Of Donald Duck and Will Shakspere

0 views
Skip to first unread message

gangleri

unread,
Aug 6, 2005, 7:54:43 PM8/6/05
to
There is voluminous evidence that Donald Duck - contrary to what some
anti-duck folks would have you believe - was and remains a living
presence among us.

Christopher Marlowe style!

How do we know that?

Why, there is MORE documentary evidence on record on Mr. Duck's affairs
than there ever was with respect to Will Shakspere.

And, except for anti-strats, there's not a person in the world who
thinks that Will Shakspere was a fraud - a successful fraud -
perpetrated on what somebody termed a "patient" - meaning dumb? - world.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 6, 2005, 8:43:20 PM8/6/05
to
Oops!

For:

And, except for anti-strats, there's not a person in the world who
thinks that Will Shakspere was a fraud - a successful fraud -
perpetrated on what somebody termed a "patient" - meaning dumb? -
world.

Read:

And, except for anti-strats, there's not a person in the world who
thinks that Will Shakspere was a fraud - a successful fraud -

perpetrated on what somebody termed a "patient" - meaning SICK? -
world.

Hmmm, that rings a bell!

As in the opening scene of Hamlet:

Francisco:

For this relief much thanksæ 'tis bitter cold,
And I am SICK at heart.

P.S. In the vocabulary of myth, "bitter cold" is associated with NORTH
- whence, as in Moses in the Desert Myth, the "wind" of Spirit
penetrates a SICK world.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 6, 2005, 8:54:51 PM8/6/05
to
As in Act I, Sc. iv of Hamlet.

Hamlet:
The air bites shrewdly; it's very cold.
Horatio:
It's a nipping and an eager air.
Hamlet:
What hour now?
Horatio:
I think it lacks of twelve.
Marcellus:
No, it is struck.

Etc. etc.

Pray the bell don't toll for us Strats!

gangleri

unread,
Aug 6, 2005, 9:07:28 PM8/6/05
to
Alas, it does!

This is what the "nipping and eager air" imparted to Archetypal
Stratfordian Hamlet in Act I, Sc. v:

I am thy father's spirit;
Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confin'd to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purg'd away.

In the context of Shakespeare Myth, the "certain term" runs from April
26, 1564 to April 25, 1616.

Why, quoth Sick Soul, that's preposterous tomfoolery!

Yep - on par with the notion that Jesus Christ, 7284, is Light of the
World, 1000, whose death on the Cross of Stratfordian Ignorance is the
Almighty's way of bringing sheep in from the cold, as in

(a) 7284 + 1000 = 8284, and

(b) 2602 + 1564 + 2502 + 1616 = 8284.

Robert Stonehouse

unread,
Aug 7, 2005, 5:06:19 PM8/7/05
to
On 6 Aug 2005 17:54:51 -0700, "gangleri"
<gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote:

Not "It's" but "It is" surely, in both places, or it doesn't
scan.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 7, 2005, 7:27:45 PM8/7/05
to
Right.

Peter Groves

unread,
Aug 7, 2005, 7:28:42 PM8/7/05
to
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:shjbf1pefurj8l787...@4ax.com...

You're quite right, but anti-strats are often cloth-eared: as a rule,
indeed, they're not much interested in the poetry except as a set of clues
to the Great Secret. It's not Shakespere's work that inteersts them but his
fame (putting them on a par with tourists who buy
Shakespeare's-head-teatowels on a pilgimmage to Stratford).

Peter G.


Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 7, 2005, 7:33:59 PM8/7/05
to
The concept of Pontius Pilate as a Stratfordian is, er, interesting,
even more so than Elizabeth Weir's reiterated assertion that
Stratfordians destroyed the Renaissance.

lariadc

unread,
Aug 7, 2005, 8:01:06 PM8/7/05
to

Well, I'm still waiting to hear what Donald Duck and Christopher
Marlowe have in common...

C.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 7, 2005, 8:53:28 PM8/7/05
to
I like your towel, Peter!

gangleri

unread,
Aug 7, 2005, 9:18:17 PM8/7/05
to
Tom.

Inscrutable again, I see.

Now, if you hold your horses for a moment, let me pick up on your
point.

In the opening sentence of his essay 'Of Truth', Francis Bacon invoked
"Jesting Pilate", whose question "What's truth?" the ancients viewed as
the beginning of wisdom.

A point where, God willing, it may dawn on you that Jesting Pilate,
6627, is your fraternal Twin-Clown of Stratford, 5627.

