Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Shakespeare beyond Doubt
259 views
Skip to first unread message
metri...@gmail.com
Mar 12, 2013, 6:10:46 PM3/12/13
to
From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
[Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss the authorship debate surrounding Shakespeare’s work
Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects of the topic in a readable and engaging style
Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration of this hotly debated field
Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy is organized in three sections. The first is ‘Sceptics’. There you will find essays on the most popular alternative nominees for the authorship, namely Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare. The ‘unreadable’ work of Delia Bacon is re-appraised by Graham Holderness and Matt Kubus has contributed a piece about the many other ‘unusual suspects’ who have been nominated over the years.
Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’ story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
The third and final section, ‘A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?’, includes articles by Kate McLuskie on conspiracy theories, by Andrew Murphy on the clash between professional academics and amateurs with regard to Delia Bacon, and by Paul Franssen on how the authorship discussion has been treated in works of fiction. Stuart Hampton-Reeves critiques the anti-Shakespearian ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt’ and Douglas Lanier critiques the film Anonymous. My contribution is a piece about the so-called ‘Shakespeare Establishment’ and the authorship discussion.
The volume closes with an ‘Afterword’ by James Shapiro and ‘A Selected Reading List’ by Hardy Cook.
Peter G.
Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
[Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss the authorship debate surrounding Shakespeare’s work
Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects of the topic in a readable and engaging style
Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration of this hotly debated field
Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy is organized in three sections. The first is ‘Sceptics’. There you will find essays on the most popular alternative nominees for the authorship, namely Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare. The ‘unreadable’ work of Delia Bacon is re-appraised by Graham Holderness and Matt Kubus has contributed a piece about the many other ‘unusual suspects’ who have been nominated over the years.
Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’ story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
The third and final section, ‘A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?’, includes articles by Kate McLuskie on conspiracy theories, by Andrew Murphy on the clash between professional academics and amateurs with regard to Delia Bacon, and by Paul Franssen on how the authorship discussion has been treated in works of fiction. Stuart Hampton-Reeves critiques the anti-Shakespearian ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt’ and Douglas Lanier critiques the film Anonymous. My contribution is a piece about the so-called ‘Shakespeare Establishment’ and the authorship discussion.
The volume closes with an ‘Afterword’ by James Shapiro and ‘A Selected Reading List’ by Hardy Cook.
Peter G.
Arthur Neuendorffer
Mar 12, 2013, 10:26:51 PM3/12/13
to
Well...thank goodness that's settled!
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Mar 12, 2013, 11:17:12 PM3/12/13
to
In article
<3824c1ba-f2e8-4966...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
something far more interesting and rewarding than lunatic conspiracy
theories concerning Shakespeare authorship -- like alien abduction, for
instance.
> Art Neuendorffer
<3824c1ba-f2e8-4966...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> Well...thank goodness that's settled!
Absolutely, Art -- so now you can devote your copious free time to
> Well...thank goodness that's settled!
something far more interesting and rewarding than lunatic conspiracy
theories concerning Shakespeare authorship -- like alien abduction, for
instance.
> Art Neuendorffer
neonprose @ gmail.com
Mar 13, 2013, 6:30:21 AM3/13/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:17:12 PM UTC-7, nordicskiv2 wrote:
> In article
>
> > head and stop behaving like a dumbass (two disparate behaviors).
>
> posters. Isn't it time that we finally (after 25 years of Webb not posting
>
> on any subject in H.L.A.S.) to rid this newsgroup of that nuisance? All
>
> we have to do is push the red button with the white exclamation mark
>
> to REPORT ABUSE.
>
> By the way, Art. the Victorian DNB is back up on Wikipedia.
>
> > Art Neuendorffer
> In article
>
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well...thank goodness that's settled!
>
> > It won't be settled until we can convince Webb to soak his
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well...thank goodness that's settled!
>
>
> > head and stop behaving like a dumbass (two disparate behaviors).
>
> Absolutely, Art -- so now you can devote your copious free time to
>
> something far more interesting and rewarding than lunatic conspiracy
>
> theories concerning Shakespeare authorship -- like alien abduction, for
>
> instance.
>
> I don't know how Webb finds the time to drop into HLAS to harass other
> Absolutely, Art -- so now you can devote your copious free time to
>
> something far more interesting and rewarding than lunatic conspiracy
>
> theories concerning Shakespeare authorship -- like alien abduction, for
>
> instance.
>
>
> posters. Isn't it time that we finally (after 25 years of Webb not posting
>
> on any subject in H.L.A.S.) to rid this newsgroup of that nuisance? All
>
> we have to do is push the red button with the white exclamation mark
>
> to REPORT ABUSE.
>
> By the way, Art. the Victorian DNB is back up on Wikipedia.
>
> > Art Neuendorffer
neonprose @ gmail.com
Mar 13, 2013, 6:42:15 AM3/13/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:17:12 PM UTC-7, nordicskiv2 wrote:
> In article
>
> In article
>
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
>
> > Well...thank goodness that's settled!
>
>
> > Well...thank goodness that's settled!
>
> Webb writes:
>
> Absolutely, Art -- so now you can devote your copious free time to
>
> something far more interesting and rewarding than lunatic conspiracy
>
> theories concerning Shakespeare authorship -- like alien abduction, for
>
> instance.
>
>
>
> Webb. Lunatic abduction theories pale in comparison with
>
> Absolutely, Art -- so now you can devote your copious free time to
>
> something far more interesting and rewarding than lunatic conspiracy
>
> theories concerning Shakespeare authorship -- like alien abduction, for
>
> instance.
>
>
>
>
> your particular brand of lunacy. Is there some drug you can
>
> take to help you settle down? You blow in here and we have
>
> to crawl under our desks just to duck the debris that flies
>
> out of your sodden brain.
>
> Art, at least, has never lost his cool . . .
>
> > Art Neuendorffer
Arthur Neuendorffer
Mar 13, 2013, 1:13:34 PM3/13/13
to
"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Absolutely, Art -- so now you can devote your copious
> free time to something far more interesting and rewarding....
>
> Absolutely, Art -- so now you can devote your copious
Just so long as the Birthplace Trust came to its conclusions about the
illiterate Stratford boob in "a fair and balanced" fashion I don't see
how anyone could conclude otherwise.
Art Neuendorffer
Peter F.
Mar 13, 2013, 1:36:21 PM3/13/13
to
Peter G wrote:
>
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from
> various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare
> Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The
> Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration
> of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shake=
>
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from
> various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare
> Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The
> Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration
> speare Centre.
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this
> year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar
> towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted
> by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to
> be made with the University of Warwick in time for
> Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends,
> and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’,
> we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence,
> Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm
> (British Time). You can register for it free of charge
> via this link:
?
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this
> year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar
> towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted
> by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to
> be made with the University of Warwick in time for
> Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends,
> and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’,
> we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence,
> Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm
> (British Time). You can register for it free of charge
> via this link:
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour
> with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by
> our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe
> Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able
> to listen to webinar live and submit questions during
> the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
That a Marlovian has been chosen to debate this with the
dynamic duo is interesting. If they assume that Ros will
prove to be an easy target, however, they need to think
again!
I read from this morning's Guardian that The Marlowe
Papers has just been longlisted for this year's Women's
Prize for Fiction (the former Orange Prize). See it at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/13/hilary-mantel-womens-prize-for-fiction>.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk>
David L. Webb
Mar 13, 2013, 3:05:08 PM3/13/13
to
In article
<f3955c10-48ec-4b36...@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
whom are apparently pretty thoroughly unbalanced:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Tudor_theory>
<http://www.magic-city-news.com/Paul_Streitz_67/index.shtml>
<http://tinyurl.com/bkkg69l>
<http://tinyurl.com/c4lb35f>
<http://www.newsmakingnews.com/mcgemstoneexposedatlast.htm>
<http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/diary/642/>
<http://tinyurl.com/azq57y4>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Allen_%28writer%29>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_Donnelly>
> I don't see
> how anyone could conclude otherwise.
I'm pleased that you agree, Art -- now just think how much more free
time you will have now that you have been liberated from a delusional
_id�e (such as it is) fixe_ concerning Shakespeare authorship!
> Art Neuendorffer
<f3955c10-48ec-4b36...@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> > �Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well...thank goodness that's settled!
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > � �Absolutely, Art -- so now you can devote your copious
> > free time to something far more interesting and rewarding....
> Just so long as the Birthplace Trust came to its conclusions about the
> illiterate Stratford boob in "a fair and balanced" fashion
Of course we did, Art -- unlike Oxfordians and Baconians, many of
> >>
> >> Well...thank goodness that's settled!
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > � �Absolutely, Art -- so now you can devote your copious
> > free time to something far more interesting and rewarding....
> Just so long as the Birthplace Trust came to its conclusions about the
> illiterate Stratford boob in "a fair and balanced" fashion
whom are apparently pretty thoroughly unbalanced:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Tudor_theory>
<http://www.magic-city-news.com/Paul_Streitz_67/index.shtml>
<http://tinyurl.com/bkkg69l>
<http://tinyurl.com/c4lb35f>
<http://www.newsmakingnews.com/mcgemstoneexposedatlast.htm>
<http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/diary/642/>
<http://tinyurl.com/azq57y4>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Allen_%28writer%29>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_Donnelly>
> I don't see
> how anyone could conclude otherwise.
time you will have now that you have been liberated from a delusional
_id�e (such as it is) fixe_ concerning Shakespeare authorship!
> Art Neuendorffer
Arthur Neuendorffer
Mar 13, 2013, 11:37:18 PM3/13/13
to
> Peter G wrote:
>>
>> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour
>>
>> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour
"Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Always nice to have a neutral chairman!
>
>> with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined
>> by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of
>> The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse.
Two against one with...
>
> Always nice to have a neutral chairman!
>
>> with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined
>> by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of
>> The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse.
a hostile audience in a hostile territory.
(Will one Strat play good cop & the other bad?)
> Peter G wrote:
>>
>> If you sign up you’ll be able
>> to listen to webinar live and submit questions during
>> the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>>http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
"Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> That a Marlovian has been chosen to debate this with the
> dynamic duo is interesting.
They obviously assume that the Marlovian case is the weakest
>
> That a Marlovian has been chosen to debate this with the
> dynamic duo is interesting.
(and the one with the weakest following).
Does Barber even believe in the basic truth of her "novel" ?
(Will she be required to respond in verse?)
"Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> If they assume that Ros will prove to be an easy target,
> however, they need to think again!
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Mar 14, 2013, 1:53:31 PM3/14/13
to
In article
<dcc9478f-8a19-4266...@l16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter G wrote:
> >>
> >> Išll be chairing a discussion for an hour
> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Always nice to have a neutral chairman!
> >> with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined
> >> by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of
> >> The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse.
> Two against one with...
> a hostile audience in a hostile territory.
>
> (Will one Strat play good cop & the other bad?)
Your Petulant Paranoid persona is always amusing, Art!
> > Peter G wrote:
> >>
> >> If you sign up youšll be able
years, around half have seemed sane and reasonable, albeit perhaps
misguided -- although one might well argue that another conspicuous
h.l.a.s. Marlovian single-handedly cancelled out the overall impression
of sanity. Oxfordians might well envy such a strong showing of sane
adherents -- indeed, the most...uh...conspicuous Oxfordians tend to be
rather...uh...colorful: many are PT/DT supporters, Gemstone conspiracy
aficionados, xenophobic reactionaries, deniers of mainstream science,
speakers at holocaust denial conferences, self-appointed vigilantes,
self-proclaimed Senate candidates, directors of disaster movies (whether
or not that was the intention), and the like. In fact, you might be
interested in the Wikipedia account of the Prince Tudor theory, Art:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Tudor_theory>.
Among the categories in which the article is classified are "Conspiracy
theories," "Fringe theories," and "Pseudohistory." (Of course, these
categories encompass the "mainstream" of the Oxfordian cult as well.)
> Does Barber even believe in the basic truth of her "novel" ?
Who knows? But why should she? It is, after all, a novel.
> (Will she be required to respond in verse?)
I would guess that that would be her choice. It would be a bravura
performance if she could do it -- it would be rather like the accounts
of Adam Mickiewicz's virtuoso VERse improvisations.
Incidentally, Art, don't knock VERse novels -- one of my favorite
novels is written in VERse.
> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > If they assume that Ros will prove to be an easy target,
> > however, they need to think again!
> It'll be Ros'T Barber-Q.
Excellent, Art! But I suspect that you may be underestimating her.
> Art Neuendorffer
<dcc9478f-8a19-4266...@l16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter G wrote:
> >>
> >> Išll be chairing a discussion for an hour
> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Always nice to have a neutral chairman!
> >> with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined
> >> by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of
> >> The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse.
