Upstart crow
Trent
the actor Shakespeare with his pun on Shake-scene and that the line
parodied from Henry VI Part 3 ("Tygers heart wrapt in a Players
hide"--italicized in Greene) is only supposed to characterize and not
identify actors like Shakespeare (as Bob Grummon shows on this webpage
at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1492/crow.html). Now, I must
admit, I tend to think the Greene evidence gives good support (not
evidence) for Shakespeare being both writer and actor, and one reason
(in addition to the reasons provided by Grummon and others) is that I
don't understand why Greene would have singled out Shakespeare the actor
if he were only an actor. Everyone seems to agree that he tended to play
minor roles, like Old Adam and the ghost of Hamlet's father. So why
would Greene single out Shakespeare, unless there was something more to
it? It seems to me the fact that a mere actor also presumed to write
plays (in a sense, equivalent to an actor ad libbing on stage) explains
very well why Greene attacked Shakespeare, the actor and playwright.
Paraphrasing the line from Henry VI Part 3 would then make perfect
sense.
Now, way back in graduate school, I read all the Henry VI plays, so it
makes perfect sense to me for Greene to ridicule Shakespeare's writing.
Those plays were a dreadful bore! Now that I'm older and wis....well,
now that I'm older, I might have a different opinion if I reread them,
but I doubt it.
Richard Nathan
(snip)
>
>Now, way back in graduate school, I read all the Henry VI plays, so it
>makes perfect sense to me for Greene to ridicule Shakespeare's writing.
>Those plays were a dreadful bore! Now that I'm older and wis....well,
>now that I'm older, I might have a different opinion if I reread them,
>but I doubt it.
>
>
>
Some of Shakespeare's plays play better than the read.
If you get a chance, you should see the BBC productions from the 1970's -
when they did all the Shakesepeare plays - or the production from the
1960's with David Warner as Henry VI. Both are spectacularly
entertaining.
The Sanity Inspector
this thought:
>Some of Shakespeare's plays play better than the read.
>
>If you get a chance, you should see the BBC productions from the 1970's -
>when they did all the Shakesepeare plays - or the production from the
>1960's with David Warner as Henry VI. Both are spectacularly
>entertaining.
Agreed. The Beeb production of the Henry VI cycle (segueing
into Richard III) was well conceived and entertaining, even though
there's not a lot of arresting literary dialogue in them. It bears
remembering that the plays were a big hit when originally staged, too.
--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
--The Jam
BCD
> Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net> shared with usenet
> this thought:
> >If you get a chance, you should see the BBC productions from the 1970's -
> >when they did all the Shakesepeare plays - or the production from the
> >1960's with David Warner as Henry VI. Both are spectacularly
> >entertaining.
> Agreed. The Beeb production of the Henry VI cycle (segueing
***If I may chime in with a "me, too!" and some idle chat on this one:
Yes, indeed, the BBC cycle held my usually-wont-to-stray attention
throughout. It spurred me to theme a visit to England on events and
persons in it (the look the hotel clerk in Tewkesbury gave me when I
announced that I was "here because of Henry VI" was alone worth the air
fare).
***Are these 70s (um, are you sure they're not early 80s?)
"all-the-plays" productions available anywhere on videotape? I'd like
to cop the cycle in question, and to see the LLL (the one in the BBC
series which I missed).
Best Wishes,
--BCD.
Pick a Quote: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/quotes.html
R. Yerington
>
> Some argue that Greene in Goats-worth of Wit (1592) is referring only to
> the actor Shakespeare with his pun on Shake-scene and that the line
> parodied from Henry VI Part 3 ("Tygers heart wrapt in a Players
> hide"--italicized in Greene) is only supposed to characterize and not
> identify actors like Shakespeare (as Bob Grummon shows on this webpage
> at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1492/crow.html). Now, I must
> admit, I tend to think the Greene evidence gives good support (not
This is where Oxfordians go off the deep end. Greene is clearly
attacking the "upstart crow" actor because the actor "believes he is as
well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you" (Green was
addressing fellow playwrights). Green is attacking the actor who
authored Henry VI Part 3 for thinking he can write blank verse as well
as Greene and his University educated playwright friends.
Later in Green's Groats-worth he has a poor scholar (probably
representing Greene himself) meet a well dressed countryman who tells
how he has done so well financially:
'What is your profession?' said Roberto. 'Truly sir', said he, 'I am a
player' ... 'Truly', said Roberto, 'it is strange that you should so
prosper in that vain practice, for it seems to me that you voice is
nothing gracious.' 'Nay' ... quoth the player, 'I can serve to make a
pretty speech, for I was a country author...'
Henslowe's theater diary shows that Greene's plays brought in far less
money than Shakespeare's, so there is good motivation for Green's
attack.
What riles Greene is exactly what riles the Oxfordians. They can't bear
that a non University-educated actor from the country would write great
plays. Of course, many great authors have owed their greatness to their
own genius, their innate language skills, and their self-taught literary
education, rather than to formal University training. Why should it be
any different with Shakespeare?
Richard J Kennedy
An "upstart" is someone recently on the scene making big of himself.
At the time Greene wrote Groatsworth, Shakespeare had written
at least 6 popular plays, and does not qualify for the word
"upstart." That's about the end of that.
--
Trent Eades
performed before Greene's attack?
R. Yerington
>
> An "upstart" is someone recently on the scene making big of himself.
> At the time Greene wrote Groatsworth, Shakespeare had written
> at least 6 popular plays, and does not qualify for the word
> "upstart." That's about the end of that.
Nonesense. This was 1592. Henslowe's diary for March 1592 is the first
record of the staging of a Shakespeare play. And guess which play it is
- Henry VI. Shakespeare in 1592 was exactly what Greene calls him, an
upstart. Helslowe's record shows Henry VI earning four times as much
money as the best of Greene's plays. No wonder Greene was upset with
this upstart actor who had the nerve to write plays.
Trent Eades
behind the statements biographers make. I'm not aware of any any solid
evidence that six of Shakespeare's plays had been performed by 1952. If
you have this evidence, I wish you'd point me to it.
Richard J Kennedy wrote:
>
> Trent, the information is in any good Shakespeare biography.
> Look it up, nothing to it, the "upstart" had already written
> a handful of popular plays.
>
> --
>
Trent Eades
knowledgeable strangers. You made an absolute statement that six of
Shakespeare's plays had been performed by 1952. Now you admit there is
considerable debate about the dates of the plays you listed. But let
that go...I don't want to push myself around in any large way. Perhaps
you are correct. I certainly don't want to be provoked into professing
certainty when I have none.
Now, it looks to me, a swaggering "upstart," that one could reasonably
speculate that Greene is playing on Shakespeare's dual role as
actor/author. I'm not altogether sure that Greene wouldn't have called
Shakespeare an "upstart" even if six or more of his plays had been
performed. After all, Greene must have been in an intolerant,
uncharitable mood as he dished out his insults--you know the type. But
I'm open to other plausible views. How do you read the Greene passage?
Richard J Kennedy wrote:
>
> As to the "upstart", the new boy on the block, so to speak.
> When Greene wrote this in 1592....
>
> Sonnets written, Hotson, Highet
> Hamlet written, Cairncross
> Love's Labour's Lost, Hotson, Brandes
> Henry Fourth Pt. I,
> Henry Fourth Pt. 2,
> Comedy of Errors,
> Titus Andronicus,
> Julius Caesar written by 1589, Cairncross
> King John in 1590, F.P. Wilson.
> Two Gentlemen of Verona,
> Comedy of Errors,
> Taming of the Shrew, and all's well by 1590, a loose conjecture
> by Knight, Elze.
> Love's Labour Lost by 1590, Dowden
> Henry VI Pts. one and two
> Hamlet produced in Germany, 1591, Cairncross
> Also, accd. to Cairncross, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet,
> Taming of the Shrew.
> Sonnets written by 1592, Kittredge
> Twelfth Night, Cairncross.
>
> Of course there's a good deal of difference about these date,
> but you (or any Stratfordian) could put at least 10 of them
> before Green's Groatsworth of Wit, in which the Stratfordians
> suppose that Green is calling Shakespeare an "upstart."
>
> Hardly so, I think, not a epithet that would come to mind, not
> a fellow newly arrived making big of himself on the stage.
> However, it might well be applied to the Stratford man, an
> actor pushing himself around in a large way, you know the type.
>
> --
>
Richard J Kennedy
Richard J Kennedy
Richard J Kennedy
For Trent, here is an older post about the UPSTART CROW, and you
will see he was no such thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The "Groatsworth of Wit" by Robert Greene was published in
1592. Greene mentions a certain "upstart crow" who is fooling
about with the lines of other playwrights and fouling the
stage otherwise with his bombastic style. The Stratfordians
take the "upstart crow" to be Shakespeare. That's the THIRD
PROOF of the Stratfordians, for it puts the man from Stratford
(their Shakespeare) in the context of other theater people and
even playwrights. Greene says trust him not, for he's a thief
and up to no good entirely.
Then what's an "upstart crow?" What's an upstart anything?
Just as you suppose, probably. It's someone who has come up
suddenly from a low position, someone presumptious and
forward, with pretentions, lately of large opinions about
himself and thinking to be better than his betters.
But if the upstart crow is Shakespeare, this would be his
accomplishment to date, according to Stratfordian dating:
1589
Hamlet written -- Cairncross
Love's Labour's Lost written -- Brandes, Hotson
Henry Fourth, Pts I and II,
Henry Fifth,
Comedy of Errors,
Titus Andronicus,
Julius Caesar and the above written -- Cairncross
1590
King John written -- F.P. Wilson
Two Gentlemen of Verona,
Comedy of Errors,
Taming of the Shrew,
All's Well -- all likely written by now, Knight, Elze.
Love's Labour's Lost written -- Dowden
Henry Sixth, Pts. 2 and 3 written
1591
King John -- Cairncross
Hamlet evidently produced in Germany -- Cairncross
Othello,
Macbeth,
King Lear,
Romeo and Juliet,
Taming of the Shrew -- possibly & the above -- Cairncross
Henry Sixth Pt. I written
Sonnets written -- Rowse
1592
Twelfth Night written -- Cairncross
And in 1592, after this considerable amount of work, Greene
is calling Shakespeare an upstart crow, so say the Stratfordians.
If the crow is Shakespeare, he would hardly be an upstart, but
instead would be a man well established as a playwright, a
man quite in the thick of the theater.
On the other hand, where was the man from Stratford during
this time, 1589 - 1592. No one knows, and that's a fact.
Now of course the above chronology can be argued, and it
always will be, but the above is a Stratfordian chronology.
There is much supposition about the dates, but even if the
outline is only 50% right, you can see that there is nothing
"upstart" about the crow, but that he's been greeting the
morn of Elizabethan literature for several years. Obviously, if
the upstart crow is a newly popped-up playwright, he can't be
Shakespeare.
But as I say, this THIRD PROOF of Stratfordian authorship
won't be solved by debate. The language of the Groatsworth
is a hairball, and the dissection of it is a mess that I'm happy
not to have a hand in that except for writing out the above
Stratfordian chronology. It's a dirty job, but someone has to
do it.
Kennedy
--
Richard J Kennedy
I believe the Stratfordians are unanimous in putting forth the
"upstart crow" as an actor. I think so, too. But we can't take
him as a writer as well, certainly not Shakespeare.