For the Light of the World, 1000, condemned by Jesting Pilate, as in
1000 + 5627 = 6627, is a jester par excellence.

How else might Our Lord put up with the stuff and nonsense which the
Stratfordian Clan peddles as Truth?

Or, to put the point less provocatively, here is John 1:5 -

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 7, 2005, 9:20:31 PM8/7/05
to
Messrs. Duck and Marlowe are both figments of a poetic imagination.

lariadc

unread,
Aug 8, 2005, 1:15:55 AM8/8/05
to
gangleri wrote:
> Messrs. Duck and Marlowe are both figments of a poetic imagination.

Christopher Marlowe and Donald Duck might indeed have had
a similar personality, but who knows....

A reality according to Plato, if I understand him correctly,
is that Marlowe's soul is more real today than was
his body, which was representative perhaps of the 'imaginative'.
We could say the same for Shakespeare.

C.

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 8, 2005, 5:48:31 AM8/8/05
to
Babble, babble on, Gangleri,
Multiplying notions eerie,
Till HLASites all grow weary.
Babble, babble on, Gangleri.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 8, 2005, 12:47:15 PM8/8/05
to
Here is my reply of today's date to a personal message on the Marlovian
aspect of Shakespeare Myth:

Yes, the number system serves as a check to one's construction of the
record with respect to the Shakespeare Mystery - a mystery which, I am
persuaded, is part and parcel of a long-standing Kabbalistic literary
tradition of which I knew nothing at the outset of my work some 30
years ago.

And how does Christopher Marlowe, 11384, fit in this picture?

'Marlowe' is a multi-faceted figure as indicated below.

1. In Pythagorean Creation Myth, Triangle 3:4:5 represents the
'foundation' of Man's Psyche, whose 'resurrection' after passing
through the Darkness, - 1000, of Ignorance is denoted by the three
sides of Triangle 3:4:5 raised to the third power, as in 27 + 64 + 125
= 216.

2. The Psyche's two states are those of MAN-Beast, 666, and Right
Measure of Man, 432.

3. JESUS, 3394, is Cosmic Creative Power 'entombed' in the Psyche's
'foundation' as WILL, 3331, alias Cosmic Creative Power's procreative
instrument, whose 'resurrection' as Flaming Sword, 4000, concludes the
Marlovian Drama by transforming erstwhile MAN-Beast into Right Measure
of Man.

A WILL or Speare that 'rises', 'shakes' and 'dies' in a 'well' on
Virgin's Mons Veneris at Drama's End.

As in 3394 + 3331 + 345 + 666 - 1000 + 216 + 4000 + 432 = 11384.

In postings to hlas, I have likened Marlowe 'surviving' his own 'death'
to that of Jesus.

A concept which is water off a duck's back for Stratfordians, who read
their Bible and the Marlovian 'record' as History.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 8, 2005, 12:48:27 PM8/8/05
to
Quack, quack, quack!!!

gangleri

unread,
Aug 8, 2005, 2:10:36 PM8/8/05
to
P.S. As relative newcomer to HLAS, I am not sure if a single
Stratfordian on the forum has been receptive to the possibility that
Peter Farey's 'reading' of the "Stay passenger..." puzzle might be on
target - that 'Christofer Marley' is the mystery person which "envious
death hath plast with in this monument Shakspeare'.

As companion to Stratfordian MAN-Beast of Seventh Day, 7, Christofer
Marley, 8477 as in 7 + 8477 = 8484, would bring good tidings of great
joy to the dumb-as-doornail Stratfordian clan.

Namely, Our Ever-living Poet's promise that "envious death" shall be no
more at The End, 100. as in 3394 + 345 + 666 + 3331 + 216 + 432 + 100 =
8484.

lariadc

unread,
Aug 8, 2005, 4:11:08 PM8/8/05
to


Even if we were to accept all of the above, how do you
get from it 'Marlowe is just a figment of the imagination'?

C.

David L. Webb

unread,
Aug 8, 2005, 4:02:43 PM8/8/05
to
In article <KOwJe.74794$oJ.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Peter Groves" <Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> "Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
> news:shjbf1pefurj8l787...@4ax.com...
> > On 6 Aug 2005 17:54:51 -0700, "gangleri"
> > <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > >As in Act I, Sc. iv of Hamlet.
> > >
> > >Hamlet:
> > >The air bites shrewdly; it's very cold.
> > >Horatio:
> > >It's a nipping and an eager air.
> > >Hamlet:
> > >What hour now?
> > >Horatio:
> > >I think it lacks of twelve.
> > >Marcellus:
> > >No, it is struck.
> > >
> > >Etc. etc.
> > >
> > >Pray the bell don't toll for us Strats!

