Who was Shakespeare?
George
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
>
> 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!
>
> 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
>
>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
"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
> 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
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
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
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
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
> >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
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
> "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
> 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
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
news:t3WFb.10152$wL6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Yes, it's embarassing whenever people spell my surname "Redy" or "Reddy" or
"Riddy" and then I have to admit I can't read or write.
TR
Paul Crowley
> In article <t3WFb.10152$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
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
"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
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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
"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
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does that mean you agree that Will Shakspere was an illiterate country bumpkin?
Tom Reedy
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
> > 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:
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
> "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
> "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
> "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
No, it means I consider David More an idiot, and that you suffer from guilt
by association.
Art Neuendorffer
> >>"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
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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
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
> 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
>
> > 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
> 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
> >
> > 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
<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
>>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
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
<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
> 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
>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
"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
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
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
So c'mon Lumper, write us a sonnet then, Luv:
(Are you sure you're not from Sheffield?)
Christine
+++++++++++++++
Bob Grumman
>> 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
>
> (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
"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
> 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
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
> (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.
John,
Since you are Shakespeare reincarnated, perhaps you'd be kind enough
to let us know your real name during the Tudor period (if you've done
so already, I apologise. I haven't been following the thread closely
as I've been too busy). I understand that there may have been a need
for secrecy in Elizabeth's time, but surely there is none now. Think
of the benefit to humankind (or at least to HLAS)if you would be kind
enough to give us a definitive answer and end all our arguments.
And yes, a sonnet would be very appopriate. Perhaps some kind of
meditation on the New Year?
Best wishes,
LynnE
P.S. Of course you know that the bard didn't speak Old English at all.
But the intricacies of language aren't my forte. Perhaps you could
discuss the differences between old, middle, and modern English,
together with dialectal variance, with a few of our more knowledgeable
members. As you are/were the bard, I'm sure you could give them some
valuable pointers.
Roundtable
> 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
More like channeling Dr. Ruth.
Roundtable
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> "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.
By and large, professional Elizabethan literary historians have
tenure, so they need not give a fig for the supposed "Stratfordian
hegemony" conceived by Art's preposterous paranoia.
There are also some independent scholars who have no academic
affiliation (for example, even the illiterate District Heights boob may
be familiar with the name of David Kathman -- although not, of course,
with his work), but independent scholars need not give a fig for the
supposed "Stratfordian hegemony" conceived by Art's preposterous
paranoia either, as they have no intention of making a living of
historical scholarship in any case.
As for Shakespearean actors, one would not expect them to possess any
special expertise in Elizbethan literary history, and indeed most do not
-- but then aneuendor...@comicass.nut is the sort of moron who,
when he wishes to learn something about quantum mechanics, calls his
local automobile mechanic and cannot for the life of him understand the
man's robust laughter. Finally, there are of course some well-known
Shakespearean actors whose careers do not seem to have suffered at all
from their failure to accept the supposed "Stratfordian hegemony"
conceived by Art's preposterous paranoia. Matters being so, one wonders
just what consequences Derek Jacobi is supposed to have suffered in
Art's febrile imagination.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > 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."
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > 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.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> By and large, professional Elizabethan literary historians
> have tenure, so they need not give a fig for the supposed
> "Stratfordian hegemony"
They still can't get published or get a grant.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> There are also some independent scholars who have no academic
> affiliation (for example, even the illiterate District Heights boob may
> be familiar with the name of David Kathman -- although not,
> of course, with his work),
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/oxbib.html
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/thingitself.html
[Oxford Bible:] On Kathman's list but not Stritmatter's:
"Cross" mark on Revelation 22:
Rev | 22 |14-15| N(R) |
------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 22:14
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and
murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a LIE.
I am the root and the offspring of DAVID,
*and the bright & MORNING STAR*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<MORNINGSTAR is a middling tall, leanly athletic male whose vigilante
uniform generally is stylized, red motorcycle racing leathers,
a black leather jacket, and a red Zorro-style mask. Curiously,
his outfit bears a vague resemblance to that favored by the
metahuman VAGABOND - a notorious member of The Hexagon.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> but independent scholars need not give a fig for the
> supposed "Stratfordian hegemony" conceived by Art's preposterous
> paranoia either, as they have no intention of making a living of
> historical scholarship in any case.
Kathman works for brownie points
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> As for Shakespearean actors, one would not expect them to possess any
> special expertise in Elizbethan literary history, and indeed most do not
As for Math professors, one would not expect them to possess any
special expertise in the workings of Elizbethan literary historians.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> -- but then aneuendor...@comicass.nut is the sort of moron who,
> when he wishes to learn something about quantum mechanics,
> calls his local automobile mechanic
I already took quantum mechanics.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Finally, there are of course some well-known
> Shakespearean actors whose careers do not seem to have suffered at all
> from their failure to accept the supposed "Stratfordian hegemony"
> conceived by Art's preposterous paranoia. Matters being so, one wonders
> just what consequences Derek Jacobi is supposed to have suffered in
> Art's febrile imagination.
I haven't see much of Derek Jacobi lately;
one can only wonder what consequences his career did suffer.
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> 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,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In Art's mind YALE & HARVARD are
at the heart of the "Stratfordian hegemony" in the U.S.:
Peter Gay, Sterling Professor of History, YALE University.
Harold Bloom, Sterling Professor of Humanities, YALE University.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<James Fenimore Cooper was the son of Quakers,
Judge William Cooper & Elisabeth Fenimore Cooper. His father
was a representative of the 4th & 6th Congress. The family moved
to Cooperstown, New York, which Judge Cooper had founded.
In his junior year JFC was expelled from YALE University for training
A DONKEY TO SIT IN A YALE PROFESSOR'S CHAIR.>>
Dante dies Sept. 14, 1321, in exile
-530
---------------
JFC dies Sept. 14, 1851, Cooperstown, N.Y.
+62
---------------
JFC born Sept. 15, 1789, Burlington, N.J..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<James Fenimore Cooper became friends with Sir
WALTER SCOTT & Marquis de Lafayette. He was especially
inspired by Italy and lived in Tasso's villa at Sorrento.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneers - James Fenimore Cooper
"I have but little more to say, sir, I followed to the lake where
I had so often been told that Natty dwelt, and found him maintaining
his OLD MASTER IN SECRET; for even he could not bear
to exhibit to the world, in his poverty and dotage,
a man whom a whole people once looked up to with respect."
"And what did you?"
"What did I? I spent my last money in purchasing a rifle,
clad myself in a coarse garb, and learned to be a hunter by
the side of Leather-Stocking. You know the rest, Judge TEMPLE."
"Ant VERE vas olt Fritz HARTmann?" said the German, reproachfully;
------------------------------------------------------------------
Delia Bacon: Hawthorne's Last Heroine* by Nina Baym
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/baym/essays/last_heroine.htm
<< Delia Bacon had been victimized in a nasty little scandal
that fractured the New Haven Congregational community in 1847. Her
brother Leonard Bacon, a minister, formally accused Alexander McWhorter,
also a minister, of attempting to evade an engagement with Delia Bacon
by defaming her. Leonard was backed by the town clergy, McWhorter by
the YALE faculty. The evidence supported Leonard's claim, but the church
proceedings that followed produced only the equivalent of a slap on the
wrist for the culprit and exposed Delia Bacon to public humiliation.
The bad showing by the YALE Congregationalists in this
episode delighted Boston Unitarians, and endeared
Delia Bacon especially to the women.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1832 The Skull & Bones secret society is founded at YALE U.
http://www.tlwinslow.com/timeline/time183x.html
Jan 27, 1832 CHARLES (LEWIS CARROLL) DodGson born
c. Jan 27, 1832 Goethe's Faust completed
Mar 22, 1832 Goethe dies
May 4, 1832 Mercury TRANSIT of the sun
May 20, 1832 EVARIste (pERcIVAl) GALOIS duels
Jul 22, 1832 Napoleon II dies
Sep 21, 1832 Sir WALTER SCOTT dies
Nov 14, 1832 Catholic CHARLES CARROLL dies
Nov 29, 1832 Louisa May Alcott born
Dec 15, 1832 Gustave Eiffel born
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
> I haven't see much of Derek Jacobi lately;
> one can only wonder what consequences his career did suffer.
>
Good frend for Iesus sake forbeare
to digg the dust encloased heare!
Blest be ye man yt spares thes stones
And curst be he yt moves my bones.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > 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."
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > 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.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > By and large, professional Elizabethan literary historians
> > have tenure, so they need not give a fig for the supposed
> > "Stratfordian hegemony"
> They still can't get published or get a grant.
Gililov certainly got published -- indeed, his book was a best
seller, which as far as I know is an unprecedented occurrence for a book
on the authorship "question." He also got a fellowship from the Folger.
Anti-Stratfordian work of Abel Lefranc were certainly published and
even translated. MoreoVER, Lefranc was a full professor at a major
uniVERsity. Plainly, aneuendor...@comicass.nut doesn't know what
he is talking about -- but that's scarcely news.
Indeed, virtually *all* the prominent anti-Stratfordians managed to
get their work (such as it is) published -- even complete nutcases like
Delia Bacon and amusing cranks like the Ogburns. *Even* Mr. Streitz
published a book on the subject, for crying out loud!
Moreover, works *far* more controVERsial than comic anti-Stratfordian
crankery get published, even by academic presses. For example, Martin
Bernal's _Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization
(The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985)_ was certainly published
-- indeed, it appeared under the auspices of Rutgers University Press.
Plainly, aneuendor...@comicass.nut doesn't know what he is
talking about -- but that's scarcely news.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > There are also some independent scholars who have no academic
> > affiliation (for example, even the illiterate District Heights boob may
> > be familiar with the name of David Kathman -- although not,
> > of course, with his work),
> http://shakespeareauthorship.com/oxbib.html
> http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/thingitself.html
>
> [Oxford Bible:] On Kathman's list but not Stritmatter's:
> "Cross" mark on Revelation 22:
>
> Rev | 22 |14-15| N(R) |
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Revelation 22:14
>
> For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and
> murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a LIE.
> I am the root and the offspring of DAVID,
> *and the bright & MORNING STAR*
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<MORNINGSTAR is a middling tall, leanly athletic male whose vigilante
> uniform generally is stylized, red motorcycle racing leathers,
> a black leather jacket, and a red Zorro-style mask. Curiously,
> his outfit bears a vague resemblance to that favored by the
> metahuman VAGABOND - a notorious member of The Hexagon.>>
But Art -- "Hexagon" is a perfect anagram of "Hang E. Ox."!
I hate to break the news to you, Art, but this text most certainly
does not come from REVelations.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > but independent scholars need not give a fig for the
> > supposed "Stratfordian hegemony" conceived by Art's preposterous
> > paranoia either, as they have no intention of making a living of
> > historical scholarship in any case.
> Kathman works for brownie points
What conceivable motivation could actuate him to work for "brownie
points"? He isn't trying to make a living from scholarship, and brownie
points have scant purchasing power, even among Brownies.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > As for Shakespearean actors, one would not expect them to possess any
> > special expertise in Elizbethan literary history, and indeed most do not
> As for Math professors, one would not expect them to possess any
> special expertise in the workings of Elizbethan literary historians.
And indeed most do not. In particular, I certainly do not. Is it
not remarkable, then, that even a complete ignoramus such as myself can
so effortlessly spot the hilarious howlers of so many anti-Stratfordian
stalwarts? Indeed, perhaps nothing so starkly limns the quality -- or
rather, the complete lack thereof -- of anti-Stratfordian "scholarship"
so decisively as the many gaffes therein so gargantuan that they can be
spotted immediately by mere untrained amateurs!
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > -- but then aneuendor...@comicass.nut is the sort of moron who,
> > when he wishes to learn something about quantum mechanics,
> > calls his local automobile mechanic
> I already took quantum mechanics.
I don't doubt it -- but I doubt that that circumstance prevents you
from consulting your local garage mechanic when you need a refresher in
the subject. In the spirit of regarding Shakespearean actors as expert
literary historians, I suggest that you take your medical problems to
some of the actors who appear on "ER," Art.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Finally, there are of course some well-known
> > Shakespearean actors whose careers do not seem to have suffered at all
> > from their failure to accept the supposed "Stratfordian hegemony"
> > conceived by Art's preposterous paranoia. Matters being so, one wonders
> > just what consequences Derek Jacobi is supposed to have suffered in
> > Art's febrile imagination.
> I haven't see much of Derek Jacobi lately;
> one can only wonder what consequences his career did suffer.
It isn't as though Jacobi just announced his Oxfordian partisanship
yesterday, Art. In any event, neither Kenneth Branagh nor Mark Rylance
seems to be suffering whateVER consequences your preposterous paranoia
has invented. Nor, apparently, did Sir John Gielgud (of course, one has
to take the supposed Oxfordian sympathies of the some prominent persons
whom Oxfordians claim as coreligionists with a VERy large grain of salt,
as we have seen in the cases of Nabokov and Leslie Howard). Plainly,
aneuendor...@comicass.nut doesn't know what he is talking about
-- but that's scarcely news.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > 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.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > By and large, professional Elizabethan literary historians
> > > have tenure, so they need not give a fig for the supposed
> > > "Stratfordian hegemony"
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > They still can't get published or get a grant.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Gililov certainly got published -- indeed, his book was a best
> seller, which as far as I know is an unprecedented occurrence for a book
> on the authorship "question." He also got a fellowship from the Folger.
I'm talking about publishing in professional English language journals.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Anti-Stratfordian work of Abel Lefranc were certainly published and
> even translated. MoreoVER, Lefranc was a full professor at a major
> uniVERsity. Plainly, aneuendor...@comicass.nut doesn't know what
> he is talking about -- but that's scarcely news.
I'm talking about publishing in professional English language journals.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Indeed, virtually *all* the prominent anti-Stratfordians managed to
> get their work (such as it is) published -- even complete nutcases like
> Delia Bacon and amusing cranks like the Ogburns. *Even* Mr. Streitz
> published a book on the subject, for crying out loud!
I'm talking about publishing in professional English language journals.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > There are also some independent scholars who have no academic
> > > affiliation (for example, even the illiterate District Heights boob
may
> > > be familiar with the name of David Kathman -- although not,
> > > of course, with his work),
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > http://shakespeareauthorship.com/oxbib.html
> > http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/thingitself.html
> >
> > [Oxford Bible:] On Kathman's list but not Stritmatter's:
> > "Cross" mark on Revelation 22:
> >
> > Rev | 22 |14-15| N(R) |
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Revelation 22:14
> >
> > For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and
> > murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a LIE.
> > I am the root and the offspring of DAVID,
> > *and the bright & MORNING STAR*
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <<MORNINGSTAR is a middling tall, leanly athletic male whose vigilante
> > uniform generally is stylized, red motorcycle racing leathers,
> > a black leather jacket, and a red Zorro-style mask. Curiously,
> > his outfit bears a vague resemblance to that favored by the
> > metahuman VAGABOND - a notorious member of The Hexagon.>>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> But Art -- "Hexagon" is a perfect anagram of "Hang E. Ox."!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
V E R O N I L V E R I U S
A-----------L
G-----------E
A-----------N
B-----------K
O-----------C
N-----------N
[D]----------I
--------------- R
--------------- B
--------------- S
--------------- A
--------------- M
--------------- O
--------------- H
--------------- T
Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I hate to break the news to you, Art, but this text
> most certainly does not come from REVelations [sic].
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross wrote in 2001:
<<Here's a genuine nit: the last book of the New Testament is not
called "Revelations" but "Revelation." I would expect the names of
the books of the Bible to be properly given in a dissertation about a
Bible. I would expect Dan Wright to know the names of the books of the
Bible. At times Roger does correctly use "Revelation," but "Revelations"
seems more common. There's a great deal of that sort of sloppiness in
this dissertation. This particular boo-boo appears dozens if not hundreds
of times, and could have been fixed (if anybody had noticed)
by a global search-and-replace.>>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > but independent scholars need not give a fig for the
> > > supposed "Stratfordian hegemony" conceived by Art's preposterous
> > > paranoia either, as they have no intention of making a living of
> > > historical scholarship in any case.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Kathman works for brownie points
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> What conceivable motivation could actuate him to work for "brownie
> points"? He isn't trying to make a living from scholarship, and brownie
> points have scant purchasing power, even among Brownies.
You'll have to take that issue up with the Grand Master.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > As for Shakespearean actors, one would not expect them to possess any
> > > special expertise in Elizbethan literary history, and indeed most do
not
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > As for Math professors, one would not expect them to possess any
> > special expertise in the workings of Elizbethan literary historians.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> And indeed most do not. In particular, I certainly do not. Is it
> not remarkable, then, that even a complete ignoramus such as myself can
> so effortlessly spot the hilarious howlers of so many anti-Stratfordian
> stalwarts? Indeed, perhaps nothing so starkly limns the quality -- or
> rather, the complete lack thereof -- of anti-Stratfordian "scholarship"
> so decisively as the many gaffes therein so gargantuan that they can be
> spotted immediately by mere untrained amateurs!
Then why do you snip my "A" class material while endlessly repeating
that which I only posted once (usually by mistake).
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > -- but then aneuendor...@comicass.nut is the sort of moron who,
> > > when he wishes to learn something about quantum mechanics,
> > > calls his local automobile mechanic
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I already took quantum mechanics.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I don't doubt it -- but I doubt that that circumstance prevents you
> from consulting your local garage mechanic when you need a refresher in
> the subject. In the spirit of regarding Shakespearean actors as expert
> literary historians, I suggest that you take your medical problems to
> some of the actors who appear on "ER," Art.
If medical doctors showed as little common sense as most "literary
historians" that might not be a bad suggestion.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Finally, there are of course some well-known
> > > Shakespearean actors whose careers do not seem to have suffered at all
> > > from their failure to accept the supposed "Stratfordian hegemony"
> > > conceived by Art's preposterous paranoia. Matters being so, one
wonders
> > > just what consequences Derek Jacobi is supposed to have suffered in
> > > Art's febrile imagination.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I haven't see much of Derek Jacobi lately;
> > one can only wonder what consequences his career did suffer.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> It isn't as though Jacobi just announced his Oxfordian partisanship
> yesterday, Art. In any event, neither Kenneth Branagh nor Mark Rylance
> seems to be suffering whateVER consequences your preposterous paranoia
> has invented.
Kenneth Branagh is an anti-Stratfordian? Since when?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Nor, apparently, did Sir John Gielgud
Gielgud hid both his authorship beliefs & his homosexuality.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> (of course, one has
> to take the supposed Oxfordian sympathies of the some prominent persons
> whom Oxfordians claim as coreligionists with a VERy large grain of salt,
> as we have seen in the cases of Nabokov and Leslie Howard).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 1, Scene 2
GLOUCESTER
Those eyes of thine from mine have drawn SALT tears,
To hear the piteous moan that Rutland made
When black-faced CLIFFORD SHOOK his sword at him;
--------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Phil Innes
> seller, which as far as I know is an unprecedented occurrence for a book
> on the authorship "question." He also got a fellowship from the Folger.
>
> Anti-Stratfordian work of Abel Lefranc were certainly published and
> even translated. MoreoVER, Lefranc was a full professor at a major
> uniVERsity. Plainly, aneuendor...@comicass.nut doesn't know what
> he is talking about -- but that's scarcely news.
>
> Indeed, virtually *all* the prominent anti-Stratfordians managed to
> get their work (such as it is) published -- even complete nutcases like
> Delia Bacon and amusing cranks like the Ogburns.
Charlton and Dorothy wrote:
## On March 29, 1577, a writ of habeaus corpus showed John Shaksper
[sic*] had been in prison. In 1592 it is recorded that he is one of fifteen
persons who "come not to church for fear of process for debt." And he was
fined for allowing filth to accumulate in front of his home. ##
*[ibid]
What interests me in that statement is a plain and alternate reason for
church absense than any recusancy.
Another little point in referring to sources is to understand their context.
Memorably William Blades, whose Shakespeare and Typography was put around in
1872, but as a /mock/ argument, in imitation of those who proposed all sorts
of thing during 'the lost years' (Henry Denham's print place in Paternoster
Row, eg) - but in the jeu d'esprit of mocking the poor scholarship of these
efforts.
Blades was amused even more when it was taken au grand serieux, as observed
by T.B. Reed in his Pentateuch of Printing, 1891.
Confounding this situation of confused sources are those who _deliberately_
chose to hide their messages and attributions within it (notably Baconians
and assorted Neoplatonics) has removed much of the 'historical' research
from the realms of literary academicians, many of whom never met a quote
they didn't like (or liked to dislike) - so that much real Elizabethan study
is now removed to its proper place, and anthropology informs both historians
and lit.crits.
Phil Innes
John
>
> John,
>
> Since you are Shakespeare reincarnated, perhaps you'd be kind enough
> to let us know your real name during the Tudor period (if you've done
> so already, I apologise. I haven't been following the thread closely
> as I've been too busy). I understand that there may have been a need
> for secrecy in Elizabeth's time, but surely there is none now. Think
> of the benefit to humankind (or at least to HLAS)if you would be kind
> enough to give us a definitive answer and end all our arguments.
My name was Anne in that life. You heard it right, the bard was a
woman. Queen Elizabeth gave women the license to do such things but
the men didn't want to accept it.
It's interesting how fast people dismiss me without even reading the
evidence. Even when I refer to rock solid evidence in the first fifty
words of my answer and it's only one click or one copy and paste away,
they won't spend two minutes reading it at:
http://www.shakespeareslove.com/1style.htm .
Included on my web site you will find new writing styles. I can't give
too much info out about the screenplay that I am writing because it
beomces conflicted but I included a few lines from it. One is the line
that introduces the two female protagonists. The single line has six
different meanings that are aplicable (and two meaning that don't
apply). That is double the previous record of three meanings within
one line (a triple entendre)that the bard set a record with in The
Merry Wives of Windsor. My IQ is about 170 and that is about 12 over
what the bard had. She had a mush higher raw creativity though. What I
have a scientific ability to organize her creativity and raise it to a
higher level. A sex verses a triple entendre. (My science background
includes physics involving the design of lasers (working on the atomic
level of metallic plasma lasers).)
What is really a shame is that 2/3 of the people who dismiss me
without reading the evidence are women and the women have the most to
gain since the Bard was a woman.
I was warned by a Tibetan master that if I exposed who I had been
before in a past life 'Americans would not believe you. Even those who
believe in reincarnation would never accept the possibility that you
are the person who wrote the plays, even if you are able to write ten
times better in this life. They feel inadequate and so they feel they
could not possibly deserve meeting that person in this life.'
I see what he means now.
Here is a secret about the plays.