> Two against one with...
> a hostile audience in a hostile territory.
>
> (Will one Strat play good cop & the other bad?)
> > Peter G wrote:
> >>
> >> If you sign up youšll be able
> >> to listen to webinar live and submit questions during
> >> the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
> >
> >>http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > That a Marlovian has been chosen to debate this with the
> > dynamic duo is interesting.
> They obviously assume that the Marlovian case is the weakest
> (and the one with the weakest following).
Not necessarily, Art. Among h.l.a.s. Marlowe partisans oVER the
> >> the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
> >
> >>http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > That a Marlovian has been chosen to debate this with the
> > dynamic duo is interesting.
> They obviously assume that the Marlovian case is the weakest
> (and the one with the weakest following).
years, around half have seemed sane and reasonable, albeit perhaps
misguided -- although one might well argue that another conspicuous
h.l.a.s. Marlovian single-handedly cancelled out the overall impression
of sanity. Oxfordians might well envy such a strong showing of sane
adherents -- indeed, the most...uh...conspicuous Oxfordians tend to be
rather...uh...colorful: many are PT/DT supporters, Gemstone conspiracy
aficionados, xenophobic reactionaries, deniers of mainstream science,
speakers at holocaust denial conferences, self-appointed vigilantes,
self-proclaimed Senate candidates, directors of disaster movies (whether
or not that was the intention), and the like. In fact, you might be
interested in the Wikipedia account of the Prince Tudor theory, Art:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Tudor_theory>.
Among the categories in which the article is classified are "Conspiracy
theories," "Fringe theories," and "Pseudohistory." (Of course, these
categories encompass the "mainstream" of the Oxfordian cult as well.)
> Does Barber even believe in the basic truth of her "novel" ?
> (Will she be required to respond in verse?)
performance if she could do it -- it would be rather like the accounts
of Adam Mickiewicz's virtuoso VERse improvisations.
Incidentally, Art, don't knock VERse novels -- one of my favorite
novels is written in VERse.
> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > If they assume that Ros will prove to be an easy target,
> > however, they need to think again!
> It'll be Ros'T Barber-Q.
> Art Neuendorffer
Arthur Neuendorffer
Mar 14, 2013, 5:58:07 PM3/14/13
to
>>> Peter G wrote:
>
>>>> I¹ll be chairing a discussion for an hour
film where the heroine is drawn to place where she has no business
being and one can't help but try to cry out "Don't go in there!"
>>> Peter G wrote:
>
>>>> If you sign up you¹ll be able
Marlovians only wish to substitute an educated cobbler for an
uneducated butcher boy. Strats really can't complain too much about
that. (Why do you guys a look a like a poss of Porter piece?)
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does Barber even believe in the basic truth of her "novel" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfortunate_Traveller
<<The Unfortunate Traveller: or, the Life of Jack Wilton (published
The Unfortunate Traueller: or, The Life of Iacke Wilton) by Thomas
Nashe (1594) is a picaresque novel set during the reign of Henry VIII
of England. The narrator, Jack Wilton, describes his adventures as a
page during the wars against the French, and his subsequent travels in
Italy as page to the Earl of Surrey. In his travels, Jack witnesses
numerous atrocities, including battlefields, plague, and rape: at one
point he is nearly hanged, and at another, he is on the point of being
cut up in a live anatomy demonstration. Jack's narrative climaxes by
describing the brutal revenge taken by one Italian on another, who
forces him to pray to the devil and then shoots him in the throat:
Jack himself escapes and returns to England.>>
------------------------------------------------------
Start of last 13 couplets of Chapman's _Hero and Leander_
_____ <= 20 =>
. B u r s t, d {Y} e,b l e e d e,A n d l e a
. v e p o o r {E} p l a i n t s t o u s t h
. a t s h a (L){L} s u c c e e d e.S h e f e
. l l o n h (E){R} l o v e s b o s o m e,h u
. g g'd i t (F){A} s t,A n d w i t h L e a n
. d e r s n a {M} e s h e b r e a t h'd h e
. r l a s t.
(FEL) -20
{MARLEY} -20 : Prob. ~1 in 10,000
. [Skip < 21 near end of either part]
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/key-plate.gif
. Nevill, Nevill, *NE VILE Velis* .
. Multis annis iam transactis
. Nulla fides est in pactis
. Mell in ore Verba lactis
. *f(FEL)l* in Corde ffraus in factis
............................................
. *Cunnin* in heart and false in practice.
------------------------------------------------------
"*EVERy* wor<D> [D]oth almo{S|T} (FEL) m[Y] nam{E}"
................................................
_______ Sonnet 76
.
Why is my verse so barren of new pride?
So far from variation or quic<K>e *CHANGE*?
Why with the time do <I> not glance aside
[T]o new foun(D) methods, and to compounds *ST{R}ANGE*
[W]hy write I still all one, *EVER* {T}he same,
[A]nd k(E|E)pe inv(E|N|T}ion in a *NOT (E)D W(E)ED* ,
[T]h{A|T} *EVERy* wor<D> [D]oth almo{S|T} (FEL) m[Y] nam{E},
[S]hewing t{H|E|I>r birth, and whe[R]e th{E}y did proce[E]d
[O] <K>now swe{E}t lo[V]e I alwaies writ[E] of you,
A[n]d you an[D] l(O)ve are still m[Y] a{R|G|U)ment:
So all my b<E>st <I>s (D)ressing o<L>d wor(D)s new,
Spe[N|D>ing a{G}ain(E) what is alrea[D]y sp(E)nt:
. For as the Sun is (D)a[I]ly new and old,
. So is my love [S]till telling what is told,
[T.WATSO.] Acrostic Prob. ~ 1 in 688
................................................
As Italy had Dante, Boccace, Petrarch, Tasso, ...: so
England had Thomas Watson, Thomas Kid, Robert Greene...
---------------------------------------------------
_______ Sonnet 76 : 4 X 19
.
Why write I still all one, euer
.
___________ <= 19 =>
.
. {T}h e s a m e[A]n d k(E|E)p e i n u(E)
. {N|T}i o n i n a*N O T(E)D W(E)E D*T h
. {A|T}E V E R y w o r(D|D]o t h a l m o
. {S|T}F E L m[Y]n a m<E>S h e w i n g t
. {H|E]i r b i r t h a n d w h e[R]e t h
. {E}y(D)i d p r o c e[E]d O k n o w s w
. -e<E>t l o[V]e I a l w a i e s w r i t
. [E]o f y o u
.
And you an[D] loue are still my argument:
.
{TNASHE} [only *TNASHE* in Sonnets!]
{TNASHE} 19 Prob. skip < 20 ~ 1 in 450
................................................
The best for Comedy amongst us bee, Greene,
Shakespeare, Thomas Nash...
----------------------------------------------------
"HENRY HOWARD, EARL OF SURREY." 1911 Online Encyclopedia
http://46.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SU/SURREY_HENRY_HOWARD_EARL_OF.htm
<<Surreys name has been long connected with the Fair Geraldine,
to whom his love poems were supposed to be addressed. The story is
founded on the romantic fiction of {T}homas {NASHE}, The Unfortunate
Traveller, or Life of Jack Wilton (1594), according to which Surrey
saw in a magic glass in the Netherlands the face of Geraldine, and
then travelled throughout Europe challenging all corners to deny in
full field the charms of the lady. At Florence he held a tournament
in her honor, and was to do the same in other Italian cities when
he was recalled by order of Henry VIII. The legend, deprived of its
inure glaring discrepancies with Surreys life, was revived in Michael
Drayton's Englands Heroical Epistles (1598). Geraldine was the
daughter of the earl of Kildare, Lady Elizabeth Fitzgerald, who
was brought up at the English court in company with the princess
Elizabeth. She was ten years old when in 1537 Surrey addressed to her
the sonnet From Tuskane came my ladies worthy tace, & nothing more
than a passing admiration of the child and an imaginative anticipation
of her beauty can be attributed to Surrey. A Song... to a ladie that
refused to daunce with him, is addressed to Lady Hereford, wife of his
bitter enemy, and the two poems, 0 happy dames and Good ladies, ye
that have your pleasures in exile, are addressed to his wife, to whom,
at any rate in his later years,\ he seems to have been sincerely
attached.>>
--------------------------------------------
>> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> If they assume that Ros will prove to be an easy target,
>>> however, they need to think again!
buy her book (now that she has probably sold as much as she can to
devout Marlovians). Frankly, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
............................................
. *f(FEL)l* in Corde ffraus in factis
.
. *Cunnin* in heart and false in practice.
............................................
Round this rough reckoning the ragged rascal (Ros) ran.
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>>> I¹ll be chairing a discussion for an hour
>>> Peter G wrote:
>
>>>> with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined
>>>> by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of
>>>> The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse.
>
>>>> with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined
>>>> by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of
>>>> The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse.
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Two against one with...
>> a hostile audience in a hostile territory.
>
>> (Will one Strat play good cop & the other bad?)
>>
>> Two against one with...
>> a hostile audience in a hostile territory.
>
>> (Will one Strat play good cop & the other bad?)
> Your Petulant Paranoid persona is always amusing, Art!
I'm only concerned for Ros, herself. It's like watching a bad Horror
film where the heroine is drawn to place where she has no business
being and one can't help but try to cry out "Don't go in there!"
>>> Peter G wrote:
>
>>>> If you sign up you¹ll be able
>>>> to listen to webinar live and submit questions during
>>>> the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>>>>http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> That a Marlovian has been chosen to debate this
>>> with the dynamic duo is interesting.
>>>> the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>>>>http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> That a Marlovian has been chosen to debate this
>>> with the dynamic duo is interesting.
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> They obviously assume that the Marlovian case is the weakest
>> (and the one with the weakest following).
>>
>> They obviously assume that the Marlovian case is the weakest
>> (and the one with the weakest following).
> Not necessarily, Art. Among h.l.a.s. Marlowe partisans oVER the
> years, around half have seemed sane and reasonable, albeit perhaps
> misguided -- although one might well argue that another conspicuous
> h.l.a.s. Marlovian single-handedly cancelled out the overall
> impression of sanity.
*Insane Revolve: A Novel in Verse*
> years, around half have seemed sane and reasonable, albeit perhaps
> misguided -- although one might well argue that another conspicuous
> h.l.a.s. Marlovian single-handedly cancelled out the overall
> impression of sanity.
Marlovians only wish to substitute an educated cobbler for an
uneducated butcher boy. Strats really can't complain too much about
that. (Why do you guys a look a like a poss of Porter piece?)
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does Barber even believe in the basic truth of her "novel" ?
> Who knows? But why should she? It is, after all, a novel.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfortunate_Traveller
<<The Unfortunate Traveller: or, the Life of Jack Wilton (published
The Unfortunate Traueller: or, The Life of Iacke Wilton) by Thomas
Nashe (1594) is a picaresque novel set during the reign of Henry VIII
of England. The narrator, Jack Wilton, describes his adventures as a
page during the wars against the French, and his subsequent travels in
Italy as page to the Earl of Surrey. In his travels, Jack witnesses
numerous atrocities, including battlefields, plague, and rape: at one
point he is nearly hanged, and at another, he is on the point of being
cut up in a live anatomy demonstration. Jack's narrative climaxes by
describing the brutal revenge taken by one Italian on another, who
forces him to pray to the devil and then shoots him in the throat:
Jack himself escapes and returns to England.>>
------------------------------------------------------
Start of last 13 couplets of Chapman's _Hero and Leander_
_____ <= 20 =>
. B u r s t, d {Y} e,b l e e d e,A n d l e a
. v e p o o r {E} p l a i n t s t o u s t h
. a t s h a (L){L} s u c c e e d e.S h e f e
. l l o n h (E){R} l o v e s b o s o m e,h u
. g g'd i t (F){A} s t,A n d w i t h L e a n
. d e r s n a {M} e s h e b r e a t h'd h e
. r l a s t.
(FEL) -20
{MARLEY} -20 : Prob. ~1 in 10,000
. [Skip < 21 near end of either part]
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/key-plate.gif
. Nevill, Nevill, *NE VILE Velis* .
. Multis annis iam transactis
. Nulla fides est in pactis
. Mell in ore Verba lactis
. *f(FEL)l* in Corde ffraus in factis
............................................
. *Cunnin* in heart and false in practice.
------------------------------------------------------
"*EVERy* wor<D> [D]oth almo{S|T} (FEL) m[Y] nam{E}"
................................................
_______ Sonnet 76
.
Why is my verse so barren of new pride?
So far from variation or quic<K>e *CHANGE*?