If we try a bit of logic at the problem, how is it that the crow,
if he is the poet Shakespeare, must be "beautified with the
feathers" of other playwrights? Does that make sense? The
poet Shakespeare had already written a dozen plays. How is
it that he must "beautify" himself with the language of other
men? The phrase from Groatsworth is this: "...upstart crow,
beautified with our feathers..." It is logically perilous, I think,
to follow along with the argument that our great poet was at
a loss for words, and needed to deck himself in the plumage of
much lesser men. By 1592 Shakespeare was writing the
sonnets, and must he pluck feathers from the likes of Greene?
The Proof of Groatsworth has serious flaws if one would wish
to identify the "upstart crow" as the poet Shakespeare. The
best one can get out of this is that some unknown actor
(possibly the Stratford man, although others has been suggested)
is being taken to task by Greene for his overmuch strutting about,
and he but newly arrived on the scene. Uppity, you get the idea.
And that kills the upstart crow dead enough I think.
But the Stratfordians can't bury it, for it is the only phrase that
would put the Stratford in a literary context in all his lifetime --
if it were true, which it ain't. The Stratfordians will no doubt
embalm and stuff the poor dead thing, this Groatsworth proof, but
it still stinks, and should be put under the ground
--
Richard Nathan
written at least
Richard Nathan
least 6 plays by 1592. We have no way of knowing exactly how many plays
he had written by that time.
But Kennedy is completely off base (as usual) when he suggest that the
only possible meaning of "upstart" is someone who has recently begun an
activity.
It is far more likely that Greene was using "upstart" to mean someone who
engages in an activity that for which they are unqualified.
Greene, being the same sort of snob the Oxfordians are, would have
thought Shakespeare was an upstart for writing plays without a university
education.
In short, Kennedy's wrong again.
Trent Eades <tea...@icx.net> wrote:
>Oh, really? Got any non-speculative evidence that these six plays were
>performed before Greene's attack?
>
>Richard J Kennedy wrote:
>>
>> An "upstart" is someone recently on the scene making big of himself.
>> At the time Greene wrote Groatsworth, Shakespeare had written
>> at least 6 popular plays, and does not qualify for the word
>> "upstart." That's about the end of that.
>>
>> --
>>
Richard Nathan
>Richard J Kennedy wrote:
>>
>> An "upstart" is someone recently on the scene making big of himself.
>> At the time Greene wrote Groatsworth, Shakespeare had written
>> at least 6 popular plays, and does not qualify for the word
>> "upstart." That's about the end of that.
>
>record of the staging of a Shakespeare play. And guess which play it is
>- Henry VI. Shakespeare in 1592 was exactly what Greene calls him, an
>upstart. Helslowe's record shows Henry VI earning four times as much
>money as the best of Greene's plays. No wonder Greene was upset with
>this upstart actor who had the nerve to write plays.
Exactly. Greene was upset because Shakespeare was a mere actor, without a
university education. The term "upstart" has nothing to do with how many
plays Shakespeare had written.
Clark
VI was a bit much. BTW, the first BBC play, Romeo and Juliet, completed
taping on February 5, 1978, and the last one, Titus Andronicus, was
completed on February 17, 1985. American broadcasts ran from March 14,
1979, to April 19, 1985 (from The BBC Shakespeare Plays: Making the
Televised Canon, by Susan Willis (c) 1991).
You might try your local library for copies of the BBC plays. The regional
library system in my area have about 20 of them, and deliver them to my
local library for pick up upon request.
- Clark
BCD wrote in message <3710FD...@csulb.edu>...
Richard J Kennedy
Well, good, Nathan would like to tell us what plays were written
by the time Groatsworth was published, 1592. We're waiting.
--
Richard J Kennedy
Clark and Nathan are ranting about my posts, but offer none of
their own in refutation. This is the chief paucity of
Stratfordianism. Much smoke, little fire, old news, stale
theories, no backup, lots of personal abuse, crying like
spanked babies, laughing like hyenas, and stomping about like
great beasts afraid that a mouse is going to run up their nose.
Let either of them give their own count of the number of plays
Shakespeare wrote before 1592. If they say less than six or
eight they are in an argument with all the great Shakespearean
scholars of the past.
But will they speak to the point at all? Not at all likely.
They can't pack mud, and that's why they have let drift away
discussion of the Stratford Monument. They talk like strong
liquor, but they dribble like milk and curdle into sour lumps
when they're called out to answer to some facts. And in fact
this tiny world represents the larger one when it comes to
the authorship question, see if it isn't so.
--
Clark
>As the new kid on this discussion board, I rely upon the kindness of
>knowledgeable strangers.
As the new kid on the dicussion board, you should probably be warned that
Mr. R. Kennedy is about the most unreliable person you'd ever want to meet.
Particulary unreliable is any "evidence" he may post. For instance, in his
list of plays supposedly claimed by Stratfordians to have been written prior
1592, of those listed as being dated by "Cairncross", only R&J appears on a
list of Shakespeare's plays compiled by Francis Meres in 1598. Meres also
lists "Loves Labours wonne", which may be Taming of the Shrew, though it
hasn't been proven.
The order and dates of the composition of the plays is an area of much
dispute, but most lists include only the following plays by 1592:
Henry VI, pt. 1
Henry VI, pt. 2
Henry VI, pt. 3
The Comedy of Errors
Some would also add, though with far less agreement:
Two Gentlemen of Verona
The Taming of the Shrew
Richard III
Titus Andronicus
- Clark
R. Yerington
>
> Let either of them give their own count of the number of plays
> Shakespeare wrote before 1592. If they say less than six or
> eight they are in an argument with all the great Shakespearean
> scholars of the past.
This is not true.
What matters, though, is how many plays had been performed - not
written. A play or sonnet that had not been published or performed would
not be known to the public or to Greene.
The first record of a play of William Shakespeare being performed is in
Henslowe's diary of Spring, 1592. The play is Henry VI. Henry VI (no
Part is given) is performed fourteen times that spring. No other
Shakespeare play is recorded as being performed. Henry VI is the very
play that Greene is complaining about and at this time is the ONLY
Shakespeare play ever recorded as having been performed.
After Greene's death in 1592, Henslowe's diary records a performance of
"Titus" and again performances of Henry VI, but no other Shakespeare
play is mentioned as being performed in that year.
These are facts, not flimsy speculations like you are relying on.
In 1592 Shakespeare is very much a newcomer as a known playwright. He
is an "upstart" because he is an actor that supposes he can write plays,
to "bombast out blank verse" as well the best University educated
playwrights. This is what got Greene's goat. It didn't help, either,
that Henry VI took in more money than any of Greene's plays.
Trent
this board. Or if I do, I hope I can keep it subliminated. Anyway, my
chief point was simply this: If Shakespeare the actor was a two-bit
actor, why would Greene single him out? Surely there would have been
more appropriate targets, unless Shakespeare the actor was more
prominent on stage than most people seem to think. I know that all we
can do is speculate from scraps of evidence, but--this is a genuine
question, I think.
Richard J Kennedy wrote:
> Clark and Nathan are ranting about my posts, but offer none of
> their own in refutation. This is the chief paucity of
> Stratfordianism. Much smoke, little fire, old news, stale
> theories, no backup, lots of personal abuse, crying like
> spanked babies, laughing like hyenas, and stomping about like
> great beasts afraid that a mouse is going to run up their nose.
>
> Let either of them give their own count of the number of plays
> Shakespeare wrote before 1592. If they say less than six or
> eight they are in an argument with all the great Shakespearean
> scholars of the past.
>
Richard Nathan
are completely incapable of understanding the simplest posts? Or are you
so lacking in character that can't honestly state my position.
I wrote, "If" -- oops, that was a typo, it should have been "Of" -- "Of
course Kennedy is wrong thwen he says Shakespeare must have written at
least 6 plays by 1592. We have no way of knowing exactly how may plays he
had written by that time."
I never said I knew how many plays Shakespeare had written by 1592. I
said we have no way of knowing how many plays he had written by 1592.
Richard Nathan
vacation soon.
rken...@OregonVOS.net (Richard J Kennedy) wrote:
>
Ray Lischner
>You might try your local library for copies of the BBC plays. The regional
>library system in my area have about 20 of them, and deliver them to my
>local library for pick up upon request.
Or visit www.broadcast.com, which has the BBC tapes online. You need a
high-speed Internet connection. They have low-speed movies, but the
quality is poor.
--
Ray Lischner (http://www.bardware.com)
co-author (with John Doyle) of Shakespeare for Dummies
Janet T. O'Keefe
<cjh...@home.com> wrote:
> You might try your local library for copies of the BBC plays. The regional
> library system in my area have about 20 of them, and deliver them to my
> local library for pick up upon request.
>
> - Clark
>
> BCD wrote in message <3710FD...@csulb.edu>...
> >***Are these 70s (um, are you sure they're not early 80s?)
> >"all-the-plays" productions available anywhere on videotape? I'd like
> >to cop the cycle in question, and to see the LLL (the one in the BBC
> >series which I missed).
> >
> >Best Wishes,
> >
> >--BCD.
> >
> >Pick a Quote: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/quotes.html
Many libraries own them all, so they shouldn't be that hard to find. If
you want to e-mail me privately and tell me where you live I could
probably find out for you. As a librarian I have access to OCLC, a source
that lets me search library catalogs across the country. If there is a
library in your area that owns them I could send you the information on
how to get them. By the way, that offer stands for anyone within the U.
S. I would extend it further, but I don't have reliable sources for
other countries.
Janet
--
"All bastards are bastards, but some bastards is BASTARDS."
Terry Pratchett
"The Last Continent"
Richard J Kennedy
The Stratfordians are in an argument with some of the great
Stratfordian scholars of the past, not with me. If we would be
cheap with those scholars, we would still have to give 6 or 8
plays to Shakespeare before 1592, and which (I beg you to go
to a dictionary) would hardly qualify Shakespeare as an "upstart."
Obviously, someone else is meant.
But this one is hard for the Stratfordians to let go of. It is
the ONE AND ONLY reference to Shakespeare in his whole lifetime
that puts him into any sort of literary context, if he were
the "upstart crow."
What a beggarly situation the Stratfordians are in, like blind
men sitting on the pavement with a cup before them and in
command of a dancing crow, hoping the passers-by will take deep
sympathy from such a performance and drop them a coin, and the
crow croaking out "Tiger's heart, tiger's heart, player's hide,
player's hide, Henry sixth, Henry sixth!" Well, it's all they've
got, and they are getting poorer by the minute, and finally
they will eat that crow, such a hungry, plucking group.
--
Richard Nathan
>
>The order and dates of the composition of the plays is an area of much
>dispute, but most lists include only the following plays by 1592:
>
>Henry VI, pt. 1
>Henry VI, pt. 2
>Henry VI, pt. 3
>The Comedy of Errors
>
>Some would also add, though with far less agreement:
>
>Two Gentlemen of Verona
>The Taming of the Shrew
>Richard III
>Titus Andronicus
>
>- Clark
>
>
I've also seen arguments that there was an earlier version of "LOVE'S
LABOURS LOST" written before 1592, which was extensively revised for the
version we have in the 1598 Quarto.
