- have very little
regard for antistratfordian attempts to replace Shakespeare with one of
the "purported authors." The evidence that Shakespeare wrote the works
commonly attributed to him is overwhelming -- but there will always be a
few people who prefer to think the "real" author was Bacon or Oxford or
Marlowe or Derby or any of the dozens of others whose names have been put
forward.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross tr...@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Grumman

unread,
Dec 23, 2003, 10:15:22 AM12/23/03
to
In article <t3WFb.10152$wL6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Neil Brennen
says...

>
>
>"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
>news:_xVFb.1911$HR....@news.indigo.ie...
>
>Among other garbage, Creepy Crowley wrote:
>
> The clerk messed up the
>> record (writing down a completely wrong name
>> for his bride). That would hardly have
>> happened to a literate groom.
>
>Utter rubbish. People are continually spelling my last name as "Brennan" or
>some other spelling;

I get your first name wrong, too, sometimes.

>that doesn't reflect on my literacy, or lack thereof.
>

Ah, but you weren't there when they made the misspellings, Pneel! If you were,
you would have pulled out your revolver and forced them to correct what they'd
done. Any literate person of any time and place would have done that.

(Note: Paul's observations of what would have had to have happened when Will got
his marriage license are a key part of my book. Nothing even he has said
demonstrates the comicality and absurdity of the way rigidniks' minds work more
wonderfully.)

--Bob G.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Dec 23, 2003, 11:12:31 AM12/23/03
to
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
news:t3WFb.10152$wL6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Yes, it's embarassing whenever people spell my surname "Redy" or "Reddy" or
"Riddy" and then I have to admit I can't read or write.

TR


Paul Crowley

unread,
Dec 23, 2003, 5:10:13 PM12/23/03
to
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:bs9m6...@drn.newsguy.com...

> In article <t3WFb.10152$wL6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Neil Brennen
> says...

> > The clerk messed up the


> >> record (writing down a completely wrong name
> >> for his bride). That would hardly have
> >> happened to a literate groom.
> >
> >Utter rubbish. People are continually spelling my last name as "Brennan" or
> >some other spelling;

"When the clerk of the court entered the grant of a licence in
the Bishop's Register on 27 November 1582 (one day earlier
than the date on the bond itself), he gave the bride's name
as Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton. . . "
(Schoenbaum, *Compact Documentary Life*, p 83)

Nigel, suppose you were engaged to marry
to Nichole Kidman, and the clerk gave you
a licence saying you were to marry 'Barbara
Bush', don't you think you might notice?

On second thoughts, that's not a fair
question -- directed at you. But suppose
you were as intelligent and as literate as
the poet Shakespeare. Don't you think
HE would have noticed?

> >that doesn't reflect on my literacy, or lack thereof.
> >
> Ah, but you weren't there when they made the misspellings,
> Pneel! If you were, you would have pulled out your revolver
> and forced them to correct what they'd done. Any literate
> person of any time and place would have done that.

Charlie, you have missed the point that they
went back the NEXT DAY and got it fixed.
They showed the marriage licence to some
literate person in the meantime, who put them
right. Lucky that they did check it. The three
had to travel the 24 miles from Stratford --
probably walking -- and pay for inns, and for
the licence itself -- which wasn't cheap, costing
about a month's wages (between 3s 8d and
10s 4d according to Schoenbaum).

> (Note: Paul's observations of what would have had to have happened when Will got
> his marriage license are a key part of my book. Nothing even he has said
> demonstrates the comicality and absurdity of the way rigidniks' minds work more
> wonderfully.)

Algernon, please pay attention. Of course, it
does not _prove_ that the man was illiterate --
it just makes it much more likely.

We should have thousands of documents
with powerful indications that he was literate
-- and highly so -- but all we have are a tiny
number of records, each of which suggests
that he was probably illiterate.


Paul.


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Dec 23, 2003, 7:49:31 PM12/23/03
to
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0312230905270.16019@mail...

> By and large, Elizabethan literary historians -- those who have devoted
> their lives and careers to the study of the era in which Shakespeare lived
> and worked; those who know the most about the matter -- have very little
> regard for antistratfordian attempts to replace Shakespeare with one of
> the "purported authors."

By and large, Elizabethan literary historians & Shakespearean actors
who have wanted to make a living at it have swallowed hard
and accepted the Stratfordian hegemony or suffered the consequences.

Art Neuendorffer


Neil Brennen

unread,
Dec 23, 2003, 8:15:28 PM12/23/03
to

"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PPZFb.16426$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Don't you hate it when that happens?

Neil Brennen

unread,
Dec 23, 2003, 8:25:14 PM12/23/03
to

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:gu3Gb.1998$HR....@news.indigo.ie...

Now Pukehead, have you ever purchased something from a grocery store and
found the wrong item in the bag? Why didn't you check it before you left the
store?

Do you really think Shakespeare is going to stop and read his marriage
license in the clerk's office? He discovered it was wrong later, and then
had it corrected. An ordinary happening on the order of accidentally leaving
your umbrella on a bus.

Christine Cooper

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 2:33:20 AM12/24/03
to
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<WKednVUlvN-...@comcast.com>...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear George:

DON'T GO HERE. RUN AWAY, NOW!!

It's a conspiracy to prevent you from finishing your education. If
you listen to any of these people, you'll get sucked in and spend the
rest of your life sifting through the haystacks of mis-information
looking for needles of truth and hunting for cryptic messages in every
line of every play and poem. It's worse than cocaine.

That being said, even one of the foremost scholars on the subject of
"Shakespeare," Samuel Schoenbaum, has been held to have (at least
privately) admitted that he considered the question of authorship to
be "open."

Don't believe anybody who says the actor, Will Shakspere (to
distinguish from the author, Shakespeare) was an illiterate "country
bumpkin" (or words to that effect). The group of people he worked for
and with were able to read and write and count well enough to learn,
edit, and stage the plays and to orate the incredible languange
therein, AND to conduct the "business" of theatre well enough to
become one of the premiere companies of players in their time.
Burbage & Co. would not have admitted him into their circle as a
shareholder if he wasn't at least their social and intellectual equal,
and they were not illiterate.

However, it does not logically follow that he had the classical
education that is evidenced in the Work. Yes, he could have gotten
that independently. Whoever wrote the work was a genious.

However,

Whoever wrote the work was ALSO up to his neck-ruff in Elizabethan
political intrigue from the day that the very first play hit the
boards. Elizabethan theatre was a propoganda machine as well as
entertainment. There is not one shred of evidence that leads to the
conclusion that Shakspere the actor evolved into Shakespeare the
author of the politically charged and motivated collection of plays
you have before you in the short number of years between the time he
left Stratford and the day his first play hit the stage. Will
Shakspere was (1) a young bachelor who (2) seduced or was seduced by
an older woman, and ended up (3) a married family man at the age of
eighteen, and who (4) ran away from home and joined the circus, (so to
speak) from a (5) provincial town where politics (in the town's
record) appears to have been mainly concerned with keeping out of the
Court's line of fire. (5) Will Shakspere's father was involved in the
polital business of the town, but in the manner of "city management"
having nothing to do with Court politics. (6) Will left town at a
time when his father was suffering financial setbacks, so possibly he
left to find work (let's leave out the argument that he "abandoned"
his wife and kids)

It appears that Queen Elizabeth herself didn't think the actor was the
author, because she didn't spit-roast him over the play, Richard II,
which she considered to be an affront to her person. The conversation
between herself and her antiquarian William Lombardo in which she
makes the statement, "I am Richard, II, know ye not that?" was a reply
to Lombardo's comment, "Such a wicked imagination was determined and
attempted by a most unkind gentleman, the most adored creature that
ever your majesty made." (indicating they both knew who the real
author was?)