> > Not "It's" but "It is" surely, in both places, or it doesn't
> > scan.

> You're quite right, but anti-strats are often cloth-eared:

This apparently irremediable deafness to verse prompts the "Benezet
test," for example, as well as the "super-Oxford" theory that ascribes
practically everything, including the work of Shakespeare, Marlowe,
Spenser, Sidney, Holinshed, Gascoigne, Lyly, Peele, Greene, and goodness
knows whom else, to a very busy Earl of Oxford.

> as a rule,
> indeed, they're not much interested in the poetry except as a set of clues
> to the Great Secret. It's not Shakespere's work that inteersts them but his
> fame (putting them on a par with tourists who buy
> Shakespeare's-head-teatowels on a pilgimmage to Stratford).

Indeed, Mr. Streitz acknowledged that he had only read about half of
the Shakespeare works -- not that that fact was not already evident from
his pronouncement that only one of the plays is set in a foreign country
other than Italy. And Elizabeth Weird has the King of Navarre as one of
the characters in _As You Like It_.

> Peter G.

Peter Groves

unread,
Aug 8, 2005, 5:29:48 PM8/8/05
to
"gangleri" <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1123519707.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Quack, quack, quack!!!
>
Excellent: that's almost coherent and certainly makes more sense than most
of your posts. Keep on taking the pink pills.

Peter G.


gangleri

unread,
Aug 8, 2005, 5:48:04 PM8/8/05
to
My proposition that Marlowe was "a figment of a poetic imagination" of
the kind which the ancients viewed as 'divine gift' bestowed on mankind
through 'poets' of the caliber of the Shakespeare Authors would seem to
be massively supported through 'hidden poetry' in Gabriel Harvey's 1593
poem 'Gorgon, or the Wonderfull Yeare'.

Here is a detailed follow-up to my earlier reply to a personal query on
the Marlovian aspects of Shakespeare Myth:

Your message pushed me to clean up certain aspects of Marlovian Myth -
the results follow.

In his poem 'Gorgon, or the Wonderfull Yeare', Gabriel Harvey appears
to attribute Marlowe's death to "the plague".

"Faced with this puzzle, which no-one has tried to solve" Charles
Nicholl wrote in Ch. 7 of his book 'The Reckoning - The Murder of
Christopher Marlowe', "I began to think that there was clear evidence
here of some sort of cover-up, that the only plausible explanation of
Harvey's belief that Marlowe died of the plague was that it was
disinformation: a false set of facts' deliberately put about. Either
Harvey was taken in by this disinformation, or he was going along with
it.

"But there is another explanation. A single entry in a London church
register provides the clue, and a careful reading of 'Gorgon' confirms
it. It solves the puzzle at a stroke. Gabriel Harvey's 'goggle-eyed
sonnet' is not about the death of Christopher Marlowe at all. It is
about the death of a man called Shakerley, whose name actually appears
twice in the poem, when Nashe is described as the 'second Shakerley'.
[...]

"Peter Shakerley, gent, died in September 1593, and was buried in the
churchyard of St Gregory-by-St-Paul's. His funeral took place on 18
September. We can now add, I think, that he died from the plague. It
was Shakerley's death, not Marlowe's, which occasioned Harvey's poem.
It was Shakerley that Harvey described, in comic hyperbole, as 'the
highest mind that ever haunted Powles', as the strutting 'Tamburlaine'
who now 'vouchsafes to die'. The poem uses Marlowe as a
reference-point, is in part written in a cod-Marlovian style. He is
present in the poem not as its subject, but as part of its lumbering
irony." (pp. 63-64)

We owe Nicholl a debt of gratitude for bringing the Shakerley facts to
light. As here construed, the Shakerley (Cipher Value 4000 as in
Flaming Sword) aspect is part of 'hidden poetry' on the core theme of
Shakespeare Myth anchored to the Cipher Value of "A Poore
[Stratfordian] Players Houre Vpon The Stage", 35662.

This Cipher Value, it may be recalled, was placed on record through the
'baptismal' (Gulielmus filius Johannes Shakspere, 17252, April 26,
1564) and 'burial' (Will Shakspere gent, 10026, April 25, 1616) entries
for the Stratfordian in what purports to be an honest copy of Holy
Trinity Church records' as in 17252 + 2602 + 1564 + 10026 + 2502 + 1616
+ 100 = 35662, where 100 = The End.