Why with the time do <I> not glance aside
[T]o new foun(D) methods, and to compounds *ST{R}ANGE*
[W]hy write I still all one, *EVER* {T}he same,
[A]nd k(E|E)pe inv(E|N|T}ion in a *NOT (E)D W(E)ED* ,
[T]h{A|T} *EVERy* wor<D> [D]oth almo{S|T} (FEL) m[Y] nam{E},
[S]hewing t{H|E|I>r birth, and whe[R]e th{E}y did proce[E]d
[O] <K>now swe{E}t lo[V]e I alwaies writ[E] of you,
A[n]d you an[D] l(O)ve are still m[Y] a{R|G|U)ment:
So all my b<E>st <I>s (D)ressing o<L>d wor(D)s new,
Spe[N|D>ing a{G}ain(E) what is alrea[D]y sp(E)nt:
. For as the Sun is (D)a[I]ly new and old,
. So is my love [S]till telling what is told,
[T.WATSO.] Acrostic Prob. ~ 1 in 688
................................................
As Italy had Dante, Boccace, Petrarch, Tasso, ...: so
England had Thomas Watson, Thomas Kid, Robert Greene...
---------------------------------------------------
_______ Sonnet 76 : 4 X 19
.
Why write I still all one, euer
.
___________ <= 19 =>
.
. {T}h e s a m e[A]n d k(E|E)p e i n u(E)
. {N|T}i o n i n a*N O T(E)D W(E)E D*T h
. {A|T}E V E R y w o r(D|D]o t h a l m o
. {S|T}F E L m[Y]n a m<E>S h e w i n g t
. {H|E]i r b i r t h a n d w h e[R]e t h
. {E}y(D)i d p r o c e[E]d O k n o w s w
. -e<E>t l o[V]e I a l w a i e s w r i t
. [E]o f y o u
.
And you an[D] loue are still my argument:
.
{TNASHE} [only *TNASHE* in Sonnets!]
{TNASHE} 19 Prob. skip < 20 ~ 1 in 450
................................................
The best for Comedy amongst us bee, Greene,
Shakespeare, Thomas Nash...
----------------------------------------------------
"HENRY HOWARD, EARL OF SURREY." 1911 Online Encyclopedia
http://46.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SU/SURREY_HENRY_HOWARD_EARL_OF.htm
<<Surreys name has been long connected with the Fair Geraldine,
to whom his love poems were supposed to be addressed. The story is
founded on the romantic fiction of {T}homas {NASHE}, The Unfortunate
Traveller, or Life of Jack Wilton (1594), according to which Surrey
saw in a magic glass in the Netherlands the face of Geraldine, and
then travelled throughout Europe challenging all corners to deny in
full field the charms of the lady. At Florence he held a tournament
in her honor, and was to do the same in other Italian cities when
he was recalled by order of Henry VIII. The legend, deprived of its
inure glaring discrepancies with Surreys life, was revived in Michael
Drayton's Englands Heroical Epistles (1598). Geraldine was the
daughter of the earl of Kildare, Lady Elizabeth Fitzgerald, who
was brought up at the English court in company with the princess
Elizabeth. She was ten years old when in 1537 Surrey addressed to her
the sonnet From Tuskane came my ladies worthy tace, & nothing more
than a passing admiration of the child and an imaginative anticipation
of her beauty can be attributed to Surrey. A Song... to a ladie that
refused to daunce with him, is addressed to Lady Hereford, wife of his
bitter enemy, and the two poems, 0 happy dames and Good ladies, ye
that have your pleasures in exile, are addressed to his wife, to whom,
at any rate in his later years,\ he seems to have been sincerely
attached.>>
--------------------------------------------
> I would guess that that would be her choice. It would be a bravura
> performance if she could do it -- it would be rather like
> the accounts of Adam Mickiewicz's virtuoso VERse improvisations.
A la Cyrano de Barberac?
> performance if she could do it -- it would be rather like
> the accounts of Adam Mickiewicz's virtuoso VERse improvisations.
> Incidentally, Art, don't knock VERse novels
> -- one of my favorite novels is written in VERse.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/AnthonyAdverse.jpg ?
> -- one of my favorite novels is written in VERse.
>> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> If they assume that Ros will prove to be an easy target,
>>> however, they need to think again!
> Excellent, Art! But I suspect that you may be underestimating her.
Then you think that she'll play the "fiction" card to get Strats to
buy her book (now that she has probably sold as much as she can to
devout Marlovians). Frankly, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
............................................
. *f(FEL)l* in Corde ffraus in factis
.
. *Cunnin* in heart and false in practice.
............................................
Round this rough reckoning the ragged rascal (Ros) ran.
Art Neuendorffer
neonprose @ gmail.com
Mar 15, 2013, 12:06:41 AM3/15/13
to
David L. Webb
Mar 15, 2013, 10:27:12 PM3/15/13
to
In article
<c365615a-0a5d-43bb...@x13g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> Išll be chairing a discussion for an hour
> >> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> Always nice to have a neutral chairman!
> >>> Peter G wrote:
> >
> >>>> with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined
> >>>> by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of
> >>>> The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse.
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Two against one with...
> >> a hostile audience in a hostile territory.
> >
> >> (Will one Strat play good cop & the other bad?)
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Your Petulant Paranoid persona is always amusing, Art!
> I'm only concerned for Ros, herself. It's like watching a bad Horror
> film where the heroine is drawn to place where she has no business
> being and one can't help but try to cry out "Don't go in there!"
You mean, like the climactic scene in _Psycho_ where VERa Miles turns
toward the cellar, where viewers think that Norman Bates's deranged
mother is? I assure you that our innocuous conspiracy is much more
benign than that, Art.
> >>> Peter G wrote:
> >
> >>>> If you sign up youšll be able
anagram*! Too bad it doesn't mean anything. Hint: "Insane" is an
adjective, which must modify a noun; "revolve", howeVER, is a VERb. A
better anagram, and one that actually means something, is
Ver, venal E. I son
-- this supports the insane PT/DT theory, Art!
> Marlovians only wish to substitute an educated cobbler
Marlowe was not a cobbler, Art; he was a poet and playwright. His
father was a shoemaker. You apparently can't keep straight which
generation is which.
> for an
> uneducated butcher boy. Strats really can't complain too much about
> that. (Why do you guys a look a like a poss of Porter piece?)
You should try reading Winnegan's Fake sometime, Art.
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Does Barber even believe in the basic truth of her "novel" ?
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Who knows? But why should she? It is, after all, a novel.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfortunate_Traveller
>
> <<The Unfortunate Traveller: or, the Life of Jack Wilton (published
> The Unfortunate Traueller: or, The Life of Iacke Wilton) by Thomas
> Nashe (1594) is a picaresque novel set during the reign of Henry VIII
> of England. The narrator, Jack Wilton, describes his adventures as a
> page during the wars against the French, and his subsequent travels in
> Italy as page to the Earl of Surrey. In his travels, Jack witnesses
> numerous atrocities, including battlefields, plague, and rape: at one
> point he is nearly hanged, and at another, he is on the point of being
> cut up in a live anatomy demonstration. Jack's narrative climaxes by
> describing the brutal revenge taken by one Italian on another, who
> forces him to pray to the devil and then shoots him in the throat:
> Jack himself escapes and returns to England.>>
Huh? Was this supposed to have some relevance to the discussion
above, Art? If so, what?
[Crackpot cryptography snipped]
> _______ Sonnet 76
> .
> Why is my verse so barren of new pride?
> So far from variation or quic<K>e *CHANGE*?
> Why with the time do <I> not glance aside
> [T]o new foun(D) methods, and to compounds *ST{R}ANGE*
I wouldn't bring up "compounds strange" if I were you, Art; in view
of Arundel's accusations concerning Oxford's indiscretions with Cogno,
it's poor salesmanship.
> [W]hy write I still all one, *EVER* {T}he same,
> [A]nd k(E|E)pe inv(E|N|T}ion in a *NOT (E)D W(E)ED* ,
I encourage you to refrain from smoking that noted weed, Art. It
seems to have spoiled your concentration.
> [T]h{A|T} *EVERy* wor<D> [D]oth almo{S|T} (FEL) m[Y] nam{E},
> [S]hewing t{H|E|I>r birth, and whe[R]e th{E}y did proce[E]d
> [O] <K>now swe{E}t lo[V]e I alwaies writ[E] of you,
> A[n]d you an[D] l(O)ve are still m[Y] a{R|G|U)ment:
> So all my b<E>st <I>s (D)ressing o<L>d wor(D)s new,
> Spe[N|D>ing a{G}ain(E) what is alrea[D]y sp(E)nt:
> . For as the Sun is (D)a[I]ly new and old,
> . So is my love [S]till telling what is told,
>
> [T.WATSO.] Acrostic Prob. ~ 1 in 688
It doesn't matter what the probability is, Art -- not that 1 in 688
is VERy impressive anyway. The fact remains that "TWATSO" is cretinous
nonsense.
[Crackpot cryptography snipped]
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Incidentally, Art, don't knock VERse novels
> > -- one of my favorite novels is written in VERse.
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/AnthonyAdverse.jpg ?
No, Art; that's a movie, not a novel in VERse -- not that one would
expect you to know the difference.
> >> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> If they assume that Ros will prove to be an easy target,
> >>> however, they need to think again!
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It'll be Ros'T Barber-Q.
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Excellent, Art! But I suspect that you may be underestimating her.
> Then you think that she'll play the "fiction" card to get Strats to
> buy her book (now that she has probably sold as much as she can to
> devout Marlovians). Frankly, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
Are you accusing her of insincerity, Art?
<c365615a-0a5d-43bb...@x13g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> Išll be chairing a discussion for an hour
> >> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> Always nice to have a neutral chairman!
> >>> Peter G wrote:
> >
> >>>> with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined
> >>>> by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of
> >>>> The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse.
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Two against one with...
> >> a hostile audience in a hostile territory.
> >
> >> (Will one Strat play good cop & the other bad?)
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Your Petulant Paranoid persona is always amusing, Art!
> I'm only concerned for Ros, herself. It's like watching a bad Horror
> film where the heroine is drawn to place where she has no business
> being and one can't help but try to cry out "Don't go in there!"
toward the cellar, where viewers think that Norman Bates's deranged
mother is? I assure you that our innocuous conspiracy is much more
benign than that, Art.
> >>> Peter G wrote:
> >
> >>>> If you sign up youšll be able
> >>>> to listen to webinar live and submit questions during
> >>>> the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
> >>>>http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
> >> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> That a Marlovian has been chosen to debate this
> >>> with the dynamic duo is interesting.
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> They obviously assume that the Marlovian case is the weakest
> >> (and the one with the weakest following).
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Not necessarily, Art. Among h.l.a.s. Marlowe partisans oVER the
> > years, around half have seemed sane and reasonable, albeit perhaps
> > misguided -- although one might well argue that another conspicuous
> > h.l.a.s. Marlovian single-handedly cancelled out the overall
> > impression of sanity.
> *Insane Revolve: A Novel in Verse*
Excellent, Art -- you *finally* managed to construct an *actual
> >>>> the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
> >>>>http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
> >> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> That a Marlovian has been chosen to debate this
> >>> with the dynamic duo is interesting.
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> They obviously assume that the Marlovian case is the weakest
> >> (and the one with the weakest following).
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Not necessarily, Art. Among h.l.a.s. Marlowe partisans oVER the
> > years, around half have seemed sane and reasonable, albeit perhaps
> > misguided -- although one might well argue that another conspicuous
> > h.l.a.s. Marlovian single-handedly cancelled out the overall
> > impression of sanity.
> *Insane Revolve: A Novel in Verse*
anagram*! Too bad it doesn't mean anything. Hint: "Insane" is an
adjective, which must modify a noun; "revolve", howeVER, is a VERb. A
better anagram, and one that actually means something, is
Ver, venal E. I son
-- this supports the insane PT/DT theory, Art!
> Marlovians only wish to substitute an educated cobbler
father was a shoemaker. You apparently can't keep straight which
generation is which.
> for an
> uneducated butcher boy. Strats really can't complain too much about
> that. (Why do you guys a look a like a poss of Porter piece?)
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Does Barber even believe in the basic truth of her "novel" ?
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Who knows? But why should she? It is, after all, a novel.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfortunate_Traveller
>
> <<The Unfortunate Traveller: or, the Life of Jack Wilton (published
> The Unfortunate Traueller: or, The Life of Iacke Wilton) by Thomas
> Nashe (1594) is a picaresque novel set during the reign of Henry VIII
> of England. The narrator, Jack Wilton, describes his adventures as a
> page during the wars against the French, and his subsequent travels in
> Italy as page to the Earl of Surrey. In his travels, Jack witnesses
> numerous atrocities, including battlefields, plague, and rape: at one
> point he is nearly hanged, and at another, he is on the point of being
> cut up in a live anatomy demonstration. Jack's narrative climaxes by
> describing the brutal revenge taken by one Italian on another, who
> forces him to pray to the devil and then shoots him in the throat:
> Jack himself escapes and returns to England.>>
above, Art? If so, what?