All the womens parts in the plays were written while holding in mind
the concept that they had as their goal sex. While all the mens parts
were written with the concept that their focus was love. The focus is
automatically picked up by the audience and it's one main reason the
plays went over so well.
(Men automatically like women who have sex as their goal, whether they
do anything about it or not and women like men who have love as their
goal whether they avail themselves of that love or not.)
I'm sorry I have the flu really bad so I am not not doing well at all.
If you go on the web site I made at http://www.shakespeareslove.com
you can read almost of your answers there. I'll answer the most
important questions people have that I can answer on this site and
also put them on my site.
About a sonnet, the plays were for money and to change the world. The
sonnets got written when the theater was closed because of a real bad
outbreak of plague. I had three of my closest friends die in one week.
It wasn't a happy time. I don't know if the lack of joy comes through
in them or not. I have never read one and I have only seen a couple of
the plays.
One of the main purposes of the plays were to break down class
barriers. You see the mixing of classes and it's not just Romeo and
Juliet. It runs through all the plays and all that struggle went for
nothing when the plague came through.
Nobody knew how it was spread. The poor were thought the cause of it.
The plague was carried by fleas. The poor sat on the floors and slept
on the floor and often they used the straw that the rich threw away
when they got flea ridden. Then the rats actually would run over the
sleeping poor people and leave more fleas right on top of them.
The rich had nice clean straw in their beds that were up higher than
most fleas could jump and the rich got to sit on high chairs, they had
people to kept the rats out and used perfumes that confused the fleas.
So the poor caught the black plague (and died) up to ten times what
the upper classes did.
The poor could not even go into most government buildings, they were
that hated.
There were lots of diseases but they were all equally opportunistic.
Rich or poor breathed in the same smallpox or TB laden air and they
all drank the same cholera infected water.
Plague was the only disease that was spread by fleas and so it was the
only one that was distributed so unevenly among the classes of
society.
It was decided the poors 'bad breeding' was the cause. (I thought it
was the diet and nobody thought it was the fleas.)
Anyway I have to get some sleep but to make a long story short all the
good will of years of writing plays seemed to disappear within days of
the first outbreak of plague. The classes separated worse than before.
I guess the flu got me off on this tangent.
Anyway sonnets mess up my head for a completely different reason. When
you learn how to make sonnets you start to sort out and organize all
the words that you think of or hear into possible lines from then on!
In conversation you will notice a group of words someone says and you
say 'Oh, that is almost a perfect line for the sonnet I started
yesterday'. Then you try to let it go and get back to the conversation
and a minute later you hear one word and you say to yourself 'wait a
second that would finish the line I was just thinking of perfectly'
and then you shake your head and try to listen to the person finish
their sentence.
Sonnets are really addictive. It's like sex because you can't stop
thinking of it after you learn how to do it. They both stay in your
mind for the rest of your life. If a screenplay can make millions and
sex is so much more fun then why are even talking about sonnets?
So please take this information and do well with it.
Bless all,
John
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > By and large, professional Elizabethan literary historians
> > > > have tenure, so they need not give a fig for the supposed
> > > > "Stratfordian hegemony"
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > They still can't get published or get a grant.
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > Gililov certainly got published -- indeed, his book was a best
> > seller, which as far as I know is an unprecedented occurrence for a book
> > on the authorship "question." He also got a fellowship from the Folger.
> I'm talking about publishing in professional English language journals.
If you mean professional journals in which Shakespeare scholars and
Elizabethan literary historians habitually publish their work, then some
of Dr. Stritmatter's work has appeared in such venues. The same is true
of some of the work of Diana Price. Indeed, the same can be said of
some of the work of Dr. Daniel Wright. Evidently you are completely
unfamiliar with the professional literature, Art. Plainly,
aneuendor...@comicass.nut doesn't know what he is talking about
-- but that's scarcely news.
If you mean that not *eVERy* crackpot notion of *eVERy* deluded
anti-Stratfordian crank appears in professional journals enjoying the
highest prestige, then the reason is not difficult to find -- indeed, it
is the *same* reason that Mr. Streitz's distinguished contributions to
fluid mechanics and Elizabeth Weird's landmark contributions to the
theory of relativity do not appear in professional physics journals, or
that "Dr." Faker's "solution" of Fermat's Last Theorem does not appear
in _Inventiones Mathematicae_ or _Annals of Mathematics_. Plainly,
aneuendor...@comicass.nut doesn't know what he is talking about
-- but that's scarcely news.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Anti-Stratfordian work of Abel Lefranc were certainly published and
> > even translated. MoreoVER, Lefranc was a full professor at a major
> > uniVERsity. Plainly, aneuendor...@comicass.nut doesn't know what
> > he is talking about -- but that's scarcely news.
> I'm talking about publishing in professional English language journals.
Lefranc worked and wrote in French, so it is unreasonable to expect
him to have published in "English language journals."
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Indeed, virtually *all* the prominent anti-Stratfordians managed to
> > get their work (such as it is) published -- even complete nutcases like
> > Delia Bacon and amusing cranks like the Ogburns. *Even* Mr. Streitz
> > published a book on the subject, for crying out loud!
> I'm talking about publishing in professional English language journals.
See above. Evidently aneuendor...@comicass.nut is unaware
that Dr. Stritmatter, Diana Price, and Dr. Wright are anti-Stratfordians!
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > There are also some independent scholars who have no academic
> > > > affiliation (for example, even the illiterate District Heights boob
> may
> > > > be familiar with the name of David Kathman -- although not,
> > > > of course, with his work),
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> > > <<MORNINGSTAR is a middling tall, leanly athletic male whose vigilante
> > > uniform generally is stylized, red motorcycle racing leathers,
> > > a black leather jacket, and a red Zorro-style mask. Curiously,
> > > his outfit bears a vague resemblance to that favored by the
> > > metahuman VAGABOND - a notorious member of The Hexagon.>>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > But Art -- "Hexagon" is a perfect anagram of "Hang E. Ox."!
> Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
>
> V E R O N I L V E R I U S
> A-----------L
> G-----------E
> A-----------N
> B-----------K
> O-----------C
> N-----------N
> [D]----------I
> --------------- R
> --------------- B
> --------------- S
> --------------- A
> --------------- M
> --------------- O
> --------------- H
> --------------- T
>
> Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
There is no occurrence of "D" in the text "CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN
ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE" -- not that one would expect you to be able to
discoVER this fatal defect by yourself, Art.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > I hate to break the news to you, Art, but this text
> > most certainly does not come from REVelations [sic].
You are correct, Art; thank you for correcting my typo.
[...]
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > but independent scholars need not give a fig for the
> > > > supposed "Stratfordian hegemony" conceived by Art's preposterous
> > > > paranoia either, as they have no intention of making a living of
> > > > historical scholarship in any case.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Kathman works for brownie points
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > What conceivable motivation could actuate him to work for "brownie
> > points"? He isn't trying to make a living from scholarship, and brownie
> > points have scant purchasing power, even among Brownies.
> You'll have to take that issue up with the Grand Master.
You're doing a great paranoid lunatic impersonation, Art!
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > As for Shakespearean actors, one would not expect them to possess any
> > > > special expertise in Elizbethan literary history, and indeed most do
> not
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > As for Math professors, one would not expect them to possess any
> > > special expertise in the workings of Elizbethan literary historians.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > And indeed most do not. In particular, I certainly do not. Is it
> > not remarkable, then, that even a complete ignoramus such as myself can
> > so effortlessly spot the hilarious howlers of so many anti-Stratfordian
> > stalwarts? Indeed, perhaps nothing so starkly limns the quality -- or
> > rather, the complete lack thereof -- of anti-Stratfordian "scholarship"
> > so decisively as the many gaffes therein so gargantuan that they can be
> > spotted immediately by mere untrained amateurs!
> Then why do you snip my "A" class material
One can guess what the "A" abbreviates in "'A' clASS material."
> while endlessly repeating
> that which I only posted once (usually by mistake).
You've posted "Agnes a gob" and its variants literally *scores* of
times, Art. And if "I kill Edwasd de Vese" was indeed something that
you posted "by mistake", then it was surely one of the most moronic
mistakes in the entire history of the authorship "question."
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > -- but then aneuendor...@comicass.nut is the sort of moron who,
> > > > when he wishes to learn something about quantum mechanics,
> > > > calls his local automobile mechanic
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > I already took quantum mechanics.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > I don't doubt it -- but I doubt that that circumstance prevents you
> > from consulting your local garage mechanic when you need a refresher in
> > the subject. In the spirit of regarding Shakespearean actors as expert
> > literary historians, I suggest that you take your medical problems to
> > some of the actors who appear on "ER," Art.
> If medical doctors showed as little common sense as most "literary
> historians" that might not be a bad suggestion.
How would you know, Art? You are no more qualified to judge the
"common sense" of literary historians than Elizabeth Weir is to assess
that of professional physicists. Indeed, the VERy notion of someone who
habitually harangues inanimate sculptural simulacra with his crackpot
conspiracy theories declaring himself to be an arbiter of "common sense"
in *any* field is amusing in the extreme -- even Stephanie Caruana does
not buttonhole bronze statues (to my knowledge, at any rate)!
In any case, "common sense" can be a VERy misleading guide in
technical areas requiring specialized expertise (see, for example, the
Banach-Tarski "paradOX").
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > Finally, there are of course some well-known
> > > > Shakespearean actors whose careers do not seem to have suffered at all
> > > > from their failure to accept the supposed "Stratfordian hegemony"
> > > > conceived by Art's preposterous paranoia. Matters being so, one
> wonders
> > > > just what consequences Derek Jacobi is supposed to have suffered in
> > > > Art's febrile imagination.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > I haven't see much of Derek Jacobi lately;
> > > one can only wonder what consequences his career did suffer.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > It isn't as though Jacobi just announced his Oxfordian partisanship
> > yesterday, Art. In any event, neither Kenneth Branagh nor Mark Rylance
> > seems to be suffering whateVER consequences your preposterous paranoia
> > has invented.
> Kenneth Branagh is an anti-Stratfordian? Since when?
I don't know whether he is or not; howeVER, at least some Oxfordians
evidently claim him as a coreligionist. Indeed, my uncertainty about
the legitimacy of *many* of the members of the S.O.S.'s putative "Honor
Roll" prompted my remarks about Nabokov and Howard -- Oxfordians are
foreVER claiming this or that prominent person as a coreligionist, often
on no firmer basis than that he played an Oxfordian in a movie, or that
he parodied ciphermongering Baconian nutcases in a novel!
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Nor, apparently, did Sir John Gielgud
> Gielgud hid both his authorship beliefs & his homosexuality.
One can understand his concealing his sexual preferences; many public
figures regard their sex lives as private. As for his concealment of
his authorship beliefs, I would scarcely say that signing a petition
constitutes concealment.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > (of course, one has
> > to take the supposed Oxfordian sympathies of the some prominent persons
> > whom Oxfordians claim as coreligionists with a VERy large grain of salt,
> > as we have seen in the cases of Nabokov and Leslie Howard).
> King Richard III Act 1, Scene 2
>
> GLOUCESTER
> Those eyes of thine from mine have drawn SALT tears,
Another demented aneuendor...@comicass.nut non sequitur!
> To hear the piteous moan that Rutland made
> When black-faced CLIFFORD SHOOK his sword at him;
He shook his *sword*, Art, not his spear -- not that one would expect
aneuendor...@comicass.nut to know the difference.
As for Clifford, no doubt you can find something conspiratorial and
sinister even here, Art:
Art Neuendorffer
> > > >
>>> > > > 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.
>
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > By and large, professional Elizabethan literary historians
> > > > > have tenure, so they need not give a fig for the supposed
> > > > > "Stratfordian hegemony"
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > They still can't get published or get a grant.
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > > Gililov certainly got published -- indeed, his book was a best
> > > seller, which as far as I know is an unprecedented occurrence for a
book
> > > on the authorship "question." He also got a fellowship from the
Folger.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I'm talking about publishing in professional English language
journals.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> If you mean professional journals in which Shakespeare scholars and
> Elizabethan literary historians habitually publish their work, then some
> of Dr. Stritmatter's work has appeared in such venues. The same is true
> of some of the work of Diana Price. Indeed, the same can be said of
> some of the work of Dr. Daniel Wright. Evidently you are completely
> unfamiliar with the professional literature, Art.
Was this work involving authorship?
If so, what articles & what journals?
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Anti-Stratfordian work of Abel Lefranc were certainly published and
> > > even translated. MoreoVER, Lefranc was a full professor at a major
> > > uniVERsity.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I'm talking about publishing in professional English language
journals.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Lefranc worked and wrote in French, so it is unreasonable
> to expect him to have published in "English language journals."
It is also unreasonable to expect him to have much of an effect.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Indeed, virtually *all* the prominent anti-Stratfordians managed to
> > > get their work (such as it is) published -- even complete nutcases
like
> > > Delia Bacon and amusing cranks like the Ogburns. *Even* Mr. Streitz
> > > published a book on the subject, for crying out loud!
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I'm talking about publishing in professional English language
journals.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> See above.
See above.
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > There are also some independent scholars who have no academic
> > > > > affiliation (for example, even the illiterate District Heights
boob
> > > > > may be familiar with the name of David Kathman --
> > > > > although not, of course, with his work),
> > > > <<MORNINGSTAR is a middling tall, leanly athletic male whose
vigilante
> > > > uniform generally is stylized, red motorcycle racing leathers,
> > > > a black leather jacket, and a red Zorro-style mask. Curiously,
> > > > his outfit bears a vague resemblance to that favored by the
> > > > metahuman VAGABOND - a notorious member of The Hexagon.>>
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > But Art -- "Hexagon" is a perfect anagram of "Hang E. Ox."!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
> >
> > V E R O N I L V E R I U S
> > A-----------L
> > G-----------E
> > A-----------N
> > B-----------K
> > O-----------C
> > N-----------N
> > [D]----------I
> > --------------- R
> > --------------- B
> > --------------- S
> > --------------- A
> > --------------- M
> > --------------- O
> > --------------- H
> > --------------- T
> >
> > Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHACK, n. [Cf. Scot. shag refuse of barley or oats.]
A shiftless fellow; a low, itinerant beggar;
a VAGABOND; a tramp. [Prov. Eng. & Colloq. U.S.]
---------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> There is no occurrence of "D" in the text "CLAMBRING TO HANG,
> AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE" -- not that one would expect
> you to be able to discoVER this fatal defect by yourself, Art.
It's so easy to change a "G" into a "D"
-------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 1, Scene 1
[A]s yet I do not: but, as I can learn,
[H]e hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
[A]nd from the cross-row plucks the letter G.
[A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
[H]is issue disinherited should be;
[A]nd, for my name of GEORGE begins with G,
It follows in his thought that I am he.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > I hate to break the news to you, Art, but this text
> > > most certainly does not come from REVelations [sic].
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You are correct, Art;
I'm almost always correct, Dave.
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > but independent scholars need not give a fig for the
> > > > > supposed "Stratfordian hegemony" conceived by Art's preposterous
> > > > > paranoia either, as they have no intention of making a living of
> > > > > historical scholarship in any case.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > Kathman works for brownie points
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > What conceivable motivation could actuate him to work for "brownie
> > > points"? He isn't trying to make a living from scholarship, and
brownie
> > > points have scant purchasing power, even among Brownies.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > You'll have to take that issue up with the Grand Master.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You're doing a great paranoid lunatic impersonation, Art!
----------------------------------------------------------
http://mcraeclan.com/Graeme/sayings.htm
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean everyone's not out to get me."
-- Emmanuel Luk, and then paraphrased by Henry Kissinger,
----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > As for Shakespearean actors, one would not expect them to possess
any
> > > > > special expertise in Elizbethan literary history, and indeed most
do not
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > As for Math professors, one would not expect them to possess any
> > > > special expertise in the workings of Elizbethan literary
historians.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > And indeed most do not. In particular, I certainly do not. Is it
> > > not remarkable, then, that even a complete ignoramus such as myself
can
> > > so effortlessly spot the hilarious howlers of so many
anti-Stratfordian
> > > stalwarts? Indeed, perhaps nothing so starkly limns the quality -- or
> > > rather, the complete lack thereof -- of anti-Stratfordian
"scholarship"
> > > so decisively as the many gaffes therein so gargantuan that they can
> > > be spotted immediately by mere untrained amateurs!
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Then why do you snip my "A" class material
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> One can guess what the "A" abbreviates in "'A' clASS material."
Not if you are clueless like Dave Webb.
> > while endlessly repeating
> > that which I only posted once (usually by mistake).
>
> You've posted "Agnes a gob" and its variants literally *scores* of
> times, Art. And if "I kill Edwasd de Vese" was indeed something that
> you posted "by mistake", then it was surely one of the most moronic
> mistakes in the entire history of the authorship "question."
I have no problem with: "Agnes a gob" & "I kill Edwasd de Vese"
But they hardly represent my "A" class material.
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > -- but then aneuendor...@comicass.nut is the sort of moron
who,
> > > > > when he wishes to learn something about quantum mechanics,
> > > > > calls his local automobile mechanic
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > I already took quantum mechanics.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > I don't doubt it -- but I doubt that that circumstance prevents you
> > > from consulting your local garage mechanic when you need a refresher
in
> > > the subject. In the spirit of regarding Shakespearean actors as
expert
> > > literary historians, I suggest that you take your medical problems to
> > > some of the actors who appear on "ER," Art.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > If medical doctors showed as little common sense as most
> > "literary historians" that might not be a bad suggestion.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> How would you know, Art? You are no more qualified to judge the
> "common sense" of literary historians than Elizabeth Weir is to assess
> that of professional physicists. Indeed, the VERy notion of someone who
> habitually harangues inanimate sculptural simulacra with his crackpot
> conspiracy theories declaring himself to be an arbiter of "common sense"
> in *any* field is amusing in the extreme -- even Stephanie Caruana
> does not buttonhole bronze statues (to my knowledge, at any rate)!
Don't knock 'til you've tried it.
> In any case, "common sense" can be a VERy misleading guide in
> technical areas requiring specialized expertise (see, for example,
> the Banach-Tarski "paradOX").
What happened to HausDORFF? (Lebes-gue, Webb!)
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Finally, there are of course some well-known
> > > > > Shakespearean actors whose careers do not seem to have suffered at
all
> > > > > from their failure to accept the supposed "Stratfordian hegemony"
> > > > > conceived by Art's preposterous paranoia. Matters being so, one
> > wonders
> > > > > just what consequences Derek Jacobi is supposed to have suffered
in
> > > > > Art's febrile imagination.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > I haven't see much of Derek Jacobi lately;
> > > > one can only wonder what consequences his career did suffer.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > It isn't as though Jacobi just announced his Oxfordian partisanship
> > > yesterday, Art. In any event, neither Kenneth Branagh nor Mark
Rylance
> > > seems to be suffering whateVER consequences your preposterous paranoia
> > > has invented.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Kenneth Branagh is an anti-Stratfordian? Since when?
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I don't know whether he is or not; howeVER, at least some Oxfordians
> evidently claim him as a coreligionist. Indeed, my uncertainty about
> the legitimacy of *many* of the members of the S.O.S.'s putative "Honor
> Roll" prompted my remarks about Nabokov and Howard -- Oxfordians are
> foreVER claiming this or that prominent person as a coreligionist, often
> on no firmer basis than that he played an Oxfordian in a movie, or that
> he parodied ciphermongering Baconian nutcases in a novel!
You accuse a lot of people of parodying ciphermongering
nutcases with little evidence for same.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Nor, apparently, did Sir John Gielgud
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Gielgud hid both his authorship beliefs & his homosexuality.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> One can understand his concealing his sexual preferences; many public
> figures regard their sex lives as private. As for his concealment of
> his authorship beliefs, I would scarcely say that signing a petition
> constitutes concealment.
He did this early in his career?
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > (of course, one has
> > > to take the supposed Oxfordian sympathies of the some prominent
persons
> > > whom Oxfordians claim as coreligionists with a VERy large grain of
salt,
> > > as we have seen in the cases of Nabokov and Leslie Howard).
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > King Richard III Act 1, Scene 2
> >
> > GLOUCESTER
> > Those eyes of thine from mine have drawn SALT tears,
>
> Another demented aneuendor...@comicass.nut non sequitur!
>
> > To hear the piteous moan that Rutland made
> > When black-faced CLIFFORD SHOOK his sword at him;
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> He shook his *sword*, Art, not his spear .
>
> As for Clifford, no doubt you can find something conspiratorial
> and sinister even here, Art:
>
> <http://pbskids.org/clifford/>.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://f01.middlebury.edu/FS010A/STUDENTS/Minerva/211.JPG
The loyal VERE, and CLIFFORD stout,
Greate STONGBOWES heire, with BOVRCHIER, GRAY,
------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part ii Act 4, Scene 9
CLIFFORD He is fled, my lord, and all his powers do yield;
And humbly thus, with HALTERS on their necks,
Expect your highness' doom of life or death.
----------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part iii Act 1, Scene 4
YORK These *TEARS* are my sweet Rutland's obsequies:
And EVERy drop cries vengeance for his death,
'Gainst thee, fell Clifford, and thee, false Frenchwoman.
----------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 1, Scene 2
GLOUCESTER I would they were, that I might die at once;
For now they kill me with a living death.
Those *EYES* of thine from mine have drawn salt *TEARS*,
Shamed their aspect with store of childish drops:
These *EYES* that never shed remorseful tear,
No, when my father York and Edward wept,
To hear the piteous moan that Rutland made
When black-faced Clifford shook his sword at him;
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<Notables interested in the Guiana area included: the Courteens,
Daniel Elfrith (about 1619), Sir Thomas Warner of Barbados
fame, and the mariner Roger North. Sir Thomas Roe (died 1644).
Sir Christopher Neville (died 1649). William Herbert, third Earl
Pembroke and Anne Clifford, Baroness Clifford, wife of Philip,
fourth Earl Pembroke. >>
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke
(and 1st Earl of Montgomery, K.G., born Oct 16, 1584,
mar 1stly, 27th Dec 1604, to Susan de Vere [born May 26, 1587]
[Susanna Shak. was 'born' on St. AUGUSTINE's day May 26, 1583]
Susan bur 1st Feb 1629, Westminster Abbey, age 41 yrs.
mar 2ndly, 1st June 1630, to Anne CLIFFORD [born Jan 30, 1589],
employed Inigo Jones to spectacularly rebuild Wilton House
starting 1635, planted the CEDARS of LEBANON
these trees are now over three hundred and fifty years old.
----------------------------------------------------
House of Seven Gables - Hawthorne
"AHA, Cousin CLIFFORD!" cried Judge Pyncheon. "What! still
blowing soap-bubbles!"
The tone seemed as if meant to be kind and soothing, but
yet had a bitterness of sarcasm in it. As for CLIFFORD,
an absolute palsy of fear came over him.