A theme on Archetypal MAN-Beast of Seventh Day, 7, en route to 'death'
from 'the plague' at Houre's End, 100 as in 7 + 35555 + 100 = 35662, as
alluded to in the following segment of Harvey's poem (Cipher Value
35555):

L'envoy
The hugest miracle remaines behinde,
The second Shakerley Rash-Swash to binde.

A theme to which Harvey returns in the form of 'hidden poetry' in the
poem's final segment (Cipher Value 52201):

L'envoy
Powles steeple, and a hugyer thing is downe:
Beware the next Bull-beggar of the towne.

Fata immatura vagantur.
(Premature fates roam abroad.)

As in 35662 + 7524 + 9015 = 52201, where the end of Archetypal
Stratfordian MAN-Beast's "houre vpon the stage" is put in its
mythical/prophetic context as alluding to The Second Coming, 7524, at
which Prince Hamlet alias Gorgon/Prince of Hell exits the stage - "The
rest is silence," 9015.

Now for the BIG picture as presented in 'hidden poetry' in the
following segment of Harvey's poem (Cipher Value 422921):

Glosse
Is it a Dreame? Or is the Highest minde
That ever haunted Powles, or hunted winde,
Bereaft of that same sky-surmounting breath,
That breath, that taught the Timpany to swell?
He, and the Plague contended for the game:
The hawty man extolled his hideous thoughtes,
And gloriously insultes upon poore soules,
That plague themselves: for faint harts plague themselves.
The tyrant Sicknesse of base-minded slaves
Oh how it dominers in Coward Lane?
So Surquidry rang-out his larum bell,
When he had girn'd at many a dolefull knell.
The graund Dissease disdain'd his toade conceit.
And smiling at his tamberlaine contempt,
Sternely struck home the peremptory stroke.
He that nor feared God, nor dreaded Div'll,
Nor ought admired, but his wondrous selfe,
Like Junos gawdy Bird, that prowdly stares
On glittring fan of his triumphant taile:
Or like the ugly Bugg, that scorn'd to dy,
And mountes of Glory rear'd in towring witt:
Alas: but Babell Pride must kisse the pitt.

The BIG picture is summarized in the Cipher Sum 378541 + 4951 + 7615 -
3858 + 10 + 35662 = 422921, where

378541 is the Cipher Value of William Shakespeare's Dedication of his
first work, Venus and Adonis -

TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE Henrie Vvriothesley, Earle of Southampton, and
Baron of Titchfield.

Right Honourable, I know not how I shall offend in dedicating my
vnpolisht lines to your Lordship, nor how the worlde vvill censure mee
for choosing so strong a proppe to support so vveake a burthen, onelye
if your Honour seeme but pleased, I account my selfe highly praised,
and vowe to take aduantage of all idle houres, till I haue honoured you
vvith some grauer labour. But if the first heire of my inuention proue
deformed, I shall be sorie it had so noble a god-father: and neuer
after eare so barren a land, for feare it yeeld me still so bad a
haruest, l leaue it to your Honourable suruey, and your Honor to your
hearts content, vvhich I wish may alvvaies answere your ovvne vvish,
and the vvorlds hopefull expectation.

Your Honors in all dutie,
William Shakespeare

- and

4951 = Shake-Speare;

7615 = Get thee hence, Satan (Matt. 4:10);

- 3858 = The Devil [leaveth him - Matt. 4:11);

10 = Name of the Father (Two Fives One Flesh) alias "Oath" that flies
out of dying MAN-Beast's mouth;

35662 = Curtains on Archetypal Stratfordian MAN-Beast's "houre vpon the

stage"

Ah! assorted Stratfordian sages may object, the "oath" in question
flew out of the mouth of "Christopher Morley", 9838, when the threesome
Ingram Frizer, 6429, Nicholas Skeres, 7470, and Robert Poley, 6069 as
in 6429 + 7470 + 6069 = 19968, despatched him to Kingdome Come!

Good point!

As in 4951 + 7615 + 9838 - 3858 + 10 + 1412 = 19968, where

1412 = Amen signals the prophetic aspect of Marlowe's 'murder'.

Namely, that Tri-Unite Stratfordian 'Babell Pride', having done so
once, 'must - will - kisse the pitt' once more at The Second Coming.

As indicated in Isaiah Ch. 29 and Daniel Ch. 12, it won't be pleasant -
in fact, ancient myth holds that God's Judgement will be delivered on
the Stratfordian Clan on Dies Irae.