[Crackpot cryptography snipped]
> _______ Sonnet 76
> .
> Why is my verse so barren of new pride?
> So far from variation or quic<K>e *CHANGE*?
> Why with the time do <I> not glance aside
> [T]o new foun(D) methods, and to compounds *ST{R}ANGE*
of Arundel's accusations concerning Oxford's indiscretions with Cogno,
it's poor salesmanship.
> [W]hy write I still all one, *EVER* {T}he same,
> [A]nd k(E|E)pe inv(E|N|T}ion in a *NOT (E)D W(E)ED* ,
seems to have spoiled your concentration.
> [T]h{A|T} *EVERy* wor<D> [D]oth almo{S|T} (FEL) m[Y] nam{E},
> [S]hewing t{H|E|I>r birth, and whe[R]e th{E}y did proce[E]d
> [O] <K>now swe{E}t lo[V]e I alwaies writ[E] of you,
> A[n]d you an[D] l(O)ve are still m[Y] a{R|G|U)ment:
> So all my b<E>st <I>s (D)ressing o<L>d wor(D)s new,
> Spe[N|D>ing a{G}ain(E) what is alrea[D]y sp(E)nt:
> . For as the Sun is (D)a[I]ly new and old,
> . So is my love [S]till telling what is told,
>
> [T.WATSO.] Acrostic Prob. ~ 1 in 688
is VERy impressive anyway. The fact remains that "TWATSO" is cretinous
nonsense.
[Crackpot cryptography snipped]
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> (Will she be required to respond in verse?)
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I would guess that that would be her choice. It would be a bravura
> > performance if she could do it -- it would be rather like
> > the accounts of Adam Mickiewicz's virtuoso VERse improvisations.
> A la Cyrano de Barberac?
Not bad, Art.
> >>
> >> (Will she be required to respond in verse?)
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I would guess that that would be her choice. It would be a bravura
> > performance if she could do it -- it would be rather like
> > the accounts of Adam Mickiewicz's virtuoso VERse improvisations.
> A la Cyrano de Barberac?
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Incidentally, Art, don't knock VERse novels
> > -- one of my favorite novels is written in VERse.
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/AnthonyAdverse.jpg ?
expect you to know the difference.
> >> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> If they assume that Ros will prove to be an easy target,
> >>> however, they need to think again!
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It'll be Ros'T Barber-Q.
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Excellent, Art! But I suspect that you may be underestimating her.
> Then you think that she'll play the "fiction" card to get Strats to
> buy her book (now that she has probably sold as much as she can to
> devout Marlovians). Frankly, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
John W Kennedy
Mar 15, 2013, 10:50:21 PM3/15/13
to
On 2013-03-16 02:27:12 +0000, David L. Webb said:
> Excellent, Art -- you *finally* managed to construct an *actual
> anagram*! Too bad it doesn't mean anything. Hint: "Insane" is an
> adjective, which must modify a noun; "revolve", howeVER, is a VERb.
There, I'm afraid, you err. "Revolve" is listed in the OED as a noun
> Excellent, Art -- you *finally* managed to construct an *actual
> anagram*! Too bad it doesn't mean anything. Hint: "Insane" is an
> adjective, which must modify a noun; "revolve", howeVER, is a VERb.
with no less than three distinct meanings, one of which is even
specific to the theatre.
--
John W Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
Arthur Neuendorffer
Mar 16, 2013, 9:39:41 AM3/16/13
to
>>>>> Peter G wrote:
>
>>>>>> I¹ll be chairing a discussion for an hour
. http://tinyurl.com/ac9ovju
. http://tinyurl.com/albk5v5
I rest my case.
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>>>>> I¹ll be chairing a discussion for an hour
>>>> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> Always nice to have a neutral chairman!
>>>>> Peter G wrote:
>
>>>>>> with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined
>>>>>> by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of
>>>>>> The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse.
>>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Two against one with...
>>>> a hostile audience in a hostile territory.
>
>>>> (Will one Strat play good cop & the other bad?)
>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Your Petulant Paranoid persona is always amusing, Art!
>
>>>>> Always nice to have a neutral chairman!
>>>>> Peter G wrote:
>
>>>>>> with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined
>>>>>> by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of
>>>>>> The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse.
>>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Two against one with...
>>>> a hostile audience in a hostile territory.
>
>>>> (Will one Strat play good cop & the other bad?)
>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Your Petulant Paranoid persona is always amusing, Art!
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm only concerned for Ros, herself. It's like watching a bad Horror
>> film where the heroine is drawn to place where she has no business
>> being and one can't help but try to cry out "Don't go in there!"
>>
>> I'm only concerned for Ros, herself. It's like watching a bad Horror
>> film where the heroine is drawn to place where she has no business
>> being and one can't help but try to cry out "Don't go in there!"
"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You mean, like the climactic scene in _Psycho_ where VERa Miles turns
> toward the cellar, where viewers think that Norman Bates's deranged
> mother is? I assure you that our innocuous conspiracy is much more
> benign than that, Art.
Insane Revolve:
>
> You mean, like the climactic scene in _Psycho_ where VERa Miles turns
> toward the cellar, where viewers think that Norman Bates's deranged
> mother is? I assure you that our innocuous conspiracy is much more
> benign than that, Art.
. http://tinyurl.com/ac9ovju
. http://tinyurl.com/albk5v5
I rest my case.
Art Neuendorffer
Sneaky O. Possum
Mar 16, 2013, 12:18:35 PM3/16/13
to
John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in news:5143dded$0$19551
$607e...@cv.net:
> On 2013-03-16 02:27:12 +0000, David L. Webb said:
>> Excellent, Art -- you *finally* managed to construct an *actual
>> anagram*! Too bad it doesn't mean anything. Hint: "Insane" is an
>> adjective, which must modify a noun; "revolve", howeVER, is a VERb.
>
> There, I'm afraid, you err. "Revolve" is listed in the OED as a noun
> with no less than three distinct meanings, one of which is even
> specific to the theatre.
For that matter, "insane" may also be used as a noun, typically preceded by
'the', as in the 1870 book "On the Writing of the Insane" (John Churchill
and Sons, London) - which predates USENET by over a century.
--
S.O.P.
$607e...@cv.net:
> On 2013-03-16 02:27:12 +0000, David L. Webb said:
>> Excellent, Art -- you *finally* managed to construct an *actual
>> anagram*! Too bad it doesn't mean anything. Hint: "Insane" is an
>> adjective, which must modify a noun; "revolve", howeVER, is a VERb.
>
> There, I'm afraid, you err. "Revolve" is listed in the OED as a noun
> with no less than three distinct meanings, one of which is even
> specific to the theatre.
'the', as in the 1870 book "On the Writing of the Insane" (John Churchill
and Sons, London) - which predates USENET by over a century.
--
S.O.P.
Bob Grumman
Mar 17, 2013, 7:00:00 PM3/17/13
to
Interesting. I think I would call "the writing of the insane" an ellipsis in which "those who are" after "of" is understood. Otherwise all adjectives are also nouns.
--Bob
--Bob
Bob Grumman
Mar 17, 2013, 8:06:16 PM3/17/13
to
On Sunday, March 17, 2013 7:00:00 PM UTC-4, Bob Grumman wrote:
> Interesting. I think I would call "the writing of the insane" an ellipsis in which "those who are" after "of" is understood. Otherwise all adjectives are also nouns.
>
>
>
> --Bob
Odd how often my first writing of an idea is flawed. I should have said that I'd call "the writing of the insane" an ellipsis in which "PEOPLE who are" after "of THE" is understood.
> Interesting. I think I would call "the writing of the insane" an ellipsis in which "those who are" after "of" is understood. Otherwise all adjectives are also nouns.
>
>
>
> --Bob
--Bob
Sneaky O. Possum
Mar 17, 2013, 9:18:33 PM3/17/13
to
Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
news:957b784a-8820-4a1f...@googlegroups.com:
> Interesting. I think I would call "the writing of the insane" an
> ellipsis in which "those who are" after "of" is understood. Otherwise
> all adjectives are also nouns.
"Adjective" and "noun" simply describe a lexeme's grammatical function
in a given context: English just happens to be a language that uses some
lexemes either nominally or adjectivally, the lexeme 'English' being a
case in point. It seems strange to have to point that out in a newsgroup
named after someone whose works are replete with examples of lexemes
breaking their narrow categorical bonds. "He words me Gyrles, he words
me,/That I should not be Noble to my selfe..."
--
S.O.P.
news:957b784a-8820-4a1f...@googlegroups.com:
> Interesting. I think I would call "the writing of the insane" an
> ellipsis in which "those who are" after "of" is understood. Otherwise
> all adjectives are also nouns.
in a given context: English just happens to be a language that uses some
lexemes either nominally or adjectivally, the lexeme 'English' being a
case in point. It seems strange to have to point that out in a newsgroup
named after someone whose works are replete with examples of lexemes
breaking their narrow categorical bonds. "He words me Gyrles, he words
me,/That I should not be Noble to my selfe..."
--
S.O.P.
Sneaky O. Possum
Mar 17, 2013, 9:18:38 PM3/17/13
to
Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
news:f01e3ed1-33c0-4570...@googlegroups.com:
"those who are" is sufficient for "the writing of the insane."
--
S.O.P.
Peter F.
Mar 18, 2013, 2:44:25 AM3/18/13
to
"nordicskiv2" wrote:
>
> Incidentally, Art, don't knock VERse novels -- one of my
> favorite novels is written in VERse.
has been longlisted for this year's Women's Prize for
Fiction (formerly the Orange Prize).
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/13/womens-prize-fiction-longlist-mantel>
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Arthur Neuendorffer
Mar 18, 2013, 9:30:41 AM3/18/13
to
"Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> We were pleased to see that Ros Barber's novel in verse
> has been longlisted for this year's Women's Prize for
> Fiction (formerly the Orange Prize).
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/13/womens-prize-fiction-long...>
>
> We were pleased to see that Ros Barber's novel in verse
> has been longlisted for this year's Women's Prize for
> Fiction (formerly the Orange Prize).
Orange you sad it was "for Fiction."
Art
Bob Grumman
Mar 18, 2013, 2:13:55 PM3/18/13
to
--Bob
Bob Grumman
Mar 18, 2013, 2:18:40 PM3/18/13
to
--Bob
Sneaky O. Possum
Mar 18, 2013, 2:39:16 PM3/18/13
to
Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
news:53b643f3-f898-44f6...@googlegroups.com:
> On Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:18:33 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>> Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
>>
>> news:957b784a-8820-4a1f...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Interesting. I think I would call "the writing of the insane" an
>> > ellipsis in which "those who are" after "of" is understood.
>> > Otherwise all adjectives are also nouns.
>>
>> "Adjective" and "noun" simply describe a lexeme's grammatical
>> function in a given context: English just happens to be a language
>> that uses some lexemes either nominally or adjectivally, the lexeme
>> 'English' being a case in point. It seems strange to have to point
>> that out in a newsgroup named after someone whose works are replete
>> with examples of lexemes breaking their narrow categorical bonds. "He
>> words me Gyrles, he words me,/That I should not be Noble to my
>> selfe..."
>
> Rigidniks almost invariably assume their knowledge to be universal,
> while oblivious of understandings others have which are different from
> theirs.
And the air gets sucked out of /that/ discussion...
> while oblivious of understandings others have which are different from
> theirs.
--
S.O.P.
Bob Grumman
Mar 18, 2013, 3:01:36 PM3/18/13
to
On Monday, March 18, 2013 2:39:16 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
>
> news:53b643f3-f898-44f6...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:18:33 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>
> >> Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
>
> >>
>
> >> news:957b784a-8820-4a1f...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >>
>
> >> > Interesting. I think I would call "the writing of the insane" an
>
> >> > ellipsis in which "those who are" after "of" is understood.
>
> >> > Otherwise all adjectives are also nouns.
>
> >>
>
> >> "Adjective" and "noun" simply describe a lexeme's grammatical
>
> >> function in a given context: English just happens to be a language
>
> >> that uses some lexemes either nominally or adjectivally, the lexeme
>
> >> 'English' being a case in point. It seems strange to have to point
>
> >> that out in a newsgroup named after someone whose works are replete
>
> >> with examples of lexemes breaking their narrow categorical bonds. "He
>
> >> words me Gyrles, he words me,/That I should not be Noble to my
>
> >> selfe..."
>
> >
>
> > Rigidniks almost invariably assume their knowledge to be universal,
>
> > while oblivious of understandings others have which are different from
>
> > theirs.
>
>
>
> And the air gets sucked out of /that/ discussion...
>
> --
>
> S.O.P.
Why? I continued after my ignorance about lexemes breaking their bounds was superciliously pointed out? (And when I realized the size of my ignorance, never having noticed in Shakespeare or elsewhere a noun's being used as an adjective or anything like it, I was heart-broken, believing it proved me not the poet and critic of poetry I thought I was.)
> Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
>
> news:53b643f3-f898-44f6...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:18:33 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>
> >> Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
>
> >>
>
> >> news:957b784a-8820-4a1f...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >>
>
> >> > Interesting. I think I would call "the writing of the insane" an
>
> >> > ellipsis in which "those who are" after "of" is understood.
>
> >> > Otherwise all adjectives are also nouns.
>
> >>
>
> >> "Adjective" and "noun" simply describe a lexeme's grammatical
>
> >> function in a given context: English just happens to be a language
>
> >> that uses some lexemes either nominally or adjectivally, the lexeme
>
> >> 'English' being a case in point. It seems strange to have to point
>
> >> that out in a newsgroup named after someone whose works are replete
>
> >> with examples of lexemes breaking their narrow categorical bonds. "He
>
> >> words me Gyrles, he words me,/That I should not be Noble to my
>
> >> selfe..."
>
> >
>
> > Rigidniks almost invariably assume their knowledge to be universal,
>
> > while oblivious of understandings others have which are different from
>
> > theirs.
>
>
>
> And the air gets sucked out of /that/ discussion...
>
> --
>
> S.O.P.
--Bob
Sneaky O. Possum
Mar 18, 2013, 3:53:04 PM3/18/13
to
Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
news:33cfac41-a71b-416f...@googlegroups.com:
> On Monday, March 18, 2013 2:39:16 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>> Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
>>
>> news:53b643f3-f898-44f6...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:18:33 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>>
>> >> Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
>>
>> >> news:957b784a-8820-4a1f...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > Interesting. I think I would call "the writing of the insane"
>> >> > an ellipsis in which "those who are" after "of" is understood.
>> >> > Otherwise all adjectives are also nouns.
>>
>> >> "Adjective" and "noun" simply describe a lexeme's grammatical
>> >> function in a given context: English just happens to be a language
>> >> that uses some lexemes either nominally or adjectivally, the
>> >> lexeme 'English' being a case in point. It seems strange to have
>> >> to point that out in a newsgroup named after someone whose works
>> >> are replete with examples of lexemes breaking their narrow
>> >> categorical bonds. "He words me Gyrles, he words me,/That I should
>> >> not be Noble to my selfe..."
>>
>> > Rigidniks almost invariably assume their knowledge to be universal,
>> > while oblivious of understandings others have which are different
>> > from theirs.
>>
>> And the air gets sucked out of /that/ discussion...
>
> Why? I continued after my ignorance about lexemes breaking their
> bounds was superciliously pointed out?
I'm sorry, did you intend to continue the discussion by making a
> bounds was superciliously pointed out?
seemingly irrelevant statement about 'rigidniks'? Googling indicates
that the term is a neologism of your own invention, and its relevance to
the present discussion is, shall we say, obscure. For one thing, neither
of us seems to meet your definition of a 'rigidnik,' as both of us have
certainly been exposed to the authorship 'question,' and neither of us
is an anti-Stratfordian. Nor has either of us shown any indication of
assuming his knowledge to be universal, at least not so far as I can
see.
> (And when I realized the size of my ignorance, never having noticed in
> Shakespeare or elsewhere a noun's being used as an adjective or
> anything like it, I was heart-broken, believing it proved me not the
> poet and critic of poetry I thought I was.)
--
S.O.P.
neonprose @ gmail.com
Mar 19, 2013, 4:03:10 AM3/19/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:26:51 PM UTC-7, Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
> Well...thank goodness that's settled!
>
> neon...@gmail.com writes:
> Well...thank goodness that's settled!
>
>
> The stars in the firmament will blink out long before "that's settled!" Art.
>
> I've been googling "Shakespeare" all day and the problem is that the
>
> question will never "be settled." I've never seen so much "LITERARY LYIN'
>
> in the past, it's like there's some kind of Stratfordian fever to make
>
> Shakespeare Shakespeare before humans lose interest in Shakespeare.
>
> And of course it isn't the man, he lived and died an irreversible illiterate,
>
> it's just that sexy sexy Freudian name.
>
>
>
> Art Neuendorffer
>
> Uh, there's nordicskiv2 below, the guy who has failed over the years
>
> to write ONE single post on the topics of this forum; I made a chart
>
> of all the years & months from 1995 until 2013 and still, not a peep
>
> out of Webb in regard to Bacon or any of the other 16th century Elizabethans,
>
> I guess that Webb is saving up his wittiness to dazzle you, Art.
Bob Grumman
Mar 19, 2013, 5:05:13 PM3/19/13
to
My point was that I didn't consider the discussion finished by your insult the way you considered it finished by my insult (about your behaving like what I call a rigidnik). On the other hand, I can't think of anything more to say about the word, "insane" in the phrase, "the insane," except that I continue to regard it as totally an adjective, although perhaps in the "elliptical case" or something, but without requiring others to go along with me.
--Bob
--Bob
Sneaky O. Possum
Mar 19, 2013, 8:15:46 PM3/19/13
to
Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
news:838854ac-dc5b-4151...@googlegroups.com:
> My point was that I didn't consider the discussion finished by your
> insult the way you considered it finished by my insult (about your
> behaving like what I call a rigidnik).
--
S.O.P.
laraine
Apr 26, 2013, 1:12:36 PM4/26/13
to
On Mar 12, 5:10 pm, metrical...@gmail.com wrote:
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Edmond...@shakespeare.org.uk>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
> A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss the authorship debate surrounding Shakespeare’s work
> Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects of the topic in a readable and engaging style
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration of this hotly debated field
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy is organized in three sections. The first is ‘Sceptics’. There you will find essays on the most popular alternative nominees for the authorship, namely Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare. The ‘unreadable’ work of Delia Bacon is re-appraised by Graham Holderness and Matt Kubus has contributed a piece about the many other ‘unusual suspects’ who have been nominated over the years.
>
> Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’ story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
>
> The third and final section, ‘A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?’, includes articles by Kate McLuskie on conspiracy theories, by Andrew Murphy on the clash between professional academics and amateurs with regard to Delia Bacon, and by Paul Franssen on how the authorship discussion has been treated in works of fiction. Stuart Hampton-Reeves critiques the anti-Shakespearian ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt’ and Douglas Lanier critiques the film Anonymous. My contribution is a piece about the so-called ‘Shakespeare Establishment’ and the authorship discussion.
>
> The volume closes with an ‘Afterword’ by James Shapiro and ‘A Selected Reading List’ by Hardy Cook.
>
> Peter G.
Reminder... Talk starting <20 min from now.
C.
marco
Apr 26, 2013, 1:44:06 PM4/26/13
to
...listening...trying to record...
marc
marc
Tom Reedy
Apr 26, 2013, 2:19:33 PM4/26/13
to
On Apr 26, 12:44 pm, marco <21blacks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...listening...trying to record...
>
> marc
Except for Melissa Leon, their voices were so muted I couldn't make
out what they were saying. If it was anything like what's in
"Shakespeare Bites Back", it's a waste of time anyway. Academics don't
have a feel for the anti-Stratfordian mindset; they think they're
talking to people who think like they do. The best rehearsal for a
debate with an anti=Stratfordian would be reading all the old Bizarro
Superman comics.
TR
> ...listening...trying to record...
>
> marc
Except for Melissa Leon, their voices were so muted I couldn't make
out what they were saying. If it was anything like what's in
"Shakespeare Bites Back", it's a waste of time anyway. Academics don't
have a feel for the anti-Stratfordian mindset; they think they're
talking to people who think like they do. The best rehearsal for a
debate with an anti=Stratfordian would be reading all the old Bizarro
Superman comics.
TR
John W Kennedy
Apr 26, 2013, 2:36:44 PM4/26/13
to
On 2013-04-26 18:19:33 +0000, Tom Reedy said:
> On Apr 26, 12:44 pm, marco <21blacks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...listening...trying to record...
>>
>> marc
>
> Except for Melissa Leon, their voices were so muted I couldn't make
> out what they were saying.
That's why sci-fi talking computers are given female voices.
> On Apr 26, 12:44 pm, marco <21blacks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...listening...trying to record...
>>
>> marc
>
> Except for Melissa Leon, their voices were so muted I couldn't make
> out what they were saying.
(Seriously. There was a USAF study back in the 50s.) Anyway, I think
they had the sound up as far as they could; there was definite echo
from time to time.
But my /Gawd/, the special pleading, the tactical definitions, the
passive-aggressive maneuvers! Not the full-on
St-Looney-Up-the-Creambun-and-Jam we get so often here, but still....
> If it was anything like what's in
> "Shakespeare Bites Back", it's a waste of time anyway. Academics don't
> have a feel for the anti-Stratfordian mindset; they think they're
> talking to people who think like they do. The best rehearsal for a
> debate with an anti=Stratfordian would be reading all the old Bizarro
> Superman comics.
from the Birthplace Bookstore, where it seems to have gone on sale
early).
--
John W Kennedy
"'Your art then,' said Vertue, 'seems to teach men that the best way of
being happy is to enjoy unbroken good fortune in every respect. They
would not all find the advice helpful.'"
-- C. S. Lewis. "The Pilgrim's Regress"
Tom Reedy
Apr 26, 2013, 4:48:11 PM4/26/13
to
mine from Cambridge UP but have yet to receive it, even though others
I know have gotten theirs.
TR
marco
May 19, 2013, 11:39:59 PM5/19/13
to
neonprose @ gmail.com
May 20, 2013, 4:21:18 AM5/20/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:10:46 PM UTC-7, metri...@gmail.com wrote:
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
> Odd that these eminent critics didn't take up the question
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
>
> of pandering, I was reading some articles on that topic
>
> today, apparently Shakespeare was made very wealthy
>
> by this choice of occupation.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
> A pox on the Cambridge University Press. It has every reason to
>
>
>
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
> doubt that Shakespeare wrote Bacon's works. Bacon was a Cambridge
>
> University Alum, he wrote all thirty-six of the magnificent Shakespeare
>
> plays (having taken the aegis of Pallas Athene when only a lad at
>
> Cambridge). As far as we can determine, Shappere has yet to write
>
> his own damn name! Prof. Delahoyde of Concordia College in Oregon
>
> has posted Shappere's six documents signed in his illiterate and
>
> illegible handwriting.
>
>
>
>
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
>
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
>
>
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
> NO. BACON WROTE THE SHAKESPEARE WORKS, all thirty-six
>
>
>
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
>
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
>
>
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
>
> of them, and shame on you for denying Bacon's hand in the
>
> plays, productions which have survived for now four hundred
>
> years on the stage, ONLY because they were written by a
>
> dramatic genius, Francis Bacon.
>
> A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss
>
> the authorship debate surrounding Shakespeare’s work
>
> Did that actually happen? Did it take place? I thought that
> A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss
>
> the authorship debate surrounding Shakespeare’s work
>
>
> the "major authorities" boiled down to Ros Barber,
>
> Paul Edmondton and the droll wit of Sir Stanley Wells.
>
> Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects
>
> of the topic in a readable and engaging style. (HUH?)
> Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects
>
>
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration
>
> of this hotly debated field.
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration
>
>
> HOTLY DEBATED FIELD? I scoff !!
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy is organized in three sections. The first is ‘Sceptics’. There you will find essays on the most popular alternative nominees for the authorship, namely Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare. The ‘unreadable’ work of Delia Bacon is re-appraised by Graham Holderness and Matt Kubus has contributed a piece about the many other ‘unusual suspects’ who have been nominated over the years.
>
> Shakespeare will never be "beyond doubt" because he was
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy is organized in three sections. The first is ‘Sceptics’. There you will find essays on the most popular alternative nominees for the authorship, namely Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare. The ‘unreadable’ work of Delia Bacon is re-appraised by Graham Holderness and Matt Kubus has contributed a piece about the many other ‘unusual suspects’ who have been nominated over the years.
>
>
> never proven to be literate. Could literally not spell his own
>
> name. Read an article on *pandering* in the 16th century
>
> today and how incredibly profitable it was for entrepreneurs
>
> in the skin trade. Of course it killed a lot of women who
>
> engaged in the trade only to feed their hungry children.
>
> What a racket, and of course Shakespeare was in the
>
> midst of it with his "upstairs room" at the Blackfriars.
>
> Whitewashing alert:
>
> Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’ story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
>
> NO, SHAKESPEARE EMPHATICALLY DID NOT WRITE SHAKESPEARE.
> Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’ story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
>
>
> BACON WROTE ALL THIRTY-SIX PLAYS FOR THE FIRST FOLIO,
>
> HIS SCRIBE, BEN JONSON, SUPPLIED THE WONDERFUL POETRY FOR
>
> THE FRONT MATTER.
>
> The third and final section, ‘A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?’, includes articles by Kate McLuskie on conspiracy theories, by Andrew Murphy on the clash between professional academics and amateurs with regard to Delia Bacon, and by Paul Franssen on how the authorship discussion has been treated in works of fiction. Stuart Hampton-Reeves critiques the anti-Shakespearian ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt’ and Douglas Lanier critiques the film Anonymous. My contribution is a piece about the so-called ‘Shakespeare Establishment’ and the authorship discussion.
>
> THIS IS SO TRIVIAL.
> The third and final section, ‘A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?’, includes articles by Kate McLuskie on conspiracy theories, by Andrew Murphy on the clash between professional academics and amateurs with regard to Delia Bacon, and by Paul Franssen on how the authorship discussion has been treated in works of fiction. Stuart Hampton-Reeves critiques the anti-Shakespearian ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt’ and Douglas Lanier critiques the film Anonymous. My contribution is a piece about the so-called ‘Shakespeare Establishment’ and the authorship discussion.
>
TomFoster
May 21, 2013, 10:42:00 AM5/21/13
to
"Those who believe in Shakespeare's authorship owe a considerable debt
to unsung heroes like Tom Reedy, who is not a professional scholar yet
spends countless hours ensuring that the site [the Wikipedia SAQ page]
remains fact rather than faith based, and draws on current scholarship
to blunt the efforts of ant-Stratfordians to bend those facts."
I enjoyed the book, myself. David Kathman's chapter is excellent, as
you'd expect, and I also learned a lot from the chapters by John
Jowett (Shakespeare as collaborator), Macdonald P Jackson (Authorship
and the evidence of Stylometrics) and Carol Chillington Rutter
(Shakespeare and school) in particular. Whether those who know more
than I do will find anything really knew in it is another matter.
Anyhow, I'm about to embark on a second, more careful, read
through. . .
Tom
Arthur Neuendorffer
May 21, 2013, 11:35:12 AM5/21/13
to
TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You're in it Tom, praised by James Shapiro in his afterword:
>
> "Those who believe in Shakespeare's authorship owe a considerable debt
> to unsung heroes like Tom Reedy, who is not a professional scholar yet
> spends countless hours ensuring that the site [the Wikipedia SAQ page]
> remains fact rather than faith based, and draws on current scholarship
> to blunt the efforts of ant-Stratfordians to bend those facts."
Reedy Pagliaccio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAUDHxDYMMo
>
> You're in it Tom, praised by James Shapiro in his afterword:
>
> "Those who believe in Shakespeare's authorship owe a considerable debt
> to unsung heroes like Tom Reedy, who is not a professional scholar yet
> spends countless hours ensuring that the site [the Wikipedia SAQ page]
> remains fact rather than faith based, and draws on current scholarship
> to blunt the efforts of ant-Stratfordians to bend those facts."
David L. Webb
May 21, 2013, 2:28:38 PM5/21/13
to
In article
<e9d339cb-3806-436e...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Don't feel unappreciated, Art -- when it comes to playing the clown's
role, you are absolutely unsurpassed, whether or not anyone offers you a
much-oVERrated soft drink.
<e9d339cb-3806-436e...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
role, you are absolutely unsurpassed, whether or not anyone offers you a
much-oVERrated soft drink.
Arthur Neuendorffer
May 21, 2013, 4:07:08 PM5/21/13
to
>> TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You're in it Tom, praised by James Shapiro in his afterword:
>
>>> "Those who believe in Shakespeare's authorship owe a considerable debt
>>> to unsung heroes like Tom Reedy, who is not a professional scholar yet
>>> spends countless hours ensuring that the site [the Wikipedia SAQ page]
>>> remains fact rather than faith based, and draws on current scholarship
>>> to blunt the efforts of ant-Stratfordians to bend those facts."
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You're in it Tom, praised by James Shapiro in his afterword:
>
>>> "Those who believe in Shakespeare's authorship owe a considerable debt
>>> to unsung heroes like Tom Reedy, who is not a professional scholar yet
>>> spends countless hours ensuring that the site [the Wikipedia SAQ page]
>>> remains fact rather than faith based, and draws on current scholarship
>>> to blunt the efforts of ant-Stratfordians to bend those facts."
>>
>> Reedy Pagliaccio:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAUDHxDYMMo
"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Don't feel unappreciated, Art -- when it comes to playing the clown's
> role, you are absolutely unsurpassed, whether or not anyone offers you
> a much-oVERrated soft drink.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph5-dRuTrDU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE-w8R7PQ2I
Art Neuendorffer
neonprose @ gmail.com
May 23, 2013, 3:55:34 AM5/23/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:10:46 PM UTC-7, metri...@gmail.com wrote:
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
> Elizabeth writes: I'll stop doubting when the Strats find a play
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
>
> in Shakespeare's handwriting. Bacon (and Jonson his scribe)
>
> produced THIRTY SIX or THIRTY EIGHT PLAYS which the
>
> Strats simply ASSSSUUUME to have been written by Shappere,
>
> please resort to Twain to find that Shappere couldn't write
>
> his own name, least of all compete with Bacon and Jonson's
>
> FIRST FOLIO
>
> with its Comedies, Histories and Tragedies. Today, be
>
> ready to shell out $90,000,000 for a near-mint copy of
>
> a Folio that's now four hundred years old. And yes,
>
> I am angry that the Strats just take it for granted that
>
> Bacon and Jonson's First Folio plays were composed by
>
> the Stratford Broker, were Jonson still alive he would
>
> put a swift end to that nonsense.
>
> So WHEN are the Strats going to show us Shappere's
>
> first play?
>
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
> Eliz queries: Isn't that old news?
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
>
>
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
>
>
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
> A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss the authorship debate surrounding Shakespeare’s work
>
>
> Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects of the topic in a readable and engaging style
>
>
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration of this hotly debated field
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy is organized in three sections. The first is ‘Sceptics’. There you will find essays on the most popular alternative nominees for the authorship, namely Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare. The ‘unreadable’ work of Delia Bacon is re-appraised by Graham Holderness and Matt Kubus has contributed a piece about the many other ‘unusual suspects’ who have been nominated over the years.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’ story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The third and final section, ‘A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?’, includes articles by Kate McLuskie on conspiracy theories, by Andrew Murphy on the clash between professional academics and amateurs with regard to Delia Bacon, and by Paul Franssen on how the authorship discussion has been treated in works of fiction. Stuart Hampton-Reeves critiques the anti-Shakespearian ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt’ and Douglas Lanier critiques the film Anonymous. My contribution is a piece about the so-called ‘Shakespeare Establishment’ and the authorship discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
David L. Webb
May 23, 2013, 1:20:00 PM5/23/13
to
In article
<cb9e8383-6ea5-4fc5...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
<cb9e8383-6ea5-4fc5...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> You're in it Tom, praised by James Shapiro in his afterword:
> >
> >>> "Those who believe in Shakespeare's authorship owe a considerable debt
> >>> to unsung heroes like Tom Reedy, who is not a professional scholar yet
> >>> spends countless hours ensuring that the site [the Wikipedia SAQ page]
> >>> remains fact rather than faith based, and draws on current scholarship
> >>> to blunt the efforts of ant-Stratfordians to bend those facts."
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Reedy Pagliaccio:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAUDHxDYMMo
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Don't feel unappreciated, Art -- when it comes to playing the clown's
> > role, you are absolutely unsurpassed, whether or not anyone offers you
> > a much-oVERrated soft drink.
>
> So long as I continue to receive my COLA's
COLA? Cost Of Lunatic Asylum?
> >
> >>> You're in it Tom, praised by James Shapiro in his afterword:
> >
> >>> "Those who believe in Shakespeare's authorship owe a considerable debt
> >>> to unsung heroes like Tom Reedy, who is not a professional scholar yet
> >>> spends countless hours ensuring that the site [the Wikipedia SAQ page]
> >>> remains fact rather than faith based, and draws on current scholarship
> >>> to blunt the efforts of ant-Stratfordians to bend those facts."
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Reedy Pagliaccio:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAUDHxDYMMo
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Don't feel unappreciated, Art -- when it comes to playing the clown's
> > role, you are absolutely unsurpassed, whether or not anyone offers you
> > a much-oVERrated soft drink.
>
> So long as I continue to receive my COLA's
marco
May 23, 2013, 6:44:04 PM5/23/13
to
Peter F.
May 24, 2013, 3:25:02 AM5/24/13
to
Tom Foster wrote:
>
> You're in it Tom, praised by James Shapiro in his afterword:
>
> "Those who believe in Shakespeare's authorship owe a consid-
>
> You're in it Tom, praised by James Shapiro in his afterword:
>
> erable debt to unsung heroes like Tom Reedy, who is not a
> professional scholar yet spends countless hours ensuring that
> the site [the Wikipedia SAQ page] remains fact rather than
> faith based, and draws on current scholarship to blunt the
> efforts of anti-Stratfordians to bend those facts."
> professional scholar yet spends countless hours ensuring that
> the site [the Wikipedia SAQ page] remains fact rather than
> faith based, and draws on current scholarship to blunt the
Whilst I am happy to join in praising Tom Reedy's efforts as
regards Wikipedia's articles related to the Shakespeare Author-
ship Question, I'm afraid that James Shapiro's words show that
he has little understanding of how Wikipedia works. Tom and his
fellow editors do not ensure that it is "fact based", but that
whatever is said can be verified by reference to "reliable
sources", which is not necessarily the same thing. Indeed, a
problem constantly facing the editors is that whilst they may
as a group know far more about the Shakespeare Authorship
Question than most of the so-called reliable sources they rely
upon, and may *know* something to be a "fact", they can only
include it if someone probably less knowledgeable than them
happens to have mentioned it in "reliable" publication.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
neonprose @ gmail.com
May 25, 2013, 4:10:18 AM5/25/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:10:46 PM UTC-7, metri...@gmail.com wrote:
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
> > Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> Elizabeth writes:
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
> > Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
> I find this very odd. If the editors and publishers at the
>
> Cambridge University Press aren't aware that Shakespeare
>
> never wrote a single play, so why are they sponsoring this
>
> fiasco? And why are they entitling the event (which
>
> fizzled) "Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument,
>
> Controversy."
>
> I guess we're being instructed not to doubt Shakespeare.
>
> I don't believe that the Cambridge University Press has anything
>
> in their possession to launch, because we know that Shakespeare
>
> never penned a single play, or at least not one the Strats can
>
> come up with.
>
> And what's wrong with going Beyond Doubt, it didn't stop
>
> Rene Descarte, he did plenty of doubting no doubt going
>
> far beyond doubt.
>
> I doubt that anybody will want to delve into Shakespeare
>
> Beyond Doubt while there's plenty of controversy and no
>
> end of argument, after four centuries of begging for a
>
> play written by Shakespeare -- common' just one play,
>
> dude, there is nothing but Bacon's thirty-eight plays in his
>
> and Jonson's magnificent First Folio.
>
> By the way, the Van Mander figure is not Jonson, it's
>
> the Stratford Broker, Jonson was a big man but he had
>
> a look about him that drove the women mad. Or maybe
>
> Jonson just had great male pheromones. He had a pleasant
>
> face with good features, he was younger than Bacon,
>
> he didn't have to pursue women, they pursued him.
>
>The figure seated across from Bacon in the Van Mander,
>
> does, in fact, have the proverbial "Face like Thersites" by
>
> which the Elizabethans described Shakespeare, and believe
>
> me, Thersites wasn't pretty.
>
marco
May 25, 2013, 1:57:38 PM5/25/13
to
neonprose @ gmail.com
May 26, 2013, 1:47:14 AM5/26/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:17:12 PM UTC-7, nordicskiv2 wrote:
> In article
>
> something far more interesting and rewarding than lunatic conspiracy
>
> theories concerning Shakespeare authorship -- like alien abduction, for
>
> instance.
>
>
>
> > Art Neuendorffer
> In article
> > Well...thank goodness that's settled!
>
>
>
> Absolutely, Art -- so now you can devote your copious free time to
>
>
>
>
> something far more interesting and rewarding than lunatic conspiracy
>
> theories concerning Shakespeare authorship -- like alien abduction, for
>
> instance.
>
>
>
> > Art Neuendorffer
neonprose @ gmail.com
May 27, 2013, 2:15:28 AM5/27/13
to
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:42:15 AM UTC-7, neonprose @ gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:17:12 PM UTC-7, nordicskiv2 wrote:
>
> > In article
>
> > Webb, I got your email, you know, the one on animal disorders
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:17:12 PM UTC-7, nordicskiv2 wrote:
>
> > In article
>
>
> > in H.L.A.S.
>
> > To allow the posters in HLAS to get the full impact of your post,
>
> > I'll post it again.
>
> >
>
> > Webb wrote to my gmail account:
>
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> >ANIMAL BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS IN H.L.A.S. . . . . DAVID WEBB . . . Inbox
> elizabeth . <neon...@gmail.com> Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:21 PM>
> > To: neonprose <neon...@gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original author"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote>
>
> >
>
> >
> OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDERS
> >
> >
>| Delete | Show original author"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
>
>
> > OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDERS
>
> ANIMAL BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS IN H.L.A.S. . . . . DAVID WEBB . . . Inbox
elizabeth . <neon...@gmail.com> Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:21 PM
To: neonprose <neon...@gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original author"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> Elizabeth . . .
OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDERS
In veterinary medicine, the term STEREOTYPY has been used
traditionally to define behaviours that are REPETITIVE, CONSTANT, AND
APPEAR TO SERVE NO OBVIOUS PURPOSE.
Considerable discussion occurs when the question 'can animals OBSESS?'
is raised. It appears that animals perceive concern and anxiety, thus
it is possible that they can OBSESS.
Separate from the OBSESSION issue is the issue of relative intensity.
Is the behaviour SIMPLY EXCESSIVE or is it a manifestation of an
OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDER? It is also possible that an EXCESSIVE
BEHAVIOUR and an OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE behaviour are merely two points
on a blurry continuum.
> . . . has prefaced a good many hilarious assertions with her
> trademark locution "I assume" (indeed, many a salutary belly laugh can
> be had by the simple expedient of a Google Groups search with "Weir" in
> the Author field and "I assume" as the search text). One would think
> that she would actually open a dictionary rather than just assuming that
> she can guess the word's meaning.
OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDER is probably responsible for some unknown
proportion of companion animal behavioural conditions. OBSESSIVE-
COMPULSIVE behaviours iNTERFERE with the ANIMAL'S ABILITY TO FUNCTION
IN ITS SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.
A competing stimulus may change or abort the behaviour but time spent
in the activity gradually increases. The ABNORMAL BEHAVIOUR GRADUALLY
DISPLACES NORMAL BEHAVIOUR and the actual behaviours change in
qualitative features (intensity profile).
> And her fantasies and imaginings can indeed be amusing. Sometimes
> she even fantasizes quotations and attributes them to people.
Some examples of OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE
disorders in cats listed in the literature include over-grooming,
barbering, feline hyperesthesia, self-mutilation, TAIL CHASING, pica,
wool and FABRIC CHEWING, and WOOL SUCKING.
FELINE HYPERESTHESIA, OVER-GROOMING, AND SELF-MUTILATION
Feline hyperesthesia syndrome has been variously called rolling skin
disease, neuritis, TWITCHY CAT DISEASE, and atypical neurodermatitis.
The behaviours demonstrated can include those mimicking estrus or
biting at the tail, flank, anal or lumbar areas (sometimes with
resultant barbering and self-mutilation); or skin rippling and muscle
spasms/twitching (usually dorsally), often accompanied by
VOCALISATION, RUNNING, JUMPING, HALLUCINATIONS AND
AGGRESSION.
> No. But one can always hope that eventually she will put up a web
> page, as Faker has done, or write a decidedly non-peer-reviewed book, as
> Mr. Streitz has done. Her many inventions, confusions, misattributions,
> misreadings, assumptions, etc. are so robustly comic that they deserve
> an archival format less ephemeral than a Usenet newsgroup.
FABRIC EATING, SUCKING, AND CHEWING
OBSESSive-compulsive disorder can manifest itself as an eating
disorder. Fabric eating, chewing, and sucking may not be associated
with any nutritive considerations relevant to eating disorders and may
represent OBSESSive-compulsive disorders associated with stereotypic
chewing or mouth movements.
Wool sucking may be a behaviour that is left overfrom the prolonged
6-month suckling period common in feral cats. Cats that are weaned
particularly early seem to be over-represented in that population.
Again, different authors do not agree on whether wool sucking and wool
chewing are distinct or related problems. Data compilation is lacking.
TREATMENT OF OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDERS
Treatment protocol for OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDERS should include
an increase in activities that compete with the repetitive behaviours.
Occasionally, some animals perform behaviours that attract attention.
> I'm betting that the answer is no again. Most serious scholarly
> publications insist that their submissions be written in one of several
> widely understood modern languages, not the "British language" favored
> by Mr. Innes. (The latter contains perplexing words like "campel" and
> "secuter," not to mention unconventional uses of conventional phrases --
> for instance, any language whose lexicon contains a few words of Saxon
> derivation counts as "Old English.") Mr. Innes's idiosyncratic "British
> language" is not apt to pass muster in any respectable peer-reviewed
> scholarly publication with which I am familiar.
UNWANTED BEHAVIOURS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED WITH ATTENTION.
Medication to decrease anxiety is usually prescribed for at least 12
weeks before deciding whether full effects are beneficial. Some
patients require a higher dose. Others require more frequent
administration. In people treated for OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders,
a given drug will be tried for at least six months before changing the
medication or adding another drug. CLOMIPRAMINE (ANAFRANIL®,
CLOMICALM®), A TRICYCLIC ANTIDEPRESSANT (TCA) HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY
USED FOR TREATMENT OF OBSESSIVE DISORDERS IN HUMANS.
> I trust that the question is purely rhetorical.
> One is particularly tempted to needle someone who asserts or implies
> that his interlocutor is dishonest without grounds.
In the United
States, clomipramine (Clomicalm®) is labeled for use in dogs to treat
separation anxiety, whereas in Canada and Australia, it is also
labelled to treat OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders of dogs. In the past
15 + years, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as
paroxetine (PAXIL®), sertraline (ZOLOFT®), fluoxetine (PROZAC®),
citalopram (CELEXA®), fluvoxamine (LUVOX®) have been introduced and
evaluated for the treatment of OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders in
people. Fluoxetine, sertraline, fluvoxamine and paroxetine have
demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of OBSESSIVE-compulsive
disorders. In contrast, clomipramine, though efficacious, is often
associated in people with substantial adverse events, particularly
anticholinergic effects. Clomipramine was effective in controlling the
signs of anxiety-related and OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders in 10 of
11 cats and was well tolerated. The average maintenance dosage was 0.3
mg/kg once daily. Four cats became lethargic at higher doses.
> It is kind of Peter to reassure Mr. Innes on that score -- one can
> never tell what the phrase might mean in Mr. Innes's British language.
> [...]
Other drugs have been used to treat OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders in
cats and some examples include amitriptyline (ELAVIL®), diazepam
(VALIUM®), clorazepate (TRANXENE®), and alprazolam (XANAX®). In
summary, each patient presented with a tentative OBSESSIVE-compulsive
disorder needs to be fully worked-up medically and behaviourally in
order to determine the best drug option for that given case as well as
address all other contributing factors.
>
> >
>
> >
>In veterinary medicine, the term STEREOTYPY has been used
traditionally to define behaviours that are REPETITIVE, CONSTANT, AND
APPEAR TO SERVE NO OBVIOUS PURPOSE.
Considerable discussion occurs when the question 'can animals OBSESS?'
is raised. It appears that animals perceive concern and anxiety, thus
it is possible that they can OBSESS.
Separate from the OBSESSION issue is the issue of relative intensity.
Is the behaviour SIMPLY EXCESSIVE or is it a manifestation of an
OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDER? It is also possible that an EXCESSIVE
BEHAVIOUR and an OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE behaviour are merely two points
on a blurry continuum.
> . . . has prefaced a good many hilarious assertions with her
> trademark locution "I assume" (indeed, many a salutary belly laugh can
> be had by the simple expedient of a Google Groups search with "Weir" in
> the Author field and "I assume" as the search text). One would think
> that she would actually open a dictionary rather than just assuming that
> she can guess the word's meaning.
>
>
> I'm betting that the answer is no again. Most serious scholarly
> publications insist that their submissions be written in one of several
> widely understood modern languages, not the "British language" favored
> by Mr. Innes. (The latter contains perplexing words like "campel" and
> "secuter," not to mention unconventional uses of conventional phrases --
> for instance, any language whose lexicon contains a few words of Saxon
> derivation counts as "Old English.") Mr. Innes's idiosyncratic "British
> language" is not apt to pass muster in any respectable peer-reviewed
> scholarly publication with which I am familiar.
UNWANTED BEHAVIOURS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED WITH ATTENTION.
Medication to decrease anxiety is usually prescribed for at least 12
weeks before deciding whether full effects are beneficial. Some
patients require a higher dose. Others require more frequent
administration. In people treated for OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders,
a given drug will be tried for at least six months before changing the
medication or adding another drug. CLOMIPRAMINE (ANAFRANIL®,
CLOMICALM®), A TRICYCLIC ANTIDEPRESSANT (TCA) HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY
USED FOR TREATMENT OF OBSESSIVE DISORDERS IN HUMANS.
> I trust that the question is purely rhetorical.
> One is particularly tempted to needle someone who asserts or implies
> that his interlocutor is dishonest without grounds.
In the United
States, clomipramine (Clomicalm®) is labeled for use in dogs to treat
separation anxiety, whereas in Canada and Australia, it is also
labelled to treat OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders of dogs. In the past
15 + years, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as
paroxetine (PAXIL®), sertraline (ZOLOFT®), fluoxetine (PROZAC®),
citalopram (CELEXA®), fluvoxamine (LUVOX®) have been introduced and
evaluated for the treatment of OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders in
people. Fluoxetine, sertraline, fluvoxamine and paroxetine have
demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of OBSESSIVE-compulsive
disorders. In contrast, clomipramine, though efficacious, is often
associated in people with substantial adverse events, particularly
anticholinergic effects. Clomipramine was effective in controlling the
signs of anxiety-related and OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders in 10 of
11 cats and was well tolerated. The average maintenance dosage was 0.3
mg/kg once daily. Four cats became lethargic at higher doses.
> It is kind of Peter to reassure Mr. Innes on that score -- one can
> never tell what the phrase might mean in Mr. Innes's British language.
> [...]
Other drugs have been used to treat OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders in
cats and some examples include amitriptyline (ELAVIL®), diazepam
(VALIUM®), clorazepate (TRANXENE®), and alprazolam (XANAX®). In
summary, each patient presented with a tentative OBSESSIVE-compulsive
disorder needs to be fully worked-up medically and behaviourally in
order to determine the best drug option for that given case as well as
address all other contributing factors.
neon...@gmail.com
Jun 11, 2013, 8:49:47 PM6/11/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:10:46 PM UTC-7, metri...@gmail.com wrote:
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> This was a fiasco for the simple reason that Shakespeare
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
> did not write a single play. Not in his lifetime, Bacon's
>
> 1623 First Folio contains thirty-eight plays, none of
>
> them composed by the scrofulous Bard, who looks
>
> like he's dying in the Van Mander Portrait "Game of Chess."
>
> One would assume that the Cambridge University Press
>
> would do a little research.
>
> I've repeatedly queried this group re: how many plays did
>
> Shakespeare write. Apparently none. I've looked long and
>
> hard for even a single play written by Shakespeare but
>
> haven't found a one. Illiteracy is likely the "Bard's" problem,
>
> Prof. Michael Delahoyde, an Oxfordian, proves that
>
> Shakespeare was hopelessly illiterate. Go to his website
>
> and take a look at Shappere's barbaric STABS at writing
>
> his own name.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
>
>
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
>
>
>
>
>
neon...@gmail.com
Jun 11, 2013, 9:04:32 PM6/11/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:10:46 PM UTC-7, metri...@gmail.com wrote:
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
> Elizabeth notes: Cambridge University Press is unaware that
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
>
> Shakespeare never wrote a single play, nothin'. The only
>
> SHAKESPEARE plays are contained in Bacon and Jonson's
>
> 1623 First Folio, the greatest plays ever written they've
>
> been staged in Canada, the US, Britain, outlying former
>
> British territories for the past FOUR HUNDRED YEARS.
>
> THE scrofulous STRATFORD BROKER wrote not one
>
> single play, he was miserably illiterate, history has
>
> stumbled with this one.
>
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
> What, Cambridge University, Bacon's Alma Mater, should be
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
>
> celebrating Bacon's genius, not kissing the ass of the scabby
>
> broker of young whores. I'm disgusted, CUP doesn't even
>
> HAVE A CLUE that Shakespeare NEVERE wrote a single play.
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
> This gaggle of nitwits didn't have any more clues about the
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
>
> FACT that Shappere couldn't spell even his own damn name.
>
> There are NO Shakespeare plays, only the ones produced
>
> by Bacon and Jonson in the 1623 First Folio, which in good
>
> condition now goes at Sotheby's for 90,000 English pounds.
>
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
> Yawn.
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
> I write:
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
>
> Shakespeare did not write a single play but the Strats continue
>
> to steal the plays from Bacon/Jonson's 1623 First Folio and
>
> reattribute them to the Filthy Beast and Panderer. When is this
>
> play theft going to end?
>
> A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss the
> authorship debate surrounding Shakespeare’s work.
> A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss the
>
> Did that happen? It looked like Barber, Wells, Edmonton were
>
> on a train, riding in the bar, drinking rye whisky on ice, they certainly
>
> weren't discussing the question of Shakespeare, that went by the by.
>
> Did this project ever develop into a book as promised?
>
> Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects of the topic in a readable and engaging style
>
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration of this hotly debated field
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy is organized in three sections. The first is ‘Sceptics’. There you will find essays on the most popular alternative nominees for the authorship, namely Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare. The ‘unreadable’ work of Delia Bacon is re-appraised by Graham Holderness and Matt Kubus has contributed a piece about the many other ‘unusual suspects’ who have been nominated over the years.
>
>
>
> Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’ story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
>
>
>
> The third and final section, ‘A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?’,
>
> EMPHATICALLY NOT. The Stratford Broker was abysmally illiterate, he wrote nothing.
> Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects of the topic in a readable and engaging style
>
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration of this hotly debated field
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy is organized in three sections. The first is ‘Sceptics’. There you will find essays on the most popular alternative nominees for the authorship, namely Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare. The ‘unreadable’ work of Delia Bacon is re-appraised by Graham Holderness and Matt Kubus has contributed a piece about the many other ‘unusual suspects’ who have been nominated over the years.
>
>
>
> Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’ story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
>
>
>
> The third and final section, ‘A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?’,
>
>
> My view is that sexy, sexy name, so erotic, keeps this myth growing.
neon...@gmail.com
Jun 12, 2013, 2:07:32 AM6/12/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:10:46 PM UTC-7, metri...@gmail.com wrote:
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> Elizabeth notes that Alan Nelson did not think Oxford
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
> "wrote Shakespeare."
>
>
>
>
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
>
>
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
> A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss the authorship debate surrounding Shakespeare’s work
>
>
> Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects of the topic in a readable and engaging style
>
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration of this hotly debated field
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy is organized in three sections. The first is ‘Sceptics’. There you will find essays on the most popular alternative nominees for the authorship, namely Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare. The ‘unreadable’ work of Delia Bacon is re-appraised by Graham Holderness and Matt Kubus has contributed a piece about the many other ‘unusual suspects’ who have been nominated over the years.
>
>
>
> Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’ story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
>
>
>
> The third and final section, ‘A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?’, includes articles by Kate McLuskie on conspiracy theories, by Andrew Murphy on the clash between professional academics and amateurs with regard to Delia Bacon, and by Paul Franssen on how the authorship discussion has been treated in works of fiction. Stuart Hampton-Reeves critiques the anti-Shakespearian ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt’ and Douglas Lanier critiques the film Anonymous. My contribution is a piece about the so-called ‘Shakespeare Establishment’ and the authorship discussion.
>
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration of this hotly debated field
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy is organized in three sections. The first is ‘Sceptics’. There you will find essays on the most popular alternative nominees for the authorship, namely Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare. The ‘unreadable’ work of Delia Bacon is re-appraised by Graham Holderness and Matt Kubus has contributed a piece about the many other ‘unusual suspects’ who have been nominated over the years.
>
>
>
> Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’ story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
>
>
>
neon...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2013, 4:51:25 AM6/14/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:10:46 PM UTC-7, metri...@gmail.com wrote:
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
> Only because this comes from the Strats will I comment on this fiasco.
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> Well, that didn't happen, did it. After four centuries the
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
> Shakespeare authorship question is simply hollow, the
>
> poor guy couldn't write his own name and he certainly left
>
> us without any plays in his handwriting, nor did he
>
> contribute a word to Bacon & Jonson's 1623 First Folio
>
> (although the Strats have been stealing Bacon's plays
>
> for now more than four centuries, darn them.
>
> Note: Much ado about what turns out to be nothing
>
> at all. The "authorities" on Shakespeare apparently
>
> collected their luggage and went back to London
>
> without comment (except from Stanley Wells who
>
> blurted out "Bacon wrote Hamlet." Loved it!)
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care? >
>
> NO! Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare because he was
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care? >
>
>
> sublimely illiterate. Give it up!
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
>
>
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
>
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
>
>
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
> Barber, Edmonton and Wells went home, there was no "evidence,
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
>
>
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
>
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
>
>
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
>
> argument nor controversy." This Webinar fell flat on its ass.
>
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
> A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss
the authorship debate surrounding Shakespeare’s work
>
> Hullo? Shakespeare produced nothing.
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
> A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss
the authorship debate surrounding Shakespeare’s work
>
>
> Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects
of the topic in a readable and engaging style
>
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration
> of this hotly debated field. . .
> Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects
of the topic in a readable and engaging style
>
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration
>
> Hotly debated? Didn't happen.
neonp...@gmail.com
Jul 17, 2013, 4:54:42 PM7/17/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:10:46 PM UTC-7, metri...@gmail.com wrote:
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> From today's SHAKSPER bulletin:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> Marco, this is a crock because the Stratford Broker will always
>
>
> be in doubt because he WROTE NOTHING, not a single play,
>
> the only evidence that he existed is to be found in six barbaric
>
> signatures which you can view on the Oxfordian Michael Delahoyde's
>
> website. In addition, Joseph Lenz went into the Blackfriar's archives
>
> (still intact after all these centuries) only to find that the Broker
>
> was a panderer, spreading diseases for gain, apparently he was
>
> sampling his own wares, he got very sick, went back to Stratford
>
> and died.
>
> It's obvious that he contributed nothing but the erotic surname
>
> Shake Speare, not to be confused with Bacon's use of Shakespeare
>
> which referred to the Speare Shaker Pallas Athene who slayed
>
> the Serpent of Ignorance. In the 16th century, the English were
>
> hopelessly illiterate, Shakespeare could not write his own name.
>
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
> So how did that turn out? Cambridge University Press must have
>
> The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0098 Tuesday, 12 March 2013
>
>
>
> From: Paul Edmondson <Paul.Ed...@shakespeare.org.uk>
>
> Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Publication and Webinar
>
>
> discovered at some point, the massive illiteracy of the so-called
>
> Bard.
>
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
>
>
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
> Yawn.
> [Editor’s Note: I have adapted the information below from various e-mails I have received from Paul Edmondson. –Hardy]
>
>
>
> The Cambridge University Press will launch Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy with The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust at this year’s celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday in Stratford and at The Shakespeare Centre.
>
>
>
>
>
> The book will also form the basis of an event at this year’s Stratford-upon-Avon Literary Festival, a webinar towards the end of April sponsored by C.U.P. (and hosted by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), and a podcast to be made with the University of Warwick in time for Shakespeare’s Birthday.
>
>
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
> We still haven't found out how the Webinar went nor has Cambridge University Press
> You might like to let your colleagues, students, friends, and contacts know about a webinar, ‘Proving Shakespeare’, we’re hosting about Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy on Friday 26 April at 6.30 pm (British Time). You can register for it free of charge via this link:
>
>
> published anything as far as I can determine. I guess they simply discovered that
>
> the Stratford Broker was simply not literate, he wrote nothing, there was nothing
>
> there.
>
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
> I’ll be chairing a discussion for an hour with Stanley Wells and we are delighted to be joined by our special guest, Ros Barber, author of The Marlowe Papers: A Novel in Verse. If you sign up you’ll be able to listen to webinar live and submit questions during the discussion. You can sign up by clicking here.
>
>
>
> http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-beyond-doubt
>
>
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy
>
> Paperback (ISBN-13: 9781107603288)
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
> We should "care" because Shakespeare authorship is the greatest
>
> Hardback (ISBN:9781107017597)
>
>
>
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare, and why should we care?
>
>
> hoax ever perpetrated on gullible humanity. Twain had a go with
>
> the Bard, Twain 1, Bard 0.
>
> A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss the authorship
> debate surrounding Shakespeare’s work. What works? Give us the title
> A collection of essays by major authorities in the field discuss the authorship
>
> of ONE SHAKESPEARE WORK, that's all we ask.
>
> WHAT Shakespeare works? The 1623 First Folio? Those plays were written
>
> by Bacon with the Front Matter supplied by Jonson, a really fine poet.
>
> The Stratford Broker had nothing to do with it, according to Lenz he was
>
> busy elsewhere.
>
>
> Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects of the topic in a readable and engaging style
>
> What can we do, the Strats are hopeless, hello? your hero wrote nothing,
>
> Provides a wide range of discussions of all significant aspects of the topic in a readable and engaging style
>
>
> there's not a scrap in his handwriting, he could not complete even one
>
> signature, see Prof. Michael Delahoyde's web page of Shappere's barbaric
>
> stabs.
>
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration of this hotly debated field
>
> Offers a comprehensive and grounded scholarly exploration of this hotly debated field
>
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy is organized in three sections. The >first is ‘Sceptics’. There you will find essays on the most popular alternative nominees for the >authorship, namely Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.
>
> Elizabeth notes: I rarely have a chance to defend Elizabethans but Edward de Vere
>
>
> received a private education, he could certainly spell his own name. Edward's brother
>
> Francis matriculated Cambridge, he was writing juvenile plays when at Cambridge,
>
> he went on to compose thirty-seven of history's greatest plays bound up in the 1623
>
> Folio with the help of his good friend and scribe, Benjamin Jonson.
>
>
>
>These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, >and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees > could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare.
>
> Excuse me? Francis Bacon wrote all thirty-seven plays in the 1623 First Folio, while
>
>
>These have been produced by world experts on those three subjects (Alan Stewart, Charles Nicholl, >and Alan Nelson), all of whom set out authoritatively to demonstrate how none of those nominees > could have written, or indeed were capable of having written, the works of Shakespeare.
>
>
> back in Stratford the "Bard" was sitting on barrels of malt, waiting for the price to
>
> rise while the children of Warwickshire were starving during the "freezing time."
>
> AGAIN, no play script, nor for that matter no scrap of paper has been found in
>
> the "Bard's hand," he could not spell his own name.
>
>
>
>Oh my god, are these scholars hallucinating or not? Again, Shakespeare was wholly illiterate,
>
> he wrote nothing, he could not spell even his name.
>The ‘unreadable’ work of Delia Bacon is re-appraised by Graham Holderness and Matt Kubus has contributed a piece about the many other ‘unusual suspects’ who have been nominated over the years.
>
>
> she ran out of money early on and apparently died of some kind of bronchial flu in
>
> an unheated room. Delia Bacon was well educated, she taught at some women's
>
> college in New England, she got support from Nathaniel Hawthorne.
>
>
>
> Fool alert: Shakespeare was NEVERE an author, he wrote NOTHING.
>
> Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes
an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield
and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett
shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’
story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial
hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed
works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
>
> Did not need to attend university? What a joke. This boob as I think Neuendorffer calls
> Section two, ‘Shakespeare as Author’, presents the evidence for Shakespeare and includes
an essay which considers how we construct early modern biographies by Andrew Hadfield
and an overview of all the allusions to Shakespeare up to 1642 by Stanley Wells. John Jowett
shows how we know Shakespeare collaborated (thereby making a nonsense of any ‘cover-up’
story), and Mac Jackson shows what we can learn from stylometric tests for different authorial
hands. James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen look at what the textual evidence of the printed
works tells us about their author, and Dave Kathman finds Warwickshire writ large across Shakespeare’s work. Carol Rutter demonstrates that the whole of Shakespeare was written by someone who attended grammar school but who did not need to have attended university, and Barbara Everett shows how absurd it is to read the works as truthful windows onto Shakespeare’s own life.
>
>
> him was expelled from petty school.
>
> The third and final section, ‘A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?’,
>
> Emphatically NO. One would think that this gaggle of scholars would at least know
> The third and final section, ‘A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?’,
>
>
> SOMETHING about this creature, but it's always about that sexy, sexy name.
neonp...@gmail.com
Jul 17, 2013, 4:57:45 PM7/17/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:26:51 PM UTC-7, Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
> Well...thank goodness that's settled!
>
>
>
> Art Neuendorffer
> Well...thank goodness that's settled!
>
>
>
>
> Art, it's nevere going to be settled, it's like Dracula, someone has
>
> to drive a stake through the heart of evil Shakspeareianism.
0 new messages