"I am somewhat of a mystic, it must be confessed. The tendency is
in my blood, together with the faculty of mesmerism, which might
have brought me to GALLOWS Hill, in the good old times of
witchcraft. Believe me, if I were really aware of any secret,
the disclosure of which would benefit your friends,--who are my
own friends, likewise,--you should learn it before we part.
But I have no such knowledge."
"You hold something back!" said Phoebe.
"Nothing,--no secrets but my own," answered Holgrave. "I
can perceive, indeed, that Judge Pyncheon still keeps his eye on
CLIFFORD, in whose ruin he had so large a share. His motives and
intentions, however are a mystery to me. He is a determined and
relentless man, with the genuine character of an inquisitor; and
had he any object to gain by putting CLIFFORD to the rack,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIR EDWARD COKE
http://members.aol.com/clemson74/coke.htm
Sir Edward Coke(pronounced "Cook"). Born February 1, 1552,in Mileham,
Norfolk, England, he died September 3, 1634, eighty-two years later.
Coke received his university education at Trinity College, Cambridge,
from which he proceeded as Master of Arts to CLIFFORD Inn,
attached to the Inner Temple, one of four "schools of the law."
------------------------------------------------------------------
The riddles of Ulysses Jorn Barger April 1998
http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/ulysses/riddles.html
<<Martha CLIFFORD: who's flirting pseudonymously with Bloom
by mail. (Briefly, the evidence is: Nurse Callan is unmarried,
unused to typing, but has access to a typewriter. She makes the
patience/patients typo because she says patients-are more than
patience-is, and the other-world slip because she might often use
this euphemism for death. Joyce tips his hand in Sirens by
having Bloom seize the name Callan at random out of the obits,
when pretending to Richie Goulding that he's answering an ad.)>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
He blotted quick on pad of Pat. Envel. Address. Just copy out of paper.
Murmured: Messrs Callan, Coleman and Co, limited. HENRY wrote:
Miss Martha CLIFFORD
c/o P.O.
Dolphin's Barn Lane
Dublin
Blot over the other so he can't read. Right. Idea prize titbit.
Something detective read off blottingpad. Payment at the rate of guinea
per col. Matcham often thinks the laughing witch. Poor Mrs Purefoy.
U.p: up.
Too poetical that about the sad. Music did that. Music hath charms
Shakespeare said. Quotations every day in the year. To be or not to be.
Wisdom while you wait.
In GERARD's rosery of Fetter lane he walks, greyedauburn.
One life is all. One body. Do. But do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John Neville --------- Isabel
(Northumberland) | INGOLDESTHORPE
(Marquis MONTAGU) |
|
Anthony Browne ------------- Lucy Neville
1485 - 1506 |
|
/--------------------------------\
| | Anne BROWNE--- Charles
| | /- Brandon -\
| | Mary Tudor-/ (LISLE) |
| | |
Anthony Browne --- Alice Lucy --- Thomas Clifford |
L.ISLE of Man | Gage Browne |
d. 1548 | Katherine |
| Richard Bertie--- Willoughby ---/
| |
/-----------------------------\ PEREGRINE -------- Mary Vere
| | Bertie | (Ed's sis)
| Jane | |
Anthony Browne --- Ratcliff Lucy Browne--Thomas |
d. 1592 | Roper |
| |
Thomas --- MARY BROWNE --- Henry Wriothesley ROBERT BERTIE
Heneage / | (Southampton) 1st EARL of LINDSEY
d.1592 / | Lord Great Chamberlain
/ Henry Wriothesley 16 Dec 1582 - 23 Oct 1642
W. Harvey---/ (Southampton) Killed in Battle of Edgehill
(Mr.W.H.) Bart [Married Elizabeth MONTAGU]
(later Ross)
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > 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,
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> In Art's mind
...such as it is...
> YALE & HARVARD are
> at the heart of the "Stratfordian hegemony" in the U.S.:
>
> Peter Gay, Sterling Professor of History, YALE University.
You're a bit out of date, Art. The only member of Yale's history
department currently honored as Sterling Professor of History (as
opposed to Sterling Professor of Classics and History and other such
hybrid appointments) is Jonathan Spence, a Sinologist.
> Harold Bloom, Sterling Professor of Humanities, YALE University.
What has Harvard to do with the Sterling Professorships at Yale?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<James Fenimore Cooper was the son of Quakers,
> Judge William Cooper & Elisabeth Fenimore Cooper. His father
> was a representative of the 4th & 6th Congress. The family moved
> to Cooperstown, New York, which Judge Cooper had founded.
>
> In his junior year JFC was expelled from YALE University for training
> A DONKEY TO SIT IN A YALE PROFESSOR'S CHAIR.>>
I don't see why -- MIT actually permitted an ass to graduate!
> Dante dies Sept. 14, 1321, in exile
> -530
> ---------------
> JFC dies Sept. 14, 1851, Cooperstown, N.Y.
> +62
> ---------------
> JFC born Sept. 15, 1789, Burlington, N.J..
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<James Fenimore Cooper became friends with Sir
> WALTER SCOTT & Marquis de Lafayette. He was especially
> inspired by Italy and lived in Tasso's villa at Sorrento.>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Pioneers - James Fenimore Cooper
>
> "I have but little more to say, sir, I followed to the lake where
> I had so often been told that Natty dwelt, and found him maintaining
> his OLD MASTER IN SECRET; for even he could not bear
> to exhibit to the world, in his poverty and dotage,
> a man whom a whole people once looked up to with respect."
>
> "And what did you?"
>
> "What did I? I spent my last money in purchasing a rifle,
> clad myself in a coarse garb, and learned to be a hunter by
> the side of Leather-Stocking. You know the rest, Judge TEMPLE."
>
> "Ant VERE vas olt Fritz HARTmann?" said the German, reproachfully;
What's all this lunatic logorrhea about Cooper supposed to suggest,
Art? And what about Christine Cooper -- is she part of the conspiracy
as well?
What has Harvard to do with any of your lunatic Yalophobia, Art?
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > 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,
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > In Art's mind
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> ...such as it is...
They'll make statues of ARTinous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<ANTINOUS, another youth famous for his beauty, was associated
with the constellation Aquila and with the Nile. He was the minion
of the Roman Emperor HADRIAN. When ANTINOUS was drowned in the
Nile in A.D. 130, the grief of the Emperor knew no bounds. He enrolled
him among the gods, caused numerous statues of him to be made, founded
the Eqyptian city of Antinopolis in his honor, and erected a temple to
him at Mamtinea. Finally, in A.D. 132, he placed him in the starry
skies right below the constellation of the Eagle. ANTINOUS thus gives
his name to Eta Aquilae.>> http://www.magee.demon.co.uk/origins1.txt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tristram Shandy - Laurence Sterne Chapter 3.III.
David WEPT for his son Absalom
--ADRIAN for his ANTINOUS
--Niobe for her children, and
that Apollodorus and Crito both shed tears for Socrates.
My father managed his affliction otherwise; for he
neither WEPT it away, as the Hebrews and the Romans
--or SLePT it off, as the Laplanders
--or hanged it, as the English,
or drowned it, as the Germans,
--nor did he curse it, or damn it, or excommunicate it,
or rhyme it, or lillabullero it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > YALE & HARVARD are
> > at the heart of the "Stratfordian hegemony" in the U.S.:
> >
> > Peter Gay, Sterling Professor of History, YALE University.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You're a bit out of date, Art. The only member of Yale's history
> department currently honored as Sterling Professor of History (as
> opposed to Sterling Professor of Classics and History and other
> such hybrid appointments) is Jonathan Spence, a Sinologist.
Well Gay was certainly a Cosinologist.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Harold Bloom, Sterling Professor of Humanities, YALE University.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> What has Harvard to do with the Sterling Professorships at Yale?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvard University owns it's very own piece of Stratford:
http://www.stratford-upon-avon.co.uk/soaharv.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.southwark.gov.uk/tourism/history/harvard.htm
<<The most famous of the emigrants to the United States from Southwark
is undoubtedly John Harvard, founder of Harvard University. Another
famous emigrant was William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania in 1682, who
emigrated on 'The Welcome'. John Harvard was born into a prosperous
Southwark family in 1607. His father, Robert, owned a BUTCHERS shop near
Southwark Cathedral and The Queen's Head Inn, Borough High Street. It
was one of the many coaching inns in the area, similar to The George
Inn. The family had lived in the area for at least a century. Robert's
second wife was Katherine Rogers, daughter of Thomas Rogers, an alderman
of Stratford-on-Avon. With the Stratford connection and the Harvard
family living so close to Shakespeare's Globe Theatre it is possible
that the Harvard and Shakespeare families were well aquainted.>>
The Harvard family were hit grievously by an outbreak of plague in 1625,
his father and four brothers and sisters all died. His mother died in
1635 bequeathing John the inn, a half share of a property on Tower Hill
and Ł250. In 1637 Thomas, his only surviving brother, died leaving him
Ł100 and a silver bowl and chest. It was that summer that John, and his
wife Anne, left for Boston, arriving on 26th June.
John soon became an important member of the local community but
unfortunately lived only one more year before dying of consumption at
the age of 30. He had taken over 400 books to America and took an
interest in the founding of a college. In his will he left half of his
estate to "the erecting of a college and all his library".
Harvard College, now University, was born.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting that:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1) John Harvard's wife/widow Ann was a Sadler.
2) Shakspere named his kids after neighbors: Hamnet & Judith Sadler.
3) Oxford's BROOKE HOUSE was once owned (1547-8) by Sir Ralph Sadler.
<<In April 1808 _The Gentleman's Magazine_ printed an engraving by
John Jordan, the early myth-making Stratford antiquarian, showing
a 'View of the BROOK HOUSE, in which it is generally admitted that
Shakspeare was really born'.>> - p. 63 _Who Wrote Shakespeare?_
-------------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > <<James Fenimore Cooper was the son of Quakers,
> > Judge William Cooper & Elisabeth Fenimore Cooper. His father
> > was a representative of the 4th & 6th Congress. The family moved
> > to Cooperstown, New York, which Judge Cooper had founded.
> >
> > In his junior year JFC was expelled from YALE University for training
> > A DONKEY TO SIT IN A YALE PROFESSOR'S CHAIR.>>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I don't see why -- MIT actually permitted an ass to graduate!
GLASS cylinders are graduated at MIT; why not me?
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Dante dies Sept. 14, 1321, in exile
> > -530
> > ---------------
> > JFC dies Sept. 14, 1851, Cooperstown, N.Y.
> > +62
> > ---------------
> > JFC born Sept. 15, 1789, Burlington, N.J..
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > <<James Fenimore Cooper became friends with Sir
> > WALTER SCOTT & Marquis de Lafayette. He was especially
> > inspired by Italy and lived in Tasso's villa at Sorrento.>>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > Pioneers - James Fenimore Cooper
> >
> > "I have but little more to say, sir, I followed to the lake where
> > I had so often been told that Natty dwelt, and found him maintaining
> > his OLD MASTER IN SECRET; for even he could not bear
> > to exhibit to the world, in his poverty and dotage,
> > a man whom a whole people once looked up to with respect."
> >
> > "And what did you?"
> >
> > "What did I? I spent my last money in purchasing a rifle,
> > clad myself in a coarse garb, and learned to be a hunter by
> > the side of Leather-Stocking. You know the rest, Judge TEMPLE."
> >
> > "Ant VERE vas olt Fritz HARTmann?" said the German, reproachfully;
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> What's all this lunatic logorrhea about Cooper supposed to suggest,
> Art?
That he & Yale U. were "in on it."
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> And what about Christine Cooper -- is she part of the conspiracy
> as well?
Probably.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> What has Harvard to do with any of your lunatic Yalophobia, Art?
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.stratford-upon-avon.co.uk/soaharv.htm
<<John Harvard was baptised on 29 November 1607, in St Saviour's
Southwark, the second son of Robert Harvard, butcher, and his second
wife Katherine, the daughter of Thomas Rogers of Stratford-upon-Avon,
a substantial butcher, maltster and grazier. It was Thomas who,
after the Stratford fire of 1594 rebuilt the house
which now bears the name of his grandson.
The theatrical life of London was centred on Southwark in the late
sixteenth century and it is quite likely that Robert Harvard knew both
William Shakespeare and his younger brother Edmund. It may indeed
have been through their introduction that he met his second wife,
whom he married at Holy Trinity Church on 8 April 1605.
John Harvard was brought up in Southwark and was educated at St
Saviour's Grammar School, of which his father was a governor. In 1625
when John was 18, plague once more ravaged the capital and within the
space of 5 weeks the Harvard family buried 4 children and their father,
Robert. Robert's will left Ł600 between his surviving sons,
of whom there were only two, John and Thomas, at his death. His
widow, Katherine, also well provided for, remarried within 5 months and
was again widowed 5 months after that, her second husband, John
Elletson, leaving her the bulk of his property. It was to be the estate
inherited from his mother (who married again), which enabled John
Harvard to be such a generous benefactor in the New World.
By 1627 John Harvard seems to have decided on the ministry as
his career, and the direction of his religious feeling is shown by his
entering Emmanuel College, Cambridge. As a broad generalisation
it can be said that in the troubled religious times of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, Oxford retained an allegiance to High Church
principles while Cambridge favoured the path of Puritan reform. Among
the Colleges, Emmanuel was noted for its puritan zeal, and indeed many
of its alumni were to make their mark in the colonies of the New World,
or in the ranks of the leading opponents of the King during the Civil War.
John Harvard remained at Cambridge for 7 years, graduating B.A. in
1631 and proceeding M.A. in 1636. One of his fellow students at
Emmanuel was John Sadler, son of the vicar of Ringmer, Sussex,
at whose home Harvard no doubt spent some time, making
the acquaintance of Ann, the daughter of the house.
John Harvard's mother, Katherine died in 1636 and left him the Queen's
Head Tavern in Southwark, Ł250 and a half share (with his brother
Thomas) in houses in Barking left to her by her second husband. Her
will refers to him as 'John Harvard, clerk', implying that he had been
ordained. John may have returned to the home of his friend John Sadler,
for, on 19 April 1636, he married Ann Sadler at the nearby
church of South Malling.
It seems likely that, after the death of his mother and his own
marriage, John Harvard began seriously to consider emigration to New
England: relations between the high and low branches of the Church of
England had been deteriorating under the concerted attacks of the King
and Archbishop Laud on the Puritans, and many clergy were making the
move to what was regarded by them as a new land of religious toleration.
Early in 1637 Harvard sold four housees to a sea captain for Ł120,
retaining the Queen's Head, which was a valuable asset, and the half
share in houses held with his brother (who died whilst John was on his
voyage). It was probably in the period between selling and sailing that
John Harvard acquired many of the books he was to take with him to
his new home, realising the importance of education in a growing colony.
He would of course have had a small library built up during his years at
University, but he seems deliberately to have set about buying more
volumes, and it has been estimated that he spent Ł200 on books.
The Harvards sailed some time in March or April, arriving in June or
July, for on 6 August he was received as a townsman of Charlestown 'with
promise of accommodations as best we can'. On 2 November he was admitted
a freeman of the colony and was appointed to the vacant post of teacher
at the church of Charlestown. At this date the ministerial duties were
divided: the pastor was to 'exhort and apply the precepts of Scripture
to practice' and the teacher 'to explain & defend the doctrine of
Scripture'.
The merits of the new colonist were obviously recognised by his fellows
for, in April 1638, he was appointed one of a committee 'to consider
something tending towards a body of laws', possibly because he had
brought books relating to legal matters with him.
This promising beginning was however to be cut cruelly short for John
Harvard died, after a short illness, on 14 September 1638, aged 31. He
left no written will but made a verbal disposition of his property: half
his estate and all his library he left to the proposed new college at
Cambridge (the renamed Newtown), the rest he left to his wife who, 15
months later, married the new teacher at the church, Rev. Thomas Allen.
It was he who handled the administration of Harvard's estate, the
value of which, excluding the library, was recorded as Ł779-12-2d.
The colony had decided that there was the need for an educational
establishment as early as 1636 when the Court ordered that Ł400 was to
be given towards the building. Nothing seems to have been done until
1637 when 'The college is ordered to be at Newtown'. Building operations
began but it is clear that it was John Harvard's bequest which made the
establishment of the college a reality. This was recognised in 1639 when
it was ordered 'that the college agreed upon formerly to be built at
Cambridge shall be called Harvard College'.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
Look them up yourself, Art. As for whether the works in question
"involve authorship," I already explained to you that not *every* crank
anti-Stratfordian notion gets published in professional journals
enjoying high prestige, for exactly the same reason that Elizabeth
Weird's fulminations about the electrodynamics of moving bodies and
"Dr." Faker's "solution" to Fermat's Last Theorem do not appear in
professional physics and mathematics journals.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > Anti-Stratfordian work of Abel Lefranc were certainly published and
> > > > even translated. MoreoVER, Lefranc was a full professor at a major
> > > > uniVERsity.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > I'm talking about publishing in professional English language
> journals.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Lefranc worked and wrote in French, so it is unreasonable
> > to expect him to have published in "English language journals."
> It is also unreasonable to expect him to have much of an effect.
That's correct, Art; most of his readers will have been too sane for
his books to have had much impact.
[...]
> SHACK, n. [Cf. Scot. shag refuse of barley or oats.]
> A shiftless fellow; a low, itinerant beggar;
> a VAGABOND; a tramp. [Prov. Eng. & Colloq. U.S.]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > There is no occurrence of "D" in the text "CLAMBRING TO HANG,
> > AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE" -- not that one would expect
> > you to be able to discoVER this fatal defect by yourself, Art.
>
> It's so easy to change a "G" into a "D"
It's *always* absurdly easy to cheat, Art; that doesn't make it any
less cheating.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> > > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > but independent scholars need not give a fig for the
> > > > > > supposed "Stratfordian hegemony" conceived by Art's preposterous
> > > > > > paranoia either, as they have no intention of making a living of
> > > > > > historical scholarship in any case.
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > > > Kathman works for brownie points
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > What conceivable motivation could actuate him to work for "brownie
> > > > points"? He isn't trying to make a living from scholarship, and
> brownie
> > > > points have scant purchasing power, even among Brownies.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > You'll have to take that issue up with the Grand Master.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > You're doing a great paranoid lunatic impersonation, Art!
> http://mcraeclan.com/Graeme/sayings.htm
>
> "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean everyone's not out to get me."
> -- Emmanuel Luk, and then paraphrased by Henry Kissinger,
Those white-coated orderlies have only your best interests at heart,
Art.
> > > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > As for Shakespearean actors, one would not expect them to possess
> any
> > > > > > special expertise in Elizbethan literary history, and indeed most
> do not
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > > > As for Math professors, one would not expect them to possess any
> > > > > special expertise in the workings of Elizbethan literary
> historians.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > And indeed most do not. In particular, I certainly do not. Is it
> > > > not remarkable, then, that even a complete ignoramus such as myself
> can
> > > > so effortlessly spot the hilarious howlers of so many
> anti-Stratfordian
> > > > stalwarts? Indeed, perhaps nothing so starkly limns the quality -- or
> > > > rather, the complete lack thereof -- of anti-Stratfordian
> "scholarship"
> > > > so decisively as the many gaffes therein so gargantuan that they can
> > > > be spotted immediately by mere untrained amateurs!
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Then why do you snip my "A" class material [...]
> > > while endlessly repeating
> > > that which I only posted once (usually by mistake).
> > You've posted "Agnes a gob" and its variants literally *scores* of
> > times, Art. And if "I kill Edwasd de Vese" was indeed something that
> > you posted "by mistake", then it was surely one of the most moronic
> > mistakes in the entire history of the authorship "question."
> I have no problem with: "Agnes a gob" & "I kill Edwasd de Vese"
>
> But they hardly represent my "A" class material.
What *is* your "'A' class material," Art? More nutcase numerology
and crackpot cryptography?
> Don't knock 'til [sic] you've tried it.
> > In any case, "common sense" can be a VERy misleading guide in
> > technical areas requiring specialized expertise (see, for example,
> > the Banach-Tarski "paradOX").
> What happened to HausDORFF? (Lebes-gue, Webb!)
The "paradOX" is variously attributed to Banach and Tarski and to
Banach/Hausdorff/Tarski.
It the above lunatic logorrhea a sample of your "'A' class material,"
Art?!
Christine Cooper
<snip>
> > <<James Fenimore Cooper was the son of Quakers,
> > Judge William Cooper & Elisabeth Fenimore Cooper. His father
> > was a representative of the 4th & 6th Congress. The family moved
> > to Cooperstown, New York, which Judge Cooper had founded.
> >
> > In his junior year JFC was expelled from YALE University for training
> > A DONKEY TO SIT IN A YALE PROFESSOR'S CHAIR.>>
> a
++++++++
Forgetaboutit:
My No. 1 son only went to MIT after-hours
to play "Magic" with the students.
(that's a now-obsolete role-playing game that used trading cards;
of which I am the not-so-happy custodian of several thousand,
wondering if they're worth anything, along with olde "Silver Surfer"
comics, Playboys, Boris Vallejo cards, several boxes of paperback
Sci-Fi and fantasy like "The Compleat Enchanter," Tolkien, T.H. White,
Heinlein, A.C. Clark, F. Herbert, etc., and other flotsam from his
VERY weird child-hood) He didn't quite fail high school,
and is now a techno-geek who thinks "college" is a waste of time.
His wife is a micro-biologist, and they live in a quaint olde
house outside of Boston, with 2 horses, a dog, two fish tanks,
and eighteen cats. Her mother lives in the basement.
[I could be a closet Strat, and you're just not paying attention.]
;-)
Christine
John W. Kennedy
> My No. 1 son only went to MIT after-hours
> to play "Magic" with the students.
> (that's a now-obsolete role-playing game that used trading cards;
It's not obsolete. Indeed, collectible-card games are still riding
high. Wizards of the Coast, who created, and still produce "Magic",
actually bought out TSR to become the owners of "Dungeons and Dragons".
--
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"
Art Neuendorffer
> > > You've posted "Agnes a gob" and its variants literally *scores* of
> > > times, Art. And if "I kill Edwasd de Vese" was indeed something that
> > > you posted "by mistake", then it was surely one of the most moronic
> > > mistakes in the entire history of the authorship "question."
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > I have no problem with: "Agnes a gob" & "I kill Edwasd de Vese"
> > But they hardly represent my "A" class material.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> What *is* your "'A' class material," Art?
----------------------------------------------------------------
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> ['Derevo'] begins with the wonderfully evocative image of John
> Shakespeare, the dramatist's father, reluctantly overseeing the
> destruction of the medieval paintings that coVERED the walls
> of the guild chapel next door to the Stratford-upon-Avon
> grammar school. By government edict, this town councillor,
> who undoubtedly held fast to the Catholic faith himself,
> was limewashing - literally whitewashing - history.
"Truth may perhaps come to the price of a PEARL" - F. Bacon
-----------------------------------------------------------
______________________
White-Washing / \
CHAMBERLAIN John ----- MARY MARGERY Webbe
[could write | [could write [d. St.Adrian's Day]
his 'marke'] | her 'marke']
[bur. St.Adrian's Day] | [d. St.Adrian's Day]
___|___________
/ \ [illiterate]
MARGERY Shakspere ------------ Anne
[="PEARL"] [BROOK House] |[b. 1556]
[Shaxpere's Boys] |
[Shakspere GLOVES] |
[Golding's 'OVID'] |
[Stratford upon Avon] |
[God's 'I am that I am'] |
[1586 DEER Park poacher] |
[£1,000/year for 18 years] |
[MERES' Top 10 in comedy (1598)] |
[Henry Evans=> 1608 Lessor of BLACKFRIARS Th.] |
|
Hall M.D. -------- SUSANna
[d. on Lope de Vega's 73rd birthday [b. May 26]
3 mo. after Lope dies] [could write name]
------------------------------------------------------------------
"[Shakespeare] would not be DEBAUCHED"
[F. D['E]BAUCHER, cf. F. bauge LAIR OF A WILD BOAR]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hand-Washing
GREAT CHAMBERLAIN John ----------- MARgerY
| [="PEARL"]
______|____
/ \ m. OPALIA(1571) [Sonneteer]
MARY Oxford --------------- Anne
[BROOKE House] | [b. 1556]
[Oxford's Boys] |
[Oxford GLOVES] |
[Golding's 'OVID'] |
[Stratford atte Bowe] |
[God's 'I am that I am'] |
[1604 DEER Park warden] |
[£1,000/year for 18 years] |
[MERES' Top 10 in comedy (1598)] |
[Henry Evans=> 1583 Lessor of BLACKFRIARS Th.] |
|
Herbert (Philip) ----- SUSAN
[b. St. LONGINUS day] [b. May 26]
[Folio dedicatee] [Jaggard dedicatee]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
kemahw...@yahoo.com (Christine Cooper) wrote:
It's no use -- your denial will just serve to convince
aneuendor...@comicass.nut that you are indeed involved -- after
all, if you *were* involved in such a conspiracy, then you would surely
deny it, and you just denied it. Similarly, Art "reasons" that I am a
high-ranking member of the (non-existent) Priory of Sion.
Your surname is another strike against you.
aneuendor...@comcast.net cannot conceive of *any* two persons
bearing the same surname without being intimately related. Art will no
doubt dredge up some demented genealogy depicting your putative descent
from James Fenimore Cooper, who Art is convinced must have been a
Freemason and hence an initiate of the vast global Shakespeare
Authorship Coverup Conspiracy. Why fight it?
P.S.: See you next June at the annual Conspirators' Conclave.
Art Neuendorffer
> Art "reasons" that I am a high-ranking
> member of the (non-existent) Priory of Sion.
I just take your word for it, Dave.
(By the by, how would you know whether the Priory exists or not?)
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > > > You've posted "Agnes a gob" and its variants literally *scores* of
> > > > times, Art. And if "I kill Edwasd de Vese" was indeed something that
> > > > you posted "by mistake", then it was surely one of the most moronic
> > > > mistakes in the entire history of the authorship "question."
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > I have no problem with: "Agnes a gob" & "I kill Edwasd de Vese"
> > > But they hardly represent my "A" class material.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > What *is* your "'A' class material," Art?
> "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>
> > ['Derevo'] begins with the wonderfully evocative image of John
> > Shakespeare, the dramatist's father, reluctantly overseeing the
> > destruction of the medieval paintings that coVERED the walls
> > of the guild chapel next door to the Stratford-upon-Avon
> > grammar school. By government edict, this town councillor,
> > who undoubtedly held fast to the Catholic faith himself,
> > was limewashing - literally whitewashing - history.
Dave Kathman did *not* write that, Art -- he was merely quoting a
REView by Jonathan Bate that appeared in the London Telegraph. Of
course, one has long since given up hope of your eVER getting any
attribution right, and experience shows that you cannot distinguish
between two Peter Gays a quarter century apart in age, but surely it
should not be *that* difficult to distinguish "Kathman" from "Bate,"
particularly for such a master Bater as yourself.
> "Truth may perhaps come to the price of a PEARL" - F. Bacon
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> ______________________
> White-Washing / \
> CHAMBERLAIN John ----- MARY MARGERY Webbe
I'm pleased to see you invoking my ancestors, Art, but what is your
point -- if any?
That's it??! That's your "'A' class material," Art?! There is only
one possible response:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > What *is* your "'A' class material," Art?
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> >
> > > ['Derevo'] begins with the wonderfully evocative image of John
> > > Shakespeare, the dramatist's father, reluctantly overseeing the
> > > destruction of the medieval paintings that coVERED the walls
> > > of the guild chapel next door to the Stratford-upon-Avon
> > > grammar school. By government edict, this town councillor,
> > > who undoubtedly held fast to the Catholic faith himself,
> > > was limewashing - literally whitewashing - history.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> Dave Kathman did *not* write that, Art -- he was merely quoting a
> REView by Jonathan Bate that appeared in the London Telegraph. Of
> course, one has long since given up hope of your eVER getting any
> attribution right, and experience shows that you cannot distinguish
> between two Peter Gays a quarter century apart in age, but surely it
> should not be *that* difficult to distinguish "Kathman" from "Bate,"
> particularly for such a master Bater as yourself.
WhatEVER.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > "Truth may perhaps come to the price of a PEARL" - F. Bacon
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > ______________________
> > White-Washing / \
> > CHAMBERLAIN John ----- MARY MARGERY Webbe
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> I'm pleased to see you invoking my ancestors, Art,
> but what is your point -- if any?
I only wish that I could revoke them, Dave.
"Truth may perhaps come to the price of a PEARL" - F. Bacon
> > [could write | [could write [d. St.Adrian's Day]
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> That's it??! That's your "'A' class material," Art?!
That's part of it. Do you have an intelliGENT response?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> There is only one possible response:
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I guess not.
Art Neuendorffer
Arthur Neuendorffer
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Valiant_%281954_film%29
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pkoHHQ9pA0
> Aguar has come under the protection of King Arthur (Brian Aherne),
> and Valiant is sent to Camelot to undergo training as a knight
> under the tutelage of Aguar's family friend, the noble knight
> of the Round Table, Sir Gawain (Sterling Hayden).
Lea wrote:
<<But Art -- Peter J. Gay was Sterling Professor at Yale!>>
As is Poldy's bastard son Harold:
-------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Bloom#Reception.2C_criticism_and_controversy
<<Harold Bloom (born July 11, 1930) is an American literary critic and Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale University.
James Wood has described Bloom as "Vatic, repetitious, imprecisely reverential, Bloom as a literary critic in the last few years has been largely unimportant."
In the early 21st century, Bloom has often found himself at the center of literary controversy after criticizing popular writers such as Adrienne Rich, Maya Angelou, Stephen King, David *Foster* Wallace, and J. K. Rowling. When Doris Lessing was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, he bemoaned the "pure political correctness" of the award to an author of "fourth-rate science fiction." In the pages of the Paris Review, he criticized the populist-leaning poetry slam, saying:
"It is the death of Art."
In 2004 author Naomi Wolf wrote an article for New York Magazine accusing Harold Bloom of a sexual "encroachment" more than two decades earlier, by touching her thigh. Explaining why she had finally gone public with the charges, Wolf wrote, "I began, nearly a year ago, to try--privately--to start a conversation with my alma mater that would reassure me that steps had been taken in the ensuing years to ensure that unwanted sexual advances of this sort weren't still occurring. I expected Yale to be responsive. After nine months and many calls and e-mails, I was shocked to conclude that the atmosphere of collusion that had helped to keep me quiet twenty years ago was still intact
-- as secretive as a Masonic lodge.">>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Valiant_%281954_film%29
>
> <<Prince Valiant is a 1954 adventure film based on
> the comic strip of the same name by Hal Foster.
Any relation to Donald Foster, Art?
Sir dWayne?
(You can lead a Foster to Vassar but you can't make him think.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wayne_Foster
<<Donald Wayne Foster (born 1950) first achieved notice for addressing the mystery of the dedication of Shakespeare's sonnets. In the edition published by Thomas Thorpe, a dedication appears to "Mr. W.H." as the "online begetter" of the sonnets, and the identity of W.H. has aroused much speculation over the years. While in graduate school at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Foster formulated a theory that it was a typographical error. Though not the first to articulate the possibility, his article appeared in the Publication of the Modern Language Association in 1987, after he joined the Vassar faculty. Foster argued that the initials were meant to read either "W.S." or "W.SH." for Shakespeare himself, the dedication presumably having been written by Thorpe. Foster pointed to Shakespeare's initials being similarly abbreviated in other documents, as well as contemporaneous publications that misspelled authors' initials in the error-filled manuscripts of the time.
While pursuing his research into these initials, Foster came across another work that led him to believe he had identified a previously unknown Shakespeare piece. This was a 1612 poem, A Funerall Elegye in memory of the late Vertuous Maister William Peeter, and would have been the first new Shakespeare identification in over a century. Thorpe, the publisher of the sonnets, had registered this work with the London Stationers, giving the author's initials as "W.S.".
Relying on the internal evidence of the text, Foster argued that Shakespeare could be the author and submitted a manuscript about the Elegy to Oxford University Press, but two experts recommended against publication on the grounds that such evidence was insufficient to establish authorship. Foster was not given their names, following normal practice for peer review, although he later related that he was able to identify the reviewers based on the language of their reports. The book was published instead by the University of Delaware Press in 1989.
Initially Foster did not claim that his identification was definitive, but in 1995 another Shakespeare scholar, Richard Abrams of the University of Southern Maine, published an article strengthening Foster's claims of the Elegy's Shakespearean authorship. Foster then claimed publicly that the Elegy "belongs hereafter with Shakespeare's poems and plays" and gained international media attention. He supported his identification with computer analysis based on a database he called SHAXICON, used to compare the poem's word choice with that of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. The Elegy was subsequently included in some editions of Shakespeare's complete works, though with qualifications, and it was never considered to be of great quality.
After considerable debate, Foster's theory was eventually rejected by other Shakespeare scholars. In 2002, Gilles Monsarrat, a translator of Shakespeare into French, published an article arguing that the poem's true author was John Ford, a younger writer whose works Monsarrat had also edited. Foster conceded that Monsarrat had the better case in a post on the SHAKSPER listserv, saying, "No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar." Foster said he had not previously analyzed Ford's works closely enough and had erroneously dismissed him as a possibility.>>
------------------------------------------------------
_Mind over splatter_ - Don Foster The New York Times
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2006 POUGHKEEPSIE, New York
I am well acquainted with the risks of over-reliance on
quantitative techniques. In 1989 I published a book proposing that
the 1612 poem "A Funeral Elegy," by "W.S.," might be Shakespeare's.
Seven years later, the elegy made front-page news when
computer-assisted analysis, along with the opinion of other
Shakespeare scholars, tended to confirm that "W.S." was indeed
Shakespeare. But in 2001, a French Shakespearean, Gilles Monsarrat,
proposed that W.S. was in fact Shakespeare's junior colleague,
John Ford. Computer-assisted analysis confirmed
that this was probably right.
In the art world, the problem of attribution is complicated by
market value. Nobody made more money by including "A Funeral Elegy"
in editions of Shakespeare printed from 1997 to 2001. But if you
have paid, say, a half-million for a Pollock painting and some
physicist and his computer say that you were hoodwinked,
the question of the work's value is not wholly aesthetic.
(Don Foster, a professor of English at Vassar College,
is the author of "Author Unknown: On the Trail of Anonymous.")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody was more abused from 1996 to 2001 for suggesting
"A Funeral Elegy" was the work of John Ford than Richard Kennedy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don Foster <fos...@vassar.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 09:00:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy
I have thought it best to stay out of SHAKSPER discussion of the
Funeral Elegy (hereafter "FE"), but perhaps I'll jump in here to offer
a few thoughts. As will be clear to everyone, various ideological
issues have come into play in recent discussion. Richard J. Kennedy
and his fellow anti-Stratfordians have a huge stake in dismissing the
Elegy: the earl of Oxford in Feb. 1612 was too dead to have written
it... I would rather not quarrel with Mr. Kennedy. That he has gotten
his hands on some of my unpublished work, a conference handout, and
used it without my permission--without, indeed having been present at
the talk and without having understood the first thing about John
Ford's relations with Will Peter and William Shakespeare--cannot
in the long run do any harm either to me or to Shakespeare studies.
Having already studied the Ford-Peter-Shakespeare connection, I can
happily give Mr. Kennedy extra ammunition, which he may then shoot in
my direction at his leisure. For example: here are a dozen words from
the Elegy that appear at least once in John Ford's verse but *nowhere*
(not once--zilch!-zippo!) in Shakespearean texts: desertful (ad.),
ensnaring (ad.), ignorantly (adv.), invitement (n.), irrefragable
(ad.), partage (n.), rarely (adv., meaning infrequently), superlative
(ad.), unremembered (ad.), ever-empty (ad.), and sour-bitter (ad.).
But Mr. Kennedy is mistaken: John Ford cannot have written "A Funeral
Elegy." The mere suggestion that the death of John Peter's brother
provided Ford with the occasion for a quick money-making hoax is
foolish: whom does Kennedy think Ford is fooling with the initials
"W.S."? John Peter, to whom the poem is dedicated? and who, then, is
the WS, the speaking "I" of this poem, implied to be--if not William
Shakespeare? --and if not only John Peter but the uninformed reader
is supposed to think that W.S. is Shakespeare, we're back at square
one: why should readers in 1612 think that the speaking "I" in this
largely autobiographical poem is Shakespeare? But even if we had
cause to hunt for a conspiracy, Mr. Kennedy's attribution has
nothing to sustain it. Ford never comes close to FE's high rate of
enjambment; Ford's rate of feminine endings is too high for FE; WS's
use of you/ye matches Shakespeare, not Ford; Shakespearean nondramatic
texts have a hugely higher lexical correlation with FE than do Ford's
nondramatic texts, even though Ford *borrows* in 1613-16 from FE; and
Ford himself in 1613 makes pretty clear that he thinks FE is by
Shakespeare.
Mr. Kennedy writes me to say, "I keep waiting for new proofs to turn
up that would support the Stratford man...and since your studies touch
on such discoveries, I am, as you say, vigorous in response as my
understanding directs me....For those who have EARS, let them read,
and the Funeral Elegy will be seen as a bag of bones, wasted of any
poetic flesh, and will at last be shrouded from our care,
enjambed in the grave with poor William Peter."
But then, ears (as Bottom reminds us) come in various sizes. We
will all hear better, and more clearly, when the shrill tone of Mr.
Kennedy subsides long enough for intelligent and thoughtful skepticism
to weigh the evidence for Shakespeare's hand in this odd poem.
Don Foster
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard J Kennedy <rken...@orednet.org>
Date: Wednesday, 6 Mar 1996 19:47:03 -0800
Subject: Funeral Elegy
Don Foster objects that I used 3 short quotes from a handout he wrote.
This was in regard to the John Ford question--might he have written
the Funeral Elegy? But that 6-page handout was a "publication" and so
is defined by the United State Copyright Office. If you don't want it
spread around, don't pass it out. Your copyright is protected of
course (it's copyrighted when you write it), but reviewers, disenters,
orators, scholars and laymen may take quotations from it within a
certain rather liberal limit, if they choose to address the
subject.
I did not make a breach of professional etiquette in using Foster's
own words, which I did in moderation, and I stayed close upon his
argument so far as I knew what it was from the material he had passed
out, which, not to press on it too much, constitutes publication.
As to my motive in all this. Foster makes it to be sinister, and yet
I think he sincerely believes that Shakespeare wrote the Funeral
Elegy. I'd like to believe it, too. I'd like to find out if
Shakespeare had anything to do with the writing of the King James
Bible as well, published in 1611, Oxford being almost as dead as he
was in 1612. I'd like to see some good scholarly research on that.
My sincere effort to know more about the Funeral Elegy and John Ford's
friendliness with the William Peter family is put aside by Foster. He
says that I am "on a hunt for conspiracy." This has come to mean that
you're rather a coo-coo case, an ad hominem sort of comment we'd want
less of. However, some 20% of all Elizabethan poetry and plays is of
doubtful authorship. The quest for attribution is always going on.
The Funeral Elegy is just another, but has received the great haloo
because it's about Shakespeare. The whole world wants some- thing new
from Shakespeare. But to me, the Funeral Elegy seems such a shame and
insult to the man, all that self- rightousness set off in bad poetry.
So I'm sorry, I do get over- excited a bit, and I mean to insult no
one, but only to let Shakespeare escape such an insult.
At last, Don Foster quotes some of my words to him out of a private
letter in order to make an ass of me. That's all right, I won't sue,
but it's certainly a breach of professional etiquette. Private letters
are not like hand-outs. But let it pass.
My skepticism has been, I believe, "intelligent and thoughtful," as
Foster suggests, and I wish for more of it without any defining of my
motives or sincerity in the quest to find anything at any date that
Shakespeare might have written. To end, you may use anything I've
ever published, you may quote me freely from all public sources, you
may jump on anything I've ever said about anything. You need not have
my permission, it's all public property. Of course, my opinion might
be different now about a lot of things. I've been wrong in the past,
and I'd like to be wrong about the Funeral Elegy, but I say it just
isn't close to Shakespeare. I've let my attorney know that if I make
a deathbed retraction about that he can publish it.
)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard J Kennedy <rken...@orednet.org>
Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1996 21:35:18 -0800
Subject: Funeral Elegy
Don Foster says that his 6-page comment on his Funeral Elegy talks was
an "unpublished handout", and I was at fault for quoting from his
remarks. But there IS no such thing as an "unpublished handout". The
multiple reproduction and distribution of such material is fully
copyright, published, and you'll find that to be so by asking it of
the U.S. Copyright Office, Washington D.C. The laws on this will be
sent free explaining all. Such handouts are fully copyrighted, and
are free to those who would quote from such material. Contrarywise, it
is perhaps not unlawful, but it is certainly a breach of professional
etiquette to quote in a public forum from a private letter, and
Don Foster has done this, snatching a few lines of mine meant for his
eyes only, not for public display. So much for that.
As to John Ford, I believe I respectfully asked if Shaxicon had been
checked against that poet. I ask again--has it, and what are the
results? Might Ford have written the Funeral Elegy? He was a close
friend of the Peter family, and is the question out of the way? No
evasion is needed, nor should I be scoured for asking. Has Shaxicon
worked the problem?
I am surprised to hear that "aesthetic impressions (as to FE) have
scarcely any evidential value". I had always thought that it was so.
How does a poet last for 400 years except for such impressions?
There was never any machine that told us Shakespeare was good. A
machine wouldn't know, and we have all this while been depending on
our aesthetic impressions. Would Foster call this luck? Who's going
to judge a poem but a human being? Is that opinion worth nothing?
Does Don Foster really want to say this?
And then onward to the ad hominen comments and belittling talk. I am
a "co-religionist", joined in "nonsense" and "perverse disregard" for
facts (no examples given), and shrill besides, having nothing to offer
the group but "anti-Stratfordian static". Is this civil discourse,
consideration of another's opinion, the sort of comment we'd expect
from a scholar and a gentleman? I'll give Don Foster such respect
and be happy to do so, if he'll be so kind as to do the same for me.
Let us set aside our beliefs of the other's stupidity, and suspicions
of private motives, and set our study to the subject at hand, fairly
distributing our proofs, be they even subjective or aesthetic.
And I thank Don Foster not to disparage me further in this regard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard J. Kennedy <rken...@orednet.org>
Date: Monday, 8 Apr 1996 08:36:35 -0700
Subject: Funeral Elegy
Possibly there will never be any proof of who wrote the Funeral Elegy,
but it seems nearly impossible that Shakespeare wrote it, and a close
certainty that John Ford did. The proofs that SHAXICON offers for
Shakespeare is disputed by the Claremont McKenna College program
commanded by Ward Elliott to search the Elegy for those certain
wordprints that would lead us to suspect Shakespeare as the author.
It doesn't.
But aside from that, there is no connection at all between Shakespeare
and Devonshire and the William Peter family, and we have full knowlege
that John Ford was a Devonshire man and a friend of the William Peter
family. More than that, he was an aspiring poet who was adept and
eager for the writing of memorials, such as those for the Earle of
Devonshire and Sir Thomas Overbury, those poems offering nearly
identical lines to the Funeral Elegy.
More than that, the psychological profile of the author that Don
Foster and Richard Abrams draw up fits very well with what is known of
John Ford's life, his deep strain of melancholy, his piety, and his
singular life. His poems also mirror that almost obsessive touchiness
about Honor and Name that we find in the Elegy, his guard and warding
off of spite, slander, and malice suffered by the deceased,
bequeathing his poetry in defense of the utterless dead, who
were in fact innocent of all fault or blame, closer to saints than to
common humanity.
John Ford, like the writer of the Funeral Elegy, was a moralistic
owl and something of a preacher, thumping his text like he's in the
pulpit, bad poetry all of it, giving out his dozing and godawful long
sermons, self-serving himself in the company of deceased Earls and
Knights, basking under the halo he patches up for the misused dead,
taking their abuse to illustrate his own abuse. But God will at last
sort it all out, and put all right, and at last it will be prov'd that
anyone John Ford touches with his pen died belov'd -- although
greviously misunderstood. That's the theme of John Ford
and the writer of the Funeral Elegy.
The excitement in the first place was the finding of the initials W.S.
on the title page of the Elegy, which initials were no doubt noticed
many times before and tested with a reading of the. Elegy to discover
if Shakespeare had anything to do with it. As Katherine Duncan-Jones
says, it would need but a "few minutes' perusal" of the Elegy to set
aside all doubt that Shakespeare was not in the neighborhood. But who
was W.S.? Possibly the man for whom John Ford wrote the elegy. Or
possibly, as has been suggested, it was a deception to cash in on
Shakespeare's name. That would have been nothing new.