And THAT's where Peter Shakerley's, 6883, 'death' from 'the plague' and
'burial' on September 18, 1593, come in, pointing backwards to the
'death' of Christopher Morley, 9838, on May 30, 1593, and forward to
The Second Coming, 7524, when the Stratfordian Clan must once again
'kisse the pitt' on Dies Irae, 3321, at The End, 100, of its
misbegotten "Houre Vpon The Stage", 35662, as in 6883 + 1807 + 1593 +
9838 + 3003 + 1593 + 7524 + 3321 + 100 = 35662.

On Dies Irae, 3211, when God With Us, 6677, (Matt. 1:23) visits His
Wrath on The Second Shakerley Rash-Swash, 14859, by departing his
Stratfordian Den on the Golden Wings of Sweet Swan of Avon, 10805 as in
3321 + 6677 + 14859 + 10805 = 35662.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 8, 2005, 8:07:47 PM8/8/05
to
I take two of them each morning - at last check, my blood pressure was
135/80.

Peter Farey

unread,
Aug 9, 2005, 5:27:40 AM8/9/05
to

Peter Groves wrote:

>
> Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> >
> > Not "It's" but "It is" surely, in both places, or it
> > doesn't scan.
>
> You're quite right, but anti-strats are often cloth-eared:

Whereas Strats are seldom so? Not on the evidence provided
here, I suggest. Remember "Pronunciation of Iago"?

> as a rule, indeed, they're not much interested in the poetry
> except as a set of clues to the Great Secret. It's not
> Shakespere's work that inteersts them but his fame (putting

> them on a par with tourists who buy Shakespeare's-head-tea-


> towels on a pilgimmage to Stratford).

False dichotomies, mate. It is possible to be interested in
both the poetry and the GS, and for towel-buying "pilgimms"
to love Shakespeare as much as any.


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


Peter Groves

unread,
Aug 9, 2005, 7:28:52 AM8/9/05
to
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dd9svs$fmc$3$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> Peter Groves wrote:
> >
> > Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> > >
> > > Not "It's" but "It is" surely, in both places, or it
> > > doesn't scan.
> >
> > You're quite right, but anti-strats are often cloth-eared:
>
> Whereas Strats are seldom so? Not on the evidence provided
> here, I suggest. Remember "Pronunciation of Iago"?

Bulldog Jim is, of course, in a class of his own.

>
> > as a rule, indeed, they're not much interested in the poetry
> > except as a set of clues to the Great Secret. It's not
> > Shakespere's work that inteersts them but his fame (putting
> > them on a par with tourists who buy Shakespeare's-head-tea-
> > towels on a pilgimmage to Stratford).
>
> False dichotomies, mate. It is possible to be interested in
> both the poetry and the GS, and for towel-buying "pilgimms"
> to love Shakespeare as much as any.

Possible, yes, but you'll note I said "as a rule": I didn't claim they were
dichotomies. You must learn to read more carefully.

Peter G.

lariadc

unread,
Aug 9, 2005, 12:34:47 PM8/9/05
to
gangleri,

I'm not going to go into this in detail right now, because I don't
think it's healthy for people to argue about such sensitive issues for
extended periods of time.

Yet, here's one objection: The name 'Shakerley' might or might not
refer to Marlowe--don't think we can tell for sure in spite
of what Nicholl says. If you think that it does not refer to
Marlowe, however, then why do you include Shakerley in your 'Marlowe'
equation at all? It would seem to have become unimportant now.

C.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 12:17:27 AM8/10/05
to
Why include Shakerley in the Marlowe equation?

Good question and, if I have understood it correctly, the brief answer
is as follows.

1. In Shakespeare Myth, Marlowe's 'murder' on May 30, 1593 denotes
what in Saga Myth as construed by Einar Pálsson is the 'death' of the
Pagan order.

2. But, as Einar put it in one of his three English books on related
issues, "The same basic constituents as made up the pagan world
[Air-Fire-Water-Earth-Time/Space - insert] are still around after the
advent of Christianity. And Evil is evil, whether or not it pretends
to be Christian. The earthly part of existence is there. It is that
which you can not trust..."

3. In Shakespeare Myth, the concluding comments of Thomas Beard in
'The Theatre of God's Judgements' on Marlowe's 'murder' indicate that
the associated 'death' of the Pagan order did not eliminate Evil from
the face of the Earth:

"I would to God (and I pray it from my heart) that all atheists in this
realm, and in all the world beside, would, by the remembrance and
consideration of this example, either forsake their horrible impiety,
or that they might in the like manner come to destruction; and so that
abominable sin which so flourished among men of greatest name, might
either be quite extinguished and rooted out, or at least smothered, and
kept under, that it durst not show its head any more in the world's
eye."