Don't bring up Ben Jonson; he ran away from home and joined the ARMY,
not the circus.

Incidently, when you read Hamlet, try to imagine it being staged by
the Monty Python Players.

Dave More said to tell you guys hi!

Luv,

Sir Kit Marleytext

Neil Brennen

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 6:04:38 AM12/24/03
to

"Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45b7371d.0312...@posting.google.com...

> Dave More said to tell you guys hi!

That's enough reason to dismiss this post as twaddle.


Christine Cooper

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 9:28:59 AM12/24/03
to
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message news:<apeGb.11325$wL6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does that mean you agree that Will Shakspere was an illiterate country bumpkin?

Tom Reedy

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 10:08:55 AM12/24/03
to
"Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45b7371d.0312...@posting.google.com...

Oh, really? Perhaps you would enlighten us on when you spoke to Dr.
Schoenbaum and the exact words he used to reveal his misgivings to you?

Well, Baker, I've got to say you've finally learned how to use SpelChek. The
rest of your blatherings are as inane as ever, though.

TR


Christine Cooper

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 2:24:22 PM12/24/03
to
> >
> > Incidently, when you read Hamlet, try to imagine it being staged by
> > the Monty Python Players.
> >
> > Dave More said to tell you guys hi!
> >
> > Luv,
> >
> > Sir Kit Marleytext
>
> Well, Baker, I've got to say you've finally learned how to use SpelChek. The
> rest of your blatherings are as inane as ever, though.
>
> TR

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh, how flattering sweet!!!!!!!!!

But, no, I am an humble fem-atty in Houston, TX You can verify my ID
thru Berta Ballantine. She graced me with the term "friend" in recent
communication. I am new here, but very intrigued. Sir Kit Marleytext
is my decyph of Sir Oliver, but I personally consider it stretching
the limits of Ceasar's rules (tho cool enuf).

I agree on the spelchek accusation re M. Baker, tho not to be
construed to impugne his intellect, but rather his off-hand
mistreatment of his native tongue, which lacks such respect as would
offend both the man he advocates and the illusive bard himself (not
to mention Little-Brown). I call it merely "sloppy." He dismissed
me, as I asked too many questions.

I agree with Penn that the Oxfordian "goats" are ironic and the
"sheep" are fools. I have two English ex-husbands and spent six years
"disguised" as English in the sixties-seventies, so I know the psyche
of which I speak. (Goats, I salute you) (Sorry Ox-guys, your secret's
out) [then again, "Leary" recalls a certain "T"? Possible the entire
Oxford claim arose from an halluciation?]

Dear George: Not to forget you, for I am new here, too, and I've not
seen anything so far that respects your Q. If your interest is
genuine, and you have time, check out the Shakespeare Authorship
Roundtable at:

www.shakespeareauthorship.org

If you're REALLY into mysteries, when go to Penn Leary's Bacon site,
scroll down to the bottom to the "contents" and go to about the number
four link titled "cryptographic shakespeare...," and read about Oak
Island, Nova Scotia. I would say that if the treasure is indeed what
is claimed, it would be worth its weight in diamonds, though would
leave us with nothing to do, which would be vry sad.

Yrs

Sir Kit Marley Text [Coop]

Insult is the sincerest form of flattery. Bring it on. ;-p

Christine Cooper

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 2:37:20 PM12/24/03
to
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<b_hGb.3972$lo3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

> "Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:45b7371d.0312...@posting.google.com...
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<WKednVUlvN-...@comcast.com>...
> > > "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message

> > That being said, even one of the foremost scholars on the subject of


> > "Shakespeare," Samuel Schoenbaum, has been held to have (at least
> > privately) admitted that he considered the question of authorship to
> > be "open."
>
> Oh, really? Perhaps you would enlighten us on when you spoke to Dr.
> Schoenbaum and the exact words he used to reveal his misgivings to you?
>
> >


I didn't say to me, twit-head: see the review of his Compact
Documentary at Amazon.com

Yrs. Marley.tex

(Personally have no clue who this Jerry person might be, but perhaps
someone can enlighten us? Anyone here know an interested being in
Maryland?)

Tom Reedy

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 4:09:21 PM12/24/03
to

"Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45b7371d.03122...@posting.google.com...

> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<b_hGb.3972$lo3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:45b7371d.0312...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:<WKednVUlvN-...@comcast.com>...
> > > > "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
>
> > > That being said, even one of the foremost scholars on the subject of
> > > "Shakespeare," Samuel Schoenbaum, has been held to have (at least
> > > privately) admitted that he considered the question of authorship to
> > > be "open."
> >
> > Oh, really? Perhaps you would enlighten us on when you spoke to Dr.
> > Schoenbaum and the exact words he used to reveal his misgivings to you?
> >
> > >
>
>
> I didn't say to me, twit-head: see the review of his Compact
> Documentary at Amazon.com

I read the review, shit-head, and there is nothing there that says he
"considered the question of authorship to be 'open.'"

TR

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 5:43:53 PM12/24/03
to
Christine Cooper wrote:

> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<b_hGb.3972$lo3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>>"Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:45b7371d.0312...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:<WKednVUlvN-...@comcast.com>...
>>
>>>>"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>>That being said, even one of the foremost scholars on the subject of
>>>"Shakespeare," Samuel Schoenbaum, has been held to have (at least
>>>privately) admitted that he considered the question of authorship to
>>>be "open."
>>
>>Oh, really? Perhaps you would enlighten us on when you spoke to Dr.
>>Schoenbaum and the exact words he used to reveal his misgivings to you?
>>
>>
>
>
> I didn't say to me, twit-head: see the review of his Compact
> Documentary at Amazon.com

What it says is the following:
Play it Again Sam, May 15, 2000
Reviewer: Jerry Harner from Maryland
I was a personal friend of Sam's in fact a neighbor of his
in Maryland for 6 years. I spoke with him a week before he
passed away and he was telling me that Shakespeare's Identity
was still an elusive subject for him and other scholars. He
felt that his book ,William Shakespeare : A Compact Documentary
Life, a lifelong pursuit was a good primer for beginners but
that he felt incomplete about it and wished he had another
life to make changes. This I found powerful as he was willing
to be open about this and not be stuck in being an expert.
Although his research in this book carries influence as
authoritarian on Shakespeare's life , Sam up till the end of
his life was convinced there had to be more. His publisher of
course was unwilling to consider a new revised edition. But
one thing Sam stressed over and over in the book as well that
it was important for teachers who used his research to be
careful in not telling students this was the absolute Gospel
on Shakespeare's life.

This doesn't say ONE DAMN THING about the so-called "Authorship Question".

(Of course, even if it did, an Amazon book review, which could have been
written by _anybody_, wouldn't be worth much as evidence.)

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

Neil Brennen

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 7:00:47 PM12/24/03
to

"Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45b7371d.03122...@posting.google.com...

No, it means I consider David More an idiot, and that you suffer from guilt
by association.


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 9:33:15 AM12/26/03
to
> >> news:<WKednVUlvN-...@comcast.com>...

> >>"Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote

> >>>That being said, even one of the foremost scholars on the subject of


> >>>"Shakespeare," Samuel Schoenbaum, has been held to have (at least
> >>>privately) admitted that he considered the question of authorship to
> >>>be "open."

> > "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<b_hGb.3972$lo3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >


> >>Oh, really? Perhaps you would enlighten us on when you spoke to Dr.
> >>Schoenbaum and the exact words he used to reveal his misgivings to you?

> Christine Cooper wrote:

> > I didn't say to me, twit-head: see the review of his Compact
> > Documentary at Amazon.com

"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote

> What it says is the following:

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


> Play it Again Sam, May 15, 2000
> Reviewer: Jerry Harner from Maryland

> I was a personal friend of Sam's in fact a neighbor of his
> in Maryland for 6 years. I spoke with him a week before he
> passed away and he was telling me that Shakespeare's Identity
> was still an elusive subject for him and other scholars. He
> felt that his book ,William Shakespeare : A Compact Documentary
> Life, a lifelong pursuit was a good primer for beginners but
> that he felt incomplete about it and wished he had another
> life to make changes. This I found powerful as he was willing
> to be open about this and not be stuck in being an expert.
> Although his research in this book carries influence as
> authoritarian on Shakespeare's life , Sam up till the end of
> his life was convinced there had to be more. His publisher of
> course was unwilling to consider a new revised edition. But
> one thing Sam stressed over and over in the book as well that
> it was important for teachers who used his research to be
> careful in not telling students this was the absolute Gospel
> on Shakespeare's life.

------------------------------------------------------
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote

> This doesn't say ONE DAMN THING about the so-called "Authorship Question".
>
> (Of course, even if it did, an Amazon book review, which could have been
> written by _anybody_, wouldn't be worth much as evidence.)

Absolutely! At best this is rather ambiguous hearsay evidence about
someone who is now dead from someone else who might well have ulterior
motives.

In other words it is almost as worthless as all of Ben Jonson's statements
about Shakespeare.

Art Neuendorffer


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 10:10:13 AM12/26/03
to

Art Neuendorffer wrote:

> Absolutely! At best this is rather ambiguous hearsay evidence
> about someone who is now dead from someone else
> who might well have ulterior motives.

> In other words it is almost as worthless as
> all of Ben Jonson's statements about Shakespeare.

----------------------------------------------------
Ben Jonson & Jerry Harner apparently had the
same ulterior motive (i.e., they're both Baconians):

jerry...@hotmail.com <jerry...@hotmail.com>

http://www.sirbacon.org/harneroxford.htm

Art Neuendorffer


Christine Cooper

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 1:10:06 PM12/26/03
to
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<D6ednR6Mc8J...@comcast.com>...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for the ID Art. I'm going to invite him to partake of menudo
and scrumpy with Baker and me, while we watch the Strat go down by the
head. (69 cannon can't tell which way is up, anyway, so it's no big
loss)

Happy Boxing Day, y'all,

Sir Kit MarleyText

Coop

Tom Reedy

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 2:24:26 PM12/26/03
to
"Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45b7371d.03122...@posting.google.com...

This is a good example of the thinking processes of anti-Stratfordians. In
Art's mind, a specific poem naming a specific author in a preface to that
author's works is equivalent to an anonymous review taken out of context by
someone whose thinking abilities are on a par with what we've come to expect
from anti-Stratfordians.

If there were any more needed, the fact that the not-too-excessive cognitive
abilities of anti-Stratfordians prevents them from knowing how idiotic they
look to the rest of the world is certainly proof of God's mercy.

TR

Greg Reynolds

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 8:58:09 PM12/26/03
to
Art Neuendorffer wrote:

> In other words it is almost as worthless as all of Ben Jonson's statements
> about Shakespeare.
>
> Art Neuendorffer

Suffer, you poor devil, Art.

The poet laureate of England (I know he wasn't called that
but his successors in the same role were) says on different
occasions that Shakespeare was the author and nothing--
NOTHING--refutes it.

So all you silly antis have to scurry like crazed mice pretending
that Jonson didn't say it OR he didn't mean it OR he was kidding
OR he was wrong and the whole time it is there in plain English
for all to read and understand. The rest of the world can laugh our
collective ass off as you little crazed mice convince yourselves of
your convolutions, making up ways to refute the clean, unsolicited,
and unbiased words of a man who knows. Nothing typifies you
silly antis better than your pathetic cowering when Jonson speaks.
He turns you into mushy little mice boys and girls who nearly
die of nervous overload.

Thanks for the laughs. As for credibility, you can't hold Jonson's
jockstrap. You all owe him an apology.


Greg Reynolds

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 10:44:22 PM12/26/03
to
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > In other words it is almost as worthless as all of Ben Jonson's
> > statements about Shakespeare.

"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote

> Suffer, you poor devil, Art.

------------------------------------------------------------
SHALL ART FOR ART SUFFER MANY HARD SHOWERS?
------------------------------------------------------------
<<During the period when John Shakespeare was keeping the accounts,
the Gild chapel was defaced. Near its orchard border of sundried clay,
workmen moved into the chapel to see its painted walls with legends
- the town's old Catholic poetry:

WHEN ERTH UPON ERTH HATH BYLDED HIS BOWERS THEN
SHALL ERTH FOR ERTH SUFFER MANY HARD SHOWERS

Over the chancel arch was a Doom, or Last Judgement, with the Virgin in
blue and St.John in bright brown. Heaven was a palace with St. Peter in
a red alb and green cope, and burning souls fell throught a hell mouth into
a cauldron. A crucifixion rose on the south wall, and on jambs for the tower
arch were Thomas a Becket and the names of his murderers. After the Doom
had been WHITEWASHED, for which the workmen were paid 2s., but before
the rood loft was taken down and seats were installed for the vicar and his
clerk, the acting CHAMBERLAIN's account noted on 10 January 1564:

"Item payd for defasying images in ye chappell ijs">>
- _Shakespeare a Life_ by Honan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<On July 22, 1816, at a hotel near the Mer du Glace glacier in what
was then Savoy but is now a part of France, the poets Byron & Shelley
registered for a night's stay. Byron listed his age as 100.
Shelley signed in Greek that he was by profession an atheist,
a philanthropist, and a democrat, and in the slot marked destination
he wrote L'Enfer, French for hell. Poet-laureate Robert Southey
came along later and read the blasphemous registry entries, and,
after correcting Shelley's Greek, went home and used these details
as more fue for the gossip mill against the odd entourage
living in Switzerland on the banks of Lake Geneva. Byron
would pay him back mercilessly in The Vision of Judgment. >>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Koran descends to Earth: April 6, 610 AD Monday
CLEMENT's St.Methodius dies: April 6, 884 Monday
Petrarch meets LAURA: April 6, 1327 Monday
DURER dies: April 6, 1528 Monday
BRIDGET Vere's birth: April 6, 1584 Monday
Sir Francis Walsingham dies: April 6, 1590 Monday
"native of Crete" EL GRECO dies: April 7, 1614 Monday
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://petrarch.petersadlon.com/laura.html

<<"LAURA, illustrated by her virtues and well-celebrated in my verse,
appeared to me for the first time during my youth in 1327, on April 6,
in the Church of Saint Claire in Avignon, in the first hour of the day;
and in the same city, in the same month, on the same sixth day at the
same first hour in the year of 1348, withdrew from life, while I was at
Verona, unconscious of my loss.... Her chaste and lovely body was
interred on the evening of the same day in the church of the Minorites:
her soul, as I believe, returned to heaven, whence it came."

LAURA was the love of Petrarch's life.
For her he perfected the sonnet and wrote The Canzoniere.

Who LAURA was & even if she really existed is a bit of a mystery.

It is believed that "LAURA" was
a play on the name "LAURel" the leaves which Petrarch
was honoured with for being poet LAUReate.

However, there is evidence to show that LAURA really did exist and
that she was Laure de Noves. Born 6 years after Petrarch in 1310
in Avignon she was the daughter of Audibert de Noves (a Knight)
and wife to Hugues II de Sade. She married at the age of 15,
and Petrarch saw her for the first time two years later.

Falling in love at first sight, Petrarch would be haunted
by her beauty for the rest of his life. Already being married
she would turn down all advanced he made toward her.

She died at the age of 38 in the year 1348, on April 6th, Good Friday,
exactly 21 years TO THE VERY HOUR that Petrarch first saw her.
There is no record to the cause of her death, but it was either
due to the Black plague or possibly a pulmonary tuberculosis
resulting from eleven childbirths.

Several years after her death, Maurice Sceve, A HUMANIST, visiting
Avignon had her TOMB OPENED and discovered inside A LEAD BOX.
Inside was a medal representing a woman ripping at her heart,
and under that, a sonnet by Petrarch.

It is unknown if Petrarch and LAURA ever met.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA died exactly 21 years TO THE VERY HOUR after Petrarch saw her.

Petrarch died after exactly 70 years of life.

Divided into 24 books, Petrarch published 350 (= 70 x 5) letters.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote

> The poet laureate of England (I know he wasn't called that
> but his successors in the same role were) says on different
> occasions that Shakespeare was the author and nothing--
> NOTHING--refutes it.

---------------------------------------------------------
"The Father of Shakespeare Criticism"
Poet Laureate John Dryden
married Elizabeth CECIL!
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Cheke --- William Cecil --- Mildred Cooke
| {Burghley} |
| (1520-98) Anne Cecil---Edward deVere
| {Oxford}
| (1550-1604)
{Exeter} Thomas Cecil---Dorothy Neville
(1542-1622) |
|
Elizabeth DRURY---William Cecil{Exeter}
| (1566-1640)
|
Elizabeth CECIL---Thomas Howard{Berkshire}
| (1625-1669)
|
Elizabeth Howard --- Poet JOHN DRYDEN
(1631-1700)
Poet Laureate (1668)
{THE FATHER of Shakespeare Criticism &}
http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/biography/autobio.html
{close relative of Jonathan Swift's grandmother}
|
|
W. Shakspere--- Mrs. Davenant |
(1564-1616) | V
| Thom. Swift--- Dryden
William Davenant ----- ?? |
(1606-1668) | /----------\
Poet Laureate | | |
1638 daughter---Thom.Swift Jonathan---Abig. Erick
| |
Thom.Swift Jonathan Swift
{Rector of PUTTENHAM} {Mr.Lemuel GulliVER}
---------------------------------------------------------
"The Bastard Son of Shakspere"
Poet Laureate William Davenant
managed (Elizabeth?) DRURY Lane Theatre!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Davenant or *d'Avenant, Sir William (1606 -- 1668) Poet and playwright,
born in Oxford, Oxfordshire, SC England, UK. His father kept the Crown
at Oxford, at which Shakespeare used to stop between London and
Stratford - hence the rumour that he was Shakespeare's illegitimate son.
In 1628 he took to writing for the stage, his most successful work being
The Wits (1636). In 1638, he became Poet Laureate, and was later manager
of the (Elizabeth?) DRURY Lane Theatre. He was knighted in 1643 for
services to the Crown during the Civil War. In 1656, he helped to
revive drama, banned under Cromwell, and brought to the stage
the first public opera in England.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote

> So all you silly antis have to scurry like crazed mice pretending
> that Jonson didn't say it OR he didn't mean it OR he was kidding
> OR he was wrong and the whole time it is there in plain English
> for all to read and understand.

OR Ben Jonson never existed, never died 14 years to the day that
Anne Hathaway died nor was stuck into a 2 by 2 foot floor spot.

"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote

> The rest of the world can laugh our collective ass off

Your collective ass was portrayed by Droeshout & Jansen.

"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote

> as you little crazed mice convince yourselves of your convolutions,
> making up ways to refute the clean, unsolicited,
> and unbiased words of a man who knows. Nothing typifies you
> silly antis better than your pathetic cowering when Jonson speaks.
> He turns you into mushy little mice boys and girls who nearly
> die of nervous overload.

------------------------------------------------------------------
<<In the beginning, we were ordinary Shakespeareans, stealing our daily
bread and living off the efforts of the Stratfordian's work. Then we
were captured, put in cages, and sent to a place called NIMH. There were
many professional scholars there...in cubicals. They were put through
the most unspeakable tortures to satisfy some Bardolatry curiosity.
Often at night I would hear them, crying out in anguish. Twenty
Oxfordians and eleven Marlovians were given injections...our world began
changing...Then one night I looked upon the underlined words of Oxford's
Geneva Bible...and understood them. We had become intelligent. The
miracle was kept secret from the Strats, and in the quiet of the night,
we escaped through the ventilation system. [The Baconians were blown
away, sucked down dark air-shafts to their deaths.] We were trapped by a
locked door on the roof. It was Charlton who made possible the unlocking
of the door. It is four years since our departure from NIMH, and our
world is changing. We cannot stay here much longer. Charlton was a dear
friend. I am lost, knowing how to help his widow. She knows nothing of
us, or the Plan. Perhaps best that I do nothing at present.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote

> Thanks for the laughs. As for credibility, you can't hold Jonson's
> jockstrap. You all owe him an apology.

I owe Jonson an ATOMIC WEDGY!

Art Neuendorffer


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Dec 27, 2003, 8:39:40 AM12/27/03
to
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote

> This is a good example of the thinking processes of anti-Stratfordians. In
> Art's mind, a specific poem naming a specific author in a preface to that
> author's works is equivalent to an anonymous review taken out of context
by
> someone whose thinking abilities are on a par with what we've come to
expect
> from anti-Stratfordians.


In Art's mind (i.e., Artinous), a specific poem referencing an illiterate
boob in the preface to William Shake-speare's works is equivalent to smoke &
mirrors.


>
> If there were any more needed, the fact that the not-too-excessive
cognitive
> abilities of anti-Stratfordians prevents them from knowing how idiotic
they
> look to the rest of the world is certainly proof of God's mercy.

Not nearly as idiotic looking as we would have if we were wearing a skin
tight Phantom costume.

Art Neuendorffer


lyra

unread,
Dec 27, 2003, 5:14:49 PM12/27/03
to
kemahw...@yahoo.com (Christine Cooper) wrote in message news:<45b7371d.03122...@posting.google.com>...

> >
> > Well, Baker, I've got to say you've finally learned how to use SpelChek. The
> > rest of your blatherings are as inane as ever, though.
> >
> > TR
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Oh, how flattering sweet!!!!!!!!!
>
> But, no, I am an humble fem-atty in Houston, TX You can verify my ID
> thru Berta Ballantine. She graced me with the term "friend" in recent
> communication.

Roberta Ballantine (anagram)

bane? troll-bait near...

(she wrote the anagrams to see who would believe them)

(but I do it because I like anagrams)

Robert Stonehouse

unread,
Dec 28, 2003, 12:07:31 PM12/28/03
to
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:10:13 -0000, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
...

>"When the clerk of the court entered the grant of a licence in
>the Bishop's Register on 27 November 1582 (one day earlier
>than the date on the bond itself), he gave the bride's name
>as Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton. . . "
>(Schoenbaum, *Compact Documentary Life*, p 83)
>
>Nigel, suppose you were engaged to marry
>to Nichole Kidman, and the clerk gave you
>a licence saying you were to marry 'Barbara
>Bush', don't you think you might notice?

What we have is not the licence, but the entry in the register.
Shakespeare would not have seen that, and we do not know what the
licence itself said. Doesn't Schoenbaum say this clerk has many such
inaccuracies, suggesting he handed out the licences as he went along
and then wrote up the register at the end of the day from memory?
After all, nobody was checking.

Chambers points out that Rowe knew the name as Hathaway, without
knowing anything about the documents connected with the marriage.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.

Bob Grumman

unread,
Dec 28, 2003, 1:31:43 PM12/28/03
to
>>Nigel, suppose you were engaged to marry
>>to Nichole Kidman, and the clerk gave you
>>a licence saying you were to marry 'Barbara
>>Bush', don't you think you might notice?
>
>What we have is not the licence, but the entry in the register.
>Shakespeare would not have seen that, and we do not know what the
>licence itself said. Doesn't Schoenbaum say this clerk has many such
>inaccuracies, suggesting he handed out the licences as he went along
>and then wrote up the register at the end of the day from memory?
>After all, nobody was checking.
>
>Chambers points out that Rowe knew the name as Hathaway, without
>knowing anything about the documents connected with the marriage.
>--
>Robert Stonehouse

Ah, Robert, you haven't thought it out. If Shakespeare were literate it would
have been IMMEDIATELY apparent to the clerk, and he would have bent over
backwards to get the entry right. And Shakespeare would have checked the
register, anyway, knowing--as the man of the world he would have had to have
been even at eighteen had he been Our Genius--how inept clerks generally are.

--Bob G.

Paul Crowley

unread,
Dec 28, 2003, 7:07:19 PM12/28/03
to
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fef0205...@news.cityscape.co.uk...

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:10:13 -0000, "Paul Crowley"

> ...
> >"When the clerk of the court entered the grant of a licence in
> >the Bishop's Register on 27 November 1582 (one day earlier
> >than the date on the bond itself), he gave the bride's name
> >as Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton. . . "
> >(Schoenbaum, *Compact Documentary Life*, p 83)
> >
> >Nigel, suppose you were engaged to marry
> >to Nichole Kidman, and the clerk gave you
> >a licence saying you were to marry 'Barbara
> >Bush', don't you think you might notice?
>
> What we have is not the licence, but the entry in the register.
> Shakespeare would not have seen that,

I see no reason why he would not. The normal
procedure is for such registers to be entered at
the time of the transaction -- one reason being
that the persons concerned can check that the
record has been properly made.

> and we do not know what the
> licence itself said.

We know that another (correct) entry was made
following day. Unless two William Shagspers
(marrying two different women from locations
near Stratford-upon-Avon) had entries in that
register on adjoining days . . . . . which would
be extremely unlikely.

> Doesn't Schoenbaum say this clerk has many such
> inaccuracies,

He mentions a couple of errors -- none as bad
as this -- but he does not say how frequently
they occur.

> suggesting he handed out the licences as he went along
> and then wrote up the register at the end of the day from memory?

He does not suggest that -- it would be a
next-to-impossible procedure. He says the
register might have been produced from sets
of working notes or temporary memoranda.

> After all, nobody was checking.

You can bet someone was checking. Those
records were extremely important. The history
of the period is packed with disputes as to
whether or not X was, or was not married to
Y -- or married at all. In fact, it's probably more
common than not to find such a matter
disputed in the lives of Elizabethan citizens
of any importance.

Of course, the importance of the records
would have been directly proportional to the
status, wealth and education of the persons
concerned. We can see why the clerk would
have been much more liable to have been
sloppy or careless about an entry concerning
some uncouth, illiterate youth of poor means
who had no idea what he was writing down.

> Chambers points out that Rowe knew the name as Hathaway, without
> knowing anything about the documents connected with the marriage.

Well? Is there likely to be doubt as to the
name of the life-long wife of a major Stratford
citizen, who made a lot of money and became
owner the second-largest house, and of much
other local property?


Paul.

Robert Stonehouse

unread,
Dec 29, 2003, 3:40:15 AM12/29/03
to
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:07:19 -0000, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3fef0205...@news.cityscape.co.uk...>
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:10:13 -0000, "Paul Crowley"
>> ...
>> >"When the clerk of the court entered the grant of a licence in
>> >the Bishop's Register on 27 November 1582 (one day earlier
>> >than the date on the bond itself), he gave the bride's name
>> >as Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton. . . "
>> >(Schoenbaum, *Compact Documentary Life*, p 83)
>> >
>> >Nigel, suppose you were engaged to marry
>> >to Nichole Kidman, and the clerk gave you
>> >a licence saying you were to marry 'Barbara
>> >Bush', don't you think you might notice?
>>
>> What we have is not the licence, but the entry in the register.
>> Shakespeare would not have seen that,
>
>I see no reason why he would not. The normal
>procedure is for such registers to be entered at
>the time of the transaction -- one reason being
>that the persons concerned can check that the
>record has been properly made.

Any reason why he would, even if it was available at the time? It was
the Bishop's record: Shakespeare had his licence, which was what he
was interested in.


>
>> and we do not know what the
>> licence itself said.
>
>We know that another (correct) entry was made
>following day. Unless two William Shagspers
>(marrying two different women from locations
>near Stratford-upon-Avon) had entries in that
>register on adjoining days . . . . . which would
>be extremely unlikely.
>
>> Doesn't Schoenbaum say this clerk has many such
>> inaccuracies,
>
>He mentions a couple of errors -- none as bad
>as this -- but he does not say how frequently
>they occur.
>
>> suggesting he handed out the licences as he went along
>> and then wrote up the register at the end of the day from memory?
>
>He does not suggest that -- it would be a
>next-to-impossible procedure. He says the
>register might have been produced from sets
>of working notes or temporary memoranda.

Why 'next-to-impossible'? How many were there in a day? Under half a
dozen, I'm sure.


>
>> After all, nobody was checking.
>
>You can bet someone was checking. Those
>records were extremely important. The history
>of the period is packed with disputes as to
>whether or not X was, or was not married to
>Y -- or married at all. In fact, it's probably more
>common than not to find such a matter
>disputed in the lives of Elizabethan citizens
>of any importance.

More than half of all marriages were questioned in court? Not
credible. But in any case, the fact the record was important to others
does not mean the clerk kept it carefully - see the errors you mention
above.


>
>Of course, the importance of the records
>would have been directly proportional to the
>status, wealth and education of the persons
>concerned. We can see why the clerk would
>have been much more liable to have been
>sloppy or careless about an entry concerning
>some uncouth, illiterate youth of poor means
>who had no idea what he was writing down.
>
>> Chambers points out that Rowe knew the name as Hathaway, without
>> knowing anything about the documents connected with the marriage.
>
>Well? Is there likely to be doubt as to the
>name of the life-long wife of a major Stratford
>citizen, who made a lot of money and became
>owner the second-largest house, and of much
>other local property?

Not seriously, any more than about what plays he wrote!

Paul Crowley

unread,
Dec 29, 2003, 5:16:27 AM12/29/03
to
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fef89dd...@news.cityscape.co.uk...

> Any reason why he would, even if it was available at the time? It was
> the Bishop's record: Shakespeare had his licence, which was what he
> was interested in.

It was the official diocesan record of all manner
of transactions. In this case, the licence was
presumably given to the officiating priest -- to
show the bishop has made an exception in their
case, and that he can legally marry the couple.
None of them have apparently survived, so it
seems no one thought them worth keeping.
In any matter of dispute (e.g. was the marriage
legal?) the diocesan record may have been the
only one available.

> >He does not suggest that -- it would be a
> >next-to-impossible procedure. He says the
> >register might have been produced from sets
> >of working notes or temporary memoranda.
>
> Why 'next-to-impossible'? How many were there in a day? Under half a
> dozen, I'm sure.

I'd fire (and I'm sure you would too) any clerk
who relied on his memory for the details of half-
a-dozen records where (as in this case) the parties
concerned had spent most of a man-month (in
time) to get it recorded, and has spent about
another month's wages in fees for the job. Put
that into modern money to see its significance.

> >
> >> After all, nobody was checking.
> >
> >You can bet someone was checking. Those
> >records were extremely important. The history
> >of the period is packed with disputes as to
> >whether or not X was, or was not married to
> >Y -- or married at all. In fact, it's probably more
> >common than not to find such a matter
> >disputed in the lives of Elizabethan citizens
> >of any importance.
>
> More than half of all marriages were questioned in court? Not
> credible.

And it was not what I said. Study the biographies
of the important people of the day, and in most
cases there will be a dispute about whether or
not their marriage to X was legal -- because of
a story that one or the other party had been
previously married to Y -- or some such dispute.
Sometimes it got to court; mostly it didn't.

> But in any case, the fact the record was important to others
> does not mean the clerk kept it carefully - see the errors you mention
> above.

I have no details on those records -- they may
not have been important. Certainly everyone
is amazed at a clerk writing 'Hathaway' down
as 'Whateley' -- for a marriage licence.


Paul.

Lorenzo4344

unread,
Dec 29, 2003, 4:35:35 PM12/29/03
to
>Subject: Re: Who was Shakespeare?
>From: "Paul Crowley" slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com
>Date: 12/28/2003

Yes, even though the first one was spelled Shaxpere. And it is even more
unlikely a clerk would write "Temple Grafton" when he hears "Stratford." But it
is not unlikely that our country boy could have shown up on day one looking to
wed the Whateley wench, the heart of his young heart, only to be foiled on day
two when the bucks-up Stratford yeomen (!!), Sandells and Richardson, agreed to
kick out 40 pounds (!!) in the event of legal hassles, and to hustle along his
marriage to the three-months preggers Hathwey gal (on behalf of whom, I
couldn't say; her father was dead). Ivor Brown is one of those who favors this
scenario, that Shakspere was shotgunned, or pitchforked, or whatever, out of
Plan A..

It is possible that the naive lad may have been sexually entrapped by the
eight-years-older-and-getting-nervous-about-spinsterhood, Anne II. Forced
wedlock is certainly not improbable, and if so, and the marriage loveless, it
would go a long way in explaining his apparent willingness later to leave his
family for extended periods (albeit a thing not so unusual in those times). You
will note that this scenario affords no indicator of illiteracy due William's
failure to correct a clerk's misrenderings of his bride-to-be's name and town,
for William would have had nothing much to correct.

Lorenzo
"Mark the music."

Greg Reynolds

unread,
Dec 29, 2003, 8:58:50 PM12/29/03
to
Lorenzo4344 wrote:

"Spelling" was so insignificant, it was not even a word yet.
It evolved from the Middle English "spellen," which was
"to read letter by letter," from Old French espeller, of Germanic
origin. "Spelling" was about reading letters, not formalizing the
order in which they were to be written.

Ox[en]ford[e] *spelled* his name in a variety of ways, you know.

> And it is even more
> unlikely a clerk would write "Temple Grafton" when he hears "Stratford." But it
> is not unlikely that our country boy could have shown up on day one looking to
> wed the Whateley wench, the heart of his young heart, only to be foiled on day
> two when the bucks-up Stratford yeomen (!!), Sandells and Richardson, agreed to
> kick out 40 pounds (!!) in the event of legal hassles,

So where is the dissolution of the *recorded* (and love-filled) Whately marriage?

> and to hustle along his
> marriage to the three-months preggers Hathwey gal (on behalf of whom, I
> couldn't say; her father was dead).

Thanks for your loving insight. You're a veritable Leo Buscaglia and I
mean that from the heart of my bottom, whoa, I mean, the bottom
of my heart!

> Ivor Brown is one of those who favors this
> scenario, that Shakspere was shotgunned, or pitchforked, or whatever, out of
> Plan A..

Far more likely that the clerk anticipated something and committed
it to text, only to see the next day that he had it wrong.

Consider Oxfordianism, Marlovianism, and Baconianism. Between 66.66%
and 100% of that is absolute crockery and needs to be erased entirely. It is
not some clerk's error, it is the professed "belief" of *otherwise sensible* people.
It is far more worthy of your scrutiny to correct these audacious lies than
to bother yourself with the notes of some wedding planner in 1582.

The clerk's overanxious entry is a mere triviality compared to the
huge, endless, hilarious volumes of outright nonsense conceived about
Shakespeare, of which you are a huge and steady contributor, Lorenzo.
Your laughably contemptible statements regarding Shakespeare (hillbilly?
-- come on) make the clerk at the Bishop's register look like a Wall Street
Journal proofreader.

> It is possible that the naive lad may have been sexually entrapped by the
> eight-years-older-and-getting-nervous-about-spinsterhood, Anne II.

Nonsense--they had at least one other pregnancy later (a double whammy
which indicates even more love than a single, no?).
What was that, then?
Entrapment II+?
Hehehe!

> Forced
> wedlock is certainly not improbable, and if so, and the marriage loveless, it
> would go a long way in explaining his apparent willingness later to leave his
> family for extended periods (albeit a thing not so unusual in those times).

You have no idea if his family accompanied him to London, do you?
Going to work is not "leaving your family." He obviously cared for
his family and died in the home he shared by his one and only wife.
His marriage lasted over 30 years, so your judgment of love/lovelessness
is quite worthless.

> You
> will note that this scenario affords no indicator of illiteracy due William's
> failure to correct a clerk's misrenderings of his bride-to-be's name and town,
> for William would have had nothing much to correct.

It wasn't his doing. Why assume he even looked at it? Why assume it was
recorded in his presence? Hey, why assume anything?


Greg Reynolds

Paul Crowley

unread,
Dec 30, 2003, 9:11:45 AM12/30/03
to
"Lorenzo4344" <loren...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031229163535...@mb-m22.aol.com...

> >We know that another (correct) entry was made
> >following day. Unless two William Shagspers
> >(marrying two different women from locations
> >near Stratford-upon-Avon) had entries in that
> >register on adjoining days . . . . . which would
> >be extremely unlikely.
>
> Yes, even though the first one was spelled Shaxpere. And it
> is even more unlikely a clerk would write "Temple Grafton"
> when he hears "Stratford." But it is not unlikely that our country
> boy could have shown up on day one looking to wed the
> Whateley wench, the heart of his young heart, only to be foiled
> on day two when the bucks-up Stratford yeomen (!!), Sandells
> and Richardson, agreed to kick out 40 pounds (!!) in the event
> of legal hassles, and to hustle along his marriage to the three-
> months preggers Hathwey gal (on behalf of whom, I couldn't say;
> her father was dead). Ivor Brown is one of those who favors this
> scenario, that Shakspere was shotgunned, or pitchforked, or
> whatever, out of Plan A..

That is fanciful -- and unlikely. There are no
records of any Whateleys of Temple Grafton.
And it's unlikely that Shagsper would have
made one woman pregnant -- requiring a
rushed marriage, and a special licence from
Worcester -- and then wanted to rush into
_another_ marriage with another woman
requiring the same sort of licence.

Schoenbaum writes:

"The diocesan records show that on the day the Hathaway licence was
registered, the 27th, the court dealt with forty cases, and one of these
concerned the suit of the vicar of Crowle, William Whateley, in arms
against Arnold Leight for non計ayment of tithes. This Whateley must
have been a familiar figure in the court, for his name appears in several
records for 1582 and 1583. The clerk, one suspects, was copying from
a hastily written temporary memorandum, or from an unfamiliar hand
in an allega負ion; he had just been dealing with Whateley, and by a
process of unconscious association made the substitution."

It's more likely that the clerk could not
understand the rough accents of the
three yeomen, and wrote down what
he _thought_ they were saying -- they
did not know how to spell any kind of
name -- and 'Whateley' was one that he
might have thought he recognised. It
would have been a recurring problem
for him, about which he would have got
careless in dealing with it. He could not
be blamed for any 'errors' arising.

'Hathaway' sounds not wholly different
from 'Whateley' -- with 'a' sounds and
ending in a 'y'.

As regards 'Temple Grafton', Schoenbaum writes:

"Perhaps in the early eighties Anne Hathaway was living in
Temple Grafton-the Worces負er licence entries usually give
the bride's residence-or the wedding ceremony may have
taken place there. . . "

> It is possible that the naive lad may have been sexually entrapped by the
> eight-years-older-and-getting-nervous-about-spinsterhood, Anne II.

She was not old for marriage for the
times. Late marriage (by our standards)
was the norm and, effectively, a form
of birth-control.

> Forced wedlock is certainly not improbable, and if so, and
> the marriage loveless, it would go a long way in explaining
> his apparent willingness later to leave his family for extended
> periods

That is largely Stratfordian myth. We
know the man was nearly continually
involved in Stratford matters. I doubt if
he left Stratford, except for brief periods
when he needed to do a little business
in London -- with his new masters, or to
invest some of his newly acquired wealth.

> (albeit a thing not so unusual in those times).

Quite unusual in those times -- just as it
is today. Who else do you know who
behaved in a similar fashion? Separations,
that are as 'unnecessary' as that,
commonly result in divorce or permanent
separation. We see nothing like that.


Paul.


John

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 9:43:34 AM12/31/03
to
The interesting question that nobody ever seems to ask is: 'why are
the plays unsigned?' I mean why wasn't a name solidly placed next to
the plays at the time they were written?

It is known what plays Ben Jonson, John Marston and George Chapman
wrote (and consequently ended up in prison for) why wasn't the name
Shakespeare associated with the plays and his name advertised on
flyers at the time?

The words in the parenthesis are the key, 'and consequently ended up
in prison for'. For as much as those three men were persecuted for a
single play 'Eastward Ho' the bard was 100 times as controversial. You
might have gotten at the most about four plays before the bards life
was extinguished if the bards true identity had been known.

For that reason alone the bard's identity was kept secret. Since I
recall having been the Bard in a previous life I also recall these
issues. There were three main presences that I worried about. The
Church of England, international politics and local politics.

The local politics got resolved pretty quickly and the Globe turned
into a potent force for England's behalf but the other two remained.

The Church of England was not certain how to even react to the bard.

The plays taught ethics and morality just like the church did but the
plays actually made more sense to many people and left them with a
greater passion about doing good than did the church.

The Church of England had replaced the Catholic Church so that King
Henry VIII could behead his wives but that was not a reason with Queen
Elizabeth.

The problem was compounded since the Globe Theater consistently drew
much larger crowds than did the church did and when there was a new
play the church only got half the normal contributions. Sometimes
people even stole from the church to buy tickets.

They were jealous, they were fearful and they changed their religion
in those days to stay ahead of the Lutherans.

They wanted the Bard dead since the bard was a threat to their church.
They had a number of ways to accomplish this end they had to find out
the bard's identity and that never happened.

I'll give you an example of probably what would have happened if the
author was known. At that time both Heresy and witchcraft were
punished by death and both had fast trails.

Writing about the witches spell in Macbeth*** was legal. However, the
church could have changed the law the night before the theater put on
a production of it and kept it a secret. Then it would have resulted
in the death of the bard, which was me, and the actors in the play

Also, look at the numerous nations that were made upset by the plays.
If England wanted a treaty with a country and their leader was a
paranoid psycho who was convinced the play Hamlet was about him then
he might have made the bard's death part of the treaty (quietly of
course) and it would have gone to him in a basket. Or they may have
just sent assassins.

It is complicated by the fact that I was a woman in that life time and
women were ten times as quickly killed as witches as were men. (Now do
the references in the play concerning the bards 'homosexual'
relationship with men suddenly become clearer? But that is another
thread/subject that I will answer when I am not quite so ill.

I put this all this information on my web site and more at
http://www.shakespeareslove.com/anonymous.htm . The beginning of the
web site is at: http://www.shakespeareslove.com . I have to go animate
more graphics on the site now.

Boy, I just reread Sonnet 20. Nobody ever pointed that sonnet out to
me before in this life or that one as the bard. Those passions slipped
right through on that sonnets and busted me. Thank heavens people can
never even conceive of a woman writing in a masculine genre. If Mary
Shelly can write the greatest horror story of all times....
John

Christine Cooper

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 2:36:24 PM12/31/03
to
jo...@shakespeareslove.com (John) wrote in message news:<f242189b.03123...@posting.google.com>...

So c'mon Lumper, write us a sonnet then, Luv:

(Are you sure you're not from Sheffield?)

Christine

+++++++++++++++

Bob Grumman

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 4:27:21 PM12/31/03
to

>> The interesting question that nobody ever seems to ask is: 'why are
>> the plays unsigned?' I mean why wasn't a name solidly placed next to
>> the plays at the time they were written?

Well, he was REALLY cute, so they thought the photograph of him with his horse
would make the plays a better sell.

--Bob G.

Phil Innes

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 8:20:23 PM12/31/03
to
> So c'mon Lumper, write us a sonnet then, Luv:
>
> (Are you sure you're not from Sheffield?)
>
> Christine
>
> ++++++++++++++

wot
you think you
could find
a th here?

sonnets aint init luv

the modern geist
is to offer
7 lines, plathered
one not-rhyming

and thats the subtle one
init

this ng is for
those wot
couldn't
digit

phil


David L. Webb

unread,
Jan 1, 2004, 12:07:58 AM1/1/04
to
In article <KV%Gb.7430$lo3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:

...to the limited extent that it makes sense to call such mental
processes thinking...

> of anti-Stratfordians. In
> Art's mind,

...if you want to call it that...

> a specific poem naming a specific author in a preface to that
> author's works is equivalent to an anonymous review taken out of context by
> someone whose thinking abilities are on a par with what we've come to expect
> from anti-Stratfordians.

Absolutely. Indeed, in Art's mind (if you want to call it that), an
obituary reference to a 54-year old industrial plant manager named Peter
Gay *must* refer to the Yale historian of the same name, even though the
deceased was a quarter century younger than the historian, and even
though the profession of the deceased was quite clearly spelled out.

John

unread,
Jan 1, 2004, 4:48:57 AM1/1/04
to
(Christine Cooper) wrote in message news:<45b7371d.03123...@posting.google.com>...

> So c'mon Lumper, write us a sonnet then, Luv:
> (Are you sure you're not from Sheffield?)
> Christine

A simple sonnet is all dear sweet Christine asks for? I am not drawn
to sonnets but I suppose I could write one. I jump between the old
English of the bard and new English and it gets a bit confusing so it
is easier to stick to more structured screenplays.

Women and what they request of me. Even the spirit of Queen Elizabeth
comes by at times to correct me and she wants me to learn to play the
lute. She say's ‘anger and the lute are incompatible. Even a little
pissed off and you aren't able to play for two days'.)

She played the lute and she was never known to get angry and it was in
her family. That included her father Henry VIII. She attributes her
level head to having played the lute.

Speaking of ‘loot' If you asked for a screenplay, then I am doing that
already. It even has a sex-entendre in it. No, Cristine that is what
your dirty mind thinks it is. A sex-entendre is like a double entendre
but it has six meanings that pertain to the conversation, not just two
meanings. (Actually the sentence I think has several more meanings but
since they don't pertain to the screenplay or the actors I am not
including them.) Technically it is probably a oct-entendre but sex
sounds much more interesting, doesn't it, to you, and since I invented
it I can name it whatever I want, can't I?

It's at my nice web site at http://www.shakespeareslove.com but the
actual page is at http://www.shakespeareslove.com/1style.htm . It easy
to deny my claim of having the memories of being the bard but it
doesn't hold much weight when I can also write with sex-entendres,
does it?

I mean as a point of amusement if I was insane or delusional I would
have a problem thinking of even a double entendre and only the bard
has ever done better than a double and it was a triple entendre in the
Merry Wives of Windsor'.
http://www.bard.org/SectionEducate/merryentendre.html So I am in good
company I think.

Now, the real bucks are the plays or in today's world, the
screenplays. And I can give the depth of women's emotions their due.
I/she/the bard had to limit some of the emotions to one third of a
woman range since men did all the acting and they do not normally have
the range to fully carry certain emotions. (Gay men can usually get
about half of those emotions)

Ok, the emotions of anger, desire and such men are able to do well but
many of the emotions but the others they can't.

They just can't act thru the nuances. As an audience they can
understand them. They can understand the body language of a woman
acting out those emotions and maybe even understand them a conscious
level but they can't act them out themselves. In the plays most of
those emotions were kept only at about one third of what they could
have been had women acted.

Then there is the visual element of the close up of the expression of
the emotion on the face that the camera provides but I'm skipping that
for now.

Writing for women opens up other possibilities that no one has fully
explored.

Christine. I'll give you an example which seems to be the prime
motivator in modern times. It's the action of betrayal. Back in the
bard's time the (men) actors simply balked at any woman showing
betrayal in any of the plays and so it was hard to even put that
element in the plays.

Now women won't balk about showing betrayal and some of my previous
girlfriends have done it far too easily. This is where it gets
interesting. For a man, a woman's betrayal is simple. To him it
usually means she leaves him but after that it just gets vague with
most men. So it was not even acted out in the plays.

But just look at the ways you as a woman can betray a lover. You can
just dump him. You can just be underfoot a lot until he ask you to
give him ‘some space' then you can misunderstand him and leave him or
just say that he wasn't supportive enough for your needs, etc. You can
give him a reason for him to ask you to leave and then you leave. With
these last two it is all on him since you only did what he asked you
to do.

If you can get your lover to ask you to leave once and then get him
not to enforce it but just stay then you are in the perfect position
for a betrayal:
1. You can grab the next bigger, better deal with gusto and not be
seen as being at fault (at the same time you can easily stifle or mess
with his emotions towards other women so another woman can never get
to experience the ‘full him' until you leave and that large a
transition is usually not acceptable to most decent women).
2. You can Blackmail him from then on for as long as you want to stay
and it is completely ok.
3. You can wait until he really needs your support and then leave him.
4. You can combine any or all of these together in any order you want.
After he has asked you to leave even once then all rules are off. As
far as you need be concerned your relationship is in suspension until
you move on. The more he has asked you to leave the less rights he has
in the relationship.

[Maybe I need to explain here that I must be of the highest ethics to
explain these failings of people and to see them for what they are. I
am none of these kinds of people or I could never see these
shortcomings of ethics in others.]

If the need for support is work related and you can somehow get a date
with one of his coworkers then it is about 4X worse. (This works great
in the reverse for men who do the same thing with one of their wives
or girlfriends co workers.)
Of course this info must get back to him but having had sex with his
co worker is not important. This is a situation where it is best not
to be involved sexually but don't tell him. His not knowing is the
most important part of the entire thing. He will never know for sure
if sex is involved or not and also it is not necessary for him to know
how many of his coworkers you actually end up dating. He will never
know which or how many of his coworkers are betraying him.

However if his need for support is because of personal reasons then
you need to date a friend of his. He will not know who to trust.
Often, for some reason a casual affair with his friend is much more
upsetting to the ex than is a long term affair.

If you can you date and sleep with a friend you both have in common,
then it can go many times against him. Men don't differentiate or
separate friends into classes nearly as well as women do so the odds
are that he won't have anything to do with any of your common male
friends. All your common male friends will disappear from his life and
stay in your life. The couples may get dumped by ‘the ex' depending on
whether the male member(s) of the couple ‘likes you'.

This works in clubs and groups that you both participate in, so if he
sees you there with another man you can make it devastating. (Just
grab one man out the side door and allow him to escort you to your car
and hold him up in conversation for a little over 15 minutes, which is
just a little too long for it to have been a casual conversation but
maybe long enough for a quickie in the back seat…)
Again, it is not what is known that gets to him, it is what he doesn't
know.

(This can work really well if it is a same sex affair with a common
woman friend. That doesn't preclude men from being your lover so the
ex ends up dumping all your common friends. Then there is about half
the men who will be pissed because they might have had both of you
together. In any case, a same sex affair usually messes with men who
have any kind of sexual identity problems (unless they have a kid
sister).)

I don't know if the sonnets are there inside me so much as are the
deeper understandings of the human character that can be imparted in
the screenplays. Do you still want a sonnet Christine and what is with
Sheffield? Can't I interest you in sex-entendres instead?

Christine Cooper

unread,
Jan 1, 2004, 10:52:33 AM1/1/04
to
jo...@shakespeareslove.com (John) wrote in message news:<f242189b.04010...@posting.google.com>...

> (Christine Cooper) wrote in message news:<45b7371d.03123...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >

John:

You appear to be channeling Paul Simon rather than the Bard, here.
May I forward your post to Dr. Phil?

;-)

Christine

+++++++++++++++++

>
> A simple sonnet is all dear sweet Christine asks for? I am not drawn
> to sonnets but I suppose I could write one. I jump between the old
> English of the bard and new English and it gets a bit confusing so it
> is easier to stick to more structured screenplays.
>
> Women and what they request of me. Even the spirit of Queen Elizabeth
> comes by at times to correct me and she wants me to learn to play the

> lute. She say's ?anger and the lute are incompatible. Even a little


> pissed off and you aren't able to play for two days'.)
>
> She played the lute and she was never known to get angry and it was in
> her family. That included her father Henry VIII. She attributes her
> level head to having played the lute.
>

> Speaking of ?loot' If you asked for a screenplay, then I am doing that

> give him ?some space' then you can misunderstand him and leave him or


> just say that he wasn't supportive enough for your needs, etc. You can
> give him a reason for him to ask you to leave and then you leave. With
> these last two it is all on him since you only did what he asked you
> to do.
>
> If you can get your lover to ask you to leave once and then get him
> not to enforce it but just stay then you are in the perfect position
> for a betrayal:
> 1. You can grab the next bigger, better deal with gusto and not be
> seen as being at fault (at the same time you can easily stifle or mess
> with his emotions towards other women so another woman can never get

> to experience the ?full him' until you leave and that large a

> stay in your life. The couples may get dumped by ?the ex' depending on
> whether the male member(s) of the couple ?likes you'.


>
> This works in clubs and groups that you both participate in, so if he
> sees you there with another man you can make it devastating. (Just
> grab one man out the side door and allow him to escort you to your car
> and hold him up in conversation for a little over 15 minutes, which is
> just a little too long for it to have been a casual conversation but

> maybe long enough for a quickie in the back seat?)

Lynne

unread,
Jan 1, 2004, 11:50:56 AM1/1/04
to