John Taylor (1580-1653), the "Water Poet", was a Thames boatman, who
must many times have ferried Shakespeare across the river. As a poet,
he was of the second water, but was popular and wrote a good amount
of verse and satire. In his "Taylor's Pastorall", 1624, he writes an
"Epistle to the Reader", and amongst other notes for the record, he
also says this, (understanding that "I" and "J" were interchangeable):
"And this Advertisement more I give the Reader, that
there are many things Imprinted under the name of two
Letters, I.T. for some of which I have beene taxed to be
the Author: I assure the world that I had never any
thing imprinted of my writing, that I was either afraid
or ashamed to set my name at large to it; and therefore
if you see any Authors name I.T. I utterly disclaime it:
for I am as I have bin, both I. and T. which with additions of
Letters, is yours to be commanded in any laudable endevours,
IOHN TAYLOR"
The shame of the Funeral Elegy is that the marketplace may have been
glanced at when putting William Peter to rest. And the greater shame
is that Shakespeare will not be let to rest, but must be tumbling in
his grave to know that some reasonable people otherwise, and lovers of
his poetry, are willing to let a machine direct their judgement in
this matter.
And so it seems that John Ford wrote the Funeral Elegy. I say let him
have full credit. He deserves it. His reputation will not be harmed
by it, in fact somewhat boosted. It's his kind of thing, and it is no
kind of thing that Shakespeare would have written. When it happens
that some poets throw away their ears, cut their own noses, and
embrace SHAXICON, then we might truely worry that the Elegy could
invade the canon, but I have searched the landscape, and it is as
barren and empty of poets bringing their reputations to support
Don Foster and Richard Abrams as the Elegy is barren of poetry.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: B. Vickers <vic...@english.gess.ethz.ch>
Date: Monday, 13 Aug 2001 12:17:17 +0200
Subject: 12.1975 Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment: Re: SHK 12.1975 Re: Funeral Elegy
A propos Richard Kennedy's practical criticism exercise, the TLS
of 10 August (p. 15) carried the following letter from me:
"Sir, - In my review of Don Foster's 'Author Unknown: On the Trail of
the Anonymous' (July 6), I mentioned that three independent studies
will be published shortly identifying the 'Funerall Elegye' as the
work of John Ford, not Shakespeare. Since some of your readers have
requested details, it may be of general interest to record them. They
are: my book, 'Counterfeiting Shakespeare: Evidence, authorship, and
John Ford's 'Funerall Elegye", to be published by Cambridge University
Press next spring; an essay by Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza in
'Literary and Linguistic Computing', Volume Sixteen, no 3 (autumn
2001); and an essay by Gilles D. Monsarrat in 'Review of English
Studies', Volume Fifty-three, no 210 (May 2002). Between them
they put the issue beyond dispute."
Brian Vickers
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don Foster <fos...@VASSAR.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, 12 Jun 2002 16:20:55 -0400
Subject: WS?s Elegy
In 1996, having ventured an attribution of W.S.'s "A Funeral Elegy" to
Shakespeare, I was blasted in the pages of TLS. But Shakespeare's
authorship was not as easily disproved as some skeptics anticipated.
Though several alternative attributions were advanced, they failed for
a good reason. They were mistakes. Recently, though, the French
scholar, G. D. Monsarrat, may have succeeded where English and
American scholars have failed, demonstrating in an article in the
*Review of English Studies* that the elegy looks like the work of the
Jacobean dramatist, John Ford. I know good evidence when I see it and
I predict that Monsarrat will carry the day. If I may quote the
elegy, "what he spake / Seem'd rather answers which the wise embrace /
Than busy questions such as talkers make." No one who cannot rejoice
in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar.
Monsarrat's fine essay has compelled me, largely against my will, to
return to an attribution and a text I have not considered in years.
Years ago when Ford was first mentioned as a possible author, I
scoffed at the attribution. Ford's rate of enjambment was too low. His
use of "Shakespearean who" was largely confined to *Christes Bloudy
Sweat* (1613). His distinctive vocabulary was not (and this was a
downright mistake, as I have since discovered upon indexing the Ford
canon more fully) as richly represented in the elegy as Shakespeare's.
Ford would not, in a first-person funeral poem, attempt to deceive
anyone about the author's identity. Etc. But I ought to have attended
more closely to the internal evidence-something that, in an irony that
I can only now fully appreciate, I myself insisted on in arguing the
case for Shakespeare.
The 1612 quarto may have invited its first readers to take "W.S." for
William Shakespeare, but that external evidence, I think, must now be
viewed in a new light. I do not know how or why incorrect initials
were tagged to the title page and author's dedication, nor how the
text came to be published by Thomas Thorpe, nor why the elegist
borrowed so heavily from Shakespeare and from texts known to
Shakespeare. Monsarrat's hypothesis that Ford was employed
as a ghost-writer for W.S. seems, to me, implausible for
several reasons but I have no better solution to offer.
Since 1997 I have had a second career in criminology and forensic
linguistics that has taken time from an unfinished project that
remains, for me, a source of frustration. The Shaxicon database-which
contributed to my own conviction, in 1996, that Shakespeare wrote the
elegy-is still unpublished. Nor have I yet determined where I went
wrong with the statistical evidence. Still, my experience in recent
years with police detectives, FBI agents, lawyers, and juries has, I
hope, made me a better scholar. Our courts have long exacted higher
standards for the admissibility of evidence than literary journals.
If authorship of "A Funeral Elegy" were a crime, no court in America
would have allowed "expert witnesses" on the stand to opine that the
offender was Sclater or Slayter or Strode or Simon Wastell. Nor, if
Shakespeare were charged with the offense, would the courts have
allowed a defense "expert" to opine that Shakespeare was simply not a
man to write that sort of thing. My experience with the anonymous
documents in criminal investigations indicates that competent and
trusted people-math professors, parents, biowarfare experts-often
commit acts or write texts that you wouldn't expect of them.
Personal opinions cannot stand for evidence, nor can personal
rhetoric. But in light of the evidence marshaled by Monsarrat, and
possibly augmented by Brian Vickers' forthcoming book, the jury need
not hold forth much longer on Shakespeare's authorship of "A Funeral
Elegy." The kinds of linguistic and intertextual evidence I myself
most trust-and that informs Monsarrat's essay-associate
"W.S." more strongly with Ford than with Shakespeare.
----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
david....@dartmouth.edu
Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
[...]
>
> <<But Art -- Peter J. Gay was Sterling Professor at Yale!>>
>
> As is Poldy's bastard son Harold:
person again. But don't feel too chastened, Art -- after all, VERy few
anti-Stratfordians can competently distinguish reality from fiction, so
you are by no means alone.
[Irrelevant citation of Wikipedia article on Harold Bloom snipped]
> Harold Bloom of a sexual "encroachment" more than two decades earlier, by
> touching her thigh. Explaining why she had finally gone public with the
> charges, Wolf wrote, "I began, nearly a year ago, to try--privately--to start
> a conversation with my alma mater that would reassure me that steps had been
> taken in the ensuing years to ensure that unwanted sexual advances of this
> sort weren't still occurring. I expected Yale to be responsive. After nine
> months and many calls and e-mails, I was shocked to conclude that the
> atmosphere of collusion that had helped to keep me quiet twenty years ago was
> still intact
>
> -- as secretive as a Masonic lodge.">>
disclaimer) that Masonic lodges are secretive. Indeed, you seem to
think (usual disclaimer) that we put literally *thousands* of secret
codes adVERtising our conspiracy, all of them utterly trivial to crack,
in virtually eVERy important literary literary work since _The Iliad_!
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Valiant_%281954_film%29
> >
> > <<Prince Valiant is a 1954 adventure film based on
> > the comic strip of the same name by Hal Foster.
> Any relation to Donald Foster, Art?
>
> Sir dWayne?
>
> (You can lead a Foster to Vassar but you can't make him think.)
"One can lead a horse -- or in your case, Art, the hindquarters
thereof -- to water, but one can't make him think."
Indeed, about the closest one can come requires a VERy strong form of
the usual disclaimer.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wayne_Foster
[Citation of Wikipedia article snipped]
> "A Funeral Elegy" was the work of John Ford than Richard Kennedy
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Don Foster <fos...@vassar.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 09:00:49 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy
>
> I have thought it best to stay out of SHAKSPER discussion of the
> Funeral Elegy (hereafter "FE"), but perhaps I'll jump in here to offer
> a few thoughts. As will be clear to everyone, various ideological
> issues have come into play in recent discussion. Richard J. Kennedy
> and his fellow anti-Stratfordians have a huge stake in dismissing the
> Elegy: the earl of Oxford in Feb. 1612 was too dead to have written
> it...
later Shakespeare works, but the necessity of posthumous literary
composition demonstrably does not trouble some anti-Stratfordians at
all. Indeed, Elizabeth Weir thinks (Neuendorffer disclaimer) that
Newton (died 1727) carried on a rancorous priority dispute with Hegel
(born 1770).
> I would rather not quarrel with Mr. Kennedy. That he has gotten
> his hands on some of my unpublished work, a conference handout, and
> used it without my permission--without, indeed having been present at
> the talk and without having understood the first thing about John
> Ford's relations with Will Peter and William Shakespeare--
Richard Kennedy has shown that does not understand the first thing about:
----------------------------------------------------------------
In article <610otd$5...@ednet2.orednet.org>,
Richard J Kennedy <rken...@orednet.org> wrote:
>
>Kathman has not only evaded the question posed by the
>letters of Chamberlain re: the seeming non-existence of
>any flesh and blood Shakespeare; he has also spoken out
>of ignorance in saying that "The only playwright (Chamberlain)
>mentions is Ben Jonson..." Which is plain ignorance, or else the
>man is fooling around with us, hoping to pass something over
>our heads, an offhand toss of the blinders. For other than Ben
>Jonson, Chamberlain mentions as well Beaumont, Chapman, Field,
>Hayward, Middleton, and I think others but I haven't the
>vols. at hand. He also speaks of actors by name, and theaters,
>and talks of many of the poets of the day, Sidney, Spenser,
>Suckling, Wither, Raleigh, Donne and more yet -- and less yet
>no mention of Shakespeare at all.
>
>But aside from this ignorance (I mean to say lack of information
>on the subject), Kathman must be only pretending when he says
>that "Chamberlain was concerned with court gossip, so that's
[more ad hominem snipped]
This exchange has been a stark reminder of why I long ago
stopped responding to Kennedy for the most part.
Paying attention to him just makes him more frenzied
than usual, and I don't think too many people take him
seriously anyway. But, since I brought this on myself
by posting a response to Kennedy's "challenge", I'm
going to finish it, tedious as that may be.
When I said that Ben Jonson was the only playwright
mentioned by Chamberlain, I was not "ignorant"; I
was right. A few years ago I made a special point of
going through Norman Egbert McClure's two-volume
edition of Chamberlain's letters (the standard edition)
to see whether he mentioned any playwrights, partly
in order to address the type of Oxfordian claims that
Kennedy has been making. Ben Jonson was the only
one I found, and as I said, he's mentioned primarily
in connection with court masques. I should clarify that
when I say "playwrights", I mean "professional playwrights";
a few of the courtiers and noblemen that Chamberlain
wrote about had written closet dramas, but they were only
recreational playwrights, and Chamberlain predictably
makes no mention of their dramatic activity, if he knew
about it at all (which is doubtful).
As for Kennedy's supposed examples, he's wrong on
just about every count, but I'm pretty sure I know how
he got his bogus "facts". I'll go through them one by one.
* Francis Beaumont is nowhere mentioned in the letters,
though Chamberlain does note the death in 1598 of the
future dramatist's father and namesake, who was a Justice
of the Common Pleas. McClure does mention Beaumont
the dramatist twice in his notes and commentary, but I'm
hesitant to believe that even Kennedy would be so confused
as to not distinguish between the letters themselves and
scholarly commentary written 300 years later.
[Unlike Dave Kathman, I'm not hesitant at all to believe it -- it's
exactly the sort of thing that one would expect.]
* George Chapman is likewise nowhere mentioned in the
letters, but Chamberlain does make a 1596 reference (well
known to theater historians) of a newly popular "play of
humours"; this has been conjectured to be Chapman's
*Humorous Day's Mirth*, and McClure's noting of this
conjecture is the only place he mentions Chapman in his
commentary.
* Nathan Field, like Beaumont and Chapman, is never
once mentioned by Chamberlain, though his name occurs
once in McClure's footnotes.
* By "Hayward", I assume Kennedy means Sir John Hayward,
the author of *The Historie of Henry the IIII* (1599).
Chamberlain does mention Hayward once (as "Dr. Hayward"),
but Hayward was not a playwright. Was Kennedy confusing
him with Thomas Heywood? Hayward's *Henry IIII* was
a prose history which got Hayward into trouble because his
fawning dedication to the Earl of Essex, attached to a work
describing the deposition of a king, caused a scandal at a time
when Essex was widely (and correctly) though to have designs
on the throne. Even so, Chamberlain's letter where he discusses
the scandalous book makes no mention of its author; his lone
mention of Hayward comes years later.
* Thomas Middleton, like Beaumont, Chapman, and Field,
is never mentioned a single time by Chamberlain. There is
one famous letter where Chamberlain discusses the scandal
aroused by Middleton's play *A Game at Chess* (which he calls
"the play of Gondomar"), but he does so without ever
mentioning the author of the play, or showing any apparent
interest in who the author was.
In addition to the above playwrights, Chamberlain also failed
to ever mention John Fletcher, John Marston, Thomas Dekker,
John Webster, and Philip Massinger, among many others; as I
said, the only professional playwright he mentions is Jonson.
McClure writes in his introduction: "Of the theatre Chamberlain
wrote little. In an age when great drama was being made possible
by the support of the unlettered crowd and of courtiers and
gallants, he shared the half-hostile, half-tolerant view of the
sober, respectable middle class. To the players themselves he
applies the somewhat contemptous terms 'fellows' and
'companions'." McClure then goes on to describe the few times
Chamberlain did report theatrical news, including those I cited
above, but he notes that "[i]nteresting as these glimpses of the
theatre are, they disappoint; they omit what moderns readers
would value most." It is then that McClure notes that Chamberlain
never mentions Shakespeare, but Kennedy has predictably
omitted most of the sentence in which he does so. Here it is in
full: "Doubtless Chamberlain often passed [Shakespeare] in the
street, often rubbed elbows with him in the crowded center aisle
of St. Paul's, often heard mention of him and his plays, often
saw his thin quartos offered for sale in St. Paul's Churchyard;
he may have known the man well, may have talked with him
often; but nowhere in the letters is there any indication that
Chamberlain even so much as knew of the existence of
Shakespeare." Or of any playwright except the self-promoting
Jonson, I might add. As McClure had just shown, in the few
times Chamberlain relayed theatrical news, he showed little interest
in the names of those involved.
Chamberlain does mention a few nondramatic poets, but here
again Kennedy has distorted things. One by one:
* Sir Philip Sidney is mentioned twice in successive letters, but
only because his daughter had died; Chamberlain was reporting
the rumor that she would be buried next to her father.
* Chamberlain does mention Spenser's death once in a famous
passage, calling him "our principall poet". Spenser was by far
the most famous poet in England at the time, being routinely
compared to Chaucer.
* I assume that by "Suckling", Kennedy means the poet Sir
John Suckling, but he is nowhere to be found in the letters.
Chamberlain does mention (several times) the courtier Sir John
Suckling, but McClure makes it clear in his notes that this is the
father of the more famous poet. Since Kennedy assures us that
he has read the letters (as opposed to just finding "Suckling" in
the index, for example), I find it hard to see how he could have
made this mistake.
* George Wither is mentioned once, in a 1623 letter describing
how Ben Jonson has made fun of Wither.
* Sir Walter Raleigh is mentioned many times, since he was
a very famous public figure, but Chamberlain unsurprisingly
makes no mention of the poetry Raleigh had written years before.
If you're going to include Raleigh as a poet mentioned by
Chamberlain, you might as well include Queen Elizabeth and
King James too, since they both also wrote poetry.
* John Donne is mentioned numerous times, but almost always
in connection with a sermon he had given or an office he was
seeking (two of Chamberlain's favorite topics). Chamberlain
does mention Donne's poetry a couple of times, but makes it clear
that he thinks such frivolity was below the Dean of St. Paul's:
"I send you here certain verses of our Dean of Paules upon the
death of the Marquis Hamilton, which though they be reasonably
wittie and well don yet I could wish a man of his yeares and place
to geve over versifying."
I've written about enough. If you ask me, it looks like what
Kennedy did was go through the index of McClure's edition
looking for the names of poets and playwrights, never actually
looking in the text to see whether those names occur in the
actual letters or in McClure's notes and commentary, or whether
they refer to the right person as opposed to a namesake. That's
a pretty shoddy excuse for scholarship, coming from a man who
feels entitled to lecture others on their "ignorance".
And now, I bid this thread adieu.
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
----------------------------------------------------------
See the original post at
<http://tinyurl.com/le2xsun>
-- it's one of h.l.a.s.'s great comedic moniments.
Speaking of great comedic moments, Art, you *still* have not
explained why h.l.a.s.'s esteemed Idiot Boy thinks (usual disclaimer) it
"reasonable" that a man traveling from Connecticut to New York City
would attempt to do so by boarding a nonstop flight from Boston to Los
Angeles. Can you elaborate upon your "reasoning" (usual disclaimer)?
> cannot
> in the long run do any harm either to me or to Shakespeare studies.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer
Arthur Neuendorffer
>
> <<But Art -- Peter J. Gay was Sterling Professor at Yale!>>
>
> As is Poldy's bastard son Harold:
> In 2004 author Naomi Wolf wrote an article for New York Magazine accusing
> Harold Bloom of a sexual "encroachment" more than two decades earlier, by
> touching her thigh. Explaining why she had finally gone public with the
> charges, Wolf wrote, "I began, nearly a year ago, to try--privately--to start
> a conversation with my alma mater that would reassure me that steps had been
> taken in the ensuing years to ensure that unwanted sexual advances of this
> sort weren't still occurring. I expected Yale to be responsive. After nine
> months and many calls and e-mails, I was shocked to conclude that the
> atmosphere of collusion that had helped to keep me quiet twenty years ago was
> still intact
>
> -- as secretive as a Masonic lodge.">>
think that Masonic lodges are secretive. Indeed, you seem
to think that we put literally *thousands* of secret codes
in virtually eVERy important literary literary work since _The Iliad_!>>
but you can't make him enter on his own.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Valiant_%281954_film%29
>>
>> <<Prince Valiant is a 1954 adventure film based on
>> the comic strip of the same name by Hal Foster.
> <<Any relation to Donald Foster, Art?>>
>
> Sir dWayne?
>
> (You can lead a Foster to Vassar but you can't make him think.)
<<That's derivative and unoriginal, Art. Years ago I wrote:
"One can lead a horse -- or in your case, Art, the hindquarters
thereof -- to water, but one can't make him think.">>
---------------------------------------------------------------
They say: "You can lead a girl to Vassar, but you can't make her think."
- Joseph Campbell (of _A Skeleton Key to Finnegans Wake_)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Vassar quote:
"You can lead a whore to Vassar, but you can't make her think."
---------------------------------------------------------------
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."
Dorthy Parker's answer when asked to use the word
'horticulture' during a game of Can-You-Give-Me-A-Sentence?
---------------------------------------------------------------
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wayne_Foster
> Nobody was more abused from 1996 to 2001 for suggesting
> "A Funeral Elegy" was the work of John Ford than Richard Kennedy
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Don Foster <fos...@vassar.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 09:00:49 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy
>
> I have thought it best to stay out of SHAKSPER discussion of the
> Funeral Elegy (hereafter "FE"), but perhaps I'll jump in here to offer
> a few thoughts. As will be clear to everyone, various ideological
> issues have come into play in recent discussion. Richard J. Kennedy
> and his fellow anti-Stratfordians have a huge stake in dismissing the
> Elegy: the earl of Oxford in Feb. 1612 was too dead to have written
> it...
<<Oxford was also too dead to have written _The Tempest_ and other
later Shakespeare works, but the necessity of posthumous literary
composition demonstrably does not trouble some anti-Stratfordians
at all.>>
primarily responsible for writing _The Tempest_.
> I would rather not quarrel with Mr. Kennedy. That he has gotten
> his hands on some of my unpublished work, a conference handout, and
> used it without my permission--without, indeed having been present at
> the talk and without having understood the first thing about John
> Ford's relations with Will Peter and William Shakespeare--
Art N.
david....@dartmouth.edu
> >
> > As is Poldy's bastard son Harold:
> Lea wrote: <<You're confusing a fictional character
> (Leopold Bloom) with a real person again.
> I don't consider Harold Bloom to be "real."
person, Art?!?! If not, then who was it who allegedly made unwanted
sexual advances to Naomi Wolf? A phantom?
> > [...][Naomi] Wolf wrote, "I began, nearly a year ago, to try--
> > reassure me that steps had been taken in the ensuing years to
> > ensure that unwanted sexual advances of this sort weren't still
> > occurring. I expected Yale to be responsive. After nine months and
> > many calls and e-mails, I was shocked to conclude that the atmosphere
> > of collusion that had helped to keep me quiet twenty years ago was
> > still intact
> >
> > -- as secretive as a Masonic lodge.">>
> Lea wrote: <<But Art -- *you*, at any rate, certainly do not
> think
usual disclaimer in such a comic context...
> that Masonic lodges are secretive. Indeed, you seem
> to think
usual disclaimer in such a comic context...
> that we put literally *thousands* of secret codes
> adVERtising our conspiracy, all of them utterly trivial to crack,
> in virtually eVERy important literary literary work since _The Iliad_!>>
> >
> > Sir dWayne?
> >
> > (You can lead a Foster to Vassar but you can't make him think.)
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<That's derivative and unoriginal, Art. Years ago I wrote:
>
> "One can lead a horse -- or in your case, Art, the hindquarters
> thereof -- to water, but one can't make him think.">>
>
> Which itself is derivative and unoriginal, Dave:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> They say: "You can lead a girl to Vassar, but you can't make her think."
"hindquarters thereof", Art.
> - Joseph Campbell (of _A Skeleton Key to Finnegans Wake_)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Actual Vassar quote:
>
> "You can lead a whore to Vassar, but you can't make her think."
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."
>
> Dorthy Parker's answer when asked to use the word
> 'horticulture' during a game of Can-You-Give-Me-A-Sentence?
if she had been challenged to use the word "artificially" in such a
game. She might have rejoined:
"Someone should commit artificially to a facility with padded walls."
Similarly, it would be interesting the speculate upon what Parker
might have said had she been challenged to use the word "artefact"
during such a game:
"You can tell artefact, but he will neVER learn it."
There are many instances of this phenomenon -- for example, one can
tell him that William Wordsworth's poem "The Idiot Boy" was written by
Wordsworth, *not* by Coleridge, yet the eVER ineducable Idiot Boy will
keep repeating his moronic misattribution oVER and oVER, oblivious to
any and all facts.
As another example, one can tell him that _taerin_ is not Russian for
"youth" -- indeed, that it is not a Russian word *at all(!)* -- but the
aforementioned Idiot Boy will just repeat his moronic mistranslation
oVER and oVER, utterly oblivious to any and all facts.
An even more telling example still concerns _Don Quixote_. One can
show h.l.a.s.'s beloved Idiot Boy countless facts showing that the novel
must have been written in Spanish, with the first English translation
appearing much later -- a decade and a half later, in fact! -- yet the
aforementioned Idiot Boy merely repeats his idiocies (or rather, Carr's
idiocies -- this is one case in which the Idiot Boy's idiocy is not
original) oVER and oVER, utterly oblivious to any and all facts.
Or, one might speculate upon Dorothy Parker's response if challenged
to use the word "artesian" in such a game. She might have rejoined:
"Artesian idiot -- or rather, he impersonates one VERy convincingly."
[...]
> > Date: Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 09:00:49 -0400 (EDT)
> > Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy
> >
> > I have thought it best to stay out of SHAKSPER discussion of the
> > Funeral Elegy (hereafter "FE"), but perhaps I'll jump in here to offer
> > a few thoughts. As will be clear to everyone, various ideological
> > issues have come into play in recent discussion. Richard J. Kennedy
> > and his fellow anti-Stratfordians have a huge stake in dismissing the
> > Elegy: the earl of Oxford in Feb. 1612 was too dead to have written
> > it...
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Oxford was also too dead to have written _The Tempest_ and other
> later Shakespeare works, but the necessity of posthumous literary
> composition demonstrably does not trouble some anti-Stratfordians
> at all.>>
> Oxford's son-in-law, William Stanley, was
> primarily responsible for writing _The Tempest_.
factually-based reasoning is, Art?!
[...]
> Art N.
clemen...@yahoo.com
marco
> Hi George: The case for William Shakspere being Shakespeare is so old-school that it is amazing to hear people still trying to defend it. Read Diana Price's Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography and Mark Anderson's Shakespeare by Another Name. These books will expand your appreciation of the power and beauty of the Shakespeare works.
George posted this in 2003...
you're right though, if I understand you correctly,
we have nothing to prove
let the deniers prove/hang themselves
I have to admit though, Paul is somewhat entertaining,
although he's over my head most of the time...
marc
Arthur Neuendorffer
>
> <<Oxford was also too dead to have written _The Tempest_ and other
> later Shakespeare works, but the necessity of posthumous literary
> composition demonstrably does not trouble some anti-Stratfordians
> at all.>>
>
> Oxford's son-in-law, William Stanley, was
> primarily responsible for writing _The Tempest_.
<<Evidence, Art?!>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley,_6th_Earl_of_Derby
<<William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, (1561 - 29 September 1642) incorrectly assumed the barony of *STRANGE* created in 1299 on the death of his elder brother, the fifth Earl of Derby, in 1594. In 1628 his son and heir apparent, James Stanley, was summoned to the House of Lords through a writ of acceleration as Lord Strange. When it was discovered that his father's assumption of the barony was erroneous, it was deemed that there were two baronies of Strange, one created in 1299 and then in abeyance, and another created "accidentally" in 1628.
While retaining the title of Lord of Mann (1609-1612), William Stanley passed the administration of the Isle of Man to his niece, Anne Stanley. In 1612 he transferred the title to his wife, Elizabeth Vere Stanley (1612-1627). Derby's assumption of the barony of Strange was not contested in his lifetime, but after his death it was determined to have been incorrect, and a new creation of the barony was given to his son.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
# of *STRANGE* words in the plays:
....................................
1 Henry V, Henry VI, Part I, Lover's Complaint, Richard III
2 Henry VI, Part III, Merry Wives of Windsor, Two Gentlemen of Verona
3 Titus Andronicus
4 Henry VI, Part II, Rape of Lucrece, Venus and Adonis Richard II
5 Henry IV, Part II, Winter's Tale
....................................
7 Henry IV, Part I, Julius Caesar, King John,
. Midsummer Night's Dream, Romeo and Juliet
8 Taming of the Shrew, Timon of Athens, Sonnets
9 *Love's Labour's Lost* , Coriolanus, Othello, Twelfth Night
10 As You Like It, All's Well That Ends Well,
. Comedy of Errors, Merchant of Venice
11 Hamlet
12 Much Ado about Nothing
13 King Lear, Pericles, Troilus and Cressida,
_________ Sejanus (Derby/Jonson)
14 Measure for Measure, Antony and Cleopatra
16 Henry VIII
19 Macbeth
....................................
22 Cynthia's Revels (Derby/Jonson).
23 Cymbeline, The Devil is an Ass (Derby/Jonson),
___ EVERy Man out of his Humour (Derby/Jonson)
....................................
26 Tempest (Derby/Shake-speare)
-----------------------------------------------------------
. The Tempest Act 2, Scene 2
Trinculo: Here's neither bush, nor shrub to beare off any
. weather at all: and another Storme brewing, I heare it
. sing ith' winde: yond same blacke cloud, yond huge
. one, lookes like a foule bumbard that would shed his
. licquor: if it should thunder, as it did before, I know
. not where to hide m[Y] head: yond same cloud cannot
. choose [B]ut fall by paile-fuls. What haue we he[R]e, a man,
. or a fish? dead or aliue? a fish, h[E]e smels like a fish: a
. very ancient an[D] fish-like smell: a kinde of, not of the
. [N]ewest poore-Iohn: a *STRANGE* fish: wer[E] I in England
. now (as once I was) and had [B]ut this fish painted; not
. a holiday-foole there but would giue a peece of siluer:
. there, would this Monster, make a man: any *STRANGE BEAST*
. there, makes a man: when they will not giue a
. doit to relieue a lame Begger, they will lay out ten to see
. a dead Indian: Leg'd like a man; and his Finnes like
. Armes: warme o' my troth: I doe now let loose my o-
. pinion; hold it no longer; this is no fish, but an Islan-
. der, that hath lately suffered by a Thunderbolt: Alas,
. the storme is come againe: my best way is to creepe vn-
. der his Gaberdine: there is no other shelter herea-
. bout: Misery acquaints a man with *STRANGE* bedfel-
. lowes: I will here shrowd till the dregges of the storme
. be past.
.................................................................
. <= 30 =>
.
. I k n o w n o t w h e r e t o h i d e m [Y] h e a d:y o n d s
. a m e c l o u d c a n n o t c h o o s e [B] u t f a l l b y p
. a i l e-f u l s.W h a t h a u e w e h e [R] e,a m a n,o r a f
. i s h?d e a d o r a l i u e?a f i s h,h [E] e s m e l s l i k
. e a f i s h:a v e r y a n c i e n t a n [D] f i s h-l i k e s
. m e l l:a k i n d e o f,n o t o f t h e [N] e w e s t p o o r
. e-I o h n:a*S T R A N G E*f i s h:w e r [E] I i n E n g l a n
. d n o w(a s o n c e I w a s)a n d h a d [B] u t t h i s f i s
. h p a i n t e d;n o t a h o l i d a y-F O O L E
[BEN DERBY] -30 : Prob. in this speech ~ 1 in 574,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
. "Minerva Britanna"
.
. Gratis servire lîbertas.
.
The gentle Merlion, wearied long with flight,
While on the spray in shadie groue she sleepes,
With tender foote, a Larke she holdeth light,
Which till the morning carefully she keepes,
Then lets it goe, and least she should that day
PrZie on the same, she flies another way.
Such thanckfulln[E]s [I]n [B]i[R]d [A]n[D] *B[E]AST* we find,
By Natures first instinct obserued still,
When worser, man in benefits is blind,
Nay oftentimes, for good will render ill:
And rather seeke ingratefully his blood,
That sau'd his life, or daily gaue him foode.
[E.DARBIE] -2
----------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/qbpjfhl
Fuller's "Worthies of England."
On *JONSON* --
"His parts were not so rea[D]y to run of themselves, as able to [A]nswer the spur; so that it may be t[R]uly said of him, that he had an ela[B]orate wit, wrought out by his own [I]ndustry. He would sit silent in l[E]arned company, and suck in (besides wine) their several humours into his observation. What was ore in others, he was able to refine himself."
.........................................................
. <= 27 =>
.
. H i s p a r t s w e r e n o t s o r e a [D] y t o r u n
. o f t h e m s e l v e s,a s a b l e t o [A] n s w e r t
. h e s p u r;s o t h a t i t m a y b e t [R] u l y s a i
. d o f h i m,t h a t h e h a d a n e l a [B] o r a t e w
. i t,w r o u g h t o u t b y h i s o w n [I] n d u s t r
. y.H e w o u l d s i t s i l e n t i n l [E] a r n e d c
. o m p a n y,a n d s u c k i n(b e s i d e s w i n e)
[DARBIE] 27
---------------------------------------------------------
____ EVERy Man out of his Humour (Derby/Jonson)
.........................................................
SOGLARDO: Nay, I will have him, I am resolute for that,
By this Parchment Gentlemen, I have been so
toil'd among the Harrots yonder, you *WILL*
not believe, they do speak i' the *STRANGEST*
Language, and give a Man the hardest
Terms for his Money, that *EVER* you knew.
---------------------------------------------------------
. THE DEVIL IS AN ASS (1616)
.....................................................
Devil: Now, as Vice stands this present Year? Remember
. What number it is, Six Hundred and Sixteen.
. Had it but been Five Hundred, though some Sixty
. Above; that's Fifty years agone, and Six,
. (When EVERy Great Man had his Vice stand by him,
. In his long Coat, *SHAKING his wooden Dagger* )
. I could consent, that then this your grave choice
. Might have done that, with his Lord Chief, the which
. Most of his Chamber can do now. But Pug,
. As the times are, who is it will receive you?
. What Company will you go to? or whom mix with?
. Where canst thou carry him, except to Taverns?
. To mount up on a Joynt-Stool, with a Jews trump,
. To put down Cokeley, and that must be to Citizens?
. He ne're will be admitted there, where Vennor comes.
. He may perchance, in tail of a Sheriffs Dinner,
. Skip with a Rime o' the Table, from New-nothing,
. And take his Almain-leap into a Custard,
. Shall make my Lady Mayoress, and her Sisters,
. Laugh all their Hoods over their Shoulders. But
. This is not that will do, they are other things
. That are receiv'd now upon Earth, for Vices;
. *STRANGER* and newer: and *CHANG'd EVERy hour* .
---------------------------------------------------------
An Ode.(from Underwoods)
By Ben *JONSON* (1572-1637)
http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692underwoods.htm
HEllen, did Homer never see
Thy Beauties, yet could write of thee?
Did Sappho on her seven-tongu'd Lute,
So speak (as yet it is not mute)
Of Phaos form? or doth the Boy
In whom Anacreon once did joy,
Lie drawn to Life, in his soft Verse,
As he whom Maro did rehearse?
Was Lesbia sung by learn'd Catullus?
Or Delia's Graces, by Tibullus?
Doth Cynthia, in Propertius song
Shine more, than she the Stars among?
Is Horace his each Love so high
Rap't from the Earth, as not to die?
With bright Lycoris, Gallus choice,
Whose Fame hath an Eternal Voice.
Or hath Corynna, by the name
Her Ovid gave her, dimn'd the fame
Of Cæsar's Daughter, and the Line
Which all the World then stil'd Divine?
Hath Petrarch since his Laura rais'd
Equal with her? or Ronsart prais'd
His new Cassandra, 'bove the old,
Which all th[E] Fate of Troy foretol{D}?
Hath our great SYDNE[Y], Stell{A} set,
Where *nEV[E]R STAR* shone b{R}ighte[R] yet?
Or Constables Am{B}rosiack Muse,
Made Dian, not h{I}s Notes refuse?
Have all thes{E} done (and yet I miss
The Swan that so relish'd Pancharis)
And shall not I my Celia bring,
Where Men may see whom I do sing,
Though I, in working of my Song
Come short of all this learned throng,
Yet sure my Tunes will be the best,
So much my subject drowns the rest.
......................................
. <= 24 =>
.
. W h i c h a l l t h[E]F a t e o f T r o y f o r
. e t o l {D}?H a t h o u r g r e a t S Y D N E[Y]S
. t e l l {A} s e t,W h e r e*n E V[E]R S T A R*s h
. o n e b {R} i g h t e[R]y e t?O r C o n s t a b l
. e s A m {B} r o s i a c k M u s e,M a d e D i a n,
. n o t h {I} s N o t e s r e f u s e?H a v e a l l
. t h e s {E} d o n e(a n d y e t I m i s s T h e S
. w a n t h a t s o r e l i s h'd P a n c h a r i s)
.
{DARBIE} 24 : Prob. in SYDNEY ode ~ 1 in 1800
......................................
. <= 18 =>
.
. W h i c h a l l t h [E] F a t e o f T
. r o y f o r e t o l {D}?H a t h o u r
. g r e a t S Y D N E [Y],S t e l l{A}s
. e t,W h e r e*n E V [E] R S T A R*s h
. o n e b{R}i g h t e [R] y e t?
.
[EDYER] 18 : Prob. in SYDNEY ode ~ 1 in 71
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.brooklynrail.org/article_image/image/10639/niederkorn-web1.jpg
.....................................................
John Rollett/Jones Harris:
enrd[DYER]{DEN}ee : Prob. [DYER] ~ 1 in 2,500
ees[ST(e)NLEY]eee : Prob. ~ 1 in 2,300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
. http://tinyurl.com/lju45g7
.
. On Mr Wm *SHAK{E}SPEARE* h{E DYE}d in Aprill 1616.
. by William Basse (c. 1622)
.
. RENOW{NED} *SPENCER* lye a thought more n{Y}e
. To learned Chaucer, and rar{E} Beaumond lye
. A little neere{R} *SPENSER*, to make roome
............................................
_______ <= 24 =>
.
. R E N O W{N E D} *S P E N C E R*l y e a t h o u g
. h t m o r e n{Y} e T o l e a r n e d C h a u c e
. r,a n d r a r{E} B e a u m o n d l y e A l i t t
. l e n e e r e{R} *S P E N S E R*t o m a k e r o o
. m e
............................................
. For *SHAK{E}SPEARE* in your threefold, fowerfol{D} TOMBE.
.(To LODGE) all fowre in one bed m{A}ke a shift
. Untill Doomesdaye, for ha{R}dly will a sift
. Betwixt ys day and yt {B}y Fate be slayne,
. For whom your Curta{I}nes may be drawn againe.
. If yoUr prec{E}dency in death doth barre
............................................
_______ <= 30 =>
.
. For*SHAK{E}SPEARE* inyourthreefoldf
. owerfol {D} TOMBE ToLODGEallfowrein
. onebedm {A} keash iftUntillDoomesda
. yeforha {R} dlywi llasiftBetwixtysd
. ayandyt {B} yFate beslayneForwhomyo
. urCurta {I} nesma ybedrawnagaineIfy
. oUrprec {E} dency indeathdothbarreA
. fourthp l acEin yoursacredsepulcher
.
{E.DARBIE} 30 : Prob. ~ 1 in 10,360
..........................................................
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A12017.0001.001?view=toc
THE MOST LAmentable Romaine Tragedie of Titus Andronicus: As
it was Plaide by the Right Honourable the {E}arle of {DARBIE},
Earle of Pembrooke and Earle of Sussex their Servants.
London: printed by Iohn Danter, and are *TO BE* sold by
Edward White & Thomas Millington, at the little North
doore of Paules at the signe of the Gunne, 1594.
.......................................................
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/titusbibs.html
The most lamentable Romaine tragedie of Titus Andronicus.
As it hath sundry times beene playde by the Right Honourable
the Earle of Pembrooke, the {E}arle of {DARBIE}, the Earle
of Sussex, and the Lorde Chamberlaine theyr seruants.
At London: printed by I. R. for Edward White, and are
*TO BEE* sold at his shoppe, at the little north doore
of Paules, at the signe of the Gun, 1600.
------------------------------------------
Rosalynde by Thomas Lodge
_Phoebe's Sonnet, a Reply to Montanus' Passion_
Down a down,
Thus Phyllis sung,
By fancy once distressed;
Whoso by foolish love are stung
Are worthily oppressed.
And so sing I. With a down, down, &c.
When Love was first begot,
And by the mover's will
Did fall to human lot
His solace to fulfil,
Devoid of all deceit,
A chaste and holy fire
Did quick[E]n man's conce[I]t,
And women's [B]reast inspi[R]e.
The gods th[A]t saw the goo[D]
That mortal{S} did approve,
{W}ith kind and holy mood
Began to talk of Love.
.......................................
. <= 11 =>
.
D i d q u i c k [E] n m
a n's c o n c e [I] t,A
n d w o m e n's [B] r e
a s t i n s p i [R] e.T
h e g o d s t h [A] t s
a w t h e g o o [D] T h
a t m o r t a l {S} d i
d a p p r o v e,{W} i t
h k i n d a n d h o l
y m o o d
[{W.S.} E.DARBIE] 15
.......................................
Down a down,
Thus Phyllis sung
By fancy once distressed, &c.
But during this accord,
A wonder *STRANGE* to hear,
Whilst Love in deed and word
Most faithful did appear,
False-semblance came in place,
By Jealousy attended,
And with a double face
Both love and fancy blended;
Which made the gods forsake,
And men from fancy fly,
And maidens scorn a make,
Forsooth, and so will I.
Down a down,
Thus Phyllis sung,
By fancy once distressed;
Who so by foolish love are stung
Are worthily oppressed.
And so sing I.
With down a down, a down down, a down a.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Annex/DraftTxt/Oth/Oth_Q/Oth_Q.html
The Tragoedy of Othello,
The Moore of Venice.
As it hath beene diverse times acted at the
Globe, and at the Black-Friers, by
his Maiesties Servants,
Written by VVilliam Shakespeare
LONDON,
Printed by N.O. for Thomas Walkley, and are *TO BE* sold at his
shop, at *The EAGLE and CHILD* , in Brittans Bursser. 1622.
..............................................................
A sign for (of) Derby [Lord Strange/ Stan(d)-ley <=> Walk-ley]
-------------------------------------------------
____ Stanley(/Lord *STRANGE* ) motto:
.
________ *SANS CHANGER MA VERITE*
_______ *CERVANTES AGNES HIRAM*
*AGNES* : (Latin) *HAGNES* meaning "chaste" or "sacred".
.......................................................
. (MICHAEL) *CERVANTES* was born on MICHAELMAS 1547.
. William Stanley who died on MICHAELMAS 1642.
. (Cervantes 95th birthday)!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent.
by Washington Irving.
THE MUTABILITY OF LITERATURE.: November 10, 1819
A COLLOQUY IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
I had taken down a little thick quarto, curiously bound in
parchment, with brass clasps, and seated myself at the table
in a venerable elbow-chair. Instead of reading, howEVER, I was
beguiled by the solemn monastic air and lifeless quiet of the
place, into a train of musing. As I looked around upon the old
volumes in their mouldering covers, thus ranged on the shelves
and apparently nEVER disturbed in their repose, I could not but
consider the library a kind of literary catacomb, where authors,
like mummies, are piously entombed and left to blacken and
moulder in dusty oblivion.
While I sat half-murmuring, half-meditating, these unprofitable
speculations with my head resting on my hand, I was thrumming
with the other hand upon the quarto, until I accidentally
loosened the clasps; when, to my utter astonishment, the little
book gave two or three yawns, like one awaking from a deep sleep,
then a husky hem, and at length began to talk. At first its voice
was very hoarse and broken, being much troubled by a cobweb which
some studious spider had woven across it, and having probably
contracted a cold from long exposure to the chills and damps of
the abbey. In a short time, howEVER, it became more distinct, and
I soon found it an exceedingly fluent, conversable little tome.
Its language, to be sure, was rather quaint and obsolete, and
its pronunciation what, in the present day, would be deemed
barbarous; but I shall endeavor, as far as I am able,
to render it in modern parlance.
....................................................
"My very good sir," said the little quarto, yawning most drearily
in my face, "excuse my interrupting you, but I perceive you are
rather given to prose. I would ask the fate of an author who
was making some noise just as I left the world. His reputation,
however, was considered quite temporary. The learned shook their
heads at him, for he was a poor, half-educated varlet, that knew
little of Latin, and nothing of Greek, and had been obliged to
run the country for deer-stealing. I think his name was
Shakespeare. I presume he soon sunk into oblivion."
"On the contrary," said I, "it is owing to that *VERy man* that
the literature of his period has experienced a duration beyond the
ordinary term of English literature. There rise authors now and
then who seem proof against the mutability of language because
they have rooted themselves in the unchanging principles of
human nature. They are like gigantic trees that we sometimes
see on the banks of a stream, which by their vast and deep roots,
penetrating through the mere surface and laying hold on the VERy
foundations of the earth, preserve the soil around them from
being swept away by the EVER-flowing current, and hold up many
a neighboring plant, and perhaps WORTHless WEED, to perpetuity.
Such is the case with Shakespeare, whom we behold defying the
encroachments of time, retaining in modern use the language and
literature of his day, and giving duration to many an indifferent
author, merely from having flourished in his vicinity. But even
he, I grieve to say, is gradually assuming the tint of age,
and his whole form is overrun by a profusion of commentators,
who, like clambering vines and creepers, almost
*bury the NOBLE plant* that upholds them."
Here the little quarto began to heave his sides and chuckle,
until at length he broke out into a plethoric fit of laughter
that had wellnigh choked him by reason of his excessive corpulency.
"Mighty well!" cried he, as soo[N AS HE] could recover breath,
"mighty well! and so you would persuade me that the literature
of an age is to be perpetuated by a vagabond deer-stealer!
by a man without learning! by a poet! forsooth-a poet!"
And here he wheezed forth another fit of laughter.
.
I confess that I felt somewhat nettled at this rudeness,
which, howEVER, I pardoned on account of his having
flourished in a les(S) polished age. I dete{R}mined,
nEVERthel{E}ss, n(O)t to give up m{Y} point.
"Yes," resume{D} I positive(L)y, "a po{E}t; for of all writers
he has the best ch(A)nce for immortality. Others may write from
(T)he head, but he writes from the heart, and the heart will
always understand him. He is the faithful portrayer of Nature,
whose features are always the same and always interesting.
Prose writers are voluminous and unwieldy; their pages crowded with
commonplaces, and their thoughts expanded into tediousness. But
with the *TRUE POET EVERy thing* is terse, touching, or brilliant.
He gives the choicest thoughts in the choicest language. He
illustrates them by EVERything that he sees most striking in
nature and art. He enriches them by pictures of human life, such
as it is passing before him. His writings, therefore, contain the
spirit, the aroma, if I may use the phrase, of the age in which
he lives. They are caskets which inclose within a small compass
the wealth of the language--its family jewels, which are thus
transmitted in a portable form to posterity. The setting may
occasionally be antiquated, and require now and then to be
renewed, as in the case of Chaucer; but the brilliancy and
intrinsic value of the gems continue unaltered. Cast a look
back over the long reach of literary history. What vast
valleys of dulness, filled with monkish legends and academical
controversies! What bogs of theological speculations!
{W}hat dreary waste{S} of metaphysics! H[E]re and there only
[D]o we behold the he[A]ven-illumined ba[R]ds, elevated like
[B|e)acons on their w[I|d)ely-separated h[E|i)ghts, to transmit
(t)he pure light of p{O}etical intellig{E}nce from age to age."
.........................................................
. <= 15 =>
.
. {W} h a t d r e a r y w a s t e
. {S} o f m e t a p h y s i c s!H
. [E] r e a n d t h e r e o n l y
. [D] o w e b e h o l d t h e h e
. [A] v e n-i l l u m i n e d b a
. [R] d s,e l e v a t e d l i k e
. [B] (e) a c o n s o n t h e i r w
. [I] (d) e l y-s e p a r a t e d h
. [E] (i) g h t s,t o t r a n s m i
. t (t) h e p u r e l i g h t o f
. p {O} e t i c a l i n t e l l i
. g {E} c e f r o m a g e t o a g e.
.
[{W.S.} E.DARBIE] 15
(edit) {O.E.} 15
.
Prob. of [{W.S.} E.DARBIE]
in last 2 conversation sentences ~ 1 in 57,000,000.
.........................................................
I was just about to launch forth into eulogiums upon the poets of
the day when the sudden opening of the door caused me to turn my
head. It was the verger, who came to inform me that it was time
to close the library. I sought to have a parting word with the
quarto, but the WORTHY little tome was silent; the clasps were
closed: and it looked perfectly unconscious of all that had
passed. I have been to the library two or three times since, and
have endeavored to draw it into further conversation, but in
vain; and whether all this rambling colloquy actually took place,
or whether it was another of those old day-dreams to which I am
subject, I have nEVER, to this moment, been able to discover.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Thorpe: (c) 1996, Charles Michaels, Jr.
http://www.marlovian.com/essays/thorpe_cm.html
http://www.marlovian.com/docs/thorplet.html
<<What are we to make of Thorpe's dedication wherein he refers to Marlowe
as "that pure elemental wit?" He goes on to say Marlowe's "ghost or
genius can be seen walking in the churchyard in (at the least) three
or four sheets." Are we seeing here...the 'reincarnated' Marlowe with
three or four manuscripts under his arm striding across St. Paul's
churchyard towards Blount's shop at the sign of the Black Bear?>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.luminarium.org/renascence-editions/muses.html
THE TEARES OF THE MUses. BY ED. Sp.
LONDON. Imprinted for William Ponsonbie, dwelling in
Paules Churchyard at the signe of the Bishops head.
1591. TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE The *Ladie STRANGE* .
MOST braue and noble Ladie, the things that make ye
so much honored of the worl{D} as {Y}e b{E}e a{R}e
such as (without my simpl[E LIN]es [TEST]
i(M)onie) (A)re th(R)ough(L)ie kn(O)wen to all men;
{DYER} 3 : Prob. at start or end ~ 1 in 450
(MARLO) 5 : Prob. at start or end ~ 1 in 1130
namely, your excellent beautie, your vertuous behauior,
& your noble match with that most honourable Lord the verie
Paterne of right Nobilitie: But the causes for which ye haue thus
*DE(s)ERVED* of me to me honoured (if honour it be at al) are, both
your particular bounties, and also some priuate bands of affinitie,
which it hath pleased your Ladiship to acknowledge. Of which whenas I
found my selfe in no part worthie, I deuised this last slender meanes,
both to intimate my humble affection to your Ladiship and also to
make the same vniuersallie knowen to the world; that by honouring
you they might know me, and by knowing me they might honor you.
--------------------------------------------------
. THE TEARES OF THE MUSES (1591) BY ED. Sp.
. (dedicated to Alice Spencer, Countess of Derby)
............................................
All places th{EY} with follie have possest,
And with vaine toyes the vulgar[E] entertaine;
But me have banished, with all the rest
That whi[L]ome wont to wait upon my traine,
Fine Counterfesaunce and u[N]hurtfull Sport,
Delight and Laughter deckt in seemly sort.
[A]ll these, and all that els the comick stage
With seasoned wi[T] and goodly pleasance graced,
By which mans life in his like[S]t image
Was limned forth, are wholly now defaced;
And those s[W]eete wits which wont the like to frame
Are now despizd, and made a laughing game.
.......................................................
______ <= 49 =>
.
. Allplacesth {E/Y} withfolliehavepossestAndwithvainetoy
. esthevulgar [E] entertaineButmehavebanishedwithallthe
. restThatwhi [L] omewonttowaituponmytraineFineCounterf
. esaunceandu [N] hurtfullSportDelightandLaughterdeckti
. nseemlysort [A] lltheseandallthatelsthecomickstageWit
. hseasonedwi [T] andgoodlypleasancegracedBywhichmansli
. feinhislike [S] timageWaslimnedfortharewhollynowdefac
. edAndthoses [W] eetewitswhichwonttheliketoframeArenow
. despizdandm a dealaughinggame
.
[W.STANLE/Y}] -49 :
Prob. near to {Our pleasant WILLY} ~ 1 in 32,000
.........................................................
And he, the man whom Nature selfe had made
To mock her selfe, and *TRUTH* to imitate,
With kindly counter under *MIMICK SHADE* ,
{Our pleasant WILLY}, ah! is dead of late:
With whom all joy and jolly meriment
Is also deaded, and in dolour drent.
.................................................
(our p)LE(a)SANT WILLY
[WILL STANLEY] (apuro = difficulty, predicament)
.................................................
In stead thereof scoffing Scurrilitie,
And scornfull Follie with Contempt is crept,
Rolling in rymes of shameles ribaudrie
Without regard, or due decorum kept;
Each idle wit at will presumes to make,
And doth the learneds taske upon him take.
But that same gentle spirit, from whose pen
Large streames of honnie and sweete nectar flowe,
Scorning the boldnes of such base-borne men,
Which dare their follies forth so rashlie throwe,
Doth rather choose to sit in idle cell,
Than so himselfe to mockerie to sell.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley,_6th_Earl_of_Derby
<<William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, KG (1561 - 29 September 1642) was educated at St John's College, Oxford. In 1582 he travelled to the continent to study in university towns in France and may also have attended Henry of Navarre's academy at Nérac. In 1585 he returned home but was once more sent to Paris as part of an embassy to Henry III of France. He then remained on the continent for a further three years of personal travels before returning home once more. He may have been accompanied on his travels by the young *John Donne*.>>
-----------------------------------------
. Love's Labour's Lost Act 5, Scene 2
*FERDINAND* :
. Then, in our measure do but vouchsafe one *CHANGE*.
. Thou bid'st me beg: this begging is not *STRANGE*.
-------------------------------------------
. The Tempest Act 1, Scene 2
*FERDINAND* : [ARIEL sings]
. Full fathom five thy father lies;
. Of his bones are coral made;
. Those are pearls that were his eyes:
. Nothing of him that doth fade
. But doth suffer a *sea-CHANGE*
. Into something rich and *STRANGE*.
. Sea-nymphs hourly ring his knell
. [Burthen Ding-dong]
. Hark! now I hear them,--Ding-dong, bell.
----------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinando_Stanley,_5th_Earl_of_Derby
<<*FERDINANDo* Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby (1559 - 16 April 1594) was the son of Henry Stanley, 4th Earl of Derby and Lady Margaret Clifford. Ferdinando had a place in the line of succession according to the Will of Henry VIII, after his mother, whom he predeceased. His sudden death led to suspicions of poisoning amid fears of Catholic plots to overthrow Elizabeth.
About 1572, when he was thirteen, Stanley matriculated as a member of the University of Oxford. A year later he was called to her Court by Queen Elizabeth, "to be shaped in good manners". He was subsequently summoned to Parliament in his father's Barony of Strange (of Knokyn) and became known as "Ferdinando, Lord Straunge". In 1579 he married Alice Spencer, the youngest daughter of Sir John Spencer of Althorp by his marriage to Catherine Kytson.
Ferdinando was a supporter of the arts, enjoying music, dance, poetry, and singing, but above all he loved the theatre. He was the patron of many writers, including Robert Greene, Christopher Marlowe, Edmund Spenser, and William Shakespeare. Shakespeare may have been employed by Strange in his early years as one of Lord Strange's Men, when this troupe of acrobats and tumblers was reorganized, emphasizing the performing of plays. By 1590, Strange's was allied with the Admiral's Men, performing at The Theatre (owned by James Burbage, father of Richard Burbage).
Elizabeth's chief minister Lord Burghley received several reports that "Papists" were attempting to build support for Ferdinando, whom they might agree unanimously to make king, as one of his informants stated. His death was mysterious. He was said to have been poisoned by the Jesuits, his gentleman of horse being suspected of administering the poison. The historian John Stow recorded his illness in great detail. It has been suggested that poisonous mushrooms were used.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enter [P]yramu[S], and Th[I]sby, an[D] Wall, a[N]d Moon[E]
-shine, and Lyon.
[P.SIDNE] 8
.
. Prologue. Gentles, perchance you wonder at this show.
. But, wonder on, till *TRUTHE* all things plaine.
. This man is Pyramus, if you would knowe:
. This beautious Lady Thsby is certaine.
. This man, with lyme and roughcast, doth present
. Wall, that vile wall, which did these louers sunder:
. And through wals chinke, poore soules, they are content
. To whisper. At the which, let no man wonder.
. This man, with lanterne, dogge, and bush of thorne,
. Presenteth moone-shine. For if you will know,
. By moone-shine did these louers thinke no scorne
. To meete at Ninus tombe, there, there to wooe.
. This grizly beast (which Lyon hight by name)
. The trusty Thysby, comming first by night,
. Did scarre away, or rather did affright:
. And as she fled, her mantle she did fall:
. Which Lyon vile with bloody mouth did staine.
. Anon com[E]s Pyramus, sweete yo[U]th, and tall,
. And find[E]s his trust{Y} Thisby[E]s mantle slaine:
. Whe[R]eat, with {B}lade, with bloody blamefull blade,
. He b{R}auely broacht his boyling bloody bre{A}st.
. And Thisby, tarying in Mulberry sha{D}e,
. His dagger drewe, and dyed. For all the rest,
. Let Lyon, Moone-shine, Wall, and louers twaine,
. At large discourse, while here they doe remaine.
. The. I wonder, if the Lyon be to speake.
. Demet. No wonder, my Lord. One Lyon may, when
. many Asses doe.
................................................
. <= 16 =>
.
. A n o n c o m[E]s P y r a m u s
. s w e [E] t e y o[U]t h a n d t a
. l l A n d f i n d[E]s h i s t r
. u s t {Y} T h i s b y[E]s m a n t
. l e s l a i n e W h e[R]e a t w
. i t h {B} l a d e w i t h b l o o
. d y b l a m e f u l l b l a d e
. H e b {R} a u e l y b r o a c h t
. h i s b o y l i n g b l o o d y
. b r e {A} s t A n d T h i s b y t
. a r y i n g i n M u l b e r r y
. s h a {D} e
.
[E.UEER] 17
{DARBY} -32 : {DARBY} or {DERBY} in speech Prob. ~ 1 in 36
-------------------------------------------
. Much Ado About Nothing Act 4, Scene 1
FRIAR FRANCIS: Marry, this well carried shall on her behalf
. *CHANGE* slander to remorse; that is some good:
. But not for that dream I on this *STRANGE* course,
. But on this travail look for greater birth.
-------------------------------------------
. Julius Caesar Act 1, Scene 3
CASSIUS: You are dull, Casca, and those sparks of life
. That should be in a Roman you do want,
. Or else you use not. You look pale and gaze
. And put on fear and cast yourself in wonder,
. To see the *STRANGE* impatience of the heavens:
. But if you would consider the *TRUE* cause
. Why all these fires, why all these gliding ghosts,
. Why birds and beasts from quality and kind,
. Why old men fool and children calculate,
. Why all these things *CHANGE* from their ordinance
. Their natures and preformed faculties
. To monstrous quality,--why, you shall find
. That heaven hath infused them with these spirits,
. To make them instruments of fear and warning
. Unto some monstrous state.
. Now could I, Casca, name to thee a man
. Most like this dreadful night,
. That thunders, lightens, opens graves, and roars
. As doth the lion in the Capitol,
. A man no mightier than thyself or me
. In personal action, yet prodigious grown
. And fearful, as these *STRANGE* eruptions are.
-------------------------------------------
. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 3, Scene 2
Player King: This world is not for aye, nor 'tis not *STRANGE*
. That even our loves should with our fortunes *CHANGE*;
. For 'tis a question left us yet to prove,
. Whether love lead fortune, or else fortune love.
. The great man down, you mark his favourite flies;
. The poor advanced makes friends of enemies.
. And hitherto doth love on fortune tend;
. For who not needs shall *NEVER* lack a friend,
. And who in want a hollow friend doth try,
. Directly seasons him his enemy.
. But, orderly to end where I begun,
. Our wills and fates do so contrary run
. That our devices still are overthrown;
. Our thoughts are ours, their ends none of our own:
. So think thou wilt no second husband wed;
. But die thy thoughts when thy first lord is dead.
-------------------------------------------
. King Lear Act 4, Scene 1
EDGAR: Yet better thus, and known to be contemn'd,
. Than still contemn'd and flatter'd. To be worst,
. The lowest and most dejected thing of fortune,
. Stands still in esperance, lives not in fear:
. The lamentable *CHANGE* is from the best;
. The worst returns to laughter. Welcome, then,
. Thou unsubstantial air that I embrace!
. The wretch that thou hast blown unto the worst
. Owes nothing to thy blasts. But who *COMES HERE* ?
. [Enter GLOUCESTER, led by an Old Man]
. My father, poorly led? World, world, O world!
. But that thy *STRANGE* mutations make us hate thee,
. Lie would not yield to age.
-------------------------------------------
. Sonnet 76
Why is my verse so barren of new pride,
So far from variation or quick *CHANGE*?
Why with the time do I not glance aside
To new-found methods and to compounds *STRANGE*?
Why write I still all one, *EVER* the same,
And keep invention in a noted weed,
That *EVER*y word doth almost tell my name,
Showing their birth and where they did proceed?
O, know, sweet love, I always write of you,
And you and love are still my argument;
So all my best is dressing old words new,
Spending again what is already spent:
For as the sun is daily new and old,
So is my love still telling what is told.
-------------------------------------------
. Sonnet 89
Say that thou didst forsake me for some fault,
And I will comment upon that offence;
Speak of my lameness, and I straight will halt,
Against thy reasons making no defence.
Thou canst not, love, disgrace me half so ill,
To set a form upon desired *CHANGE*,
As I'll myself disgrace: knowing *THY WILL* ,
I will acquaintance strangle and look *STRANGE*,
Be absent from thy walks, and in my tongue
Thy sweet beloved name no more shall dwell,
Lest I, too much profane, should do it wrong
And haply of our old acquaintance tell.
For thee against myself I'll vow debate,
For I must ne'er love him whom thou dost hate.
-------------------------------------------
. Sonnet 93
So shall I live, supposing thou art *TRUE*,
Like a deceived husband; so love's face
May still seem love to me, though alter'd new;
Thy looks with me, thy heart in other place:
For there can live no hatred in thine eye,
Therefore in that I cannot know thy *CHANGE*.
In many's looks the false heart's history
Is writ in moods and frowns and wrinkles *STRANGE*,
But heaven in thy creation did decree
That in thy face sweet love should *EVER* dwell;
Whate'er thy thoughts or thy heart's workings be,
Thy looks should nothing thence but sweetness tell.
How like Eve's apple doth thy beauty grow,
if thy sweet virtue answer not thy show!
-------------------------------------------
. Sonnet 123
No, Time, thou shalt not boast that I do *CHANGE*:
Thy pyramids built up with newer might
To me are nothing novel, nothing *STRANGE*;
They are but dressings of a former sight.
Our dates are brief, and therefore we admire
What thou dost foist upon us that is old,
And rather make them born to our desire
Than think that we before have heard them told.
Thy registers and thee I both defy,
Not wondering at the present nor the past,
For thy records and what we see doth lie,
Made more or less by thy continual haste.
This I do vow and this shall *EVER* be;
I will be *TRUE*, despite thy scythe and thee.
------------------------------------
Shakespeare: the "lost years" by E. A. J. Honigmann
<<The treatment of Ferdinand, King of Navarre in LLL
...points at Ferdinando, Lord *STRANGE*.
.....................................................
____ Love's Labour's Lost > Act IV, scene III
BIRON: First, from the park let us conduct them thither;
. Then homeward *EVERy* man attach the hand
. Of his fair mistress: in the afternoon
. We will with some *STRANGE* pastime solace them,
.....................................................
These are little local jokes; the very structure of the play,
however, could have been devised to 'send up' Lord Stange's mottos,
"Dieu et ma Foy" and "SANS CHANGER MA VERITE"
Ferdinand and his friends are caught out repeatedly 'breaking faith'
persuade themselves that 'it is religion to be thus forsworn' and
prove 'men of inconstancy' who *CHANGE* 'even to the opposed end
of our intents'. The *CHANGEablenss* and untruthfulness
of Ferdinand and his '*STRANGErs*' - is a basic theme.
.....................................................
Love's Labour's Lost Act 5, Scene 2
FERDINAND: Then, in our measure do but vouchsafe one *CHANGE*.
______ Thou bid'st me beg: this begging is not *STRANGE*.
.....................................................
Precisely the same puns are found
in Richard Robinson's _A Golden Mirror (1589):
.....................................................
Verses pend vpon the Etimologie of the name of
the right honorable, Fardinando, Lord *STRANGE*.
Fame in her flight, by chance found me
Asleepe vpon a banke,
And in a furie, said that she
Would yeeld me litle thanke,
To sleepe when thou shouldst wake, and write,
Sith I (said she) wil now indite.
Arise (quoth she) write after me,
My sentence doe not *CHANGE*,
*HERE shalt thou view a creature TRUE* ,
Who may be called *STRANGE*.
And if thou learned be quoth shee,
Beholde the noble Wight:
Whose modest minde apeares to be
A wise and vertuous Knight:
Descent of noble Parentage,
And rarest creature of his age:
A man so fixt and firme of fayth,
That *NEUER* yet did *CHANGE*,
And standes to *TRUETH* for life or death,
This man is *VERY STRANGE*:
Recorded is his life by mee,
Within my house of *FAME*:
From age to age his memorie
Shall still aduance his name.
(Quoth she) because his noble giftes
Doe put his equals to their shiftes
Let poore men iudge, that want refuge,
That find their Landlords *CHANGE*,
He takes th'olde rent, and is content:
Which may be called *STRANGE*.
Doubtlesse (quoth *FAME*) thou maist be bolde
To write what I shall say:
*STRANGE* is his vertues to beholde,
Among the rest this day:
He serueth God in humble wise,
His Princes foes he doth dispise.
..................................
His lowly minde men *EUER* finde,
Still fixed not to *C[H]ANGE*.
Which w[I]nnes mens ha[R]ts in *EUERY* p[A]rts,
And that [M]ust needes be *STRAUNGE*.
..................................
[HIRAM] 11
..................................
Esteemde he is, of Noble Prince,
And of all gentle blood:
His like befo{R}e his tym{E}, nor sinc{E},
For Vert{U}ous gift{E}s and goo{D}:
..................................
{DEUEER} -8
..................................
I *NEUER* knew, nor *NEUER* shall,
Though I to mynde with pen should call:
All histories of auncient age,
Yet I should finde some *CHAUNGE*:
His part he playes vpon the stage,
Exceedeth *VERY STRAUNGE*.
No pride perceiued in his brest,
No hautie heart he beares:
And where is neede, to helpe vs prest,
And thus he spends his yeares:
No harme to any hath he wisht,
Nor for a poore mans profite fisht:
Doubtles his life, to man and wife,
Doth show in him no *CHAUNGE*:
But sure, eche houre vnto his power,
Among the rest, is *STRAUNGE*.
Of worldly wealth, he makes no coumpt,
He wayes his honor more:
Loue to his seruants doth surmount,
And to his tenaunts poore:
Of countrey still, he taketh care,
And for the common wealth prepare:
Remembring well, that *FAME* will tell,
What people loue to *CHAUNGE*:
Therfore I say, this present day,
He may be called *STRAUNGE*.
Death doubts he not, in Princes causes,
So *TRUE* of faith is hee:
To serue and prosecute her lawes,
He cares not who they bee:
Refusing neither night nor day,
All tydes, and tymes, he takes the way:
No fauor feare, no frend, nor foe,
Can cause his mynde to *CHAUNGE*,
No gayne nor payne, can tempt him so,
And that is *VERY STRAUNGE*.
.......................................
If I should make report (quoth *FAME*)
Of halfe his golden gifte[S]:
Except that Tullie were thy name,
Th[Y] pen were put to shiftes:
Go to therfo[R]e, and write (sayd she)
And I therewith [A]broad will flee:
And *EUERY* eare, of hi[M] shall heare,
.......................................
[MARYS] -30
.......................................
That *NEUER* yet did *CHAUNGE*:
But sure as rocke, and all his stocke,
And that is on[E]ly *ST[R]AUNG[E]*.
He lo[V]eth m[E]n, much more then sheepe,
.......................................
[EVERE] -5
......................................
That some doe most delite:
He pities people poore that weepe,
When wrong hath wrought them spite:
He gently heares their greeued causes,
And doth with iustice vse the lawes:
By force he wayes no wight with power,
Nor mynde, with winde doth *CHAUNGE*:
As many doe this presente houre,
But now that is not *STRAUNGE*.
Not markes and pounds, but hawkes and hounds,
Is *EUER* his desire:
He layes not gether poores mens grounds,
He is no countrey stroyer:
He liues in loue, of rich and poore,
Sufficient he doth call his store:
Full well knowes he, that men must dye,
And therefore will not *CHAUNGE*:
But liues content, with auncient rent,
Which argues to be *STRAUNGE*.
Thus did I write, and *FAME* indite,
Me thought that present tyme:
For in the sense, I had delite,
To studie *EUERY* line:
Loe this in sleepe, me thought I heard,
Of *FAME*, which bad me take regard:
With painefull pen, to tell all men,
That it might *NEUER CHAUNGE*:
Then out of sight, she tooke her flight,
And bad me thinke of *STRAUNGE*.
Then wakened I, with weeping eyes,
To call my *DREAME* to mynde:
Because I see, such men as these,
In England hard to finde:
Alas therefore, what should I say,
It is the cause poore men decay:
Uice taketh place, for want of grace,
So many loue to *CHAUNGE*:
Thus haue I pen'd, and also end,
My *DREAME* of Noble *STRAUNGE*.>>
--------------------------------------------
. THE DEVIL IS AN ASS (1616)
.....................................................
WITTIPOL: Faith, he do's not hate it.
. But that's not it. His Belly and his Palate
. Would be compounded with for Reason. Marry,
. A Wit he has, of that *STRANGE* Credit with him,
. 'Gainst all Mankind; as it doth make him do
. Just what it list: it ravishes him forth,
. Whither it please, to any Assembly or Place,
. And would conclude him ruin'd, should he scape
. One publick Meeting, out of the belief
. He has of his own great, and Catholick strengths,
. In arguing and Discourse. It takes, I see:
. H' has got the *CLOAK* upon him.
. [Ingine hath won Fitz-dottrel, to 'say on the *CLOAK*.
.....................................................
FITZ-DOTTRELL: A pretty Riddle! Fare you well, good Sir.
. Wife, your Face this way, look on me, and think
. Ya' have had a wicked Dream, Wife, and forget it.
. [He turns his Wife about.
.
MANLY: This is the *STRANGEST* Motion I e're saw.
.
FITZ-DOTTRELL: Now, Wife, sits this fair *CLOAK*
. the worse upon me For my great sufferings, or
. your little patience? ha? They laugh, you think?
.....................................................
FITZ-DOTTRELL: I hope I shall: but, Ingine, you do talk
. Somewhat too much o' my Courses. My *CLOAK* -Customer
. Could tell me *STRANGE* particulars.
.....................................................
INGINE: Is not that *STRANGE*, Sir, to make Wine of Raisins?
.....................................................
Mistris FRANCES: I cannot get this venture of the *CLOKE*,
. Out of my fancy; nor the Gentlemans way
. He took, which though 'twere *STRANGE*, yet 'twas handsom,
. And had a Grace withal, beyond the newness.
. Sure he will think me that dull stupid Creature,
. He said, and my conclude it; if I find not
. Some thought to thank th' attempt. He did presume,
. By all the Carriage of it, on my Brain,
. For answer; and will swear 'tis very Barren,
. If it can yield him no return. Who is it?
.....................................................
HOw now, sweet Heart? what's the matter.
Mistris FRANCES: Good!
. You are a *STRANGER* to the Plot! you set not
. Your sawcy Devil, *HERE* to tempt your Wife,
. With all the insolent uncivil Language,
. Or Action, he could vent?
.....................................................
Mistris FRANCES: You ha' *STRANGE* Phantasies!
.....................................................
Mistris FRANCES: Sir, if you judge me by this simple Action,
. And by the outward Habit, and Complexion
. Of easiness, it hath, to your design;
. You may with Justice, say, I am a Woman:
. And a *STRANGE* Woman. But when you shall please,
. To bring but that concurrence of my Fortune
. To Memory, which to day your self did urge:
. It may beget some favour like excuse,
. Though none like Reason.
.....................................................
MEER-CRAFT: Sir, I honour you.
. And with just reason, for these noble Notes,
. Of the Nobility, you pretend too! But, Sir
. I would know, why? a motive (he a *STRANGER*)
. You should do this?
.....................................................
MEER-CRAFT: Sir, my Friend Ingine has acquainted you
_____ With a *STRANGE business, HERE* .
.....................................................
WITTIPOL: What is her end in this?
.
MEER-CRAFT: MEREly Ambition,
. Sir, to grow great, and court it with the Secret:
. Though she pretend some other. For, she's dealing,
. Already, upon caution for the shares,
. And Mr. Ambler, is he nam'd Examiner
. For the Ingredients; and the Register
. Of what is vented; and shall keep the Office.
. Now, if she break with you, of this (as I
. Must make the leading Thred to your acquaintance,
. That, how Experience gotten i' your Being
. Abroad, will help our Business) think of some
. Pretty Additions, but to keep her floating:
. It may be she will offer you a Part,
. Any *STRANGE Names* of @
.....................................................
PIT-FALL: This is *STRANGE* rudeness.
.....................................................
MEER-CRAFT: This is above *STRANGE*!
. [Mere-craft accuseth him of negligence.
.....................................................
Lady TAILE-BUSH: [She spies the Lady Eitherside.
. Wench?
. Thou hast been a *STRANGER*! I ha' not seen thee this Week.
.....................................................
MANLY: No, but wondring
. At your *STRANGE* fashion'd venture, hither.
.....................................................
PIT-FALL: Beyond telling!
. *HERE has been that infinity of STRANGERS*!
. And then she would ha' had you, to ha' sampled you
. With one within, that they are now a teaching,
. And does pretend to your Rank.
.....................................................
AMBLER: He hopes to make one o' these Scipticks o' me,
. [For Scepticks.
. (I think I name 'em right) and does not fly me:
. I wonder at that! 'tis a *STRANGE* Confidence!
. I'll prove another way, to draw his answer.
.....................................................
EVERILL: T' have done *STRANGE* things, Sir.
. One as the Lady, the other as the Squire.
.....................................................
SHACKLES: Carry the news of it
. Unto the Sheriffs. 1. And to the Justices.
. 4. This 'is' omitted *STRANGE*!
. 3. And favours of the Devil, strongly!
. 2. I' ha' the Sulphur of Hell-coal i' my Nose.
. 1. Fough.
SHACKLES: Carry him in. 1. Away.
. 2. How rank it is!
.....................................................
Lady EITHER-SIDE: A *STRANGE* thing! hold it down.
.....................................................
MEER-CRAFT: O *STRANGE* impudence!
.....................................................
MANLY: This is most *STRANGE*, Sir!
-----------------------------------------
____ EVERy Man out of his Humour (1599)
.........................................................
PUNTARVOLO. A vain-glorious Knight, over-En-
glishing his Travels, and wholly consecrated to singularity; the
very Jacob's Staff of Complement: a Sir that hath liv'd to
see the revolution of Time in most of his Apparel. Of presence
good enough, but so palpable affected to his own praise, that (for
want of flatterers) he commends himself, to the floutage of his
own Family. He deals upon returns, and *STRANGE* perfor-
mances, resolving (in despight of publick derision) to stick
to his own particular Fashion, Phrase, and Gesture.
.........................................................
MITIS: You have seen his Play, Cordatus: Pray you,
how is't?
CORDATUS: Faith Sir, I must refrain to judge; only this
I can say of it, 'Tis *STRANGE*, and of a particuliar kind
by it self, somewhat like Vetus Comoedia: a Work that hath
bounteously pleased me; how it will answer the general
expectation, I know not.
.........................................................
Prologue: Did you! I appeal to all these Gentlemen,
whether you did or no? Come, come, it pleases you
to cast a *STRANGE* look on't now; but 'twill not serve.
.........................................................
CARLO BUFFONE: O, but you must pretend Alliance with Cour-
tiers and great Persons: and EVER when you are to dine
or sup in any *STRANGE* presence, hire a Fellow with a great
Chain (though it be Copper, it's no matter) to bring
you Letters, feign'd from such a Noble Man, or such a
Knight, or such a Lady, To their worshipful, right rare
and nobly qualified Friend or Kinsman, Signior Insulso Sogli-
ardo; give your self stile enough. And there (while
you intend circumstances of News, or enquiry of their
Health, or so) one of your familiars (whom you must
carry about you still) breaks it up (as 'twere in a jest)
and reads it publickly at the Table: at which you must
seem to take as unpardonable offence, as if he had torn
your Mistresses Colours, or breath'd upon her Picture;
and pursue it with that hot grace, as if you would ad-
vance a Challenge upon it presently.
.........................................................
MACILENTE: I, when I cannot shun you, we will meet.
'Tis *STRANGE*! of all the Creatures I have seen,
I envy not this Buffone, for indeed
Neither his Fortunes nor his Parts deserve it:
But I do hate him, as I hate the Devil,
Or that Brass-visag'd monster Barbarism.
O, 'tis an open-throated, black-mouth'd Cur,
That bites at all, but eats not those that feed him.
A slave, that to your Face will (Serpent like)
Creep on the Ground, as he would eat the Dust;
And to your Back will turn the Tail, and sting
More deadly than a Scorpion: Stay, who's this?
Now for my Soul another minion
Of the old Lady Chance's: I'll observe him.
.........................................................
MACILENTE: Ha, ha, ha? I' not this good? Is't not pleasing
[The Hinde enters with a Paper.
this?
Ha, ha, ha! God pardon me! ha, ha!
Is't possible that such a spacious Villain
Should live, and not be plagu'd? or lies he hid
Within the wrinckled Bosom of the World,
Where Heaven cannot see him? why, (methinks)
'Tis rare, and *STRANGE*, that he should breathe, and walk,
Feed with disgestion,digestion sleep, enjoy his Health,
And (like a boist'rous Whale, swallowing the poor)
Still swim in Wealth and Pleasure! is't not *STRANGE*?
Unless his House and Skin were Thunder-proof,
I wonder at it! Methinks, now, the Hectick,
Gout, Leprosie, or some such loath'd Disease,
Might light upon him; or that Fire (from Heaven)
Might fall upon his Barns; or Mice and Rats
Eat up his Grain; or else that it might rot
Within the hoary Reeks, e'en as it stands:
Methinks this might be well; and after all
The Devil might come and fetch him. I, 'tis *TRUE*!
Mean time he surfeits in Prosperity,
And thou (in envy of him) gnaw'st thy self:
Peace, Fool, get hence, and tell thy vexed spirit,
"Wealth in this Age will scarcely look on merit.
SORDIDO: Who brought this same, Sirrah?
.........................................................
FASTID:. O, but this is nothing to that's deliver'd of him.
They say he has Dialogues and Discourses between his
Horse, himself, and his Dog: and that he will court his
own Lady, as she were a *STRANGER* nEVER encounter'd
before.
.........................................................
PUNTARVOLO: To the perfection of Complement (which is
the Dial of the thought, and guided by the Sun of your
Beauties) are requir'd these three specials: the gnomon,
the puntilio's, and the superficies: the superficies, is that
we call place; the puntilio's, Circumstance; and the
gnomon Ceremony; in either of which, for a *STRANGER* to
err, 'tis easie and facile, and such am I.
.........................................................
PUNTARVOLO's Lady: Sir Knight, albeit it be not usual with me
(chiefly in the absence of a Husband) to admit any en-
trance to *STRANGERS*, yet in the *TRUE* regard of those inna-
ted Vertues, and fair Parts, which so strive to express
themselves, in you; I am resolv'd to entertain you to the
best of my unworthy power: which I acknowledg to be
nothing vallu'd with what so worthy a Person may de-
serve. Please you but stay while I descend.
.........................................................
MACILENTE: Is't possible she should deserve so well,
As you pretend? DELIRO: I, and she knows so well
Her own deserts, that (when I strive t' enjoy them)
She weighs the things I do, with what she merits:
And (seeing my worth out-weigh'd so in her graces)
She is so solemn, so precise, so froward,
That no observance I can do to her,
Can make her kind to me: if she find fault,
I mend that fault; and then she says, I faulted,
That I did mend it. Now, good Friend, advise me,
How I may temper this *STRANGE* Spleen in her.
.........................................................
DELIRO: Believe me, Macilente, this is Gospel.
O, that a Man were his own Man so much,
To rule himself thus. I will strive i'faith,
To be more *STRANGE* and careless: yet, I hope
I have now taken such a perfect course,
To make her kind to me, and live contended,contented
That I shall find my Kindness well return'd,
And have no need to fight with my Affections.
She (late) hath found much fault with EVERy Room
Within my House; one was too big (she said)
Another was not furnisht to her mind,
And so through all: all which, now, I have alter'd.
Then here, she hath a place (on my back-side)
Wherein she loves to walk; and that (she said)
Had some ill smells about it. Now, this walk
Have I (before she knows it) thus perfum'd
With Herbs, and Flowers, and laid in divers places,
(As 'twere on Altars, consecrate to her)
Perfumed Gloves, and delicate Chains of Amber,
To keep the Air in awe of her sweet Nostrils:
This have I done, and this I think will please her.
Behold she comes.
.........................................................
FALLACE: Sweet Heart! O! better still!
And asking, why? wherefore? and looking *STRANGELY*,
As if he were as White as Innocence.
Alas, you'r simple, you: you cannot *CHANGE* ,
Look pale at pleasure, and then red with wonder:
No, no, not you! 'tis pitty o' your naturals.
I did but cast an amorous Eye, e'en now,
Upon a pair of Gloves, that somewhat lik't me,
And straight he noted it, and gave command,
All should be ta'en away.
.........................................................
FASTID:. Why, assure you, Signior, rich Apparel has
*STRANGE* virtues: it makes him that hath it without
means, esteemed for an excellent wit: he that enjoys it
with means, puts the World in remembrance of his
means: it helps the deformities of Nature, and gives
lustre to her Beauties; makes continual Holy-day where
it shines; sets the wits of Ladies at work, that other-
wise would be idle: furnisheth your two Shilling Or-
dinary; takes possession of your Stage at your new
Play; and enricheth your Oars, as scorning to go with
your Scull.
.........................................................
CORDATUS: No more, assure you, will any grave wife Citi-
zen, or modest Matron, take the object of this folly in
Deliro, and his Wife: but rather apply it as the foil to
their own Vertues. For that were to affirm, that a
Man writing of Nero, should mean all Emperors: or
in our Sordido, all Farmers; and so of the rest: than
which, nothing can be utter'd more malicious, or ab-
surd. Indeed, there are a sort of these narrow-ey'd de-
cypherers, I confess, that will extort *STRANGE* and ab-
struse meanings out of any subject, be it nEVER so con-
spicuous and innocently deliver'd. But to such (where
e'er they sit conceal'd) let them know, the Author de-
fies them and their Writing-Tables; and hopes no sound
or safe judgment will infect it self with their contagi-
ous Comments, who (indeed) come here only to per-
vert and poyson the sense of what they hear, and for
nought else.
.........................................................
CORDATUS: Marry a couple, Sir, that are *MEER STRANGERS*
to the whole scope of our Play; only come to walk a
turn or two i' this Scene of Pauls by chance.
.........................................................
CARLO BUFFONE: O, if EVER you were struck with a Jest, Gallants,
now, now, I do usher the most *STRANGE* piece of Mili-
tary profession that EVER was discover'd in Insula Paulina.
.........................................................
CARLO BUFFONE: *TRUE*, and the fashion is, when any *STRANGER*
comes in amongst 'em, they all stand up and stare at
him, as he were some unknown Beast, brought out of
Affrick: but that'll be help't with a good adventurous
Face. You must be impudent enough, sit down, and
use no respect; when any thing's propounded above your
Capacity, smile at it, make two or three Faces, and
'tis excellent, they'll think you have travail'd: though
you argue, a whole day, in silence thus, and discourse
in nothing but laughter, 'twill pass. Only (now and
then) give fire, discharge a good full Oath, and offer a
great Wager, 'twill be admirable.
.........................................................
CORDATUS: How like you the decyphering of his Dotage?
.
MITIS: O, *STRANGELY*! and of the others Envy too, that
labours so seriously to set Debate betwixt a Man and his
Wife. Stay, here comes the Knight Adventurer.
.
CORDATUS: I, and his Scrivener with him.
.........................................................
PUNTARVOLO: This was a *STRANGE* Encounter.
.........................................................
CORDATUS: O, he's a Fellow of a *STRANGE* nature. Now does
he (in this calm of his Humour) Plot, and store up a
World of malicious Thoughts in his Brain, till he is so
full with 'em, that you shall see the very Torrent of his
Envy break forth like a Land-flood: and, against the
course of all their Affections oppose it self so violently,
that you will almost have wonder to think, how 'tis
possible the Current of their Dispositions shall receive so
quick and strong an alteration.
.........................................................
SAVIOLINA: Nay, out of doubt he does well, for a Gentle-
man to imitate; but I warrant you, he becomes his na-
tural carriage of the Gentleman, much better than his
Clownery.
FASTID:. 'Tis *STRANGE*, in *TRUTH*, her Ladiship should see so
far into him!
.........................................................
MITIS: Why this is *STRANGE*!
---------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
John W Kennedy
that it really makes one wonder.
--
John W Kennedy
"There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump
of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that
because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in
the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear
I can't see it that way."
-- The last words of Bat Masterson
Sneaky O. Possum
jwk...@attglobal.net:
> On 2015-03-18 18:01:43 +0000, clemen...@yahoo.com said:
>
>> Hi George: The case for William Shakspere being Shakespeare is so
>> old-school that it is amazing to hear people still trying to defend it.
>> Read Diana Price's Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography and Mark
>> Anderson's Shakespeare by Another Name. These books will expand your
>> appreciation of the power and beauty of the Shakespeare works.
>
> Oxfordians find it /so/ easy to identify with a narcissistic psychopath
> that it really makes one wonder.
him?
--
S.O.P.
Paul Crowley
> On 2015-03-18 18:01:43 +0000, clemen...@yahoo.com said:
>> Hi George: The case for William Shakspere being Shakespeare is so
>> old-school that it is amazing to hear people still trying to defend it. Read
>> Diana Price's Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography and Mark
>> Anderson's Shakespeare by Another Name. These books will expand
>> your appreciation of the power and beauty of the Shakespeare works.
>
> Oxfordians find it /so/ easy to identify with a narcissistic psychopath that
> it really makes one wonder.
along those lines, often by the people who knew them
best.
In fact, such a description by at least some of their
contemporaries, would seem to be a qualification for
greatness -- possibly for greatness in any art, or even
science.
Can you think of any exceptions to this rule?
The Stratman can be ruled out, simply on the grounds
of the sheer banality of his life, and of all we know
about him.
Likewise, the Stratfordian conception of the Great Bard
makes not a scrap of sense. How could any author (let
alone a great one) in such an age have apparently been
so docile and so 'agreeable' to the whole world?
Paul.
Henry Asquith
> Likewise, the Stratfordian conception of the Great Bard
> makes not a scrap of sense. How could any author (let
> alone a great one) in such an age have apparently been
> so docile and so 'agreeable' to the whole world?
>
> Paul.
docile and agreeable?
Sneaky O. Possum
him as a narcissistic psychopath.
--
S.O.P.
Paul Crowley
>> Likewise, the Stratfordian conception of the Great Bard
>> makes not a scrap of sense. How could any author (let
>> alone a great one) in such an age have apparently been
>> so docile and so 'agreeable' to the whole world?
>
> docile and agreeable?
_conception_. That never required a psycokologist's
report. Google "shakespeare's personality".
Such a thing is to be found in all the standard 'textbooks'
and the standard 'biographies' such as Schoenbaum'
Documentary Life.
Schoenbaum, page 255
Literary geniuses are not, on the whole, celebrated for their ami-able
dispositions-'Nice people are two a penny', George Mikes consoles
himself; 'great writers are few and far between'-yet, in an age of sharp-
toothed satire, almost everyone seems to have thought well of
Shakespeare. Only Greene, dying without room for magnanimity in his
heart, speaks harshly of him, to be followed immediately by Chettle's
report that divers of worship commended Shakespeare's uprightness of
dealing. The obscure Anthony Scolokèr, in his epistle to Diaphantus, or
The Passions of Love, remarks on 'friendly Shakespeare's tragedies'.
Did the two men know one another, as the phrase suggests? This
reference excepted, Scoloker is utterly unknown. John Davies of
Hereford calls Shakespeare 'good Will' in The Scourge of Folly; in
Microcosmos Davies owns to loving players, and sees 'W. S.' as one
transcending, by his qualities of character, the baseness of the quality:
And though the stage doth stain pure gentle blood, Yet generous ye are
in mind and mood.8
A poet and minor playwright for a rival company describes Shake-
speare as 'so dear loved a neighbour'.9 In this period the impressions of
contemporaries sometimes find their distillation in a single apt epithet
that clings to a name. Jonson, who aspired to be remembered as
Honest Ben, is instead known as Rare Ben Jonson, honest falling to the
unassuming Tom Heywood. Man proposeth, but posterity disposeth.
Shakespeare is enshrined in consciousness as Gentle Will
Shakespeare. One cannot imagine a more fitting designation for the
innate gentleman who was not gently born.
Schoenbaum page 107
If the luce was Sir Thomas's heraldic device, so was it for (among
others) the Gascoynes, the Earl of Northampton, and the Worshipful
Company of Stockfishmongers. 21 To some students it seems alien to
Shakespeare's character and art that he should nurse a grudge for some
dozen years, and then vent it by lampooning his victim in a play.
From Schoenbaum about Nicholas Rowe -- page 197
Next Rowe, speaking of the 'many gracious Marks of her Favour' that
Queen Elizabeth gave Shakespeare, adds an appealing circumstantial
detail:
"She was so well pleas'd with that admirable Character of Falstaff, . ."
Henry Asquith
> Such a thing is to be found in all the standard 'textbooks'
> and the standard 'biographies' such as Schoenbaum'
> Documentary Life.
Paul Crowley
>> Such a thing is to be found in all the standard 'textbooks'
>> and the standard 'biographies' such as Schoenbaum'
>> Documentary Life.
>
> And what do the "standard 'textbooks'" say about Oxford?
and identify their distinguishing characteristics:
Cato, Ovid, Cicero, Byron, Shelley, Joyce, Waugh
Hemingway, etc., etc . . . mix them in a pot and see
what rises to the top. AFAIR There are computer
programs that do this kind of thing.
Guess what? You'll get a good impression of the
kind of guy the greatest writer of all time was likely
to be . . . and how he actually was.
Paul.
marco
ok, that sounds like a no brainer
unless, of course,
you're going to pick and choose only the data you like
marc
Henry Asquith
Sneaky O. Possum
--
S.O.P.
John W Kennedy
great writer has to be a bastard. (Funny, really, since the opening
move in this thread invoked Price’s claim that Shakespeare was too
/nasty/ to be Shakespeare. But no one ever claimed that Oxfordian had
to make sense.) Yeah, that Jane Austen, what a bitch she was....
--
John W Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)
marco
Besides, my REVElations continue to improve in both quantity & quality
and I find satisfaction in that alone.
Art N.
Seeing an intelligent post addressed to Art Neuendorffer (from Sabrina)
I took Art out of my kill-file -- the first time in Ten years or more.
But then -- in the space of a couple of hours-- FIVE long posts of unreadable garbage landed in my in-box.
>> I heard the real key was in the Ciphers & Codes...
Whoever told you that is an idiot.
There is no need for codes or ciphers -- just plain common sense
is enough to tell you who the poet isn't, and who he must be.
.....if it's full of Neuendorffer crap (as most are) you may have
a problem finding anything.
So Neuendorffer goes back where he belongs--the kill-file, as a [boring] Troll.
Paul Crowley