4. The end of the Pagan order is the subject matter of Matt. 16:15-17:

[Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter
answered and said [here comes the Christian Revelation - insert] Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said
unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not
revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say
also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

5. But, as Einar put it, "The same basic constituents as made up the
pagan world are still around after the advent of Christianity. And
Evil is evil, whether or not it pretends to be Christian. The earthly
part of existence is there. It is that which you can not trust..."

6. Hence the words of Christ to Simon Peter in Matt. 16:23, "Get thee
behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not
the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

7. As in, "Evil is evil, whether or not it pretends to be Christian" -
a point which is lost on the Church, which burned Giordano Bruno at the
stake, and its apologists in this forum.

8. Nicholl concludes that Peter Shakerley died of "the plague" -
Pretend Christianity.

9. As in Isaiah Ch. 29:13-14: "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as
this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do
honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear
toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will
proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous
work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and
the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid."

10. A marvellus work and a wonder?

What non-Strats call the Shakespeare Mystery!

Peter Farey

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 4:46:56 AM8/10/05
to

Peter Groves wrote:

>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Peter Groves wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not "It's" but "It is" surely, in both places, or it
> > > > doesn't scan.
> > >
> > > You're quite right, but anti-strats are often cloth-eared:
> >
> > Whereas Strats are seldom so? Not on the evidence provided
> > here, I suggest. Remember "Pronunciation of Iago"?
>
> Bulldog Jim is, of course, in a class of his own.

I rather think that the list you compiled had a few other
Stratfordian luminaries in addition to him? Greg Reynolds and
Tom Reedy certainly come to mind. But no anti-strats iirc.

> > > as a rule, indeed, they're not much interested in the poetry
> > > except as a set of clues to the Great Secret. It's not
> > > Shakespere's work that inteersts them but his fame (putting
> > > them on a par with tourists who buy Shakespeare's-head-tea-
> > > towels on a pilgimmage to Stratford).
> >
> > False dichotomies, mate. It is possible to be interested in
> > both the poetry and the GS, and for towel-buying "pilgimms"
> > to love Shakespeare as much as any.
>
> Possible, yes, but you'll note I said "as a rule":

I did indeed, you were claiming that anti-strats are either
one thing or the other, but "as a rule" it is the other.

> I didn't claim they were dichotomies.

This is true, it is the word I used to describe what you were
clearly doing. You split those who are interested in poetry
into those whose interest in it is *as* poetry, and those who
are interested in it only "as a set of clues to the Great
Secret". You split those who are interested in Shakespeare
into those who are interested in his work, and those who are
interested in his fame. These are dichotomies, and I said
(and still say) that they are false. Such things are actually
two-dimensional continua.

> You must learn to read more carefully.

You must hope that I don't!

gangleri

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 8:48:47 PM8/10/05
to
Re. the following:

This is true, it is the word I used to describe what you were clearly
doing. You split those who are interested in poetry into those whose
interest in it is *as* poetry, and those who are interested in it only
"as a set of clues to the Great Secret"

Comment:

The like division exists in the field of Icelandic Saga studies. Many
years ago, one of the country's "foremost" poets told me that he was
interested in the Saga literature of the 13th century *as* literature.

I had no idea what he was talking about.

A few years ago, my wife and I visited the Prado museum in Madrid and -
as we took in Goya's paintings from his later years - I "interpreted"
half a dozen of them from the point of view of "the Great Secret" as I
had come to understand it through Saga and Shakespeare "literature".

My wife - daughter of a professional French horn player - had no
problem recognizing that art, be it poetry, literature, music, or
painting, CANNOT be enjoyed *as* such.

That there is always a point to great art - or it would be neither art
nor great.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 9:24:32 PM8/10/05
to
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ddceu7$12u$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> Peter Groves wrote:
>>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>> >
>> > Peter Groves wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Not "It's" but "It is" surely, in both places, or it
>> > > > doesn't scan.
>> > >
>> > > You're quite right, but anti-strats are often cloth-eared:
>> >
>> > Whereas Strats are seldom so? Not on the evidence provided
>> > here, I suggest. Remember "Pronunciation of Iago"?
>>
>> Bulldog Jim is, of course, in a class of his own.
>
> I rather think that the list you compiled had a few other
> Stratfordian luminaries in addition to him? Greg Reynolds and
> Tom Reedy certainly come to mind. But no anti-strats iirc.