And, of course, there's the argument that one of Shakespeare's first plays
was the Ur-Hamlet, but I find that unlikely because it wasn't listed by
Meres.
>
>
Trent
scheme I'm a poor, misguided fool, which makes you pretty dang sadistic
for beating up on your inferior. At any rate, the Greene bit doesn't
represent evidence to me (I don't speak for anyone but myself, and
certainly for no -ians), but fuel for speculation. I think there is a
better than even chance that Greene is referring to the actor/writer
Shakespeare. As far as I can tell, it's the single word "upstart" that
leads you to absolute certainty that Greene's passage doesn't link actor
and writer. I'm sorry--I just can't arrive at certainty that easily. I
don't know Greene's exact motivation for using that word. Perhaps he's
insulting Shakespeare by calling him a rank amateur even though he's had
a number of successful plays performed. Perhaps the six or more plays
were written but not performed. I just don't know. Therefore, I think
it's a mistake to disqualify the standard reading on the single word
"upstart." I don't think this makes me unreasonable; I think it means
I'm cautious. And I certainly don't think my stance justifies your
abusive rhetoric towards me. I wish you'd present a positive reading of
the passage to counter the standard reading.
Nigel Davies
> For Trent, here is an older post about the UPSTART CROW, and you
> will see he was no such thing.
Why don't you look through Shakespeare's own use of the word "upstart" to glean
its meaning, like in 1H6? You have all the information there to educate yourself
but by your own choice you're an ignoramus.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
John W Kennedy
>
> Some argue that Greene in Goats-worth of Wit (1592) is referring only to
> the actor Shakespeare with his pun on Shake-scene and that the line
> parodied from Henry VI Part 3 ("Tygers heart wrapt in a Players
> hide"--italicized in Greene) is only supposed to characterize and not
> identify actors like Shakespeare (as Bob Grummon shows on this webpage
> at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1492/crow.html). Now, I must
> admit, I tend to think the Greene evidence gives good support (not
> evidence) for Shakespeare being both writer and actor, and one reason
> (in addition to the reasons provided by Grummon and others) is that I
> don't understand why Greene would have singled out Shakespeare the actor
> if he were only an actor. Everyone seems to agree that he tended to play
> minor roles, like Old Adam and the ghost of Hamlet's father. So why
> would Greene single out Shakespeare, unless there was something more to
> it? It seems to me the fact that a mere actor also presumed to write
> plays (in a sense, equivalent to an actor ad libbing on stage) explains
> very well why Greene attacked Shakespeare, the actor and playwright.
> Paraphrasing the line from Henry VI Part 3 would then make perfect
> sense.
>
> Now, way back in graduate school, I read all the Henry VI plays, so it
> makes perfect sense to me for Greene to ridicule Shakespeare's writing.
> Those plays were a dreadful bore! Now that I'm older and wis....well,
> now that I'm older, I might have a different opinion if I reread them,
> but I doubt it.
Unless you are a theater professional with Shakespearean experience,
don't read them. See them.
They're not his best, God knows. But they play well enough.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
John W Kennedy
>
> An "upstart" is someone recently on the scene making big of himself.
> At the time Greene wrote Groatsworth, Shakespeare had written
> at least 6 popular plays, and does not qualify for the word
> "upstart." That's about the end of that.
I consider Bill Gates an upstart.
bobgrum...@my-dejanews.com
> > The Sane Richard (I put the "Sane" there, not Richard--Bob G.)
There are other factors like how well known was it that Shakespeare
had written any of his early plays when they were first performed,
and how much of those early plays he wrote, since collaborations were
common. Richard Kennedy, of course, rarely lets facts into the
picture that might complicate his exercises in puerilely-dishonest
propaganda.
--Bob G.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Patty Winter
Ray Lischner <li...@tempest-sw.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 06:22:37 GMT, "Clark" <cjh...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>You might try your local library for copies of the BBC plays. The regional
>>library system in my area have about 20 of them, and deliver them to my
>>local library for pick up upon request.
>
>high-speed Internet connection. They have low-speed movies, but the
>quality is poor.
They do seem to have a lot of Shakespeare, but is there any way to
find out which versions they are? When I click on the name of a play,
I wind up at the Broadcast.com registration screen, not a page with
more info on the play. Are they all the 80s BBC versions and nothing
but those versions?
Patty
David L. Webb
(Richard J Kennedy) wrote:
> The Stratfordians are in an argument with some of the great
> Stratfordian scholars of the past, not with me. If we would be
> cheap with those scholars, we would still have to give 6 or 8
> plays to Shakespeare before 1592, and which (I beg you to go
> to a dictionary) would hardly qualify Shakespeare as an "upstart."
> Obviously, someone else is meant.
To whom is Greene referring, then? The phrase "...tigers heart wrapt in
a players hide" seems rather difficult to identify with anyone else. (Or
did Greene, who elsewhere addresses Oxford in unctuously flattering prose,
suddenly summon the effrontery to refer to a peer of the realm with such
withering derision?)
> But this one is hard for the Stratfordians to let go of. It is
> the ONE AND ONLY reference to Shakespeare in his whole lifetime
> that puts him into any sort of literary context, if he were
> the "upstart crow."
Doesn't writing plays count as a "literary" activity? Ogburn takes
pains to argue that it does. By acknowledging that Greene's "upstart crow"
reference places Shakespeare in a literary context if it indeed refers to
him, you evidently agree. If so, then Meres clearly puts Shakespeare in a
literary context far more unambiguously than Greene does. This has been
pointed out to you numerous times.
Why do you persist in posting the same thoroughly (and repeatedly)
discredited hogwash and asking the same questions (repeatedly answered in
great detail by Dave Kathman and Terry Ross) again and again and again and
again and...? Is your memory *really* that faulty? If so, then you can
obtain answers to all your questions at
<http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html>,
or at
<http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml>.
Just type some keywords in the "Search Keywords" field, then click the
"Find" button. Even you can do it! Your request will produce a long list
of posts. Click on the ones whose "Author" field reads "Dave Kathman" or
"Terry Ross". Please give it a try -- that way you can get all your
questions answered, without inflicting your mind-numbing repetition on the
readers of this newsgroup, who have heard it all -- from you -- thirty or
more times already.
[Drivel deleted]
David Webb
Richard J Kennedy
Oh, yes, I've read the Kathman/Ross page. The begin by insulting
not only the Oxfordians, but the intelligence of their readers.
The first intro. paragraph is enough to let you know that they
don't intend to play straight with the facts.
As for repeated postings, and trying to keep the Strats on a
subject, I imagine there are always new members of hlas, and
they must know that the Strats as a gang are a feeble lot with
much calling of names when they can't answer to a plain fact.
This is well known.
As for the Greene reference to be a "literary context," I mean
to say that he is for the first and only time put in the company
of another writer, and in a most diminished manner, obliquely,
and perhaps it is too much to say this is a literary context
at all, which I would be quite happy to agree to, which would
then mean that there is NO TIME OR PLACE that can place
the Stratman in the company, even in slight regard, of some
other writer.
That's the problem the Strats are stuck with. They can't make
their man real. He drifts about the courts and real estate
offices, dodging tax collectors, hoarding grain, suing for small
sums, and like Hamlet's ghost (he is said to have played the
part) vanishes into pettyfoggery when you try to find him out
as any sort of a writer at all.
--
Clark
Ray Lischner
>Or visit www.broadcast.com, which has the BBC tapes online. You need a
>high-speed Internet connection. They have low-speed movies, but the
>quality is poor.
Ray,
I have a high-speed connection, but have always had problems with the lip
synching on www.broadcast.com. Has anyone else experienced the same
problem? My clock speed is only 133 MHz, which might be my problem, but I
seem to lose synching on the low-speed connection as well.
- Clark
Ray Lischner
>>Or visit www.broadcast.com, which has the BBC tapes online. You need a
>>high-speed Internet connection. They have low-speed movies, but the
>>quality is poor.
>
>They do seem to have a lot of Shakespeare, but is there any way to
>find out which versions they are? When I click on the name of a play,
>I wind up at the Broadcast.com registration screen, not a page with
>more info on the play. Are they all the 80s BBC versions and nothing
>but those versions?
Yes, they are the BBC/Time-Life series, and nothing else.
R. Yerington
>
> I think there is a
> better than even chance that Greene is referring to the actor/writer
> Shakespeare. As far as I can tell, it's the single word "upstart" that
> leads you to absolute certainty that Greene's passage doesn't link actor
> and writer. I'm sorry--I just can't arrive at certainty that easily. I
> don't know Greene's exact motivation for using that word. Perhaps he's
> insulting Shakespeare by calling him a rank amateur even though he's had
> a number of successful plays performed.
You are taking a laudably cautious approach, but I don't see how there
can be too much doubt about what Greene says. You are right, he would
not be attacking an actor as such.
The actor is an upstart because he thinks he can WRITE verse as well as
Greene and his fellow University educated playwrights. He is not
berating him for being an actor, he is attacking him for being a country
actor writing lines like "A tiger wrapped in a woman's heart" [Henry VI,
Part III]. An upstart is someone trying to be more than he is, that is,
an actor trying to be a writer. Greene says it quite clearly:
"an upstart Crow [player]... that with his 'Tiger's heart wrapped in
a *Player's* hide' [Henry VI], supposes he is as able to bombast [write]
out a blank verse [play] as the best of you [my fellow playwrights]. ...
in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in the country"
Greene amplifies his gripe in another passage from Groats-worth where
Greene takes the position of a poor writer named Roberto who meets a
well dressed countryman who has done well financially:
'What is your profession?' said Roberto. 'Truly sir', said he, 'I am a
player' ... 'Truly', said Roberto, 'it is strange that you should so
prosper in that vain practice, for it seems to me that you voice is
nothing gracious.' 'Nay' ... quoth the player, 'I can serve to make a
pretty speech, for I was a country author...'
Henslowe's theater diary for 1562 shows that the best of Greene's plays
brought in far less money than Shakespeare's Henry VI, so there is good
motivation for Green's attack. What riles Greene is exactly what riles
the Oxfordians. They can't bear that a non University-educated actor
from the country would write such successful plays.
Of course, many great authors have owed their greatness to their own
genius, their language skills, and their self-taught literary education,
rather than to formal University training or birthplace. Why should it
be any different with Shakespeare?
David L. Webb
(Richard J Kennedy) wrote:
> Oh, yes, I've read the Kathman/Ross page.
Then why do you pretend not to know the answers to your questions?
> The begin by insulting
> not only the Oxfordians, but the intelligence of their readers.
> The first intro. paragraph is enough to let you know that they
> don't intend to play straight with the facts.
Where haven't they "played straight with the facts"? Your phrase is
tantamount to an accusation of intellectual dishonesty. Can you prove a
charge like that? What specific facts have they misrepresented or
suppressed? Even the introductory paragraph to which I assume that you're
objecting can scarecly be considered "insulting" -- it merely states a
plain fact:
"Yet professional Shakespeare scholars -- those whose job it is to study,
write, and teach about Shakespeare -- generally find Oxfordian claims to be
groundless, often not even worth discussing."
This is virtually *identical* to what countless Oxfordians say -- that
professional scholars dismiss anti-Stratfordians _ex cathedra_ -- so why on
earth would you object to it? You may disagree that professional scholars
are *justified* in their dismissal of Oxfordian claims, but you can
scarcely gainsay that professional *do* dismiss those claims. I find it
hard to understand how anyone with enough intelligence to parse the
sentence I quoted would find that intelligence insulted by the sentence.
> As for repeated postings, and trying to keep the Strats on a
> subject, I imagine there are always new members of hlas,
Yes, there's a whole new crop of readers who will get fed up with your
endless repetition of the same old nonsense. I can assure you that it
won't take them long.
If you dispute the accuracy of the Kathman/Ross web page, why don't you
state precisely where Kathman and Ross go wrong? Don't pretend idiotically
that you're a naive seeker of truth who begs innocently for answers when
you've been given the answers twenty times already -- it's a waste of
everyone's time and bandwidth. (Art Neuendorffer wastes everyone's time
and bandwidth too, but I can forgive him, because at least he's worth
reading -- he's both intelligent and entertaining.)
> and
> they must know that the Strats as a gang are a feeble lot with
> much calling of names when they can't answer to a plain fact.
> This is well known.
Oh, you mean your "fact" that the monument was erected to John
Shakespeare? Richard Nathan has replied that Dugdale *explicitly*
identified it as a monument to Shakespeare *the poet*. Do you deny or
doubt this? I haven't seen any answer from you as to why this evidence
should be discounted. Why would Dugdale think that John Shakespeare was a
poet?
> As for the Greene reference to be a "literary context," I mean
> to say that he is for the first and only time put in the company
> of another writer, and in a most diminished manner, obliquely,
> and perhaps it is too much to say this is a literary context
> at all, which I would be quite happy to agree to, which would
> then mean that there is NO TIME OR PLACE that can place
> the Stratman in the company, even in slight regard, of some
> other writer.
I already mentioned Meres. You're the one who "can't answer to a plain
fact." This is well known.
David Webb
Clark
RJ Kennedy's comparison with himself as a mouse;
RJ Kennedy's ability to pack mud;
RJ Kennedy's inability to make a point with a pencil sharpener; and
RJ Kennedy is a FLAMING fool.
That makes four (4) by my count.
- Clark
Richard J Kennedy wrote in message <7es65i$neg$1...@news2.OregonVOS.net>...
Richard J Kennedy
Dugdale said that the Stratford monument was of Shakespeare the
poet. Was he accurate in saying this, was it the truth. Who
knows what he knew. Yet let us say he was accurate for as much
as he knew, and that he was a sensible man, not a dreamer or a
fool, or a poor observer.
And yet his depiction of the Stratford Monument, published in
1656, only 40 years after the Stratman died, was of a man holding
a wool sack.
Now what statement will you take to know more of the effigy?
He drew the man holding the wool-sack. A picture is worth a
thousand words.
--
Greg Reynolds
Richard J Kennedy wrote:
> Dugdale said that the Stratford monument was of Shakespeare the
> poet. Was he accurate in saying this, was it the truth. Who
> knows what he knew. Yet let us say he was accurate for as much
> as he knew, and that he was a sensible man, not a dreamer or a
> fool, or a poor observer.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to label him unkindly.
> And yet his depiction of the Stratford Monument, published in
> 1656, only 40 years after the Stratman died, was of a man holding
> a wool sack.
He didn't say this. You do.
What is a wool sack, Richard? Why wool? How do you know? There
wouldn't be much wool in that wool sack, would there? Is it made of
wool?
So clarify, please, what are you talking about? Right here, right
now, defend your own words. Explain who told you its a wool sack and
why you believe it to the degree you would profess here and claim it
as true?
As in your words above: "Yet let us say he was accurate for as much
as he knew, and that he was a sensible man, not a dreamer or a fool,
or a poor observer." I say you are all of these latter three,
Richard, and I would like to know why you call that a wool sack--who
helped you believe this? Where did you get this information, and why
are you convinced? Hope you can answer to justify your thinking, but
I expect the skulk again as you realize you cannot fake the
responsibility like you fake the knowledge.
> Now what statement will you take to know more of the effigy?
> He drew the man holding the wool-sack. A picture is worth a
> thousand words.
That explains your thousand words. Now explain the wool sack. Who
told you its a wool sack, and what is a wool sack? Or do you even
believe it yourself?
See ya later, Richard, dodger of truth, skulker off, and (almost)
self-described "dreamer or a fool, or a poor observer." I really
got you this time: I'm asking you to explain yourself and NOBODY can
do that!
Greg Reynolds
"Bad is the world; and all will come to nought,
When such ill dealing must be seen in thought."
--Scrivener, Act 3, Scene VI, King Richard the Third
Graymalkin
<eve...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>
>Richard J Kennedy wrote:
>
<snip>
>> And yet his depiction of the Stratford Monument, published in
>> 1656, only 40 years after the Stratman died, was of a man holding
>> a wool sack.
>
>He didn't say this. You do.
>What is a wool sack, Richard? Why wool? How do you know? There
>wouldn't be much wool in that wool sack, would there? Is it made of
>wool?
"The Lord Chancellor sits on the Woolsack, wearing court dress, black
gown and full-bottomed wig." House of Lords Companion to the
Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings.
He'd look even sillier sitting on the object featured on the monument.
There's a small illustration at
http://www.parliament.uk/parliament/guide/woolsack.htm
and of the woolsack on its own at
http://search.corbis.com/default.asp?id=AW012451&vID=1
The Chancellor was already sitting on one in Shakespeare's day. It was
introduced in the 14th century.
--
Jo
R. Yerington
> > Dugdale said that the Stratford monument was of Shakespeare the
> poet.
> And yet his depiction of the Stratford Monument, published in
> 1656, only 40 years after the Stratman died, was of a man holding
> a wool sack.
>
> Now what statement will you take to know more of the effigy?
> He drew the man holding the wool-sack. A picture is worth a
> thousand words.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were blind and cannot see for
yourself that in the Dugdale engraving that Shakespeare is NOT holding
anything, but resting his hands on a pillow with tassels at the four
corners:
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/shaxmon.html
In Dugdale's 1656 book, next to this engraving is a transcription of the
latin verse comparing Shakespeare to Nestor, Socrates, and the Roman
Poet Virgil. On the page facing this engraving, Dugdale refers to the
monument:
One thing more, in reference to this ancient town is observable, that
it
gave birth and sepulture to our late famous Poet Will. Shakespeare,
whose Monument I have inserted in my discourse of the Church.
I guess it follows that since you are blind you can not read either.
The latin verse was there before 1656, not added in the 1700s. Besides
Dugdale's own statement that this is William Shakespeare the poet, are
you really stupid enough to think a wool dealer was being compared to
Nestor, Socrates, and Virgil? In addition there are many other
references in the 1600s that show the monument to be to the poet
Shakespeare:
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/monrefs.html
I think it is time to admit that the story about a man holding a sack of
wool is a complete fabrication, and a willful misrepresentation
(probably originated by Charlton Ogburn), and move on to more
substantial matters. Whatever case there might be for Oxford, it can
only be weakened by continuing to perpetuate such obvious falsehoods.
Nigel Davies
> Dugdale said that the Stratford monument was of Shakespeare the
> knows what he knew. Yet let us say he was accurate for as much
> as he knew, and that he was a sensible man, not a dreamer or a
> fool, or a poor observer.
>
> 1656, only 40 years after the Stratman died, was of a man holding
> a wool sack.
>
> Now what statement will you take to know more of the effigy?
> He drew the man holding the wool-sack. A picture is worth a
> thousand words.
I accept Dugdale's statement as contemporary fact from someone who was
actually there and whose statement is corroborated by all other
evidence without exception.
I reject your statement as foolish misinterpretation from someone who
wasn't there, is jaundiced, disingenuous, and has a pre-conceived
alternative notion supported by not a single fact.
The picture does not depict a wool sack. The tassles are there. The
paper can be discerned if you make the effort to look close enough. All
that is missing is the quill. I have a photograph of the monument with 2
of the fingers broken off on the right hand where the quill is placed.
This damage to the monument does not mean Shakespeare didn't have those
fingers rendering him incapable of giving you the UK equivalent of what
Americans call "flipping the bird".
If Babe Ruth's statue lost the baseball bat it wouldn't turn hum into a
glove merchant just because of the glove he is wearing and has in his
pocket. The quill is simply missing, as is your objectivity.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
volker multhopp
> The [Dugdale] picture does not depict a wool sack. The tassles are there.
Those are knotted corners, not tassels. Dugdale does not show any
decorative piping around the seam of the pillow/sack.
>The
> paper can be discerned if you make the effort to look close enough.
You're hallucinating. If the artist wanted to show paper, he would
have shown paper-- this is not subject to photographic blurring. Your
"paper" is merely part of the artist's hashing to make a 3-D effect.
>All
> that is missing is the quill. I have a photograph of the monument with 2
> of the fingers broken off on the right hand where the quill is placed.
The fingers were undoubtedly broken off by later "restorers" in order
to make it appear as if he were holding a pen.
--Volker
Nigel Davies
> Nigel Davies wrote:
>
> > The [Dugdale] picture does not depict a wool sack. The tassles are there.
>
> Those are knotted corners, not tassels. Dugdale does not show any
> decorative piping around the seam of the pillow/sack.
No. They're the tassles.
> >The
> > paper can be discerned if you make the effort to look close enough.
>
> You're hallucinating. If the artist wanted to show paper, he would
> have shown paper-- this is not subject to photographic blurring. Your
> "paper" is merely part of the artist's hashing to make a 3-D effect.
No. It's the paper.
> >All
> > that is missing is the quill. I have a photograph of the monument with 2
> > of the fingers broken off on the right hand where the quill is placed.
>
> The fingers were undoubtedly broken off by later "restorers" in order
> to make it appear as if he were holding a pen.
You get funnier with your zero-fact "undoubted" theories.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Nigel Davies
> Dugdale said that the Stratford monument was of Shakespeare the
> poet.
Well done. Slow on the uptake but you're getting there. Now let's see:
Contemporary fact: the monument is "to our late famous Poet Will. Shakespeare."
- William Dugdale.
Characteristic Oxfordian lie: "The monument is to a wool merchant" - Richard
Kennedy.
Now, girls and boys, which of these 2 people knew, and which hasn't a clue?
> And yet his depiction of the Stratford Monument, published in
> 1656, only 40 years after the Stratman died, was of a man holding
> a wool sack.
Contemporary fact: Dugdale accompanies his drawing of the monument absent of
quill with the inscription that compares the Poet to Virgil, Nestor and
Socrates.
Characteristic Oxfordian lie: "The monument is to a wool merchant" - Richard
Kennedy.
Now, which of these 2 people is describing the monument as we know it today, and
which hasn't a clue? Do we believe Dugdale who describes and draws the monument
in Stratford church replete with identifying who it was to and the inscription,
all of which is there for anyone to make the effort to see for themselves today?
Or do we believe Richard Kennedy who ignores all the contemporary and current
evidence and pretends with usual anti-fact Oxenfordianism that it was erected 15
years after John Shakespeare death, to him as a wool merchant, that went on to
compare him to Roman and Greek greats.
> Now what statement will you take to know more of the effigy?
> He drew the man holding the wool-sack. A picture is worth a
> thousand words.
Indeed. Who do we believe? The guy who was there or a bare-faced Oxinfordian
liar?
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Richard J Kennedy
There are mysteries of the monument yet to be solved, and the
connection it might have with the first folio. But one thing
we can be absolutely certain of is that the original monument
was of a man holding a wool sack. That can't be escaped, and
although the Stratfordians would like to mystify the fact, I
don't believe it can be done. We have several different
engravings of it just that way, for over 100 years. This is
a stone fact.
Of course this is a great danger to the Stratfordians, thus the
kicking and screaming from that camp, but they can't put up any
reasonable explanation of WHY so many men pictured the man
holding a wool sack. The obvious answer is that it was to honor
John Shakespeare, a "considerable dealer in wool," as the first
biographer of the Shakespeare family said. And so you see that
there is a perfect fit here.
The Stratfordian argument is that Dugdale and all the rest
were blind fools, or that the light was poor in Holy Trinity,
or that the perspective threw them off, or this, or that, and
all of them got the effigy wrong in the same way. That's
foolish, of course, but what else can they say.
What else they can say is that George Vertue, in 1725, was the
first man who really saw the monument as it is today. But he
didn't. He put a different head on the effigy than is there
in the modern version.
So it's terrible news for the Stratfordians, this wool sack
effigy, and erodes the very foundation of their theories, tossing
the first folio "Stratford effigy" phrase to ridicule. And if
that's gone, and the first folio information to be seriously
flawed, as it surely is in the case of the effigy, then they
are in deep trouble and they know it. Thus the reason for the
ranting and raving against the wool sack man, for losing that
puts them in very serious trouble indeed.
The Stratfordians need someone to come to the rescue in this
matter, some piece of scholarship, but none is forthcoming.
--
volker multhopp
> > >The
> > > paper can be discerned if you make the effort to look close enough.
> > You're hallucinating. If the artist wanted to show paper, he would
> > have shown paper-- this is not subject to photographic blurring. Your
> > "paper" is merely part of the artist's hashing to make a 3-D effect.
> No. It's the paper.
You're either deceiving yourself or deliberately deceiving us (lying).
There is no paper shown either in Dugdale's sketch, or in the engraving
in his *Antiquities*. Even Strats say there's no paper.
--Volker
The Sanity Inspector
>Yeah, but seeing the actors walking around with the horse "skirts" in Henry
>VI was a bit much.
But, it was impressive to see the mood darken as the play
cycle progressed. In Henry VI pt I, the fight scenes were almost
comic opera-ish. But in II and III, they got progressively deadlier,
culminating in that slow-motion battle in a blizzard scene.
--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
--The Jam
Richard Nathan
There's certainly no paper in the engraving, but it looks to me like there
could possibly be paper in the original sketch.
Graymalkin
Kennedy) wrote:
>
>There are mysteries of the monument yet to be solved, and the
>connection it might have with the first folio. But one thing
>we can be absolutely certain of is that the original monument
>was of a man holding a wool sack.
Please excuse me if you've already posted this, but why do you think
it's a wool sack? It looks to me like a badly-drawn cushion. If I try
to see it as a sack, only a half-filled sack of turnips suggests
itself.
The Parliamentary woolsack I referred to earlier in this thread is
much bigger, about the size of a two-seater sofa, and well-stuffed
with wool. It doesn't have any decorative elements at the corners, and
in fact, apart from the colour, is surprisingly simple-looking for
such a venerable object. I can easily see that wool would have been
transported and traded in such a container (minus the crimson).
The object in the engraving doesn't bear any resemblance that I can
see. What makes you think it's a woolsack?
--
Jo
Nigel Davies
> Nigel Davies wrote:
>
> > > >The
> > > > paper can be discerned if you make the effort to look close enough.
>
> > > You're hallucinating. If the artist wanted to show paper, he would
> > > have shown paper-- this is not subject to photographic blurring. Your
> > > "paper" is merely part of the artist's hashing to make a 3-D effect.
>
> > No. It's the paper.
>
> You're either deceiving yourself or deliberately deceiving us (lying).
> There is no paper shown either in Dugdale's sketch, or in the engraving
> in his *Antiquities*.
No. I have the sketch on the screen before me now and I can certainly
discern the paper under Shakespeare's hands. He's indisputably resting
his hands on top of the cushion (not under it, not around it, not
holding it) and the faint trace of the paper can be seen if you open
your eyes and make the effort to see what is there. All that is missing
is the quill.
> Even Strats say there's no paper.
What kind of an argument is this? Do you have a herd instinct or
selective inclination to use it when it suits you? "Even some
Oxfordians" describe you as "obnoxiously pugnacious" but that doesn't
mean you necessarily are. "Strats" are not a body of people that must
agree on every single detail of William Shakespeare's life and works.
Their opinion, especially on minor matters like this, might vary.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
The Sanity Inspector
language that would come later, but I wonder if the series' low favor
is due to any leftish university profs taking offense at the sneers
that WS cocks at socialism in 2H6?
CADE I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;
all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree
like brothers and worship me their lord.
And so on in that fantastical vein.
Clark
unsubstantiated claim that John Shakespeare was a wool merchant. Since
Oxenforder's only know how to use a priori logic, it *must* therefore be a
wool sack. The possibility that it might be a sack of feathers, thereby
representing the source of the quills Shakespeare used to write his plays,
never occurs to them. (Alert to Volker, that's supposed to be a joke.)
- Clark
Graymalkin wrote in message <371bd142...@news2.ibm.net>...
Dave Kathman
>
> The Oxenforder belief that it is a wool sack derives from the
> unsubstantiated claim that John Shakespeare was a wool merchant.
Actually, John Shakespeare was a wool merchant, an unlicensed
one, in addition to his primary trade of glover or whittawer.
His wool dealing was considered part of legend until documentary
evidence turned up in this century. He dealt in considerable
quantities of wool without a license, when there was a crackdown
on illegal wool dealers that put him out of business and may
have contributed to his subsequent financial hardships.
Just trying to keep the record straight.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Nigel Davies
> Clark wrote:
> >
> > The Oxenforder belief that it is a wool sack derives from the
> > unsubstantiated claim that John Shakespeare was a wool merchant.
>
> Actually, John Shakespeare was a wool merchant, an unlicensed
> one, in addition to his primary trade of glover or whittawer.
> His wool dealing was considered part of legend until documentary
> evidence turned up in this century. He dealt in considerable
> quantities of wool without a license, when there was a crackdown
> on illegal wool dealers that put him out of business and may
> have contributed to his subsequent financial hardships.
So the Oxenfordian theory is that the monument: is in honour of a man who lost
his wool business; celebrated his illegal wool dealing; omitted a pair of gloves
to denote his principal and legal business dealings; compared this illegal wool
dealer to Virgil, Socrates, & Nestor for no sane reason whatsoever; was later
changed to celebrate the literary figure; was later changed back again to
celebrate the illegal wool dealer; was then changed back again to celebrate the
literary figure.
Is there any Oxenfordian anywhere who is objective enough to admit that whatever
the reasons for their authorship beliefs, the monument being a celebration of a
man's illegal wool dealings who is compared to Roman and Greek greats is too
stupid to posit?
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
bobgrum...@my-dejanews.com
> > Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > The Oxenforder belief that it is a wool sack derives from the
> > > unsubstantiated claim that John Shakespeare was a wool merchant.
> >
> > Actually, John Shakespeare was a wool merchant, an unlicensed
> > one, in addition to his primary trade of glover or whittawer.
> > His wool dealing was considered part of legend until documentary
> > evidence turned up in this century. He dealt in considerable
> > quantities of wool without a license, when there was a crackdown
> > on illegal wool dealers that put him out of business and may
> > have contributed to his subsequent financial hardships.
>
Nigel Davies then brought us up to date on the Oxfordian understanding
of the monument as follows--with a small addition of mine (the image
of a man with a sack of wool hawking his wares on Olympus appealing
to me too much for me to want it left out):
"So the Oxenfordian theory is that the monument: is in honour of a
man who lost his wool business; celebrated his illegal wool dealing;
omitted a pair of gloves to denote his principal and legal business
dealings; compared this illegal wool dealer to Virgil, Socrates,
& Nestor AND SAID THAT HE NOW WAS DWELLING ON OLYMPUS for no sane
reason whatsoever; was later changed to celebrate the literary figure;
was later changed back again to celebrate the illegal wool dealer;
was then changed back again to celebrate the literary figure."
To be fair, I would also add that few Oxfordians believe the monument
was put up to John Shakespeare: Richard Kennedy does, and Multhopp and
Crowley believe it may be but are not on record, I don't think, as
fully accepting the Richard Kennedy hypothesis.
--Bob G.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Dave Kathman
>
> Clark wrote:
> >
> > The Oxenforder belief that it is a wool sack derives from the
> > unsubstantiated claim that John Shakespeare was a wool merchant.
>
> Actually, John Shakespeare was a wool merchant, an unlicensed
> one, in addition to his primary trade of glover or whittawer.
> His wool dealing was considered part of legend until documentary
> evidence turned up in this century. He dealt in considerable
> quantities of wool without a license, when there was a crackdown
> on illegal wool dealers that put him out of business and may
> have contributed to his subsequent financial hardships.
I inadvertently omitted the phrase "until 1577". The post should
have read as follows:
Actually, John Shakespeare was a wool merchant, an unlicensed
one, in addition to his primary trade of glover or whittawer.
His wool dealing was considered part of legend until documentary
evidence turned up in this century. He dealt in considerable
quantities of wool without a license until 1577, when there was
a crackdown on illegal wool dealers that put him out of business
and may have contributed to his subsequent financial hardships.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Clark
>Actually, John Shakespeare was a wool merchant, an unlicensed
>one, in addition to his primary trade of glover or whittawer.
>His wool dealing was considered part of legend until documentary
>evidence turned up in this century. He dealt in considerable
>quantities of wool without a license, when there was a crackdown
>on illegal wool dealers that put him out of business and may
>have contributed to his subsequent financial hardships.
The evidence being a lawsuit involving the failure of John Walford to pay
John Shakespeare 21 pounds for 21 tods of wool, and the allegations of James
Langrake that John was a middle-man in wool-dealing. There is a like amount
of evidence that John Shakespeare was a lumberman (he sold a piece of timber
for 3 shillings to the Stratford corporation), that he was a grain merchant
(he apparently sold 18 quarters of barley to Henry Field), that he was a
butcher (local legend), and that he was a money-lender (based on the
allegations of Langrake and Anthony Harrison).
Rather than an "unlicensed wool merchant", it appears that John was a
glover who had money to invest in other speculations (not all above board),
one of which included wool.
His financial difficulties may have been caused by the crackdown on illicit
wool vending, or they might have been a subterfuge to avoid paying penalties
for not attending church, or they might have been the result of advancing
alcoholism (he started civic life as an ale taster, sold barley for use in
making ale, started to let his civic duties slide, and became increasingly
destitute--an alcoholic father might even shed light on Will's portrayals of
Falstaff and Sir Toby Belch, and may explain the belief that Will himself
died as the result of heavy drink).
- Clark
Greg Reynolds
Julia wrote:
> Why do so many people think they are displaying their 'wit' by ganging
> up against Richard Kennedy? They are displaying no more than a
> despicable 'pack instinct' (I won't name the animal, but 'rodent' comes
> to mind) to attack a lone individual.
I was singlehandedly fighting for truth, really. There is no plan.
> Richard Kennedy is a talented writer: I envy him his skill. He is as
> entitled to his opinions, and to state them on HLAS, as anyone else.
The pack, too?
> As
> for his most recent denigrators, I don't recognise Clark but I had long
> since concluded Richard Nathan is a mere boor since he is so abusive of
> _everyone_ he disagrees with, invariably calling them 'fool', which is
> not my idea of a conclusive agrument.
I typify Kennedy's posts as groundless, like tumbleweed. He is positionless
and can offer no explanation for his suspicion of William Shakespeare. He
hasn't an opinion, he writes like a hobo keeping a diary about those Strats
and how they are under his siege and he's winning. He is asking for
response, isn't he? I tell him the truth, he is (what would you
say--insincere? unknowing?). He does not state, he asks or foments, then he
ignores the cleanest answers he could get anywhere, then he misquotes,
misattributes, and repeats. That's talent, yes, but unchallenged it has the
danger of being read by someone even (more unknowing). I guarantee you he
knew nothing of woolsacks before he found himself bailing. So he's riding it
out and its not about woolsacks or learning, its about Strats. I guess he
thinks no one wrote the works.
So I am working on the side of good, not evil. And he will be challenged by
all of us who are idiotic enough to not ignore him.
Sorry I have to go, there's a meeting of the idiot callers, and I don't want
to be late--they might talk about me or call me names.
Greg Reynolds
>
>
> Julia Howard.
>
> >, Clark <cjh...@home.com> doth say:
> --
> Julia
Julia
up against Richard Kennedy? They are displaying no more than a
despicable 'pack instinct' (I won't name the animal, but 'rodent' comes
to mind) to attack a lone individual.
Richard Kennedy is a talented writer: I envy him his skill. He is as
entitled to his opinions, and to state them on HLAS, as anyone else. As
for his most recent denigrators, I don't recognise Clark but I had long
since concluded Richard Nathan is a mere boor since he is so abusive of
_everyone_ he disagrees with, invariably calling them 'fool', which is
not my idea of a conclusive agrument.
Julia Howard.
Richard Nathan
>Why do so many people think they are displaying their 'wit' by ganging
>up against Richard Kennedy? They are displaying no more than a
>despicable 'pack instinct' (I won't name the animal, but 'rodent' comes
>to mind) to attack a lone individual.
>
In one of Richard Kennedy's earliest posts to me, he wrote a little story
about how I supposedly wet my diapers in terror of him.
He deserves nothing but contempt.
He has proven himself to be a liar and an idiot, time and time again.
Although I've disagreed strongly with your posts in the past, you've
always acted like a lady to me, so I have tried to avoid insulting you.
However, I must admit I don't think much of your logic.
To criticize others for calling names, and then to call them rodents
doesn't speak very well for you.
>Richard Kennedy is a talented writer: I envy him his skill. He is as
>entitled to his opinions, and to state them on HLAS, as anyone else. As
>for his most recent denigrators, I don't recognise Clark but I had long
>since concluded Richard Nathan is a mere boor since he is so abusive of
>_everyone_ he disagrees with, invariably calling them 'fool', which is
>not my idea of a conclusive agrument.
>
So it's not okay for me to call others names, but it is okay for you to
call me a "meer boor."
Okay, then, I guess it is open season on you.
Caius Marcius
<Richard...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>Julia <Ju...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Why do so many people think they are displaying their 'wit' by
ganging
>>up against Richard Kennedy? They are displaying no more than a
>>despicable 'pack instinct' (I won't name the animal, but 'rodent'
comes
>>to mind) to attack a lone individual.
>>
>
>In one of Richard Kennedy's earliest posts to me, he wrote a little
story
>about how I supposedly wet my diapers in terror of him.
>
>He deserves nothing but contempt.
>
>He has proven himself to be a liar and an idiot, time and time again.
>
>Although I've disagreed strongly with your posts in the past, you've
>always acted like a lady to me, so I have tried to avoid insulting
you.
Professionally, I work with psychotic children.
One of my charges - a 15-year-old girl who stands about 5' 10" and
tips the scales at 200 lbs plus - is histrionic to the max, is a
confirmed collector of grievances (during therapy, she recites every
rude remark every other child in our facility has made about her since
her arrival in June 1998); when she is feeling depressed or upset, she
always places herself in full view, so that no one can possibly mistake
how unhappy she is.
She also becomes incredibly violent when she is upset, but afterwards
claims to have no memory of what transpired. She affects the utmost
astonishment when she is informed that she has kicked, punched, bitten,
and otherwise inflicted severe injury upon the adult staff (including
myself).
She is also occasionally verbally suicidal, threatening to remove
herself from the presence of the living, who are not worthy to share
space with her.
Does she remind me of Richard Kennedy? Well, this girl comes from a
background of severe physical and sexual abuse, so she has legitimate
reasons for acting as she does. I also have some hope that this girl
can be rehabiltated.
As for Kennedy - well, anyone who loves Tchaikovsky can't be all bad...
- CMC
Clark
>Why do so many people think they are displaying their 'wit' by ganging
>up against Richard Kennedy? They are displaying no more than a
>despicable 'pack instinct' (I won't name the animal, but 'rodent' comes
>to mind) to attack a lone individual.
Alas, poor Kennedy, to be so abused. His only crime being that he is an
unctuous villain, with no original thoughts of his own, and with an annoying
habit of ignoring or lying about others' posts. For instance, in his post
below, he states that Richard and I were ranting about his posts, but
offered none of our own in refutation--ignoring (or lying about) the fact
that I had posted a list of 4 plays generally agreed to have been written by
Shakespeare prior to 1593, which directly refuted his outrageous claim that
Stratfordians believed that 12 or more plays had been written by then.
Being caught in a lie, he responds by flaming us in his usual juvenile
style. I see little to envy in that.
- Clark
>Richard Kennedy is a talented writer: I envy him his skill. He is as
>entitled to his opinions, and to state them on HLAS, as anyone else. As
>for his most recent denigrators, I don't recognise Clark but I had long
>since concluded Richard Nathan is a mere boor since he is so abusive of
>_everyone_ he disagrees with, invariably calling them 'fool', which is
>not my idea of a conclusive agrument.
>
John W Kennedy
>
> Certainly the H6 series has little of the greatness of
> language that would come later, but I wonder if the series' low favor
> is due to any leftish university profs taking offense at the sneers
> that WS cocks at socialism in 2H6?
>
> CADE I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;
> all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
> apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree
> like brothers and worship me their lord.
>
> And so on in that fantastical vein.
In the first place, your notion that university professors are
honor-bound to be "leftish" is extremely parochial; any such bias, if it
exists at all, is no older than the post-WWI generation. In the second
place, any number of other Shakespeare plays have anti-leveling
passages.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Graymalkin
wrote:
>Why do so many people think they are displaying their 'wit' by ganging
>up against Richard Kennedy? They are displaying no more than a
>despicable 'pack instinct' (I won't name the animal, but 'rodent' comes
>to mind) to attack a lone individual.
>
Julia, I don't know whether you count me as one of these "rodents",
but I have contributed to this thread. I haven't ganged up on Kennedy
with anybody, but I have tried to get him to substantiate one small
claim, just to see if I could. Good sense tells me not to waste my
time, but but sometimes exasperation gets the upper hand.
>Richard Kennedy is a talented writer: I envy him his skill. He is as
>entitled to his opinions, and to state them on HLAS, as anyone else.
Nobody said he wasn't entitled to his opinions, but Kennedy presents
unsupported assertions as facts, and when anyone asks for chapter and
verse, even on the smallest matters like this woolsack, he ignores the
question, or posts some more unsupported assertions. This is annoying,
and I think he intends to annoy rather than enlighten.
>As
>for his most recent denigrators, I don't recognise Clark but I had long
>since concluded Richard Nathan is a mere boor since he is so abusive of
>_everyone_ he disagrees with, invariably calling them 'fool', which is
>not my idea of a conclusive agrument.
Is "fool" worse than "rodent"? Nathan pays Kennedy the compliment of
taking his postings seriously enough to reply to them at length and in
detail, only to have his points ignored. Of course name-calling is
regrettable, but sometimes it's understandable.
I haven't called anyone names (that I can remember) but I will say
that I don't think Kennedy argues in good faith, and that I'm offended
by his hostility to WS of Stratford, which seems to be based on spite
and snobbery. At least other anti-Stratfordians have an alternative
candidate to propose.
I don't think Kennedy really needs defending, you know, no matter how
much time people spend writing informed and detailed replies to his
posts, it's just water off a duck's back. In fact, it looks to me as
though he's posting to elicit the maximum number of insults, so that
he can post lists of them. Better to be insulted than ignored,
perhaps?
--
Jo
Julia
>
>Julia wrote:
>
>> Why do so many people think they are displaying their 'wit' by ganging
>> up against Richard Kennedy? They are displaying no more than a
>> despicable 'pack instinct' (I won't name the animal, but 'rodent' comes
>> to mind) to attack a lone individual.
>
'Singlehandedly'? You think so? Count the posts. Count the number of
people attacking one man: attacking him, not on the grounds that his
_argument_ is faulty but that his _mind_ is faulty.
>
>> Richard Kennedy is a talented writer: I envy him his skill. He is as
>> entitled to his opinions, and to state them on HLAS, as anyone else.
>
>The pack, too?
Yes, the pack too is entitled to express its opinions about anyone
else's _ideas_, but not to express them in terms of personal abuse.
Mea culpa! I've fallen at the first hurdle. I called Richard Nathan a
boor. I think I should have said his manners are boorish, but that
doesn't help my point, which is that we should have argument without
personal invective, does it?
>
>> As
>> for his most recent denigrators, I don't recognise Clark but I had long
>> since concluded Richard Nathan is a mere boor since he is so abusive of
>> _everyone_ he disagrees with, invariably calling them 'fool', which is
>> not my idea of a conclusive agrument.
>
>I typify Kennedy's posts as groundless, like tumbleweed. He is positionless
>and can offer no explanation for his suspicion of William Shakespeare. He
>hasn't an opinion, he writes like a hobo keeping a diary about those Strats
>and how they are under his siege and he's winning. He is asking for
>response, isn't he? I tell him the truth, he is (what would you
>say--insincere? unknowing?). He does not state, he asks or foments, then he
>ignores the cleanest answers he could get anywhere, then he misquotes,
>misattributes, and repeats. That's talent, yes, but unchallenged it has the
>danger of being read by someone even (more unknowing). I guarantee you he
>knew nothing of woolsacks before he found himself bailing. So he's riding it
>out and its not about woolsacks or learning, its about Strats. I guess he
>thinks no one wrote the works.
>
>So I am working on the side of good, not evil.
To be honest Greg, I didn't think of you as part of the pack trying to
hound Richard Kennedy off HLAS. I don't read the authorship threads
regularly since they're unbearably repetitive and sometimes abusive.
That makes them both boring and unpleasant to plough through, so, most
of the time, I don't. I just dip in occasionally to see if there are
any new ideas. I don't know how long Mr Clark has been posting but when
I read
>> >, Clark <cjh...@home.com> doth say:
>> >The number of things I can agree with in RJ Kennedy's post:
>> >
>> >RJ Kennedy's comparison with himself as a mouse;
>> >RJ Kennedy's ability to pack mud;
>> >RJ Kennedy's inability to make a point with a pencil sharpener; and
>> >RJ Kennedy is a FLAMING fool.
>> >
>> >That makes four (4) by my count.
>> >
>> >- Clark
I felt it was just _too_ much and made my comments.
>And he will be challenged by
>all of us who are idiotic enough to not ignore him.
I hope you mean that his ideas or opinions will be challenged.
BTW, one aspect of the authorship argument that really interests me is
the Monument, but as it happens I don't agree with Richard that
Dugdale's sketch must show a merchant clutching a sack of wool. That's
what it looks like but I've never seen a monument remotely like that: it
would not be in keeping with monuments of the Elizabethan period.
>
>Sorry I have to go, there's a meeting of the idiot callers, and I don't want
>to be late--they might talk about me or call me names.
>Greg Reynolds
>
--
Julia
Julia
>Julia <Ju...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Why do so many people think they are displaying their 'wit' by ganging
>>up against Richard Kennedy? They are displaying no more than a
>>despicable 'pack instinct' (I won't name the animal, but 'rodent' comes
>>to mind) to attack a lone individual.
>>
>
>about how I supposedly wet my diapers in terror of him.
Yes, I remember that, and the other 'cowboy' articles. At the time I
was shocked, then amused. But I could also see real writing skill. I
quite understand your animosity but am wearied by the inaccuracy of your
language, and it's repitition. If you disagree with anyone - and you
do, frequently - they instantly become 'idiots'. You're not really
trying, merely repeating yourself over and over. However, my main
objection was to the fact that so many people seem to have joined you,
and think they are being clever. Many attacking one is an ugly image.
>
>He deserves nothing but contempt.
>
>He has proven himself to be a liar and an idiot, time and time again.
I doubt if he's a liar and I _know_ he's not an idiot. Since we know
each other only through our words, Richard, I think you should try to be
more precise.
>
>Although I've disagreed strongly with your posts in the past, you've
>always acted like a lady to me, so I have tried to avoid insulting you.
>
>However, I must admit I don't think much of your logic.
>
I agree. I've seen the error of my ways :-) See the post I've just
written to Greg on this thread. I'm sorry I too descended to personal
abuse.
>To criticize others for calling names, and then to call them rodents
>doesn't speak very well for you.
>
I didn't call them rodents. I compared their behavior with that of
rodents. There _is_ a difference.
>
>>Richard Kennedy is a talented writer: I envy him his skill. He is as
>>entitled to his opinions, and to state them on HLAS, as anyone else. As
>>for his most recent denigrators, I don't recognise Clark but I had long
>>since concluded Richard Nathan is a mere boor since he is so abusive of
>>_everyone_ he disagrees with, invariably calling them 'fool', which is
>>not my idea of a conclusive agrument.
>>
>So it's not okay for me to call others names, but it is okay for you to
>call me a "meer boor."
No, it's not OK and in the cold light of day I'm sorry I did. It means
I descended to your level and I regret that. I'm also sorry it has come
to this, that we're declared enemies. You once wrote an article about
your father and King Lear and, reading it, I felt for the first time
that I could like you. You were soon back to calling all and sundry
'idiot' and the feeling passed.
>
>Okay, then, I guess it is open season on you.
--
Julia
Julia
>>>Why do so many people think they are displaying their 'wit' by
>ganging
>>>up against Richard Kennedy? They are displaying no more than a
>>>despicable 'pack instinct' (I won't name the animal, but 'rodent'
>comes
>>>to mind) to attack a lone individual.
>>>
>>
>>In one of Richard Kennedy's earliest posts to me, he wrote a little
>story
>>about how I supposedly wet my diapers in terror of him.
>>
>>He deserves nothing but contempt.
>>
>>He has proven himself to be a liar and an idiot, time and time again.
>>
>>Although I've disagreed strongly with your posts in the past, you've
>>always acted like a lady to me, so I have tried to avoid insulting
>you.
>
>Professionally, I work with psychotic children.
Aa Ha! So, our most enigmatic member draws aside the veil just a
little! A psychaitrist/psychologist? I had thought you were a teacher
of some sort :-)
>
>One of my charges - a 15-year-old girl who stands about 5' 10" and
>tips the scales at 200 lbs plus - is histrionic to the max, is a
>confirmed collector of grievances (during therapy, she recites every
>rude remark every other child in our facility has made about her since
>her arrival in June 1998); when she is feeling depressed or upset, she
>always places herself in full view, so that no one can possibly mistake
>how unhappy she is.
>
>She also becomes incredibly violent when she is upset, but afterwards
>claims to have no memory of what transpired. She affects the utmost
>astonishment when she is informed that she has kicked, punched, bitten,
>and otherwise inflicted severe injury upon the adult staff (including
>myself).
>
This is _so_ unlike 'The Seventh Veil'. Did you see that film? Ann
Todd, James Mason - and Herbert Lom as the psychaitrist with a Vienese
accent. (Do you have a Vienese accent, Caius? Can you get by without
it? :-) ) I loved that film for it's piano music, especially the Grieg
concerto - and I was sussepitable to attractive bullies, of which James
Mason was ever the best.
>She is also occasionally verbally suicidal, threatening to remove
>herself from the presence of the living, who are not worthy to share
>space with her.
>
>Does she remind me of Richard Kennedy? Well, this girl comes from a
>background of severe physical and sexual abuse, so she has legitimate
>reasons for acting as she does. I also have some hope that this girl
>can be rehabiltated.
>
>As for Kennedy - well, anyone who loves Tchaikovsky can't be all bad...
Haven't you admired his writing? Not the subject matter but the style,
his way with words.
>
> - CMC
--
Julia
Richard Nathan
>Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net> doth say:
>>Julia <Ju...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JULIA: >>>Why do so many people think they are displaying their 'wit' by
ganging
>>>up against Richard Kennedy? They are displaying no more than a
>>>despicable 'pack instinct' (I won't name the animal, but 'rodent' comes
>>>to mind) to attack a lone individual.
>>>
>>
RICHARD: >>In one of Richard Kennedy's earliest posts to me, he wrote a
little story
>>about how I supposedly wet my diapers in terror of him.
>
JULIA: >Yes, I remember that, and the other 'cowboy' articles. At the
time I
>was shocked, then amused. But I could also see real writing skill.
RICHARD: We have vastly different views of Richard Kennedy's writing
ability. I find his style extremely pompous and showy.
JULIA: >I quite understand your animosity but am wearied by the
inaccuracy of your
>language, and it's repitition.
RICHARD: I don't understand what you mean by "inaccuracy of your
language." Are you complaining about my logic, or my arguments?
JULIA: > If you disagree with anyone - and you
>do, frequently - they instantly become 'idiots'.
RICHARD: That simply isn't true. I don't call someone an "idiot" until
they make an idiotic argument.
Streitz has argued that Oxford was both Queen Elizabeth's son and her
lover who was raped by her. Is that not idiotic.
Baker has argued that "KING LEAR" is a comedy, because in the version
published in the first folio Cordelia is alive at the end. He has also
argued that the fact that there are 36 plays in the first folio PROVES
that they can be divided into 12 romances, 12 tragedies, and 12 comedies,
although he says he has no interest in actually showing this can be done.
Can you honestly say these veiws are not idiotic?
JULIA: > trying, merely repeating yourself over and over.
RICHARD: You are defending Richard Kennedy, and then you ACCUSE ME OF
REPEATING MYSELF????? Haven't you noticed that Kennedy posts the same old
thing, time and time again, in virtually the same words, proclaiming no
one has answered him, when he has received dozens of answers!!!
I acknowledge I engage in verbal abuse, but if you think that is ALL I
DO, you haven't been reading my posts. I believe I present rational
agruments more than I present insults. Have you been reading my posts, or
only Richard Kennedy's reporting of them. Richard Kennedy always reports
the insults, but almost never mentions my arguments.
JULIA: > However, my main
>objection was to the fact that so many people seem to have joined you,
>and think they are being clever. Many attacking one is an ugly image.
>>
RICHARD: Are you saying you wouldn't mind so much if we attacked Richard
Kennedy if we DIDN'T think we were being clever? My main goal, and I
think the main goal of everyone who attacks Richard Kennedy, is to defend
William Shakespeare from those, including yourself, who insult the
greatest English playwright of all time.
RICHARD: >>He deserves nothing but contempt.
>>
>>He has proven himself to be a liar and an idiot, time and time again.
>
>
JULIA: > I doubt if he's a liar
RICHARD: Just a few weeks ago, he denied that he had ever posted that he
was going to leave this post for a year. When shown the evidence, he
admitted he was wrong. Did he intentionally lie, or did he forget what he
posted on January 1. That seems to be evidence that he is either a liar
or an idiot. You choose.
Also, I recenly noted that if the engraving shown in Dugdale was supposed
to be a sack (which I didn't believe), it was too small to be a wool sack.
Kennedy claimed that Stratfordians were now agreeing that the engraving
was a sack, and that now they were only arguing about what size it was.
THAT IS DISHONESTY, PURE AND SIMPLE.
JULIA: > and I _know_ he's not an idiot.
RICHARD: That seems to be the minority opinion around here.
JULIA: > Since we know
>each other only through our words, Richard, I think you should try to be
>more precise.
>>
RICHARD: >>Although I've disagreed strongly with your posts in the past,
you've
>>always acted like a lady to me, so I have tried to avoid insulting you.
>>
>>However, I must admit I don't think much of your logic.
>>
JULIA: >I agree. I've seen the error of my ways :-) See the post I've
just
>written to Greg on this thread. I'm sorry I too descended to personal
>abuse.
>
RICHARD: >>To criticize others for calling names, and then to call them
rodents
>>doesn't speak very well for you.
>>
JULIA: >I didn't call them rodents. I compared their behavior with that
of
>rodents. There _is_ a difference.
>>
RICHARD: But not much of a difference.
JULIA: >>>Richard Kennedy is a talented writer: I envy him his skill.
He is as
>>>entitled to his opinions, and to state them on HLAS, as anyone else. >>>As
>>>for his most recent denigrators, I don't recognise Clark but I had long
>>>since concluded Richard Nathan is a mere boor since he is so abusive of
>>>_everyone_ he disagrees with, invariably calling them 'fool', which is
>>>not my idea of a conclusive agrument.
>>>
RICHARD: >>So it's not okay for me to call others names, but it is okay
for you to
>>call me a "meer boor."
>
JULIA: >No, it's not OK and in the cold light of day I'm sorry I did. It
means
>I descended to your level and I regret that. I'm also sorry it has come
>to this, that we're declared enemies. You once wrote an article about
>your father and King Lear and, reading it, I felt for the first time
>that I could like you. You were soon back to calling all and sundry
>'idiot' and the feeling passed.
>>
RICHARD: And since I once suffered from clinical depression, I've always
appreciated the things you've written about Hamlet. But I still get very
angry with you when you insult the man from Stratford, who was a far
better writer than Richard Kennedy could ever ben.
RICHARD>>Okay, then, I guess it is open season on you.
RICHARD: Since you've apologized for calling me a "mere boor" I hope I
will remember to refrain from attacking you personnally. But I get very
angry at people who attack my favorite author, with no real evidence to
support them.
>--
>Julia
Richard Nathan
abused.
He thinks his own posts, for the most part, are not insulting or abusive
because they don't contain names such as "idiot" or "moron."
But most of his posts ARE insulting in that they treat the ideas of the
Stratfordians as completely outmoded, unsupported by any evidence
whatsoever, soon to be consigned to the dust heap of history - in short,
irrational.
It may be argued that there is a difference between calling our ideas
irrational and ourselves irrational - but the difference is slight.
It's true that the Stratfordians feel the same way about the ideas of the
anti-Stratfordians, but we don't, as a rule, try to take the moral high
ground by claiming that we never insult anyone, while being the victims of
abuse.
There is one other point about Kennedy that REALLY TICKS ME OFF. I know
I've brought this up before - but I think it is important enough to bring
up again.
I believe everyone else (excepting only Richard Kennedy) who engages in
the authorship debate has SOMEONE who they think wrote the plays.
Everyone else is willing to stand up for SOMEONE as the author.
Only Richard Kennedy is unwilling to argue for someone.
I suspect he knows there is no candidate for whom there is greater
evidence than William Shakespeare.
Richard Kennedy is unwilling or unable to argue for anyone.
He is only willing to insult the man from Stratford.
Richard Nathan
I certainly didn't mean to imply that disagreeing with someone is the same
as insulting them.
If someone says to me, "I see your point, but I think that...." or
expresses themselves in some other way that indicates my ideas are not
completely outside the realm of logic, then that is not insulting to me.
But Kennedy repeatedly puts up posts that indicates the Stratfordian
position is utter nonsense that is completely contrary to all known facts
about Shakespeare.
That is insulting to me because the clear implication is that only an
idiot could possibly believe that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.
I'm sure Kennedy believes the Stratfordian postion is contrary to history
and logic - just as I believe Richard Kennedy is an idiot.
Both postions are insulting to the other side.
KQKnave
<Richard...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>RICHARD: Just a few weeks ago, he denied that he had ever posted that he
>was going to leave this post for a year. When shown the evidence, he
>admitted he was wrong. Did he intentionally lie, or did he forget what he
>posted on January 1. That seems to be evidence that he is either a liar
>or an idiot. You choose.
>
Not only that, it's not even the first time he has said he was leaving,
then came back and denied he said he was leaving. It's the same
bull over and over, and that's why he's called an idiot.
Jim
Richard J Kennedy
Nathan says he's REALLY TICKED OFF because I generally stand
aloof from chosing a candidate to be Shakespeare. But as I
understand the situation, the burden of proof is on Nathan and
others to prove that the man from Stratford wrote the poems
and plays. I believe that's fair and quite proper. He has
taken a position and I ask him to prove it. I've got nothing
to prove.
To make a silly example, it's as if Nathan believed the moon
was made of cheese, and I just don't know, but I'd be happy
to hear what proof he has for his cheese theory. That's
all. I'm extremely skeptical about moon cheese and the
Stratford man, and I want Nathan to convince me otherwise.
--
Richard Nathan
Richard Kennedy says it is on me?
For 400 years people have been saying the works were
written by William Shakespeare.
Logic would seem to indicate the burden of proof
would be on people who oppose the man from Stratford
to prove someone else wrote the works.
But Richard Kennedy is unaquainted with logic.
rken...@OregonVOS.net (Richard J Kennedy) wrote:
>
>Nathan says he's REALLY TICKED OFF because I generally stand
>aloof from chosing a candidate to be Shakespeare. But as I
>understand the situation, the burden of proof is on Nathan and
>others to prove that the man from Stratford wrote the poems
>and plays. I believe that's fair and quite proper.
What you believe is of little interest to me, unless you have actual
arguments to back it up.
> He has
>taken a position and I ask him to prove it. I've got nothing
>to prove.
>
If you have nothing to prove, why don't you go away.
>To make a silly example, it's as if Nathan believed the moon
>was made of cheese, and I just don't know, but I'd be happy
>to hear what proof he has for his cheese theory.
But that's a false analogy. You don't claim not to know. You claim to
know the man from Stratford did not write the works.
>That's
>all. I'm extremely skeptical about moon cheese and the
>Stratford man, and I want Nathan to convince me otherwise.
>
>--
>
I'm not interested in convincing you of anything. It's like the old
saying about teaching the pig to sing. It's a waste of time, and it
annoys the pig.
David L. Webb
<J...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Why do so many people think they are displaying their 'wit' by ganging
> up against Richard Kennedy?
I don't know whom you have in mind, so I can't answer for the "many
people". I can say that any irritation with Mr. Kennedy that I've
expressed has arisen chiefly from Mr. Kennedy's hopeless propensity for
misquotations and misattributions. He's misquoted me, or confused me with
some other poster, or attributed to me opinions that I've never even held,
much less expressed in this forum, numerous times. He's done the same
thing *far* more often to other participants (I generally don't read his
posts, so I've had comparatively few interactions with him), and his rare
apologies for such lapses are at best grudging.
I might add that I find his mind-numbing predilection for posting the
same old stuff over and over both pointless and annoying, but not nearly so
much so as the misquotations. He has asked the *same* questions dozens of
times, and he has been answered fully and in great detail by many people,
notably Dave Kathman. If Mr. Kennedy questions Mr. Kathman's evidence or
its interpretation, let him state precisely where his objections lie, and
let him show where Mr. Kathman has erred. However, Mr. Kennedy does
nothing of the kind -- rather, he raises the same questions again and
again, together with tiresome, bombastic nonsense about how Mr. Kathman
"has no answer" to his queries, this despite the fact that Mr. Kathman has
reponded to the *very same* questions numerous times, generally at
intervals of every few months.
What I find particularly galling, however, is Mr. Kennedy's willingness
to call Mr. Kathman and others intellectually dishonest. To me, this is a
far worse breach of simple decency than calling someone an idiot. a fool,
or any of the other pejorative names Mr. Kennedy habitually claims to have
been called, in his absurd, almost daily self-pitying posts. As far as I
know, Mr. Kennedy has never exhibited a *single* shred of evidence of Mr.
Kathman's dishonesty. On one of the many occasions I can recall of his
repetition of this apparently baseless slander, Mr. Kennedy objected that
Mr. Kathman had suppressed mention of various personages in a diary, yet
Mr. Kathman's lengthy reply made it clear that Mr. Kennedy was confusing
some individuals with others of the same name. I may have missed the post,
but I never even saw Mr. Kennedy acknowledge that he was factually in
error, let alone that he was way out of line in slandering Mr. Kathman's
honesty.
Does this answer your question concerning why I have little remaining
patience for Mr. Kennedy's nonsense? If he wishes to post his bizarre
pseudo-scholarship, fine -- he has every right to do so; however, he should
not pretend that others cannot answer his points, nor should he baselessly
slander his interlocutors with accusations of willful dishonesty.
> They are displaying no more than a
> despicable 'pack instinct' (I won't name the animal, but 'rodent' comes
> to mind) to attack a lone individual.
Well, I don't join packs of any kind; if I'm critical of Mr. Kennedy, it
is for the reasons above. Forther, I like to avoid name-calling, but since
you brought up the term "rodent" (and I suspect that you have a particular
type in mind), let me inquire what term you would use for someone who
accuses his interlocutors of intellectual dishonesty, yet never directly
confronts his interlocutors' very substantive rejoinders nor apologizes for
the aspersions he casts upon their honesty, but skulks away instead?
> Richard Kennedy is a talented writer: I envy him his skill.
I have never seen any evidence of this, but I'm quite prepared to
believe that it may be true; as I said, Kennedy is in my filter file, so I
rarely see his posts except when they're quoted in followups. However,
most criticism I've seen of Mr. Kennedy does not focus upon the grace (or
lack thereof) of his prose.
> He is as
> entitled to his opinions, and to state them on HLAS, as anyone else.
Agreed. However, I think that you would agree that anyone expressing an
opinion that cannot be backed up by solid argument risks being challenged;
this is especially true if his opinion consists of airily asserting --
repeatedly -- that nobody can answer his posts, then blithely disregarding
all the answers.
> As
> for his most recent denigrators, I don't recognise Clark but I had long
> since concluded Richard Nathan is a mere boor since he is so abusive of
> _everyone_ he disagrees with, invariably calling them 'fool', which is
> not my idea of a conclusive agrument.
I agree that personal abuse is not a very persuasive argument, and I
formerly regarded Mr. Nathan's names as unnecessarily rude. However, after
seeing, on numerous occasions, how Mr. Kennedy misquotes his interlocutors
and misrepresents their opinions, I'm beginning to feel some sympathy for
Mr. Nathan's exasperation, if not for his sometimes unfortunate choice of
words.
David Webb
P. A. Stonnell
behind in my reading and it is taking me time to get caught up.
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 05:32:53 -0400, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
wrote:
>Nigel Davies wrote:
>
>> The [Dugdale] picture does not depict a wool sack. The tassles are there.
>
> Those are knotted corners, not tassels. Dugdale does not show any
>decorative piping around the seam of the pillow/sack.
Writing as someone who has made tassels and pillows and as someone who
has seen the engraving. Those are tassels. And it sure looks like a
pillow to me. A pillow can have tassels on the corners and no piping;
piping and no tassels or both tassels and piping. Each element it
separte from the others and it is part of the creative process as
which are used for a particular project.
> The fingers were undoubtedly broken off by later "restorers" in order
>to make it appear as if he were holding a pen.
>
Proof?
Even now, the church has to watch out for people trying to take the
pen. The damage could be legit.
P. Stonnell
volker multhopp
> > Those are knotted corners, not tassels. Dugdale does not show any
> >decorative piping around the seam of the pillow/sack.
> Writing as someone who has made tassels and pillows and as someone who
> has seen the engraving. Those are tassels. And it sure looks like a
> pillow to me. A pillow can have tassels on the corners and no piping;
> piping and no tassels or both tassels and piping. Each element it
> separte from the others and it is part of the creative process as
> which are used for a particular project.
And sacks can have knotted corners. When did the sack/pillow first
appear to have piping around the seam? Certainly not before the mid
18th c.
> > The fingers were undoubtedly broken off by later "restorers" in order
> >to make it appear as if he were holding a pen.
> >
> Proof?
That the monument was depicted for a century without a pen and no one
saw fit to correct the depiction.
> Even now, the church has to watch out for people trying to take the
> pen. The damage could be legit.
People might take the pen, but not the paper-- if people stole that,
they'd only have chunks of stone.
--Volker
Clark
volker multhopp wrote
> And sacks can have knotted corners. When did the sack/pillow first
>appear to have piping around the seam? Certainly not before the mid
>18th c.
Volker, I thought we almost had you convinced on the sack/pillow issue.
Have you been backsliding on us?
- Clark
volker multhopp
Not at all. My previous point was: even *if* the "sack" had always
been a pillow, that still wouldn't put pen and paper in his hands until
the 18th c.
--Volker
Clark
>> Have you been backsliding on us?
>
> Not at all. My previous point was: even *if* the "sack" had always
>been a pillow, that still wouldn't put pen and paper in his hands until
>the 18th c.
Ah. I admit I had a bit of trouble parsing your earlier statement that it
was "possible or highly possible" that the object in the Dugdale sketch was
meant to be a cushion. I must have misunderstood you.
- Clark