IIRC, I asked a question that began the thread about the pronunciation of
Iago. Ignorance in my world is no crime. If I want to know something, I ask.

And Shakespeare can be enjoyed without devoting one's entire existance to
the finer points of verse or Elizabethan pronunciation.

TR

Peter Farey

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 1:57:37 AM8/11/05
to

Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > I rather think that the list you compiled had a few other
> > Stratfordian luminaries in addition to him? Greg Reynolds and
> > Tom Reedy certainly come to mind. But no anti-strats iirc.
>
> IIRC, I asked a question that began the thread about the
> pronunciation of Iago. Ignorance in my world is no crime.
> If I want to know something, I ask.

And a very good question it was too, Tom. My remark was not
intended to criticize either you or Greg in any way, but to
respond to Peter G's apparent view that what HE would call
being 'cloth-eared' was in some way related to one's views
on the authorship question. I was simply trying to use his
own petard hoisting-wise.

> And Shakespeare can be enjoyed without devoting one's entire
> existance to the finer points of verse or Elizabethan
> pronunciation.

Certainly. I do so myself. On the other hand, as we have
dicussed before, anyone who doesn't get real pleasure from
feeling the rhythm of Shakespeare's verse is, in my view,
missing out on something very special indeed.

lariadc

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 12:34:35 PM8/11/05
to
>gangleri wrote:
>The like division exists in the field of Icelandic Saga >studies. Many
>years ago, one of the country's "foremost" poets told me that >he was
>interested in the Saga literature of the 13th century *as* literature.

>I had no idea what he was talking about.


I have seen an interesting book called 'The Medieval Saga' by
Carol J. Clover that discusses the stranding techniques of
the sagas. It's as though pieces of the stories are woven together to
form the whole.

C.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 3:36:17 PM8/11/05
to
The late Icelandic Nobel Prize-winning author Halldor Laxness, who was
a great student of the Sagas, made three interesting observations in
this respect.

1. It was impossible to read the Sagas with attention without getting
the impression that their anonymous authors were, as it were, working
from some common playbook.

2. Yet, each Saga was written as if its author was completely
oblivious of the concurrent dramas being played out next door, as told
in the other Sagas (which purport, and were long believed by "experts",
to be essentially historical rather than imaginative works - shades of
the orthodox construction of the Stratfordian-Marlovian aspects of the
Shakespeare Drama).

3. Indeed, Laxness concluded, if one imagined any two Saga Authors
strolling down one of Reykjavik's main streets, they would pass one
another without the slightest hint that they were other than complete
strangers.

At first glance - and, for orthodox Stratfordian scholars, at nth
glance - there is nothing to suggest any conceptual cross-references in
the following three passages from the First Folio:

1. Brutus speaks of "arming myselfe with patience, To stay the
prouidence of some high powers That gouerne vs below" in Act V, Sc.
ii.

2. Hamlet says to Horatio in Act V, Sc. ii "that [such and such]
should teach vs There's a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough-hew
them how we will."

To which Horatio replies, "That is most certaine."

3. And there is this exchange early in 'The Taming of the Shrew' -
modern editions "correct" the grammatical mistake in the introduction:

The Presenters aboue speakes.

1. Man
My Lord you nod, you do not minde the play.

Begger
Yes by Saint Anne do I, a good matter surely:
Comes there any more of it?

Lady
My Lord, 'tis but begun.

Begger
'Tis a verie excellent peece of worke, Madame Ladie:
would 'twere done.
They sit and marke.


IF the "stranding" technique of the Saga Authors was also part of the
literary tool kit of the Shakespeare Author(s), THEN its presence in
the Shakespeare Opus has gone unnoticed by the research techniques of
orthodox Stratfordian scholars.

lariadc

unread,
Aug 12, 2005, 11:19:38 PM8/12/05
to
>gangleri wrote:
>The late Icelandic Nobel Prize-winning author Halldor Laxness, who was
>a great student of the Sagas, made three interesting observations in
>this respect.

>1. It was impossible to read the Sagas with attention without getting
>the impression that their anonymous authors were, as it were, working
>from some common playbook.

>2. Yet, each Saga was written as if its author was completely
>oblivious of the concurrent dramas being played out next door, as told
>in the other Sagas


I don't know too much about this, but I read a little, and it seems
that stranding was an occasional device in romances and works from
several regions during the High Middle Ages. To generalize greatly, I'm
sure, it seems that classical works (I don't know about Roman dramas)
were generally linear (though
I think I can recall at least one exception), some early medieval work
juxtaposed different scenes, and by the end of the
eleventh century, some stranding is seen, where one plot is
interrupted by another, and the first later picks up again later.

In some sagas, you can get several different plots occurring at
similar times in strands that sometimes meet, and are sometimes found
across different sagas, as you have suggested. You or Laxness seem to
suggest that it was not done deliberately across sagas.

Shakespeare's plays are written much later, but I can't help
wondering if scene changes are similar to the medieval techniques. I
see such changes in 'Gorboduc', but not necessarily in medieval drama.
How did that structural device come about in drama? It is a good
question. There was drama written in the early 16th century as well,
but I am not familiar with it. Perhaps one would need to look at drama
from other countries as well.

The devices of scenes and acts are a bit different from stranding
because sometimes scenes stand alone and the
events are not further developed in later scenes.

A related topic might be an investigation of whether particularly
scenes in the various plays of say the history sequences of Shakespeare
and other writers interrelate in some way. Or do the Sonnets use
stranding?

(Keep in mind that the above might all be bs because it's
a very broad topic, and I'm just talking!)

C.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 13, 2005, 11:21:31 AM8/13/05
to
The translator of the Penguin Classic edition (1969) of 'The Quest of
the Holy Grail' (P. M. Matarasso) made two points in his introduction
on related issues.

1. "Most medieval literature can be read on more than one level, that
of the story proper, and that of the meaning it served to illustrate,
the famous combination of 'sens' and 'matiere', so beloved of Chretien
de Troyes." (p. 9)

If one sets out to enjoy such literature *as* literature, it would seem
that "the meaning it served to illustrate" must necessarily be lost on
the reader.

2. "The Lancelot cycle is a narrative of great complexity in which
often concurrent adventures are interwoven, broken off, the threads to
be picked up and knit together again after what sometimes seem to be
interminable extrapolations. In fact the chronology and underlying
pattern are far more rigorous than superficial examination might allow.
Here too heroes are left, at times in mid-adventure, with the words:
'But here the tale leaves Galahad (or Lancelot, or Bors) and returns to
Sir Gawain', picking up a thread left hanging earlier and weaving
another episode into the tapestry. Within each section, though, the
narrative is further broken up with passages of commentary or
interpretation, placed in the mouths of holy men or hermits, in the
manner of gloss upon events." (pp. 22-23)

Here are passages from Shakespeare's play 'Julius Cæsar' which strike
me as reminiscent of the like literary technique.

"Beware the ides of March." (A Soothsayer, Act I, Sc. i)

"The ides of March are come."
"Ay, Cæsar; but not gone." (Cæsar/Soothsayer, Act III, Sc. i)

"...this same day Must end that work the ides of March begun." (Brutus,
Act V, Sc. ii)

"I shall have glory by this losing day [...] my bones would rest, That
have but labour'd to attain this hour." (Brutus, Act V, Sc. v)

"So, call the field to rest; and let's away, To part the glories of
this happy day." (Octavius, Act V, Sc. v - play's omega lines)

lariadc

unread,
Aug 22, 2005, 12:34:52 AM8/22/05
to
>>lariadc wrote:
>>I can't help
>>wondering if scene changes are similar to the medieval techniques. I
>>see such changes in 'Gorboduc', but not necessarily in medieval drama.
>>How did that structural device come about in drama?

I found out that the tragedies of Seneca were in five acts, with chorus
interludes between them.

>gangleri wrote:
>2. "The Lancelot cycle is a narrative of great complexity in which
>often concurrent adventures are interwoven, broken off, the threads to
>be picked up and knit together again after what sometimes seem to be
>interminable extrapolations. In fact the chronology and underlying
>pattern are far more rigorous than superficial examination might allow.
>Here too heroes are left, at times in mid-adventure, with the words:
>'But here the tale leaves Galahad (or Lancelot, or Bors) and returns to
>Sir Gawain', picking up a thread left hanging earlier and weaving
>another episode into the tapestry. Within each section, though, the
>narrative is further broken up with passages of commentary or
>interpretation, placed in the mouths of holy men or hermits, in the
>manner of gloss upon events." (pp. 22-23)

I hope you spend some time studying Scandinavian sagas
as literature, particularly if you know the older languages.
I don't get the impression that too much work has been done
on them, at least not in English. They seem as interesting
to me as some Arthurian works, although they perhaps
reflect a culture more accepting of violence.

C.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages