Gl'Ingannati and Twelfth Night
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> The playwright had certainly read the
> Italian 'original' "Gl'Ingannati" (in Italian).
Good. So, you agree he knew it reasonably well. (I see
no reason to believe he had to have read it in the original
Latin, but don't want to argue that point here.)
> And he used it as a very rough basis for
> his play.
You said, in response to my claim that he used "the (or a)
plot of GI'Ingannati, a play from the 1530s," that there is
"scarcely any similarity" (between Twelfth Night and the
Italian play. Do you still maintain this?
> BUT every significant change in
> the plot and the characters of Gl'Ingannati
> was for the purpose of making it descriptive
> (or more a caricature) of Elizabeth's court
> around 1578. In 12th Night, the Viola
> character no longer has a living father.
> Now, and unlike every other never-married
> European woman of the day, she is rich
> and independent, and can decide herself
> who she will marry or not marry. Viola
> controls her uncle -- not the other way
> around.
>
> In Gl'Ingannati, 'Viola' is a young girl
> who falls in love with a young 'Orsino'
> who returns that love. She is then forced
> to leave with her father, returning (years?)
> later to find 'Orsino' has forgotten her.
> She is imprisoned in a convent, but escapes
> and disguises herself as a man. Later her
> father tries to marry her off to a rich senex.
Here's how I described the the main plot of Gl'Ingannati in an earlier
post:
"Lelia, a woman in love with Flamminio, who has rejected her,
disguises herself as a boy,
calling herself Fabio, and enters Flamminio's employ as a page.
"Flamminio is in love with Isabello, who rejects him. Lelia woos
Isabella for Flamminio.
"Later, Fabrizio, Lelia's twin brother, freed from captivity in a
foreign country, returns and
is mistaken for Fabio. This leads to amusing scenes of mistaken
identity. In the end,
Fabrizio marries Isabella, and Flamminio marries Lelia. Parents do no
marriage arranging
(as far as I can tell--Bullough has a translation of the play which I
hope to read, but
haven't yet)."
The Isabella character is the most important one for our argument on
the source of Olivia. Both Isabella and Olivia are woed by nobles
they reject. Both fall for a girl disguised as a man who woes them in
behalf of the rejected noble. Both marry the male twin of the
disguised girl.
These features are by far the most important features for the plot of
Twelfth Night. My argument, then, is that Olivia is primarily based
on Isabella. That being the case, there is no need to suppose that
Elizabeth was in any way a source for her. All the things Oliva and
Elizabeth have in common, ALL such romantic comedy female leads have
in common--except being head of a noble household. This is something
Shakespeare could easily have given Olivia with no reference to
Elizabeth to simplify the plot--to delete a father for Olivia who
would have made a complicated plot too complicated.
Conclusion: although it is certainly possible that Shakespeare
knowingly gave Olivia something of Elizabeth, your argument that she
was based in any consequential way on the queen is weak. (And I have
provided you with a reasonable argument against the notion. Can you
at least admit that?)
> The plot of Gl'Ingannati is more akin to
> that of the Comedy of Errors
>
> Tell us of ONE way in which the poet
> modified (or retained) aspects of
> Gl'Ingannati, which would have been
> contrary to the purpose I say he had --
> that of fitting it to the English court
> of the late 1570s.
>
> Paul.
I'll respond to the above after you respond to my previous arguments.
Before we deal with how important the modifications are, we have to
agree on what he did not modify--which, for me, is everything that's
important in the Gl'Ingannati Leli, et al, plot.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>> The playwright had certainly read the
>> Italian 'original' "Gl'Ingannati" (in Italian).
>
> Good. So, you agree he knew it reasonably well. (I
> see no reason to believe he had to have read it in the
> original Latin, but don't want to argue that point
> here.)
The original was Italian, running to
eight editions by 1585. Apparently it
was performed at Cambridge University
in Latin in 1595.
>> And he used it as a very rough basis for
>> his play.
>
> You said, in response to my claim that he used "the (or
> a) plot of GI'Ingannati, a play from the 1530s," that
> there is "scarcely any similarity" (between Twelfth
> Night and the Italian play. Do you still maintain
> this?
No. His use of it is clear.
They could be called 'important features'
(if you like) but they are FAR from being
'the most important features'. Ask most
people what they remember of 12th Night
and they'll refer to Malvolio -- who is
not in the Italian play in any form.
> My argument, then, is
> that Olivia is primarily based on Isabella.
You have not considered the character of
Isabella at all. See any commentary on
the play, such as:
http://www.io.com/~jlockett/Grist/English/12thnightsources.html
" . . . The most notable differences between
these earlier versions of the tale and Shake-
speare's lie, obviously, in the Viola character . ."
> That being the case,
It isn't.
> there is no need to suppose that
> Elizabeth was in any way a source for her. All the things
> Oliva and Elizabeth have in common, ALL such romantic
> comedy female leads have in common--except being head of a
> noble household.
Eh? Are all romantic leads identical?
You seem to think of them all as cardboard
cut-outs.
> This is something Shakespeare could
> easily have given Olivia with no reference to Elizabeth to
> simplify the plot--to delete a father for Olivia who would
> have made a complicated plot too complicated.
Why not make her a widow? That removes the
need for a father, and explains her rich
and independent state. That's exactly how
John Manningham is recorded as seeing her.
(Even if that record was forged, it's still
reasonable for a 'loose' interpretation of
the play when seen by someone of the time.)
> Conclusion: although it is certainly possible that
> Shakespeare knowingly gave Olivia something of
> Elizabeth, your argument that she was based in any
> consequential way on the queen is weak. (And I have
> provided you with a reasonable argument against the
> notion. Can you at least admit that?)
No. To provide 'a reasonable argument
against' a theory, you have to consider
what it says. A reasonable argument
against (say) the theory that continents
move cannot just ignore the evidence in
the theory.
>> Tell us of ONE way in which the poet
>> modified (or retained) aspects of
>> Gl'Ingannati, which would have been
>> contrary to the purpose I say he had --
>> that of fitting it to the English court
>> of the late 1570s.
>
> I'll respond to the above after you respond to my
> previous arguments.
You're just looking for some excuse
to duck. Your 'arguments' were not
'previous' to my question.
> Before we deal with how
> important the modifications are,
I did NOT ask you to consider their
'importance' (or otherwise) -- what-
ever that might mean (and I dread to
think). Were there modifications?
If so, what were they?
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> The playwright had certainly read the
> >> Italian 'original' "Gl'Ingannati" (in Italian).
>
> > Good. So, you agree he knew it reasonably well. (I
> > see no reason to believe he had to have read it in the
> > original Latin,
I meant original Italian
> > but don't want to argue that point here.)
>
> The original was Italian, running to
> eight editions by 1585. Apparently it
> was performed at Cambridge University
> in Latin in 1595.
>
> >> And he used it as a very rough basis for
> >> his play.
>
> > You said, in response to my claim that he used "the (or
> > a) plot of GI'Ingannati, a play from the 1530s," that
> > there is "scarcely any similarity" (between Twelfth
> > Night and the Italian play. Do you still maintain
> > this?
>
> No. His use of it is clear.
>
Sorry to be petty but:YOU HAVE JUST AGREED THAT FOR ONCE
I WAS RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING, YOU WRONG.
Right. I was referring to the Olivia/Viola/Orlando plot--
as I have been throughout this discussion. It's the
central plot although the secondary plot with Malvolio
is more important.
> > My argument, then, is
> > that Olivia is primarily based on Isabella.
>
> You have not considered the character of
> Isabella at all. See any commentary on
> the play, such as:
>
> http://www.io.com/~jlockett/Grist/English/12thnightsources.html
>
> " . . . The most notable differences between
> these earlier versions of the tale and Shake-
> speare's lie, obviously, in the Viola character . ."
I am considering Olivia as a NARRATIVE ELEMENT. What's most
important about her is how she effects the other characters, and
what happens to her, to wit: unlike Elizabeth, she is wooed by a
girl disguised as a boy who is acting on behalf of a suitor whom
Olivia has rejected, and she marries the girl's twin brother.
This is absolutely the crux of the romantic
comedy plot of the play.
> > That being the case,
>
> It isn't.
Of course, it is.
> > there is no need to suppose that
> > Elizabeth was in any way a source for her. All the things
> > Oliva and Elizabeth have in common, ALL such romantic
> > comedy female leads have in common--except being head of a
> > noble household.
>
> Eh? Are all romantic leads identical?
> You seem to think of them all as cardboard
> cut-outs.
Paul, for me to say all (and I really mean almost all) female
romantic comedy leads have things in common is not the
same as my saying all female romantic comedy leads
are identical. Can you understand this? It's a matter
of simple logic.
What female romantic leads have in common (generally) is
attractiveness, youth, availability (such as being single), temporary
unavailability. So the fact that both Elizabeth and Olivia are
single and considered attractive, (young?) and available but
not easily obtainable is meaningless so far as your argument
that Olivia is based on Elizabeth is concerned. That leaves
their both being heads of a household and noble.
Although many female romantic leads are not noble, enough of
them were (since, among other things, most audiences prefer
heroes to fulfill the most ambitious wishes and marry princesses
or the like) to make the nobility of both Olivia and Elizabeth
likewise not a plausible reason for arguing that Olivia is
based on Elizabeth.
So you're left with each being a head of household. Well, except
for the parallels you subjectively find. I disagree that all of
exist, and believe the others are conicidental--since any two
people are likely to have quite a few things in common.
> > This is something Shakespeare could
> > easily have given Olivia with no reference to Elizabeth to
> > simplify the plot--to delete a father for Olivia who would
> > have made a complicated plot too complicated.
>
> Why not make her a widow? That removes the
> need for a father, and explains her rich
> and independent state. That's exactly how
> John Manningham is recorded as seeing her.
> (Even if that record was forged, it's still
> reasonable for a 'loose' interpretation of
> the play when seen by someone of the time.)
He could have made her a widow, but there was
no compelling reason for him to do so, and maybe
he preferred the tone of a romantic comedy in
which young never-marrieds are united to one
in which a widow remarries.
> > Conclusion: although it is certainly possible that
> > Shakespeare knowingly gave Olivia something of
> > Elizabeth, your argument that she was based in any
> > consequential way on the queen is weak. (And I have
> > provided you with a reasonable argument against the
> > notion. Can you at least admit that?)
>
> No. To provide 'a reasonable argument
> against' a theory, you have to consider
> what it says. A reasonable argument
> against (say) the theory that continents
> move cannot just ignore the evidence in
> the theory.
Not so. To state that continents do not move because no
known geological mechanism could cause them to move
is a reasonable argument, it is just not a complete one.
It implicitly claims to trump all arguments against it.
But my argument does take into consideration some
of your arguments--for instance, my argument charges
that since Olivia was clearly based on Isabella, there's
no reason to make anything of the few parallels between
her and Elizabeth.
> >> Tell us of ONE way in which the poet
> >> modified (or retained) aspects of
> >> Gl'Ingannati, which would have been
> >> contrary to the purpose I say he had --
> >> that of fitting it to the English court
> >> of the late 1570s.
>
> > I'll respond to the above after you respond to my
> > previous arguments.
>
> You're just looking for some excuse
> to duck. Your 'arguments' were not
> 'previous' to my question.
No, I'm trying to avoid go off on a tangent with you before
you've bothered to respond to what I've said with more
than a flat assertion that I'm wrong.
> > Before we deal with how
> > important the modifications are,
>
> I did NOT ask you to consider their
> 'importance' (or otherwise) -- what-
> ever that might mean (and I dread to
> think). Were there modifications?
> If so, what were they?
You tell me, and I'll deal with them--once
you responded to my arguments to this point
with more than simple assertions that I'm wrong.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>>> You said, in response to my claim that he used "the (or
>>> a) plot of GI'Ingannati, a play from the 1530s," that
>>> there is "scarcely any similarity" (between Twelfth
>>> Night and the Italian play. Do you still maintain
>>> this?
>>
>> No. His use of it is clear.
>>
> Sorry to be petty but:YOU HAVE JUST AGREED THAT
> FOR ONCE I WAS RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING, YOU WRONG.
Sure -- I can make mistakes.
>>> My argument, then, is
>>> that Olivia is primarily based on Isabella.
>>
>> You have not considered the character of
>> Isabella at all. See any commentary on
>> the play, such as:
>>
>> http://www.io.com/~jlockett/Grist/English/12thnightsources.html
>>
>> " . . . The most notable differences between
>> these earlier versions of the tale and Shake-
>> speare's lie, obviously, in the Viola character . ."
>
> I am considering Olivia as a NARRATIVE ELEMENT.
I suppose you can do that if you want.
But don't expect many people to agree
with you that the 'narrative element' is
the (or 'a') major aspect of Shakespeare's
work.
> What's most important about her is how she effects the
> other characters, and what happens to her, to wit:
> unlike Elizabeth, she is wooed by a girl disguised as
> a boy who is acting on behalf of a suitor whom Olivia
> has rejected, and she marries the girl's twin brother.
> This is absolutely the crux of the romantic comedy
> plot of the play.
I would not agree at all. The final
marriages are close to irrelevant.
The play has to end somehow, and
rather than kill everyone off (as in,
say, Hamlet or many other tragedies)
he marries them off -- to live happily
ever after. It's the application of
convention, and a boring formula.
Anyone intelligent could predict the
last scene, and would have left the
theatre (or switched off the DVD).
[..]
> What female romantic leads have in common (generally)
> is attractiveness, youth, availability (such as being
> single), temporary unavailability.
You could list the qualities of male
leads in the same (absurd) way, and
come to the (absurd) conclusion that
they were all so close as to be
indistinguishable. Likewise, you
might (absurdly) say that there only
5 (or some other small number) of
basic plots.
> So the fact that
> both Elizabeth and Olivia are single and considered
> attractive, (young?) and available but not easily
> obtainable is meaningless so far as your argument that
> Olivia is based on Elizabeth is concerned.
Adult females (in human life) come in
two broad categories: marriageable or
married. You can put every one of
Shakespeare's major female characters
into these two groups. Does that mean
we have only TWO adult female
characters in whole canon - or in the
whole of literature?
You can do much the same for males.
Your ambition would seem to be to
reduce all literature to the presentation
of a tiny number of cardboard characters.
In your theatre all the actors would
wear masks, and only about five masks
would be needed to cope with every
scene in every play.
> That leaves their both being heads of a household and
> noble.
This reductio ad absurdum has
already got far too absurd for me.
> Although many female romantic leads are not noble,
> enough of them were (since, among other things, most
> audiences prefer heroes to fulfill the most ambitious
> wishes and marry princesses or the like) to make the
> nobility of both Olivia and Elizabeth likewise not a
> plausible reason for arguing that Olivia is based on
> Elizabeth.
Think about all Shakespeare's major female
characters. Are they ALL noble? Or does
the nature and significance of their
nobility vary enormously? With most, we
we have to stop to think about their social
status. Juliet is engaged to marry a prince,
so must be noble. Perdita, we learn, is noble
by birth. How about Beatrice and Hero (in
Much Ado)? Celia and Rosalind (in AYLI)?
Hermia and Helena (in Mid-SND)? Marina
(in Pericles)? Bianca and Katharina (in
the Shrew)?
If they are noble, then it is usually a small
part of their character and of the plot.
Whereas there can be no doubt about
Olivia's social status from the start.
> So you're left with each being a head of household.
> Well, except for the parallels you subjectively find.
A weasel word -- and utterly wrong.
> I disagree that all of exist, and believe the
> others are conicidental--since any two people are
> likely to have quite a few things in common.
You can rely on them having a lot in
common: two eyes, two ears, a nose in
the middle, a mouth, and so on. If you
don't look close, or your medication is
strong, they are indistinguishable.
> He could have made her a widow, but there was
> no compelling reason for him to do so
Sure -- why not make her so exceptional
that there was no one like her in Europe
over the few hundred years before and
after -- except for one person?
>> No. To provide 'a reasonable argument
>> against' a theory, you have to consider
>> what it says. A reasonable argument
>> against (say) the theory that continents
>> move cannot just ignore the evidence in
>> the theory.
>
> Not so. To state that continents do not move
> because no known geological mechanism could cause
> them to move is a reasonable argument
What's wrong with 'an unknown mechanism'?
> But my argument does take into consideration some
> of your arguments--for instance, my argument
> charges that since Olivia was clearly based on
> Isabella, there's no reason to make anything of
> the few parallels between her and Elizabeth.
Sure, and since 2 + 2 = 5, there is
no reason to think that water flows
downhill. That's what I call logic.
>>>> Tell us of ONE way in which the poet
>>>> modified (or retained) aspects of
>>>> Gl'Ingannati, which would have been
>>>> contrary to the purpose I say he had --
>>>> that of fitting it to the English court
>>>> of the late 1570s.
>>>
>>> I'll respond to the above after you respond to my
>>> previous arguments.
>>
>> You're just looking for some excuse
>> to duck. Your 'arguments' were not
>> 'previous' to my question.
>
> No, I'm trying to avoid go off on a tangent with
> you
You mean that you don't want to try
to answer the very simple question
that I posed -- since you can't.
> You tell me, and I'll deal with them--once
> you responded to my arguments to this point
> with more than simple assertions that I'm wrong.
I pose a simple question. You duck.
That's the only story.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Everyone not at the time mentally disturbed would agree that the plots
in Shakespeare's plays are major elements in them. That does not mean
they are, in the final analysis, the most important elements in them,
but they are necessary for the most important elements to have an
effect. Take away the plots of Twelfth Night and what remains, Paul?
Disconnected exchanges of dialogue. The Malvolio plot would be
nothing be jibes and a few of Toby's meditations.
> > What's most important about her is how she effects the
> > other characters, and what happens to her, to wit:
> > unlike Elizabeth, she is wooed by a girl disguised as
> > a boy who is acting on behalf of a suitor whom Olivia
> > has rejected, and she marries the girl's twin brother.
> > This is absolutely the crux of the romantic comedy
> > plot of the play.
>
> I would not agree at all. The final
> marriages are close to irrelevant.
The crux is all of the plot above, not just the marraiges. I admit
I didn't express that as clearly as I might have. Make the last two
lines,
"The wooing, the mistaken identities, and the culmination in
the right couples getting married is the essential backbone of the
play."
> The play has to end somehow, and
> rather than kill everyone off (as in,
> say, Hamlet or many other tragedies)
> he marries them off -- to live happily
> ever after. It's the application of
> convention, and a boring formula.
> Anyone intelligent could predict the
> last scene, and would have left the
> theatre (or switched off the DVD).
> [..]
Right, Paul. But you're missing something. You're missing the fact
that non-rigidniks go to a romantic comedy to suffer with the
protagonists as they are buffeted by obstacles until, at the end,
they can live in their happiness at everything's coming out right,
and true love triumphing. It's called empathy. And a form of
wish-fulfillment. They know they'll get a dessert just as diners do,
but that doesn't mean they won't want to enjoy it. They will also
delight in no longer being agonized in suspense (more about
how things will be righted than in whether things will be righted).
Also, the best tale-tellers will make their endings interesting
the way composers of classical music try various tricks to make
the expected resolutions of their music pleasurable. Plus, in good
romantic comedy plots plot-lines are tied up while the marriages
or agreements to marry are going on.
I would love to know just what it is you get out of Twelfth Night
that's
anything like the pleasure I get out of its plot, and the
characterization
the plot reveals--how the plot forces Malvolio to reveal his
gullability,
for instance, or Olivia her excessive remoteness, for example.
> > What female romantic leads have in common (generally)
> > is attractiveness, youth, availability (such as being
> > single), temporary unavailability.
>
> You could list the qualities of male
> leads in the same (absurd) way,
Of course.
> and come to the (absurd) conclusion that
> they were all so close as to be
> indistinguishable.
I see you're back to snipping without indicating it, this time of:
"Paul, for me to say all (and I really mean almost all) female
romantic comedy leads have things in common is not the
same as my saying all female romantic comedy leads
are identical. Can you understand this? It's a matter
of simple logic.".
I did not say or imply that romantic leads are "all so close as to be
indistinguishable." It is completely irrational of you to say I have.
> Likewise, you
> might (absurdly) say that there only
> 5 (or some other small number) of
> basic plots.
That's right. And there are. But "basic" is the key word. Every
plot
is different, but all can be reduced to some basic plot. All human
beings
are different, but one can make valid generalizations about them.
They
all breathe, for instance.
> > So the fact that
> > both Elizabeth and Olivia are single and considered
> > attractive, (young?) and available but not easily
> > obtainable is meaningless so far as your argument that
> > Olivia is based on Elizabeth is concerned.
>
> Adult females (in human life) come in
> two broad categories: marriageable or
> married. You can put every one of
> Shakespeare's major female characters
> into these two groups. Does that mean
> we have only TWO adult female
> characters in whole canon - or in the
> whole of literature?
Paul, read the following, please, and try to understand it:
"For someone to say all female
romantic comedy leads have things in common is not the
same as my saying all female romantic comedy leads
are identical. It's a matter of simple logic."
You argued that because AMONG OTHER THINGS Olivia and
Elizabeth were both single indicated the former was based on
the latter. I argued back, with reasoning, that you were wrong.
>
> You can do much the same for males.
> Your ambition would seem to be to
> reduce all literature to the presentation
> of a tiny number of cardboard characters.
> In your theatre all the actors would
> wear masks, and only about five masks
> would be needed to cope with every
> scene in every play.
"For someone to say all female
romantic comedy leads have things in common is not the
same as my saying all female romantic comedy leads
are identical. It's a matter of simple logic."
> > That leaves their both being heads of a household and
> > noble.
>
> This reductio ad absurdum has
> already got far too absurd for me.
Right. Assert that I'm wrong. You have no alternative
since you seem not to have any counter argument.
> > Although many female romantic leads are not noble,
> > enough of them were (since, among other things, most
> > audiences prefer heroes to fulfill the most ambitious
> > wishes and marry princesses or the like) to make the
> > nobility of both Olivia and Elizabeth likewise not a
> > plausible reason for arguing that Olivia is based on
> > Elizabeth.
>
> Think about all Shakespeare's major female
> characters. Are they ALL noble? Or does
> the nature and significance of their
> nobility vary enormously? With most, we
> we have to stop to think about their social
> status. Juliet is engaged to marry a prince,
> so must be noble. Perdita, we learn, is noble
> by birth. How about Beatrice and Hero (in
> Much Ado)? Celia and Rosalind (in AYLI)?
> Hermia and Helena (in Mid-SND)? Marina
> (in Pericles)? Bianca and Katharina (in
> the Shrew)?
>
> If they are noble, then it is usually a small
> part of their character and of the plot.
> Whereas there can be no doubt about
> Olivia's social status from the start.
Right. And I bring it up here because you argued that
Olivia is based on Elizabeth because AMONG OTHER THINGS
they are both noble.
> > So you're left with each being a head of household.
> > Well, except for the parallels you subjectively find.
>
> A weasel word -- and utterly wrong.
Utterly wrong--but you don't tell me what you have left
other than being head of a household.
> > I disagree that all of THESE exist, and believe the
> > others are coincidental--since any two people are
> > likely to have quite a few things in common.
>
> You can rely on them having a lot in
> common: two eyes, two ears, a nose in
> the middle, a mouth, and so on. If you
> don't look close, or your medication is
> strong, they are indistinguishable.
You're the one who finds Olivia and Elizabeth indistinguishable.
But do list the psychological traits of Oliva and pair them off
with those of Elizabeth. Do you really believe that my sister
or your wife don't share any or only a few of them?
> > He could have made her a widow, but there was
> > no compelling reason for him to do so
>
> Sure -- why not make her so exceptional
> that there was no one like her in Europe
> over the few hundred years before and
> after -- except for one person?
What narrative function has making her "so exceptional?" What
function of any kind except to allow you to say Olivia MUST be
based on Queen Elizabeth.
> >> No. To provide 'a reasonable argument
> >> against' a theory, you have to consider
> >> what it says. A reasonable argument
> >> against (say) the theory that continents
> >> move cannot just ignore the evidence in
> >> the theory.
>
> > Not so. To state that continents do not move
> > because no known geological mechanism could cause
> > them to move is a reasonable argument
>
> What's wrong with 'an unknown mechanism'?
That's an argument one could used against the above, but it's
obviously VERY WEAK since it could be used against the same
defect of astrology and any other injvalid theory. And--Paul, please
attedn me--the fact that you can present a counter to an
argument does NOT make the argument NOT an argument,
or ( in most cases) not a reasonable argument. In most serious
intelligent debates, reasonable arguments are made by both sides--
until one side's seem to most people MORE reasonable than the
other side's; ore the debate ends in a draw.
> > But my argument does take into consideration some
> > of your arguments--for instance, my argument
> > charges that since Olivia was clearly based on
> > Isabella, there's no reason to make anything of
> > the few parallels between her and Elizabeth.
>
> Sure, and since 2 + 2 = 5, there is
> no reason to think that water flows
> downhill. That's what I call logic.
>
And what you've said is what I call an empty assertion
that I am wrong.
>
>
> >>>> Tell us of ONE way in which the poet
> >>>> modified (or retained) aspects of
> >>>> Gl'Ingannati, which would have been
> >>>> contrary to the purpose I say he had --
> >>>> that of fitting it to the English court
> >>>> of the late 1570s.
>
> >>> I'll respond to the above after you respond to my
> >>> previous arguments.
>
> >> You're just looking for some excuse
> >> to duck. Your 'arguments' were not
> >> 'previous' to my question.
>
> > No, I'm trying to avoid goING off on a tangent with
> > you
>
> You mean that you don't want to try
> to answer the very simple question
> that I posed -- since you can't.
Have you answered any of my simple questions?
> > You tell me, and I'll deal with them--once
> > you responded to my arguments to this point
> > with more than simple assertions that I'm wrong.
>
> I pose a simple question. You duck.
> That's the only story.
Okay, I'll answer. First of all, your challenge is stupid.
It would be very hard to "idenitfy one way in which the
poet modified (or retained) aspects of
Gl'Ingannati, which would have been
contrary to the purpose I say he had --
that of fitting it to the English court
of the late 1570s." Why? Because I would have
to show it was "contrary" to your alleged purpose.
For the most part, all I would be able to do is
show what modifications Shakespeare made
that had no necessary connection to your
hallucinated under-text.
You are also requiring me to do a lot of research.
Since you are proposing a theory opposed to
the standard understanding, you should be the
one to list the modifications and show how
they were necessary for the function you allege.
Also, you're skipping everything in the plot that
Shakespeare did not modify, like a girl disguised as
a man. This is contrary to your alleged function--
or would be if anything could be. That's the final
problem: whatever I list, you will simple call not
contrary. In this case, why Raleigh was girlish but
"pretended to be a man." And the rest of it. I don't
know the details. Who was his twin brother? Who
was he in the employ and wooing on behalf of? The Spanish
prince or whatever?
I don't ask you to find someone willing to make public
his agreement with your understanding of Twelfth Night,
I only ask that you find someone (other than our Sat Googus
or whatever he is) willing to make public his belief that
your understanding of it is sane.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>>>> You have not considered the character of
>>>> Isabella at all. See any commentary on
>>>> the play, such as:
>>>> http://www.io.com/~jlockett/Grist/English/12thnightsources.html
>>>> " . . . The most notable differences between
>>>> these earlier versions of the tale and Shake-
>>>> speare's lie, obviously, in the Viola character . ."
>>>
>>> I am considering Olivia as a NARRATIVE ELEMENT.
>>
>> I suppose you can do that if you want.
>> But don't expect many people to agree
>> with you that the 'narrative element' is
>> the (or 'a') major aspect of Shakespeare's
>> work.
>
> Everyone not at the time mentally disturbed would
> agree that the plots in Shakespeare's plays are major
> elements in them. That does not mean they are, in
> the final analysis, the most important elements in
> them, but they are necessary for the most important
> elements to have an effect.
A plot (of some sort) is usually thought
necessary -- but its importance, in the
context of all the other elements, can
vary. "Waiting for Godot" does not have
much of one.
> Take away the plots of
> Twelfth Night and what remains, Paul? Disconnected
> exchanges of dialogue. The Malvolio plot would be
> nothing be jibes and a few of Toby's meditations.
The plot could have be changed drastically,
with the same characters involved, without
bothering too many of a typical audience.
[..]
> You argued that because AMONG OTHER THINGS Olivia and
> Elizabeth were both single indicated the former was
> based on the latter. I argued back, with reasoning,
> that you were wrong.
You 'reasoning' was nuts. First my
phrase was 'never-married' NOT 'single'.
A widow is single, and there were many
rich widows in England at the time.
Secondly, what makes both Elizabeth
and Olivia unique, was the unique
COMBINATION of attributes.
You breaking down of each attribute
is stupid in the extreme. It's as
though I said that both had two heads,
and you started to argue that every
relevant female had at least one
head, so another made no difference.
>>> That leaves their both being heads of a household and
>>> noble.
>>
>> This reductio ad absurdum has
>> already got far too absurd for me.
>
> Right. Assert that I'm wrong. You have no
> alternative since you seem not to have any counter
> argument.
It's a crap argument. It's typical of the
sort that a lawyer uses to confuse a jury
when they are defending a hopeless case.
A pseudo-analysis which pretends to show
that each element CAN be regarded separately
and is really of no importance. The guy
was there, and the gun wasn't necessarily
his, and the victim's money got into his
pocket by accident . . .
>> If they are noble, then it is usually a small
>> part of their character and of the plot.
>> Whereas there can be no doubt about
>> Olivia's social status from the start.
>
> Right. And I bring it up here because you argued that
> Olivia is based on Elizabeth because AMONG OTHER THINGS
> they are both noble.
As, I am trying to point out 'nobility'
was sometimes emphasised; and sometimes
barely indicated.
And It's not 'among other things'.
It's 'WITH other things'.
>>> So you're left with each being a head of household.
>>> Well, except for the parallels you subjectively find.
>>
>> A weasel word -- and utterly wrong.
>
> Utterly wrong--but you don't tell me what you have
> left other than being head of a household.
We have (1)the elevated nobility of Olivia;
(2) her never-married state;
(3) the 'inexplicable' nature of that state
(and the fake and semi-crazy reasons given
for it);
(4) the general desire that she should
have an heir of her body;
(5) her wealth, and extensive lands;
(6) her intelligence and education;
(7) her toleration of outrageous bawdy;
(8) her relationship to her 'uncle', Lord
Hunsdon (who was Chamberlain of the
Household from 1575 -- "a blunt, plain-
spoken man with little tact"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Carey,_1st_Baron_Hunsdon );
(9) her relationship to the ursine (i.e. bear-
like) Leicester;
(10) her relationship to the fatuous Philip
Sidney (Aguecheek);
(11) her relationship to Christopher Hatton
(Malvolio);
(12) her falling madly in love with the
beautiful, but low-born Walter Raleigh
who emerged from nowhere, but who
claimed to be a gentleman (Viola);
(13) Raleigh/Viola's relationship to
Leicester/Orsino;
(14) The description of Raleigh/Viola
-- his red lips and high-pitched voice;
(15) Raleigh/Viola's clumsiness with
words -- his inability to speak with
first memorising what he wants to say.
(16) Elizabeth/Olivia is 'a Cataian'
(investor in China).
(17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who
took a delight in his personal fool;
(18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools
herself;
(19) Leicester/Orsino took over one or
two of Henry's fools;
(20) Elizabeth/Olivia had a lover, who
had (for a long time) longed to marry
her;
(21) Elizabeth/Olivia has a foolish
and disregarded admirer, much given to
issuing challenges (Sidney/Aguecheek)
(22) Elizabeth/Olivia when displeased
with Raleigh/Viola tells him/her to go
west.
(23) Many more (e.g. from Charlton
Ogburn) that I cannot, at the moment,
be bothered to list or locate.
> You're the one who finds Olivia and Elizabeth
> indistinguishable. But do list the psychological
> traits of Oliva and pair them off with those of
> Elizabeth.
The factual ones are easier to list than
the 'psychological' -- although there
would also be plenty of scope there.
>>> He could have made her a widow, but there was
>>> no compelling reason for him to do so
>>
>> Sure -- why not make her so exceptional
>> that there was no one like her in Europe
>> over the few hundred years before and
>> after -- except for one person?
>
> What narrative function has making her "so
> exceptional?" What function of any kind except to
> allow you to say Olivia MUST be based on Queen
> Elizabeth.
You invent the notion of a 'narrative
function' merely to dodge the issue.
Name ONE other such female.
>>>> You're just looking for some excuse
>>>> to duck. Your 'arguments' were not
>>>> 'previous' to my question.
>>>
>>> No, I'm trying to avoid goING off on a tangent with
>>> you
>>
>> You mean that you don't want to try
>> to answer the very simple question
>> that I posed -- since you can't.
>
> Have you answered any of my simple questions?
What "simple questions" were those?
>> I pose a simple question. You duck.
>> That's the only story.
>
> Okay, I'll answer.
No, you didn't. You chickened out.
> First of all, your challenge is stupid. It would be
> very hard to "idenitfy one way in which the poet
> modified (or retained) aspects of Gl'Ingannati,
It is very easy to list the principal ways
in which the poet modified (or retained)
aspects of Gl'Ingannati. Simply find one
of the numerous books, or go to any of the
numerous websites, which discuss the sources
of the canonical plays, or of 12th Night in
particular. I quoted one site:
http://www.io.com/~jlockett/Grist/English/12thnightsources.html
which states:
" . . The most notable differences between these earlier
versions of the tale and Shakespeare's lie, obviously, in
the Viola character. Shakespeare's heroine has no previous
relationship with her love Orsino; she has only "heard
[her] father name him" (I.ii.28). This lack of prior
attachment certainly removes much of the opportunity for
bitterness that Lelia has in wooing the woman who has
supplanted her. And Lelia's political maneuvering,
inappropriate for a romantic heroine, vanishes too: she no
longer bargains . . "
> which would have been contrary to the
> purpose I say he had --that of fitting it to the
> English court of the late 1570s." Why? Because I
> would have to show it was "contrary" to your
> alleged purpose.
Do ANY of the differences mentioned in that
passage make 12th Night more or less fitting
to the English court of 1578?
> For the most part, all I would be
> able to do is show what modifications Shakespeare
> made that had no necessary connection to your
> hallucinated under-text.
Fine. Take a standard list, and go through
it, saying whether each change is
(a) more fitting to that court;
(b) less fitting; or (c) neutral;
> You are also requiring me to do a lot of research.
Nope. The lists are common and are usually
fairly short.
> Since you are proposing a theory opposed to
> the standard understanding, you should be the
> one to list the modifications and show how
> they were necessary for the function you allege.
I have done it several times. See also above.
> Also, you're skipping everything in the plot that
> Shakespeare did not modify, like a girl disguised as
> a man. This is contrary to your alleged function--
> or would be if anything could be.
Nonsense -- not if it is to ridicule
Raleigh; a purpose for which it is ideal.
> That's the final
> problem: whatever I list, you will simple call not
> contrary. In this case, why Raleigh was girlish but
> "pretended to be a man." And the rest of it. I don't
> know the details. Who was his twin brother?
The twin thing does seem to me to
have no relevance to the English court
(although I may well be missing
something). At the moment I think
that the poet left it in to have a
plot -- so it would be neutral.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Of course it does, it's just subtle. The two main characters
have to be waiting for someone for it to work, and that's narrative.
But Godot is irrelevant. We're discussing
romantic comedies, plotted romantic comedies.
> > Take away the plots of
> > Twelfth Night and what remains, Paul? Disconnected
> > exchanges of dialogue. The Malvolio plot would be
> > nothing be jibes and a few of Toby's meditations.
>
> The plot could have be changed drastically,
> with the same characters involved, without
> bothering too many of a typical audience.
I like the idea of Viola as Lady Macbeth in Macbeth, but it
wouldn't work, Paul. Characters are created to fit specific plots,
plots are created to reveal specific characters. Consider just
Malvolio: he's needs a hoax to be played on him to reveal what
he's like, and to get laughs from him. Change the plot and you
necessarily change the characters. Viola isn't Viola unless
involved in a boy/girl predicament.
> [..]
>
> > You argued that because AMONG OTHER THINGS Olivia and
> > Elizabeth were both single indicated the former was
> > based on the latter. I argued back, with reasoning,
> > that you were wrong.
>
> You 'reasoning' was nuts. First my
> phrase was 'never-married' NOT 'single'.
I have referred to them as both never-married enough for
you to take "single" for being what most people would
take it as--"never married." Many government forms here
five one a choice among "single, widowed, divorced, married."
But I always mean never-married.
> A widow is single, and there were many
> rich widows in England at the time.
> Secondly, what makes both Elizabeth
> and Olivia unique, was the unique
> COMBINATION of attributes.
> You breaking down of each attribute
> is stupid in the extreme. It's as
> though I said that both had two heads,
> and you started to argue that every
> relevant female had at least one
> head, so another made no difference.
If you think that analogy makes sense, I certainly
can't argue with you. But going the other way, why stop
at never-married attractive noble head of household?
How about adding English-speaking, and intelligent--
and good with the language? How would I be allowed
to counter you with the argument that these traits are
each too common in romantic comedy and real life
to connect a dramatic character having them to a real person?
I could say that because Great Britain and Japan have
with people, and are commercial and democratic, and
each is an island once ruling an empire, one is copied
from the other. Would you not be allowed to argue that just
about all islands have people, and many nations are both
commerical and democratic, so those characteristics
cannot be used to show one was a copy of the other?
And that only the fact that they are both islands
which once ruled empires counts?
> >>> That leaves their both being heads of a household and
> >>> noble.
>
> >> This reductio ad absurdum has
> >> already got far too absurd for me.
>
> > Right. Assert that I'm wrong. You have no
> > alternative since you seem not to have any counter
> > argument.
>
> It's a crap argument. It's typical of the
> sort that a lawyer uses to confuse a jury
> when they are defending a hopeless case.
> A pseudo-analysis which pretends to show
> that each element CAN be regarded separately
> and is really of no importance. The guy
> was there, and the gun wasn't necessarily
> his, and the victim's money got into his
> pocket by accident . . .
Srudents, note how bizarre the rigidnik's reasoning
becomes when pressed.
Paulgram, each of your details indicates the guy did it.
Put them together and you have four strong pieces of evidence.
But if you added that the guy had an arm and therefore could
have fired the gun, you do not strengthen your case, and your
opponent can validly regard the fact that the guy has an arm,
like most people do separately, and throw it out.
That both Olivia and Elizabeth are attractive can be thrown out the
same way, after being regarded separately. Ditto the fact that both
are unmarried. And noble.
> >> If they are noble, then it is usually a small
> >> part of their character and of the plot.
> >> Whereas there can be no doubt about
> >> Olivia's social status from the start.
>
> > Right. And I bring it up here because you argued that
> > Olivia is based on Elizabeth because AMONG OTHER THINGS
> > they are both noble.
>
> As, I am trying to point out 'nobility'
> was sometimes emphasised; and sometimes
> barely indicated.
>
> And It's not 'among other things'.
> It's 'WITH other things'.
They both wore dresses.
> >>> So you're left with each being a head of household.
> >>> Well, except for the parallels you subjectively find.
>
> >> A weasel word -- and utterly wrong.
>
> > Utterly wrong--but you don't tell me what you have
> > left other than being head of a household.
>
> We have (1)the elevated nobility of Olivia;
> (2) her never-married state;
> (3) the 'inexplicable' nature of that state
> (and the fake and semi-crazy reasons given
> for it);
In your subjective reasoning. But the reasons given are different for
each.
You won't allow all the differences to be taken WITH each other, will
you.
There is also the plot, which you ignore; it forces Olivia to have a
reason,
a romantic comedy reason, for remaining unmarried.
> (4) the general desire that she should
> have an heir of her body;
Viola uses a standard reason for trying to argue Olivia into looking
favorably on Orlando. It's Viola's reason, given for plot reasons,
not
evidence of any "general desire that she should have an heir of her
body."
> (5) her wealth, and extensive lands;
head of household.
> (6) her intelligence and education;
Right, standard things for a romantic comedy female lead.
> (7) her toleration of outrageous bawdy;
Standard in Shakespearean comedy and not pronounced in Olivia.
> (8) her relationship to her 'uncle', Lord
> Hunsdon (who was Chamberlain of the
> Household from 1575 -- "a blunt, plain-
> spoken man with little tact"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Carey,_1st_Baron_Hunsdon);
Your subjective opinion.
> (9) her relationship to the ursine (i.e. bear-
> like) Leicester;
> (10) her relationship to the fatuous Philip
> Sidney (Aguecheek);
> (11) her relationship to Christopher Hatton
> (Malvolio);
I claim that whomever Shakespeare had put in Olivia's
household, you could find a match for in Elizabeth's court.
So what. And we were talking about the character of each
of the two we were comparing. If you want to compare their
situations,
as you are doing here, you HAVE to consider how their situations
differed. Elizabeth was not wooed by a girl dressed as a boy; she
does not fall in love with such a person. She does not marry the
twin brother of such a person. She is not wooed by a person who
wears the wrong sort of stockings. She does not bothered with
the trial or whatever of such a person.
> (12) her falling madly in love with the
> beautiful, but low-born Walter Raleigh
> who emerged from nowhere, but who
> claimed to be a gentleman (Viola);
Subjectivity, and very strained. Raleigh, as far as I know, WAS
a gentleman. And who says she fell madly in love with him? Was
he really considered beautiful (I didn't know that, if it were the
case.
I think of him as dashing, not good-looking). And he was male.
> (13) Raleigh/Viola's relationship to
> Leicester/Orsino;
> (14) The description of Raleigh/Viola
> -- his red lips and high-pitched voice;
> (15) Raleigh/Viola's clumsiness with
> words -- his inability to speak withOUT
> first memorising what he wants to say.
We're doing Elizabeth and Olivia. If you want to pull in
everything in the play you can find some strained way
of paralleling to the court, I would only say that even if we accept
your parallels, there are far too many anti-parallels. PLUS, most
of the events in the play paralleling, in your view, events in
Elizabeth's life, were in the plot of the source of the play long
before they were in Elizabeth's life.
> (16) Elizabeth/Olivia is 'a Cataian'
> (investor in China).
> (17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who
> took a delight in his personal fool;
> (18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools
> herself;
Good grief. You mean Shakespeare made sure the fool in the play
wasn't from Olivia's court because Elizabeth had no fool--instead of
because the plot worked best that way (and he generally used just one
fool per comedy)?
> (19) Leicester/Orsino took over one or
> two of Henry's fools;
> (20) Elizabeth/Olivia had a lover, who
> had (for a long time) longed to marry
> her;
> (21) Elizabeth/Olivia has a foolish
> and disregarded admirer, much given to
> issuing challenges (Sidney/Aguecheek)
Aguecheek is nothing like Sidney.
> (22) Elizabeth/Olivia when displeased
> with Raleigh/Viola tells him/her to go
> west.
Wasn't that a cliche of the time?
> (23) Many more (e.g. from Charlton
> Ogburn) that I cannot, at the moment,
> be bothered to list or locate.
>
> > You're the one who finds Olivia and Elizabeth
> > indistinguishable. But do list the psychological
> > traits of Oliva and pair them off with those of
> > Elizabeth.
>
> The factual ones are easier to list than
> the 'psychological' -- although there
> would also be plenty of scope there.
You mentioned a few. I doubt there are any others. Olivia is not
a well-developed character.
> >>> He could have made her a widow, but there was
> >>> no compelling reason for him to do so
>
> >> Sure -- why not make her so exceptional
> >> that there was no one like her in Europe
> >> over the few hundred years before and
> >> after -- except for one person?
>
> > What narrative function has making her "so
> > exceptional?" What function of any kind except to
> > allow you to say Olivia MUST be based on Queen
> > Elizabeth.
>
> You invent the notion of a 'narrative
> function' merely to dodge the issue.
The point is that there is no reason, narrative or otherwise, for
the playwright to make Olivia "so exceptional." He makes her
never-married because he's writing a romantic comedy; he makes
her head of a household to make her a worthy love interest, and
to allow for the Toby/Malvolio plot.
> Name ONE other such female.
You name one PERSON who agrees with you that Olivia MUST
be based on Elizabeth because both she and Elizabeth were
never-married female heads of household.
> >>>> You're just looking for some excuse
> >>>> to duck. Your 'arguments' were not
> >>>> 'previous' to my question.
>
> >>> No, I'm trying to avoid goING off on a tangent with
> >>> you
>
> >> You mean that you don't want to try
> >> to answer the very simple question
> >> that I posed -- since you can't.
>
> > Have you answered any of my simple questions?
>
> What "simple questions" were those?
>
> >> I pose a simple question. You duck.
> >> That's the only story.
>
> > Okay, I'll answer.
>
> No, you didn't. You chickened out.
Yes, I did, but you predictably said I did not. One cannot possibly
give you an answer to anything, because your definition of an "answer"
is "total agreement with my delusional system."
> > First of all, your challenge is stupid. It would be
> > very hard to "idenitfy one way in which the poet
> > modified (or retained) aspects of Gl'Ingannati,
>
> It is very easy to list the principal ways
> in which the poet modified (or retained)
> aspects of Gl'Ingannati. Simply find one
> of the numerous books, or go to any of the
> numerous websites, which discuss the sources
> of the canonical plays, or of 12th Night in
> particular. I quoted one site:http://www.io.com/~jlockett/Grist/English/12thnightsources.html
> which states:
You appear to have missed my comma, Paul
> " . . The most notable differences between these earlier
> versions of the tale and Shakespeare's lie, obviously, in
> the Viola character. Shakespeare's heroine has no previous
> relationship with her love Orsino; she has only "heard
> [her] father name him" (I.ii.28). This lack of prior
> attachment certainly removes much of the opportunity for
> bitterness that Lelia has in wooing the woman who has
> supplanted her. And Lelia's political maneuvering,
> inappropriate for a romantic heroine, vanishes too: she no
> longer bargains . . "
>
> > which would have been contrary to the
> > purpose I say he had --that of fitting it to the
> > English court of the late 1570s." Why? Because I
> > would have to show it was "contrary" to your
> > alleged purpose.
>
> Do ANY of the differences mentioned in that
> passage make 12th Night more or less fitting
> to the English court of 1578?
Neither more nor less. What they do is make Twelfth Night
a better play.
> > For the most part, all I would be
> > able to do is show what modifications Shakespeare
> > made that had no necessary connection to your
> > hallucinated under-text.
>
> Fine. Take a standard list, and go through
> it, saying whether each change is
> (a) more fitting to that court;
> (b) less fitting; or (c) neutral;
Some would be a, some b--but because some are a does
not mean they had a necessary connection to your under-text.
> > You are also requiring me to do a lot of research.
>
> Nope. The lists are common and are usually
> fairly short.
You are requiring me to do more research than I believe sane to do.
I don't mind arguing points as you present them, but I'm not good
using the computer for research, and have an old slow one. Also,
if I were to invest more time in this, I'd have to do more than find
some
lists. I would have to reread the play (and other plays), and work
out some
view of it (and them) that would take me a while to get straight.
(I'm still involved with "Sonnet 18," for instance--many other things
to do, plus I'm much more throughly analyzing
it than you think necessary.)
> > Since you are proposing a theory opposed to
> > the standard understanding, you should be the
> > one to list the modifications and show how
> > they were necessary for the function you allege.
>
> I have done it several times. See also above.
I'm not sure you have. I thank you for the list of parallels
(unsarcastically)
above. And for the quotation about Viola. But the latter is the only
one that describes changes from one play to the other.
> > Also, you're skipping everything in the plot that
> > Shakespeare did not modify, like a girl disguised as
> > a man. This is contrary to your alleged function--
> > or would be if anything could be.
>
> Nonsense -- not if it is to ridicule
> Raleigh; a purpose for which it is ideal.
To you. But what in the play can't you say that about? What
in Macbeth can't you say that about?
> > That's the final
> > problem: whatever I list, you will simply call not
> > contrary. In this case, why Raleigh was girlish but
> > "pretended to be a man." And the rest of it. I don't
> > know the details. Who was his twin brother?
>
> The twin thing does seem to me to
> have no relevance to the English court
> (although I may well be missing
> something). At the moment I think
> that the poet left it in to have a
> plot -- so it would be neutral.
You could unfalsifiably say the same about anything else even
you couldn't work into your scheme.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>>> Take away the plots of
>>> Twelfth Night and what remains, Paul? Disconnected
>>> exchanges of dialogue. The Malvolio plot would be
>>> nothing be jibes and a few of Toby's meditations.
>>
>> The plot could have be changed drastically,
>> with the same characters involved, without
>> bothering too many of a typical audience.
>
> I like the idea of Viola as Lady Macbeth in Macbeth, but
> it wouldn't work, Paul. Characters are created to fit
> specific plots, plots are created to reveal specific
> characters.
Never seen or heard a soap? Never seen
or heard a series? (Friends, CSI, 24,
Lost . .) For them, new plots are invented
in every episode, with the same old
characters. The same applies roughly to
Shakespeare's plays. Raleigh and Sidney
Aguecheek) appear all over the place.
And Leicester/Elizabeth are seen as
Oberon/Titania, and as Claudius/Gertrude.
> Consider just Malvolio: he's needs a hoax to be
> played on him to reveal what he's like, and to
> get laughs from him. Change the plot and you
> necessarily change the characters.
Nonsense. Malvolio's (Hatton's) pomposity,
intense ambition, foolishness, humourlessness,
officiousness, etc., could be brought out
in dozens of ways.
> Viola isn't Viola unless involved in a boy/girl
> predicament.
You have a very strange theory of
drama.
>> A widow is single, and there were many
>> rich widows in England at the time.
>> Secondly, what makes both Elizabeth
>> and Olivia unique, was the unique
>> COMBINATION of attributes.
>> You breaking down of each attribute
>> is stupid in the extreme. It's as
>> though I said that both had two heads,
>> and you started to argue that every
>> relevant female had at least one
>> head, so another made no difference.
>
> If you think that analogy makes sense, I
> certainly can't argue with you. But going the
> other way, why stop at never-married attractive
> noble head of household? How about adding
> English-speaking, and intelligent--and good with
> the language? How would I be allowed to counter
> you with the argument that these traits are each
> too common in romantic comedy and real life to
> connect a dramatic character having them to a
> real person?
You would counter any such argument
with contrary EXAMPLES. You would
have no difficulty finding intelligent,
articulate, English-speaking females
in English drama. BUT you cannot find
-- neither in real life, nor in drama,
nor in literature -- any independent,
rich, never-married women who ran
large households.
[..]
> That both Olivia and Elizabeth are attractive can
> be thrown out the same way, after being regarded
> separately. Ditto the fact that both are
> unmarried. And noble.
You suggest that they can be 'thrown out'
because they are so common and conventional.
BUT if that is true, then where are your
counter-examples? From (a) real life;
(b) drama; (c) the rest of all literature?
You would have to skip a few hundred
years (over Jane Austen, etc.) to find
'never-married, rich, independent' --
but, by then, 'noble' no longer applied.
There are NO such examples. Why can't
you admit it?
>>> Olivia is based on Elizabeth because AMONG OTHER THINGS
>>> they are both noble.
>>
>> As, I am trying to point out 'nobility'
>> was sometimes emphasised; and sometimes
>> barely indicated.
>>
>> And It's not 'among other things'.
>> It's 'WITH other things'.
>
> They both wore dresses.
You would have no difficulty finding
(in real life or in drama) characters
wearing dresses.
>> We have (1)the elevated nobility of Olivia;
>> (2) her never-married state;
>> (3) the 'inexplicable' nature of that state
>> (and the fake and semi-crazy reasons given
>> for it);
>
> In your subjective reasoning. But the reasons
> given are different for each. You won't allow all
> the differences to be taken WITH each other, will
> you. There is also the plot, which you ignore; it
> forces Olivia to have a reason, a romantic comedy
> reason, for remaining unmarried.
So how come there are not hundreds of
other playwrights, each writing dozens
of plays, using the same conventional
plot, producing a range of characters
that closely match Elizabeth and her
courtiers around 1578?
>> (4) the general desire that she should
>> have an heir of her body;
>
> Viola uses a standard reason for trying to argue
> Olivia into looking favorably on Orlando. It's
> Viola's reason, given for plot reasons, not
> evidence of any "general desire that she should
> have an heir of her body."
So how come there are not hundreds of
other playwrights, each writing dozens
of plays, using the same 'standard
reason' (given for plot reasons) which
just happen to coincide with the major
pressure on Elizabeth in first two
decades of her reign?
>> (5) her wealth, and extensive lands;
>
> head of household.
>
>> (6) her intelligence and education;
>
> Right, standard things for a romantic comedy
> female lead.
So how come there are not hundreds of
other playwrights, each writing dozens
of plays, employing the same 'standard
things' with their romantic comedy
female leads?
>> (7) her toleration of outrageous bawdy;
>
> Standard in Shakespearean comedy and not
> pronounced in Olivia.
Firstly, you probably miss 99% of the
bawdy, but even this should be enough:
MALVOLIO
By my life, this is my lady's hand these be
her very C's, her U's and her T's and thus
makes she her great P's. It is, in contempt
of question, her hand.
Secondly, the question is how so much
of Shakespearean comedy managed to be
so bawdy.
>> (8) her relationship to her 'uncle', Lord
>> Hunsdon (who was Chamberlain of the
>> Household from 1575 -- "a blunt, plain-
>> spoken man with little
tact"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Carey,_1st_Baron_Hunsdon);
>
> Your subjective opinion.
Objective fact. Name another rich,
noble independent never-married woman
who had a rich often-drunk 'uncle' who
was nominally in charge of the running
of household.
>> (9) her relationship to the ursine (i.e. bear-
>> like) Leicester;
Was Leicester attached to bears?
Does Orsino mean 'ursine'? Is this
all a coincidence?
>> (10) her relationship to the fatuous Philip
>> Sidney (Aguecheek);
>> (11) her relationship to Christopher Hatton
>> (Malvolio);
>
> I claim that whomever Shakespeare had put in
> Olivia's household, you could find a match for in
> Elizabeth's court. So what.
And you could supposedly do the same.
In fact, you could relate that household
to ANY known one in history -- to that
of (say) Jacqueline Kennedy at the White
House, or to that of Donald Trump and one
of his wives, or to that of Eleanor
Roosevelt, or to that of Michelle Obama,
or to those of Barbara Bush or Laura
Bush; or to that of Cleopatra or Helen
of Troy. Or maybe I have not got those
you have in mind. Give us the list.
> And we were talking about the character of each
> of the two we were comparing. If you want to
> compare their situations, as you are doing here,
> you HAVE to consider how their situations
> differed. Elizabeth was not wooed by a girl
> dressed as a boy;
It simply has to fit the Oxfordian
scenario I have stated. Would it have
suited Oxford to present Raleigh in
that manner?
> she does not fall in love with such a person.
Did she fall in love with Nick Bottom
when he had an ass's head? Was the
general opinion of Elizabeth's court
outraged by her behaviour with Raleigh?
> She does not marry the twin brother of such a
> person. She is not wooed by a person who wears
> the wrong sort of stockings.
She was 'wooed' by all manner of male
courtiers. It was a requirement of
her court that she be so 'wooed'.
I'm sure many had the wrong sort of
stockings.
>> (12) her falling madly in love with the
>> beautiful, but low-born Walter Raleigh
>> who emerged from nowhere, but who
>> claimed to be a gentleman (Viola);
>
> Subjectivity, and very strained. Raleigh, as
> far as I know, WAS a gentleman.
You are obliged to consider an opponent's
arguments as they are -- not as you might
like them to be. Mine here is that
Oxford posed as an intense snob, and
regarded a mere gentleman (or someone
who claimed to be merely a gentleman)
as unfit for polite society, and
especially for that of the Queen.
> And who says she fell madly in love with him?
It is common knowledge.
> Was he really considered beautiful (I didn't
> know that, if it were the case.
It was the case.
>> (13) Raleigh/Viola's relationship to
>> Leicester/Orsino;
>> (14) The description of Raleigh/Viola
>> -- his red lips and high-pitched voice;
>> (15) Raleigh/Viola's clumsiness with
>> words -- his inability to speak withOUT
>> first memorising what he wants to say.
>
> We're doing Elizabeth and Olivia. If you want
> to pull in everything in the play you can find
> some strained way of paralleling to the court, I
> would only say that even if we accept your
> parallels,
If you accept my parallels, then you
have lost your case.
> there are far too many anti-parallels.
Sad that you can't remember any.
Twelfth Night was supposed to be a
work of fiction. It was based in
Illyria, not in London. That fact
(and those like it) do not stop it
being a caricature of Elizabeth's
court.
> PLUS, most of the events in the play
> paralleling, in your view, events in Elizabeth's
> life, were in the plot of the source of the play
> long before they were in Elizabeth's life.
Sad that you can't remember any.
>> (16) Elizabeth/Olivia is 'a Cataian'
>> (investor in China).
>> (17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who
>> took a delight in his personal fool;
>> (18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools
>> herself;
>
> Good grief. You mean Shakespeare made sure the
> fool in the play wasn't from Olivia's court
> because Elizabeth had no fool--instead of
> because the plot worked best that way (and he
> generally used just one fool per comedy)?
How exactly is it that 'the plot worked
best that way'? She might well have had
her own fool. Or that fool could have
been passing, in the way they often do.
There was absolutely NO need to make
the fool situation exactly parallel to
that of Elizabeth's.
>> (19) Leicester/Orsino took over one or
>> two of Henry's fools;
>> (20) Elizabeth/Olivia had a lover, who
>> had (for a long time) longed to marry
>> her;
>> (21) Elizabeth/Olivia has a foolish
>> and disregarded admirer, much given to
>> issuing challenges (Sidney/Aguecheek)
>
> Aguecheek is nothing like Sidney.
He is like Oxford's conception of him.
Get the argument straight. Oxford was
not interested in presenting an accurate
historical account, and certainly not
in building up the heroic image that
Sidney later acquired (probably as an
attack on Oxford) which you have taken
fully on board.
>> (22) Elizabeth/Olivia when displeased
>> with Raleigh/Viola tells him/her to go
>> west.
>
> Wasn't that a cliche of the time?
The OED says that it post-dates the
1914-18 world war.
'Go West'
1b. In special applications: (a) to go west, of the sun;
also fig., to die, perish, disappear. (b) To America,
or to the Western States.
The immediate source of the modern use in (a), which became
common during the Great War, has not been established.
(a) c1400 Laud Troy Bk. 13365 For hit was nyght, the sonne goth west.
c1500 Chaucer's L.G.W. 61 (Trin. Camb.) Assone As the son gynneth go west.
15 . . Poems Gray MS. vi. 42 (S.T.S.) 55 Women and mony wilsome wy as
wynd or wattir ar gane west.
1915 E. Corri Thirty Yrs. Boxing Referee 2, I shall once again be in the
company of dear old friends now �gone West�.
>>> What narrative function has making her "so
>>> exceptional?" What function of any kind except to
>>> allow you to say Olivia MUST be based on Queen
>>> Elizabeth.
>>
>> You invent the notion of a 'narrative
>> function' merely to dodge the issue.
>
> The point is that there is no reason, narrative or
> otherwise, for the playwright to make Olivia "so
> exceptional." He makes her never-married because he's
> writing a romantic comedy; he makes her head of a
> household to make her a worthy love interest, and to
> allow for the Toby/Malvolio plot.
So you can readily slot Twelfth Night
into DOZENS of real-life houses. You
can show how it could readily be a
caricature of the household of Queen
Victoria, or Mrs John Adams, or Mrs
Abraham Lincoln, or Mrs George
Washington, or Marie Antoinette.
Let's see your list.
>> Name ONE other such female.
>
> You name one PERSON who agrees with you that
> Olivia MUST be based on Elizabeth because both
> she and Elizabeth were never-married female heads
> of household.
Typical dodge. You really seem to think
that you can call on an ad hominen point
any time you are stuck.
[..]
http://www.io.com/~jlockett/Grist/English/12thnightsources.html
>> which states:
>
> You appear to have missed my comma, Paul
>
>
>> " . . The most notable differences between these earlier
>> versions of the tale and Shakespeare's lie, obviously, in
>> the Viola character. Shakespeare's heroine has no previous
>> relationship with her love Orsino; she has only "heard
>> [her] father name him" (I.ii.28). This lack of prior
>> attachment certainly removes much of the opportunity for
>> bitterness that Lelia has in wooing the woman who has
>> supplanted her. And Lelia's political maneuvering,
>> inappropriate for a romantic heroine, vanishes too: she no
>> longer bargains . . "
>>
>> Do ANY of the differences mentioned in that
>> passage make 12th Night more or less fitting
>> to the English court of 1578?
>
> Neither more nor less.
Completely wrong. Raleigh was fairly
new at court. There would have been
no sense to showing him having a long-
standing 'romantic' entanglement with
Leicester.
> What they do is make Twelfth Night a better play.
What a stupid dodge.
[..]
>>> Also, you're skipping everything in the plot that
>>> Shakespeare did not modify, like a girl disguised as
>>> a man. This is contrary to your alleged function--
>>> or would be if anything could be.
>>
>> Nonsense -- not if it is to ridicule
>> Raleigh; a purpose for which it is ideal.
>
> To you. But what in the play can't you say that
> about? What in Macbeth can't you say that about?
As you well know, I have pointed out
dozens of insinuations by the poet of
Raleigh's femininity, such as: "false
womens fashion /A man in hue . . "
There is nothing in Macbeth that hints
at Raleigh. There is no Elizabeth
character and no one with whom such a
character could foolishly fall in love.
No one pleads for a heir of anyone's
body to 'preserve that beauty'.
It is YOUR case that the plot of 12th
Night could be fitted into Macbeth's
court. Let's see you do it.
>> The twin thing does seem to me to
>> have no relevance to the English court
>> (although I may well be missing
>> something). At the moment I think
>> that the poet left it in to have a
>> plot -- so it would be neutral.
>
> You could unfalsifiably say the same about
> anything else even you couldn't work into your
> scheme.
So what? I only make a case on those
(very large) parts that I CAN fit into
Elizabeth's court. Your response is
to claim that they could be fitted into
almost any court. So name a few, and
show how it could be done with one of
them.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> >>> exchanges of dialogue. The Malvolio plot would be
> >>> nothing be jibes and a few of Toby's meditations.
>
> >> The plot could have be changed drastically,
> >> with the same characters involved, without
> >> bothering too many of a typical audience.
>
> > I like the idea of Viola as Lady Macbeth in Macbeth, but
> > it wouldn't work, Paul. Characters are created to fit
> > specific plots, plots are created to reveal specific
> > characters.
>
> Never seen or heard a soap? Never seen
> or heard a series? (Friends, CSI, 24,
> Lost . .) For them, new plots are invented
> in every episode, with the same old
> characters.
We're dealing with romantic comedies, not soaps.
I'm not up to teaching you the many differences.
> The same applies roughly to
> Shakespeare's plays. Raleigh and Sidney
> Aguecheek) appear all over the place.
> And Leicester/Elizabeth are seen as
> Oberon/Titania, and as Claudius/Gertrude.
According only to you, and a few wacks like Ogburn, Paul.
To the rest of us, the characters are universal commedia del
arte characters Shakespeare has fleshed out, as all the
great writers of comedy have.
> > Consider just Malvolio: he's needs a hoax to be
> > played on him to reveal what he's like, and to
> > get laughs from him. Change the plot and you
> > necessarily change the characters.
>
> Nonsense. Malvolio's (Hatton's) pomposity,
> intense ambition, foolishness, humourlessness,
> officiousness, etc., could be brought out
> in dozens of ways.
Sure, but not so vividly, and not so narratively-interestingly.
> > Viola isn't Viola unless involved in a boy/girl
> > predicament.
>
> You have a very strange theory of
> drama.
It's certainly different from yours.
Nor one, probably, named Olivia. So what?
Of course Olivia or any other comedy character will have
some unique distinguishing features. In this case,
possibly, head of household.
> > That both Olivia and Elizabeth are attractive can
> > be thrown out the same way, after being regarded
> > separately. Ditto the fact that both are
> > unmarried. And noble.
>
> You suggest that they can be 'thrown out'
> because they are so common and conventional.
> BUT if that is true, then where are your
> counter-examples? From (a) real life;
> (b) drama; (c) the rest of all literature?
> You would have to skip a few hundred
> years (over Jane Austen, etc.) to find
> 'never-married, rich, independent' --
> but, by then, 'noble' no longer applied.
>
> There are NO such examples. Why can't
> you admit it?
We've gone through this. Produce a list of all the women
in Elizabeth's England and the pertinent details of their lives,
and I'll be glad to go through to find an example.
But you are ignoring my point which is that Olivia is the way
she is almost entirely because (1) the character she is based
on from the Italian play is the way she is, (2) because she
is a woman, and therefore will have many characteristics in
common with many other women. and (3) because some of
her characteristics are dramatically convenient--by making her
psychologically more the way Shakespeare wanted her and/or
more narratively useful and interesting. Her being unmarried
doesn't make her Elizabeth. Her being unmarried and head of
a household may well suggest Elizabeth, and may even be
because her creator was thinking of Elizabeth as a partial
model, but it DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE HER
ELIZABETH. Do you really think that if Elizabeth had never
existed, this play could not have been written? (It would not
have been exactly as it is, but near enough--because any change
in the times will influence all that happens in them.) I know, you
do.
But that's idiotic. It's a standard Elizabethan romantic comedy
influenced by the Italians and by Jonson with nothing necessarily
to do with Elizabeth.
I can accept the possibility that Shakespeare knew a lot about
Elizabeth and much of that got into the character of Olivia, but
you can't accept the possibility that the few things Olivia had in
common with Elizabeth and, according to you, no one else were
the result of coincidence, or the narrative needs or wants of
the playwright and had nothing to do with Elizabeth. For you, nothing
of importance happened between 1550 and 1603 (or since) in England
or the entire world that Elizabeth was not central to.
> >>> Olivia is based on Elizabeth because AMONG OTHER THINGS
> >>> they are both noble.
>
> >> As, I am trying to point out 'nobility'
> >> was sometimes emphasised; and sometimes
> >> barely indicated.
>
> >> And It's not 'among other things'.
> >> It's 'WITH other things'.
>
> > They both wore dresses.
>
> You would have no difficulty finding
> (in real life or in drama) characters
> wearing dresses.
Precisely my poing: you would have no difficulty
finding real and fictionaly women who were noble.
> >> We have (1)the elevated nobility of Olivia;
> >> (2) her never-married state;
> >> (3) the 'inexplicable' nature of that state
> >> (and the fake and semi-crazy reasons given
> >> for it);
>
> > In your subjective reasoning. But the reasons
> > given are different for each. You won't allow all
> > the differences to be taken WITH each other, will
> > you. There is also the plot, which you ignore; it
> > forces Olivia to have a reason, a romantic comedy
> > reason, for remaining unmarried.
>
> So how come there are not hundreds of
> other playwrights, each writing dozens
> of plays, using the same conventional
> plot, producing a range of characters
> that closely match
Accordin only to you and a few wacks like Ogburn,
so far as I know.
> Elizabeth and her courtiers around 1578?
Prove there are not.
> >> (4) the general desire that she should
> >> have an heir of her body;
>
> > Viola uses a standard reason for trying to argue
> > Olivia into looking favorably on Orlando. It's
> > Viola's reason, given for plot reasons, not
> > evidence of any "general desire that she should
> > have an heir of her body."
>
> So how come there are not hundreds of
> other playwrights, each writing dozens
> of plays, using the same 'standard
> reason' (given for plot reasons) which
> just happen to coincide with the major
> pressure on Elizabeth in first two
> decades of her reign?
Prove there are not. Prove also that the urging of Elizabeth
to marry did not give Shakespeare the idea to use the
standard motive for marrying in his play. I deny, by the
way, that no one ever told a romantic heroine or hero
refusing to marry that she or he should in order to pass
on her or his intelligence, beauty, character or the like,
but I'm not going to devote my declining years researching
it.
> >> (5) her wealth, and extensive lands;
>
> > head of household.
>
> >> (6) her intelligence and education;
>
> > Right, standard things for a romantic comedy
> > female lead.
>
> So how come there are not hundreds of
> other playwrights, each writing dozens
> of plays, employing the same 'standard
> things' with their romantic comedy
> female leads?
Name a few that do not. Every Shaw play, for instance, has
intelligent women. Some of them are educated. (I don't
think we know Olivia had any formal education, only
assume it.)
> >> (7) her toleration of outrageous bawdy;
>
> > Standard in Shakespearean comedy and not
> > pronounced in Olivia.
>
> Firstly, you probably miss 99% of the
> bawdy, but even this should be enough:
> MALVOLIO
> By my life, this is my lady's hand these be
> her very C's, her U's and her T's and thus
> makes she her great P's. It is, in contempt
> of question, her hand.
Olivia appreciated this?
> Secondly, the question is how so much
> of Shakespearean comedy managed to be
> so bawdy.
Jonson isn't? But you're changing the subject.
> >> (8) her relationship to her 'uncle', Lord
> >> Hunsdon (who was Chamberlain of the
> >> Household from 1575 -- "a blunt, plain-
> >> spoken man with little
>
> tact"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Carey,_1st_Baron_Hunsdon);
>
>
>
> > Your subjective opinion.
>
> Objective fact. Name another rich,
> noble independent never-married woman
who wore a dress
> who had a rich often-drunk 'uncle' who
> was nominally in charge of the running
> of household.
> >> (9) her relationship to the ursine (i.e. bear-
> >> like) Leicester;
>
> Was Leicester attached to bears?
I don't know.
> Does Orsino mean 'ursine'? Is this
> all a coincidence?
No and yes. You are cherry-picking. Standard anti-Stratfordianism.
Find everything in a text you can strain into a connection to your
delusional system and ignore all that you can't.
> >> (10) her relationship to the fatuous Philip
> >> Sidney (Aguecheek);
> >> (11) her relationship to Christopher Hatton
> >> (Malvolio);
>
> > I claim that whomever Shakespeare had put in
> > Olivia's household, you could find a match for in
> > Elizabeth's court. So what.
>
> And you could supposedly do the same.
> In fact, you could relate that household
> to ANY known one in history -- to that
> of (say) Jacqueline Kennedy at the White
> House, or to that of Donald Trump and one
> of his wives, or to that of Eleanor
> Roosevelt, or to that of Michelle Obama,
> or to those of Barbara Bush or Laura
> Bush; or to that of Cleopatra or Helen
> of Troy. Or maybe I have not got those
> you have in mind. Give us the list.
Yes, I could. If I were a rigidnik so insanely desiring to prove
a moron theory that I devoted as much time to it as Ogburn did,
and--apparently--you. But I'm not. I don't have to, because I can
connect the plays to the plays it was based on.
> > And we were talking about the character of each
> > of the two we were comparing. If you want to
> > compare their situations, as you are doing here,
> > you HAVE to consider how their situations
> > differed. Elizabeth was not wooed by a girl
> > dressed as a boy;
>
> It simply has to fit the Oxfordian
> scenario I have stated. Would it have
> suited Oxford to present Raleigh in
> that manner?
How can anyone know? How could it be shown it would not have?
Counter-question: if I say Olivia was based on Ann Hathaway,
what can you say against me? Wait, let me hypothesize
Orsino (whose name I confuse with Orlando) is based on Ann
Hathaway. I say it "suited Shakespeare to have done this."
Disprove me.
> > she does not fall in love with such a person.
>
> Did she fall in love with Nick Bottom
> when he had an ass's head? Was the
> general opinion of Elizabeth's court
> outraged by her behaviour with Raleigh?
Let's stick to Twelfth Night.
> > She does not marry the twin brother of such a
> > person. She is not wooed by a person who wears
> > the wrong sort of stockings.
>
> She was 'wooed' by all manner of male
> courtiers. It was a requirement of
> her court that she be so 'wooed'.
> I'm sure many had the wrong sort of
> stockings.
And were wearing them because Hundsley (?) got them to?
Name one of these and present supporting evidence. Which
of them was Raleigh's twin? Did she marry him?
> >> (12) her falling madly in love with the
> >> beautiful, but low-born Walter Raleigh
> >> who emerged from nowhere, but who
> >> claimed to be a gentleman (Viola);
>
> > Subjectivity, and very strained. Raleigh, as
> > far as I know, WAS a gentleman.
>
> You are obliged to consider an opponent's
> arguments as they are -- not as you might
> like them to be. Mine here is that
> Oxford posed as an intense snob, and
> regarded a mere gentleman (or someone
> who claimed to be merely a gentleman)
> as unfit for polite society, and
> especially for that of the Queen.
That's absurd. How can that sort of reasoning not
be used to prove anything? Here, if Raleigh is not
a gentleman, you win the argument, and if he is,
then because Oxford thinks him not (or "pretends"
to think he is not, you also win. Not quite fair.
> > And who says she fell madly in love with him?
>
> It is common knowledge.
No, it isn't. List the authorities on ELizabeth and show
which believe this and which do not.
> > Was he really considered beautiful (I didn't
> > know that, if it were the case.
>
> It was the case.
Got any citations? Who says so besides you?
> >> (13) Raleigh/Viola's relationship to
> >> Leicester/Orsino;
> >> (14) The description of Raleigh/Viola
> >> -- his red lips and high-pitched voice;
> >> (15) Raleigh/Viola's clumsiness with
> >> words -- his inability to speak withOUT
> >> first memorising what he wants to say.
>
> > We're doing Elizabeth and Olivia. If you want
> > to pull in everything in the play you can find
> > some strained way of paralleling to the court, I
> > would only say that even if we accept your
> > parallels,
>
> If you accept my parallels, then you
> have lost your case.
No, I haven't.
> > there are far too many anti-parallels.
>
> Sad that you can't remember any.
Yes, but I at least tried to. I mentioned the Twelfth Night's plot
ending in marriages, but that's not an anti-parallel because
anti-parallels need to be ratified as such by He-Who-Knows,
and you will never do it.
> Twelfth Night was supposed to be a
> work of fiction. It was based in
> Illyria, not in London. That fact
> (and those like it) do not stop it
> being a caricature of Elizabeth's
> court.
Of course not.
> > PLUS, most of the events in the play
> > paralleling, in your view, events in Elizabeth's
> > life, were in the plot of the source of the play
> > long before they were in Elizabeth's life.
>
> Sad that you can't remember any.
The play was written in the 30's; I did remember the
plot from it that's in Shakespeare's plays. One event in
it that you say parallels and event in Elizabeth's life
is someone's woing Olivia on behalf of another person.
I believe there were other similar events.
> >> (16) Elizabeth/Olivia is 'a Cataian'
> >> (investor in China).
> >> (17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who
> >> took a delight in his personal fool;
> >> (18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools
> >> herself;
>
> > Good grief. You mean Shakespeare made sure the
> > fool in the play wasn't from Olivia's court
> > because Elizabeth had no fool--instead of
> > because the plot worked best that way (and he
> > generally used just one fool per comedy)?
>
> How exactly is it that 'the plot worked
> best that way'? She might well have had
> her own fool. Or that fool could have
> been passing, in the way they often do.
I'd need to reread the play to find out. I merely assert
that the fool worked better narratively and psychologically
as Shakespeare has him.
> There was absolutely NO need to make
> the fool situation exactly parallel to
> that of Elizabeth's.
It was not exactly parallel, and there was no reason for it
not to seem parallel to you by chance.
> >> (19) Leicester/Orsino took over one or
> >> two of Henry's fools;
> >> (20) Elizabeth/Olivia had a lover, who
> >> had (for a long time) longed to marry
> >> her;
> >> (21) Elizabeth/Olivia has a foolish
> >> and disregarded admirer, much given to
> >> issuing challenges (Sidney/Aguecheek)
>
> > Aguecheek is nothing like Sidney.
>
> He is like Oxford's conception of him.
> Get the argument straight. Oxford was
> not interested in presenting an accurate
> historical account, and certainly not
> in building up the heroic image that
> Sidney later acquired (probably as an
> attack on Oxford) which you have taken
> fully on board.
Right. Aguecheck is Sidney because you say he is.
(You don't know my view of Sidney. I do know that
his writings are vastly superior to Oxford's.)
> >> (22) Elizabeth/Olivia when displeased
> >> with Raleigh/Viola tells him/her to go
> >> west.
>
> > Wasn't that a cliche of the time?
>
> The OED says that it post-dates the
> 1914-18 world war.
>
> 'Go West'
> 1b. In special applications: (a) to go west, of the sun;
> also fig., to die, perish, disappear. (b) To America,
> or to the Western States.
>
> The immediate source of the modern use in (a), which became
> common during the Great War, has not been established.
> (a) c1400 Laud Troy Bk. 13365 For hit was nyght, the sonne goth west.
> c1500 Chaucer's L.G.W. 61 (Trin. Camb.) Assone As the son gynneth go west.
> 15 . . Poems Gray MS. vi. 42 (S.T.S.) 55 Women and mony wilsome wy as
> wynd or wattir ar gane west.
> 1915 E. Corri Thirty Yrs. Boxing Referee 2, I shall once again be in the
> company of dear old friends now ‘gone West’.
>
> >>> What narrative function has making her "so
> >>> exceptional?" What function of any kind except to
> >>> allow you to say Olivia MUST be based on Queen
> >>> Elizabeth.
>
> >> You invent the notion of a 'narrative
> >> function' merely to dodge the issue.
>
> > The point is that there is no reason, narrative or
> > otherwise, for the playwright to make Olivia "so
> > exceptional." He makes her never-married because he's
> > writing a romantic comedy; he makes her head of a
> > household to make her a worthy love interest, and to
> > allow for the Toby/Malvolio plot.
>
> So you can readily slot Twelfth Night
> into DOZENS of real-life houses. You
> can show how it could readily be a
> caricature of the household of Queen
> Victoria, or Mrs John Adams, or Mrs
> Abraham Lincoln, or Mrs George
> Washington, or Marie Antoinette.
>
Already answered.
>
> >> Name ONE other such female.
>
> > You name one PERSON who agrees with you that
> > Olivia MUST be based on Elizabeth because both
> > she and Elizabeth were never-married female heads
> > of household.
> Typical dodge. You really seem to think
> that you can call on an ad hominen point
> any time you are stuck.
If I say a certain cloud is white and you say it is a
combination of orange and purple, and I can get
a thousand people to agree with me, and you can
get no one to agree with you, who is more likely to be right?
I wasn't stuck, by the way. My argument, that one minor
similarity between Olivia and Elizabeth is not sufficient
for a san person to conclude that Olivia MUST have been
based on Elizabeth holds. You have presented no argument
against it.
That's what your source says.
> [..]
>
> >>> Also, you're skipping everything in the plot that
> >>> Shakespeare did not modify, like a girl disguised as
> >>> a man. This is contrary to your alleged function--
> >>> or would be if anything could be.
>
> >> Nonsense -- not if it is to ridicule
> >> Raleigh; a purpose for which it is ideal.
>
> > To you. But what in the play can't you say that
> > about? What in Macbeth can't you say that about?
>
> As you well know, I have pointed out
> dozens of insinuations by the poet of
> Raleigh's femininity,
"the poet" never wrote anything explicitly about Raleigh.
You can't simply argue that Viola is like a character in
the sonnets or wherever and that character according to
you is Raleigh, which makes Viola a ringer for Raleigh.
> such as: "false
> womens fashion /A man in hue . . "
> There is nothing in Macbeth that hints
> at Raleigh. There is no Elizabeth
> character and no one with whom such a
> character could foolishly fall in love.
> No one pleads for a heir of anyone's
> body to 'preserve that beauty'.
They were both men, neither disguised himself as a woman at any time,
they were poets (Macbeth spoke like a poet), they were both
courageous,
neither had a twin brother. But I'm not a zealot, so can't devote a
major
portion of my time to finding more similarities. Plus, I can say
that
Shakespeare thought of Raliegh as being like Macbeth.
> It is YOUR case that the plot of 12th
> Night could be fitted into Macbeth's
> court. Let's see you do it.
This is idiotic. You have many more details about Elizabeth's court
to work with than I have of Macbeth's. Plus, that Twelfth Night's
plots
are not significantly like what was going on in Elizabeth's court does
not mean they may not have been more like them than they were
like what was going on in some other courts.
> >> The twin thing does seem to me to
> >> have no relevance to the English court
> >> (although I may well be missing
> >> something). At the moment I think
> >> that the poet left it in to have a
> >> plot -- so it would be neutral.
>
> > You could unfalsifiably say the same about
> > anything else even you couldn't work into your
> > scheme.
>
> So what? I only make a case on those
> (very large) parts that I CAN fit into
> Elizabeth's court. Your response is
> to claim that they could be fitted into
> almost any court. So name a few, and
> show how it could be done with one of
> them.
>
> Paul.
I fit much larger parts into the Gl'Ingannati court, so have no
need to fit it into any other court.
This argument, obviously, have gone down the same drain all
our longer arguments have. Again, you say you're right, I'm wrong,
and I say I'm right and you're wrong, and it ends there, with you
the winner because you have no need for any other affirmation than
your own, and I do.
But I am very interested to know just what makes Twelfth Night
a superior play for you. It's not its plot. If you want to say,
start a
thread on it and I'll say why I think the play a superior one. (I'll
start with the claim that its plotting is the most important thing
about it, then its diction and diction-generated tone as a single
thing; its
characterizations come third for me. I will say why these are
important for me. What comes first for you if not that you
find it to be revealing about Elizabeth's court?)
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>>> I like the idea of Viola as Lady Macbeth in Macbeth, but
>>> it wouldn't work, Paul. Characters are created to fit
>>> specific plots, plots are created to reveal specific
>>> characters.
>>
>> Never seen or heard a soap? Never seen
>> or heard a series? (Friends, CSI, 24,
>> Lost . .) For them, new plots are invented
>> in every episode, with the same old
>> characters.
>
> We're dealing with romantic comedies, not soaps.
You are dealing in lies and deceit.
You set out a rule: "Characters are
created to fit specific plots . .".
I show you that it is false by referring
to that overwhelmingly present form
of drama.
>> The same applies roughly to
>> Shakespeare's plays. Raleigh and Sidney
>> Aguecheek) appear all over the place.
>> And Leicester/Elizabeth are seen as
>> Oberon/Titania, and as Claudius/Gertrude.
>
> According only to you, and a few wacks like
> Ogburn, Paul. To the rest of us, the characters
> are universal commedia del arte characters
> Shakespeare has fleshed out, as all the great
> writers of comedy have.
Many people daily watch hours of drama
on TV. Nearly everybody sees some.
Are the characters in what they see
'universal'? Or are you talking your
usual bullshit?
>>> How about adding
>>> English-speaking, and intelligent--and good with
>>> the language? How would I be allowed to counter
>>> you with the argument that these traits are each
>>> too common in romantic comedy and real life to
>>> connect a dramatic character having them to a
>>> real person?
>>
>> You would counter any such argument
>> with contrary EXAMPLES. You would
>> have no difficulty finding intelligent,
>> articulate, English-speaking females
>> in English drama. BUT you cannot find
>> -- neither in real life, nor in drama,
>> nor in literature -- any independent,
>> rich, never-married women who ran
>> large households.
>> [..]
>
> Nor one, probably, named Olivia. So what?
So what? You have forgotten already?
If someone was to write a book about
an intelligent, Southern, highly
articulate presidential candidate with
a trouser problem, might it be hard to
say what real person was indicated?
My argument is that there was only
ONE real person who fulfilled the
peculiar conditions of Olivia in
Twelfth Night. Is she therefore
represented? A simple denial does
not suffice.
>>> That both Olivia and Elizabeth are attractive can
>>> be thrown out the same way, after being regarded
>>> separately. Ditto the fact that both are
>>> unmarried. And noble.
>> You suggest that they can be 'thrown out'
>> because they are so common and conventional.
>> BUT if that is true, then where are your
>> counter-examples? From (a) real life;
>> (b) drama; (c) the rest of all literature?
>> You would have to skip a few hundred
>> years (over Jane Austen, etc.) to find
>> 'never-married, rich, independent' --
>> but, by then, 'noble' no longer applied.
>>
>> There are NO such examples. Why can't
>> you admit it?
>
> We've gone through this. Produce a list of all
> the women in Elizabeth's England and the
> pertinent details of their lives, and I'll be
> glad to go through to find an example.
Dodge and duck. You want a list of
a million women?
> But you are ignoring my point which is that
> Olivia is the way she is almost entirely
> because (1) the character she is based on from
> the Italian play is the way she is,
Not so. Isabella (in Gl'Ingannati) is
nothing like Olivia.
> (2) because she is a woman, and therefore will
> have many characteristics in common with many
> other women. and
Sure -- just like Lady Macbeth, or Juliet
(in R&J) or Goneril (in Lear) or Perdita
(in Winters Tale). All women are basically
the same. Just as all men as basically
the same. That's what makes drama so
interesting.
[..]
> I can accept the possibility that Shakespeare
> knew a lot about Elizabeth and much of that got
> into the character of Olivia,
Olivia is either a portrayal of Elizabeth,
or she is not. Which is it? Up to now,
all Strats have not conceived of the idea.
If she is a portrayal, then is the whole
play about her court? If so, it has to
be about it while she could have an heir
of her body. Why on earth would the
Stratman date a play back more than
20 years?
> but you can't accept the possibility that the
> few things Olivia had in common with Elizabeth
> and, according to you, no one else were the
> result of coincidence,
It could be no more a coincidence than
is the resemblance of Jack Stanton to
Bill Clinton.
> or the narrative needs
> or wants of the playwright and had nothing to
> do with Elizabeth.
Yeah, yeah.
[..]
>>>> As, I am trying to point out 'nobility'
>>>> was sometimes emphasised; and sometimes
>>>> barely indicated.
>>>> And It's not 'among other things'.
>>>> It's 'WITH other things'.
>>>
>>> They both wore dresses.
>>
>> You would have no difficulty finding
>> (in real life or in drama) characters
>> wearing dresses.
>
> Precisely my poing: you would have no
> difficulty finding real and fictionaly women
> who were noble.
So how is it that you can't find ONE
other never-married, rich, noblewoman
who managed her own house and estates
-- neither in real life, nor in drama,
nor in the whole of literature?
>>> you. There is also the plot, which you ignore; it
>>> forces Olivia to have a reason, a romantic comedy
>>> reason, for remaining unmarried.
>>
>> So how come there are not hundreds of
>> other playwrights, each writing dozens
>> of plays, using the same conventional
>> plot, producing a range of characters
>> that closely match
>
> Accordin only to you and a few wacks like Ogburn,
> so far as I know.
>
>> Elizabeth and her courtiers around 1578?
>
> Prove there are not.
You must know that this is an idiotic
request. Do you want me to list every
work of drama and fiction over the
past 400 years, and describe its plot?
>>>> (4) the general desire that she should
>>>> have an heir of her body;
>>>
>>> Viola uses a standard reason for trying to argue
>>> Olivia into looking favorably on Orlando. It's
>>> Viola's reason, given for plot reasons, not
>>> evidence of any "general desire that she should
>>> have an heir of her body."
>>
>> So how come there are not hundreds of
>> other playwrights, each writing dozens
>> of plays, using the same 'standard
>> reason' (given for plot reasons) which
>> just happen to coincide with the major
>> pressure on Elizabeth in first two
>> decades of her reign?
>
> Prove there are not.
You must know that this is an idiotic
request. Do you want me to list every
work of drama and fiction over the
past 400 years, and describe its plot?
> Prove also that the urging of Elizabeth to marry did not
> give Shakespeare the idea to use the standard motive for
> marrying in his play.
The notion is absurd. Elizabeth was the
only female of the day who was in a position
to deny males selected for her to marry.
She was also probably the only one to have
strong reasons for that course of action.
> I deny, by the way, that no one ever told a romantic
> heroine or hero refusing to marry that she or he should
> in order to pass on her or his intelligence, beauty,
> character or the like, but I'm not going to devote my
> declining years researching it.
Sure -- you and every other Strat. You
just dumbly assume the strange requests
in this play (and in the Sonnets) were
common or ordinary behaviour. The
level of stupidity is hard to fathom.
>>>> (5) her wealth, and extensive lands;
>>> head of household.
>>>> (6) her intelligence and education;
>>> Right, standard things for a romantic comedy
>>> female lead.
>>
>> So how come there are not hundreds of
>> other playwrights, each writing dozens
>> of plays, employing the same 'standard
>> things' with their romantic comedy
>> female leads?
>
> Name a few that do not. Every Shaw play, for instance,
> has intelligent women. Some of them are educated. (I
> don't think we know Olivia had any formal education,
> only assume it.)
What Shaw play (or any other play) has
a rich high-class never-married woman
with extensive land?
[..]
>> Was Leicester attached to bears?
>
> I don't know.
>
>> Does Orsino mean 'ursine'? Is this
>> all a coincidence?
>
> No and yes. You are cherry-picking.
So -- if you had any competence -- you
could also "cherry pick" from the play
to show that it was really by a near-
peasant author from the English midlands,
and was written around 1600. How come
that you (and every other Strat) is so
incompetent?
> Standard anti-Stratfordianism. Find everything in a
> text you can strain into a connection to your
> delusional system and ignore all that you can't.
The only thing (in the whole canon)
that Strats can find that "links" to
their delusional system is the truly
absurd "hate-away" line in the Sonnets.
How come that anti-Strats are so far
superior to Strats in this regard?
>>>> (10) her relationship to the fatuous Philip
>>>> Sidney (Aguecheek);
>>>> (11) her relationship to Christopher Hatton
>>>> (Malvolio);
>>>
>>> I claim that whomever Shakespeare had put in
>>> Olivia's household, you could find a match for in
>>> Elizabeth's court. So what.
>>
>> And you could supposedly do the same.
>> In fact, you could relate that household
>> to ANY known one in history -- to that
>> of (say) Jacqueline Kennedy at the White
>> House, or to that of Donald Trump and one
>> of his wives, or to that of Eleanor
>> Roosevelt, or to that of Michelle Obama,
>> or to those of Barbara Bush or Laura
>> Bush; or to that of Cleopatra or Helen
>> of Troy. Or maybe I have not got those
>> you have in mind. Give us the list.
>
> Yes, I could. If I were a rigidnik so insanely
> desiring to prove a moron theory that I devoted as
> much time to it as Ogburn did, and--apparently--you.
> But I'm not.
We are not talking just about YOU. But
about the LEGIONS of Strats over the
past centuries. You have massive talents
(including the likes of Michael Martin)
to assist you in this task.
How come you are ALL so useless?
> I don't have to, because I can connect
> the plays to the plays it was based on.
Stratfordians (as an industry) should
do it, and would do it -- if they could.
They can't.
>>> And we were talking about the character of each
>>> of the two we were comparing. If you want to
>>> compare their situations, as you are doing here,
>>> you HAVE to consider how their situations
>>> differed. Elizabeth was not wooed by a girl
>>> dressed as a boy;
>>
>> It simply has to fit the Oxfordian
>> scenario I have stated. Would it have
>> suited Oxford to present Raleigh in
>> that manner?
>
> How can anyone know? How could it be shown it would
> not have?
It is easy to state the reasons. I have
done so often. Raleigh introduced a new
set of feminine fashions to male courtiers:
long hair, earrings, perfume, make-up.
Oxford was naturally intensely jealous of
his success. Other courtiers shared his
feelings. All this is recorded history.
> Counter-question: if I say Olivia was based on Ann
> Hathaway, what can you say against me? Wait, let me
> hypothesize Orsino (whose name I confuse with
> Orlando) is based on Ann Hathaway. I say it "suited
> Shakespeare to have done this." Disprove me.
You would have to state some supporting
facts and give some reasons. You can't,
and haven't any.
[..]
> Yes, but I at least tried to. I mentioned the
> Twelfth Night's plot ending in marriages, but that's
> not an anti-parallel because anti-parallels need to
> be ratified as such by He-Who-Knows, and you will
> never do it.
>
>> Twelfth Night was supposed to be a
>> work of fiction. It was based in
>> Illyria, not in London. That fact
>> (and those like it) do not stop it
>> being a caricature of Elizabeth's
>> court.
>
> Of course not.
Neither does the fact that the play ends
in marriages. IF the play ended in the
wrong sort of marriages you might have a
point. It would have been tactless for
Oxford to have told the Queen to marry a
specific person. And he certainly was
never in favour of a marriage to Leicester
(although he might have preferred that to
no marriage at all.) So he has Olivia
marry a purely fictional 'twin'. The
marriage of Orsino (Leicester) to Viola
(Raleigh) was obviously impossible, and
no more than a joke.
>>> PLUS, most of the events in the play
>>> paralleling, in your view, events in Elizabeth's
>>> life, were in the plot of the source of the play
>>> long before they were in Elizabeth's life.
>>
>> Sad that you can't remember any.
>
> The play was written in the 30's; I did remember the
> plot from it that's in Shakespeare's plays. One
> event in it that you say parallels and event in
> Elizabeth's life is someone's woing Olivia on behalf
> of another person. I believe there were other
> similar events.
Sure -- the playwright picked a 'source'
suitable to his purposes. This is exactly
the same as the fictional Hamlet picking
'The Mousetrap' for his purposes.
>>>> (16) Elizabeth/Olivia is 'a Cataian'
>>>> (investor in China).
>>>> (17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who
>>>> took a delight in his personal fool;
>>>> (18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools
>>>> herself;
>> There was absolutely NO need to make
>> the fool situation exactly parallel to
>> that of Elizabeth's.
>
> It was not exactly parallel,
Of course it was. You point to no
difference.
>>> The point is that there is no reason, narrative or
>>> otherwise, for the playwright to make Olivia "so
>>> exceptional." He makes her never-married because he's
>>> writing a romantic comedy; he makes her head of a
>>> household to make her a worthy love interest, and to
>>> allow for the Toby/Malvolio plot.
>>
>> So you can readily slot Twelfth Night
>> into DOZENS of real-life houses. You
>> can show how it could readily be a
>> caricature of the household of Queen
>> Victoria, or Mrs John Adams, or Mrs
>> Abraham Lincoln, or Mrs George
>> Washington, or Marie Antoinette.
>>
> Already answered.
Not answered at all.
>>>> Name ONE other such female.
>>>
>>> You name one PERSON who agrees with you that
>>> Olivia MUST be based on Elizabeth because both
>>> she and Elizabeth were never-married female heads
>>> of household.
>
>> Typical dodge. You really seem to think
>> that you can call on an ad hominen point
>> any time you are stuck.
>
> If I say a certain cloud is white and you say it is
> a combination of orange and purple, and I can get a
> thousand people to agree with me, and you can get no
> one to agree with you, who is more likely to be
> right?
Majorities are not necessarily right --
especially when they are defending some
ancient doctrine they unthinkingly
learned at school from unthinking
teachers.
> I wasn't stuck, by the way. My argument, that one
> minor similarity between Olivia and Elizabeth is not
> sufficient for a san person to conclude that Olivia
> MUST have been based on Elizabeth holds. You have
> presented no argument against it.
I list 22 items (and I could easily find
more) -- and that to you is 'no argument'.
>> As you well know, I have pointed out
>> dozens of insinuations by the poet of
>> Raleigh's femininity,
>
> "the poet" never wrote anything explicitly about
> Raleigh. You can't simply argue that Viola is like a
> character in the sonnets or wherever and that
> character according to you is Raleigh, which makes
> Viola a ringer for Raleigh.
Of course I can. If I propose a theory
based on a reading of one or two texts,
and then I find confirmation in dozens
of others, it can only be true. How
else do you think these things work?
Are you expecting Jove to send a
thunderbolt, or to find a confirmation
in some goat's entrails
>> such as: "false
>> womens fashion /A man in hue . . "
>> There is nothing in Macbeth that hints
>> at Raleigh. There is no Elizabeth
>> character and no one with whom such a
>> character could foolishly fall in love.
>> No one pleads for a heir of anyone's
>> body to 'preserve that beauty'.
>
> They were both men, neither disguised himself as a
> woman at any time, they were poets (Macbeth spoke
> like a poet), they were both courageous, neither had
> a twin brother. But I'm not a zealot, so can't
> devote a major portion of my time to finding more
> similarities. Plus, I can say that Shakespeare
> thought of Raliegh as being like Macbeth.
Sure -- on the ground that they both
wore trousers.
>> It is YOUR case that the plot of 12th
>> Night could be fitted into Macbeth's
>> court. Let's see you do it.
>
> This is idiotic. You have many more details about
> Elizabeth's court to work with than I have of
> Macbeth's.
That could help you. You could make
'reasonable' suppositions. In any
case, you could switch to the court
of (say) Queen Victoria, or Kennedy's
Camelot -- on which you have much
more information.
> Plus, that Twelfth Night's plots are not
> significantly like what was going on in Elizabeth's
> court does not mean they may not have been more like
> them than they were like what was going on in some
> other courts.
Why should the plot of Twelfth Night
better fit Elizabeth's court than some
others? (The only sensible answer is
that the playwright made it that way.)
>> So what? I only make a case on those
>> (very large) parts that I CAN fit into
>> Elizabeth's court. Your response is
>> to claim that they could be fitted into
>> almost any court. So name a few, and
>> show how it could be done with one of
>> them.
>
> I fit much larger parts into the Gl'Ingannati court,
> so have no need to fit it into any other court.
Liar. You say that it no more fits that
of Elizabeth than any other. So fit it
to SOME other.
> This argument, obviously, have gone down the same
> drain all our longer arguments have. Again, you say
> you're right, I'm wrong, and I say I'm right and
> you're wrong, and it ends there
Nope. You cannot do what you (explicitly
or implicitly) claim you can do. Your
failure is obvious and pathetic. It's not
different in principle from one of my
explanations of the Sonnets. They work.
Yours don't. In fact, Strats don't even
try to make theirs work. The words of
the play, or the poem, are there because
they're there because they're there.
> But I am very interested to know just what makes
> Twelfth Night a superior play for you. It's not its
> plot.
To a large extent it is a caricature of
Elizabeth's court. If you miss that
aspect -- as Strats necessarily do --
then you fail to grasp much of the
purpose of the play.
The play comes to life because it was
about real people. Maybe you can pick
that up, even when you think that all
the characters are purely fictional.
It's probably like reading Sonnet 18
without any sense that it is about
Mary QS, etc., -- thinking that it's
only about the weather. It's poetry
as nursery rhymes. It's literary
appreciation for small children.
[..]
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>> I like the idea of Viola as Lady Macbeth in Macbeth, but
> >>> it wouldn't work, Paul. Characters are created to fit
> >>> specific plots, plots are created to reveal specific
> >>> characters.
>
> >> Never seen or heard a soap? Never seen
> >> or heard a series? (Friends, CSI, 24,
> >> Lost . .) For them, new plots are invented
> >> in every episode, with the same old
> >> characters.
>
> > We're dealing with romantic comedies, not soaps.
>
> You are dealing in lies and deceit.
> You set out a rule: "Characters are
> created to fit specific plots . .".
> I show you that it is false by referring
> to that overwhelmingly present form
> of drama.
I have been consistently dealing with Serious Literature, Paul.
I suspect my rule would work more often with soaps than not,
too, but I'm not going to start watching and recording them to
demonstrate it. Mostely I've been dealing with Serious Romantic
Comedy,
as I keep reminding you, but of course in a discussion like this I've
sometimes added Drama of all kinds--and even included novels
and short stories.
> >> The same applies roughly to
> >> Shakespeare's plays. Raleigh and Sidney
> >> Aguecheek) appear all over the place.
> >> And Leicester/Elizabeth are seen as
> >> Oberon/Titania, and as Claudius/Gertrude.
>
> > According only to you, and a few wacks like
> > Ogburn, Paul. To the rest of us, the characters
> > are universal commedia del arte characters
> > Shakespeare has fleshed out, as all the great
> > writers of comedy have.
>
> Many people daily watch hours of drama
> on TV. Nearly everybody sees some.
> Are the characters in what they see
> 'universal'? Or are you talking your
> usual bullshit?
Some are, some are not (I suppose). It has nothing to do
with how many are familiar with them but with their
connection to final biological drives. But all I can
say about that is for you, bullshit, so I won't bother. You
clearly have no idea what universal characters, plots and
meaning are. Except that you unknowingly grope for
the only universal characters you seem sensitive to, the lone hero
achieving greatness among those indifferent to him, and the
virgin goddess/queen.
> >>> How about adding
> >>> English-speaking, and intelligent--and good with
> >>> the language? How would I be allowed to counter
> >>> you with the argument that these traits are each
> >>> too common in romantic comedy and real life to
> >>> connect a dramatic character having them to a
> >>> real person?
>
> >> You would counter any such argument
> >> with contrary EXAMPLES. You would
> >> have no difficulty finding intelligent,
> >> articulate, English-speaking females
> >> in English drama. BUT you cannot find
> >> -- neither in real life, nor in drama,
> >> nor in literature -- any independent,
> >> rich, never-married women who ran
> >> large households.
> >> [..]
>
> > Nor one, probably, named Olivia. So what?
>
> So what? You have forgotten already?
> If someone was to write a book about
> an intelligent, Southern, highly
> articulate presidential candidate with
> a trouser problem, might it be hard to
> say what real person was indicated?
For me, Paul, because I think Clinton possibly no brighter
than you, and not particularly articulate. But your analogy breaks
down other ways. You have him a presidential candidate,
but Olivia is not a queen. You also ignore the fact that the Olivia
character existed in fiction before Elizabeth became queen. If I
had read a novel from 1960 that had the same character as the
one in this book you're speaking of, it would not be clear that
the character was meant to be Clinton. Many other differences
include the fact that the plot in the Clinton book is about politics,
the plot in Twelfth Night about boy-meets-girl, and practical jokes.
Still,
the Clinton book's Clinton could be a character intended PARTIALLY
to suggest Clinton but importantly a different character. For
instance,
a playwright might have a president who plays a lot of golf, to
remind
people of Eisenhower or Ford, but not intend the president to be
a caricature or representation of either.
> My argument is that there was only
> ONE real person who fulfilled the
> peculiar conditions of Olivia in
> Twelfth Night. Is she therefore
> represented? A simple denial does
> not suffice.
Is she importantly represented is a saner question. I say no.
A simple affirmation that she is does not siffice. (Did Shakespeare
need Elizabeth as a model for Olivia's falling in love with a woman
disguised as a man? Among other things Olivia and only Olivia does,
like get married.)
> >>> That both Olivia and Elizabeth are attractive can
> >>> be thrown out the same way, after being regarded
> >>> separately. Ditto the fact that both are
> >>> unmarried. And noble.
> >> You suggest that they can be 'thrown out'
> >> because they are so common and conventional.
> >> BUT if that is true, then where are your
> >> counter-examples? From (a) real life;
> >> (b) drama; (c) the rest of all literature?
> >> You would have to skip a few hundred
> >> years (over Jane Austen, etc.) to find
> >> 'never-married, rich, independent' --
> >> but, by then, 'noble' no longer applied.
>
> >> There are NO such examples. Why can't
> >> you admit it?
Because, unlike you, I don't have a list of all the women in
Elizabethan England and their circumstances. And unlike you,
I see no reason an example is needed since the model for
Olivia is in the Italian play and other fictions influlenced by it.
> > We've gone through this. Produce a list of all
> > the women in Elizabeth's England and the
> > pertinent details of their lives, and I'll be
> > glad to go through to find an example.
>
> Dodge and duck. You want a list of
> a million women?
You ask for the equivalent all the time.
> > But you are ignoring my point which is that
> > Olivia is the way she is almost entirely
> > because (1) the character she is based on from
> > the Italian play is the way she is,
>
> Not so. Isabella (in Gl'Ingannati) is
> nothing like Olivia.
I've shown you how she is, but the you merely assert that
my similarities don't count.
> > (2) because she is a woman, and therefore will
> > have many characteristics in common with many
> > other women. and
>
> Sure -- just like Lady Macbeth, or Juliet
> (in R&J) or Goneril (in Lear) or Perdita
> (in Winters Tale). All women are basically
> the same. Just as all men as basically
> the same. That's what makes drama so
> interesting.
> [..]
Oh, gracious. I see, I see. None of these have
ANYTHING in common.
> > I can accept the possibility that Shakespeare
> > knew a lot about Elizabeth and much of that got
> > into the character of Olivia,
>
> Olivia is either a portrayal of Elizabeth,
> or she is not.
She can't be a partial portrayal? Well, not for a rigidnik.
But I say she is NOT intended to be a portrayal of
your virgin goddess but MAY have traits of hers
intentionally given her by the playwright (though I
doubt she has many).
> Which is it? Up to now,
> all Strats have not conceived of the idea.
Aside: are you sure of that. There are "Strats" maintaining
all kinds of that kind of crap.
> If she is a portrayal, then is the whole
> play about her court?
Not necessarily.
> If so, it has to
> be about it while she could have an heir
> of her body. Why on earth would the
> Stratman date a play back more than
> 20 years?
Why did he go back 1600 to write about Julius Caesar? If the plot
captured him, why should he care where or when he took it from?
People are still writing WWII novels. You're really out of it, Paul.
> > but you can't accept the possibility that the
> > few things Olivia had in common with Elizabeth
> > and, according to you, no one else were the
> > result of coincidence,
>
> It could be no more a coincidence than
> is the resemblance of Jack Stanton to
> Bill Clinton.
Stanton is not in a romantic comedy.
> > or the narrative needs
> > or wants of the playwright and had nothing to
> > do with Elizabeth.
>
> Yeah, yeah.
>
> [..]
>
> >>>> As, I am trying to point out 'nobility'
> >>>> was sometimes emphasised; and sometimes
> >>>> barely indicated.
> >>>> And It's not 'among other things'.
> >>>> It's 'WITH other things'.
>
> >>> They both wore dresses.
>
> >> You would have no difficulty finding
> >> (in real life or in drama) characters
> >> wearing dresses.
>
> > Precisely my poinT: you would have no
> > difficulty finding real and fictional women
> > who were noble.
>
> So how is it that you can't find ONE
> other never-married, rich, noblewoman
> who managed her own house and estates
> -- neither in real life, nor in drama,
> nor in the whole of literature?
The same reason NO ONE can find a SINGLE sensible argument
against your reading of the sonnets, even though NO ONE agrees
with that reading.
> >>> you. There is also the plot, which you ignore; it
> >>> forces Olivia to have a reason, a romantic comedy
> >>> reason, for remaining unmarried.
>
> >> So how come there are not hundreds of
> >> other playwrights, each writing dozens
> >> of plays, using the same conventional
> >> plot, producing a range of characters
> >> that closely match
>
> > AccordinG only to you and a few wacks like Ogburn,
> > so far as I know.
>
> >> Elizabeth and her courtiers around 1578?
>
> > Prove there are not.
>
> You must know that this is an idiotic
> request. Do you want me to list every
> work of drama and fiction over the
> past 400 years, and describe its plot?
It's not as idiotic as your request that I find one such
play--because it you did list every work, I would not
automatically deny you proved me wrong. But I could
not possibly cite a work and show why it fulfilled your
requirements and have you agree it did. Plaus, you are
asking me to do a lot of work--go through a bunch of plays AND
bone up on history, etc. Easy for you to say it should be
no trouble, but you're wrong.
> >>>> (4) the general desire that she should
> >>>> have an heir of her body;
>
> >>> Viola uses a standard reason for trying to argue
> >>> Olivia into looking favorably on Orlando. It's
> >>> Viola's reason, given for plot reasons, not
> >>> evidence of any "general desire that she should
> >>> have an heir of her body."
>
> >> So how come there are not hundreds of
> >> other playwrights, each writing dozens
> >> of plays, using the same 'standard
> >> reason' (given for plot reasons) which
> >> just happen to coincide with the major
> >> pressure on Elizabeth in first two
> >> decades of her reign?
>
> > Prove there are not.
>
> You must know that this is an idiotic
> request. Do you want me to list every
> work of drama and fiction over the
> past 400 years, and describe its plot?
You want me to go through dozens of plays to try to find a parallel.
>
> > Prove also that the urging of Elizabeth to marry did not
> > give Shakespeare the idea to use the standard motive for
> > marrying in his play.
>
> The notion is absurd. Elizabeth was the
> only female of the day who was in a position
> to deny males selected for her to marry.
> She was also probably the only one to have
> strong reasons for that course of action.
I forgot. Women were slaves then. None could influence a
father. None could have a religious calling or be homosexual,
or simply not be attracted to a male her family wanted her
to marry. Romeo and Juliet could never have happened in
real life.
> > I deny, by the way, that no one ever told a romantic
> > heroine or hero refusing to marry that she or he should
> > in order to pass on her or his intelligence, beauty,
> > character or the like, but I'm not going to devote my
> > declining years researching it.
>
> Sure -- you and every other Strat. You
> just dumbly assume the strange requests
> in this play (and in the Sonnets) were
> common or ordinary behaviour. The
> level of stupidity is hard to fathom.
What in the world is strange about telling someone
that an advantage of marrying is passing on one's
genes? Erasmus wrote an essay about it. He is
consered an important author, Paul, although I realize
only Shakespeare was an important author for you.
> >>>> (5) her wealth, and extensive lands;
> >>> head of household.
> >>>> (6) her intelligence and education;
> >>> Right, standard things for a romantic comedy
> >>> female lead.
>
> >> So how come there are not hundreds of
> >> other playwrights, each writing dozens
> >> of plays, employing the same 'standard
> >> things' with their romantic comedy
> >> female leads?
>
> > Name a few that do not. Every Shaw play, for instance,
> > has intelligent women. Some of them are educated. (I
> > don't think we know Olivia had any formal education,
> > only assume it.)
>
> What Shaw play (or any other play) has
> a rich high-class never-married woman
> with extensive land?
Hmm, I can't think of any. None of his characters is named Olivia,
either. Gad, no Italian women.
> [..]
>
> >> Was Leicester attached to bears?
>
> > I don't know.
>
> >> Does Orsino mean 'ursine'? Is this
> >> all a coincidence?
>
> > No and yes. You are cherry-picking.
>
> So -- if you had any competence -- you
> could also "cherry pick" from the play
> to show that it was really by a near-
> peasant author from the English midlands,
> and was written around 1600. How come
> that you (and every other Strat) is so
> incompetent?
"'Twelfth Night' was written between 1599--the publication of the
"new map" with the augmentation of the Indies' referred to in
3.2.76-77--and late 1601, in time for the earliest recorded
performance in February 1602. The play may have been
written afor a performance on January 6, 1601, when Queen E.
(1) paid the Chamberlain's Men to entertain a visiting Italian
nobleman named ORsino. If so, then the play must have been
written in late 1600, but most scholars believe that this theory
is inaccurate, although the much-talked-about vbisitor may
have inspired Shakespeare's choice of a name for his duke,
suggesting 1601 as the date of compostion,
"Two piecesof evidence point to the latter half of that year. First,
the
play's subtitle, 'What You Will," may have been Shakespeare's
original title, altered when anothe 'What You Wil,' by John Marston,
appeared in the spring of 1601. Second, Feste's remark that the
word 'element' is 'overworn' (3.1.60) refers to a controversy of 1601.
As part of the so-called War of the Theatres, Thomas Dekker's
play 'Satiromatix' made much fun of Ben Jonson's alleged overuse of
the term. 'Satiromastix' was perfomed by the Chamberlains'
Men in the summer or fall of 1601 in answer to a Jonson play
of the spring season; this suggests that Shakespeare was
writing 'Twelfth Night' no earlier that mid-1601."
Charles Boyce, Shakespeare A to Z.
There is also all kinds of corroboarting hard evidence such as
names on title pages, et cetera, that you discount.
> > Standard anti-Stratfordianism. Find everything in a
> > text you can strain into a connection to your
> > delusional system and ignore all that you can't.
>
> The only thing (in the whole canon)
> that Strats can find that "links" to
> their delusional system is the truly
> absurd "hate-away" line in the Sonnets.
Not quite, asshole, as we've told you countless times.
Again, some from memory: In The Taming of the
Shrew there are names of men Shakespeare's father
is recorded as having known, living near where he
lived and names of families in places near
Stratford known to have lived there. There's
a joke on Richard Field's name. There are references
to acting. But, of course, we know too little of
Shakespeare's life to make a lot of connections, and
his plays a creative writing which, for anyone who
knows anything about literature, need not, and rarely
does, have anything directly to do with real life.
> How come that anti-Strats are so far
> superior to Strats in this regard?
They have no critical sense, and more biographical data
tohallucinate from.
Glad you brought up Michael. He connects all the
characters to figure in history and the Bible, and does
it absolutely as well and in the exact same manner
as you connect them all to figures in Elizabeth's court.
Other believers in Shakespeare have done similar things
but the huge majority takes the oeuvre to be creative
writing, not journalism. (Knowledgeable people are
finding connections between people Ian Fleming knew
and characters in his books. But he wrote creative
fiction, so we know he did not base his books on
his life, but only used elements from his life when
they fit, like all creative writers do.)
> How come you are ALL so useless?
Because we know what literature is and care about it, so
concentrate on plot, character and diction, and not on
how we can connect it to Important People in Real Life?
> > I don't have to, because I can connect
> > the plays to the plays it was based on.
>
> Stratfordians (as an industry) should
> do it, and would do it -- if they could.
> They can't.
They have no need or desire to.
> >>> And we were talking about the character of each
> >>> of the two we were comparing. If you want to
> >>> compare their situations, as you are doing here,
> >>> you HAVE to consider how their situations
> >>> differed. Elizabeth was not wooed by a girl
> >>> dressed as a boy;
>
> >> It simply has to fit the Oxfordian
> >> scenario I have stated. Would it have
> >> suited Oxford to present Raleigh in
> >> that manner?
>
> > How can anyone know? How could it be shown it would
> > not have?
>
> It is easy to state the reasons. I have
> done so often. Raleigh introduced a new
> set of feminine fashions to male courtiers:
> long hair, earrings, perfume, make-up.
> Oxford was naturally intensely jealous of
> his success. Other courtiers shared his
> feelings. All this is recorded history.
But the reasons are insufficient. Introducing a
new set of fashions some people thought
effeminate is not the same as being a woman
who is pretending to be a man--except to
someone who needs to believe that for
the sake of an insane conspiracy theory.
> > Counter-question: if I say Olivia was based on Ann
> > Hathaway, what can you say against me? Wait, let me
> > hypothesize Orsino (whose name I confuse with
> > Orlando) is based on Ann Hathaway. I say it "suited
> > Shakespeare to have done this." Disprove me.
>
> You would have to state some supporting
> facts and give some reasons. You can't,
> and haven't any.
Sure, I do. Shakespeare wanted to make fun of his wife.
He didn't like her (2nd-best bed). We don't know why,
but that's enough. We simply assume Ann was too
head-in-the-clouds for Will. Etc. I could do better, but
I can't afford the time I'd need to work it all out since
I'm not insanely dedicated to an impossible conspiracy
theory like you are.
> [..]
>
> > Yes, but I at least tried to. I mentioned the
> > Twelfth Night's plot ending in marriages, but that's
> > not an anti-parallel because anti-parallels need to
> > be ratified as such by He-Who-Knows, and you will
> > never do it.
>
> >> Twelfth Night was supposed to be a
> >> work of fiction. It was based in
> >> Illyria, not in London. That fact
> >> (and those like it) do not stop it
> >> being a caricature of Elizabeth's
> >> court.
>
> > Of course not.
>
> Neither does the fact that the play ends
> in marriages.
Yes, but the marriage IS an anti-parallel, and I
mentioned it many times, so you were wrong to
say I had mentioned no anti-parallels.
> IF the play ended in the
> wrong sort of marriages you might have a
> point. It would have been tactless for
> Oxford to have told the Queen to marry a
> specific person. And he certainly was
> never in favour of a marriage to Leicester
> (although he might have preferred that to
> no marriage at all.) So he has Olivia
> marry a purely fictional 'twin'. The
> marriage of Orsino (Leicester) to Viola
> (Raleigh) was obviously impossible, and
> no more than a joke.
Unfalsifiability. The play is in Italy because it's fiction; it's
about an unmarried head of household because non-fiction.
How can I possibly show it's just a play, not a satire on
Elizabeth's court if everything dissimilarity is simply fiction
or a joke?
> >>> PLUS, most of the events in the play
> >>> paralleling, in your view, events in Elizabeth's
> >>> life, were in the plot of the source of the play
> >>> long before they were in Elizabeth's life.
>
> >> Sad that you can't remember any.
>
> > The play was written in the 30's; I did remember the
> > plot from it that's in Shakespeare's plays. One
> > event in it that you say parallels and event in
> > Elizabeth's life is someone's woing Olivia on behalf
> > of another person. I believe there were other
> > similar events.
>
> Sure -- the playwright picked a 'source'
> suitable to his purposes. This is exactly
> the same as the fictional Hamlet picking
> 'The Mousetrap' for his purposes.
Oh, and how did this mousetrap work, Paul. How
did it change the history of England?
Now I grant you that a playwright may well be intensely
concerned with something going on in his life, and
grab a source because he thinks he can use it
to express his feelings and thoughts about it,
but I deny any decent playwright would not
have chosen the source primarily for its
potential as a play.
> >>>> (16) Elizabeth/Olivia is 'a Cataian'
> >>>> (investor in China).
> >>>> (17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who
> >>>> took a delight in his personal fool;
> >>>> (18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools
> >>>> herself;
> >> There was absolutely NO need to make
> >> the fool situation exactly parallel to
> >> that of Elizabeth's.
>
> > It was not exactly parallel,
>
> Of course it was. You point to no
> difference.
The fool's name was different. His owner was not a king. But I
pointed to no differences because I can't remember much about
the fool and haven't time to reread the play (but probably
soon will now that you've annoyed me enough).
>
> >>> The point is that there is no reason, narrative or
> >>> otherwise, for the playwright to make Olivia "so
> >>> exceptional." He makes her never-married because he's
> >>> writing a romantic comedy; he makes her head of a
> >>> household to make her a worthy love interest, and to
> >>> allow for the Toby/Malvolio plot.
>
> >> So you can readily slot Twelfth Night
> >> into DOZENS of real-life houses. You
> >> can show how it could readily be a
> >> caricature of the household of Queen
> >> Victoria, or Mrs John Adams, or Mrs
> >> Abraham Lincoln, or Mrs George
> >> Washington, or Marie Antoinette.
>
> > Already answered.
>
> Not answered at all.
I know that no answer of mine counts for
you, but it counted for me.
>
> >>>> Name ONE other such female.
>
> >>> You name one PERSON who agrees with you that
> >>> Olivia MUST be based on Elizabeth because both
> >>> she and Elizabeth were never-married female heads
> >>> of household.
>
> >> Typical dodge. You really seem to think
> >> that you can call on an ad hominen point
> >> any time you are stuck.
>
> > If I say a certain cloud is white and you say it is
> > a combination of orange and purple, and I can get a
> > thousand people to agree with me, and you can get no
> > one to agree with you, who is more likely to be
> > right?
>
> Majorities are not necessarily right --
> especially when they are defending some
> ancient doctrine they unthinkingly
> learned at school from unthinking
> teachers.
Why can't you answer my simply yes/no question? Here's
another: if I tell you (and provide strong evidence) that a 90%
majority (of people in a scientifically unflawed poll)
believe a certain statement that I keep secret from
you is true, would you or would you not agree
that the statement is most likely true?
> > I wasn't stuck, by the way. My argument, that one
> > minor similarity between Olivia and Elizabeth is not
> > sufficient for a san person to conclude that Olivia
> > MUST have been based on Elizabeth holds. You have
> > presented no argument against it.
>
> I list 22 items (and I could easily find
> more) -- and that to you is 'no argument'.
Right.
> >> As you well know, I have pointed out
> >> dozens of insinuations by the poet of
> >> Raleigh's femininity,
>
> > "the poet" never wrote anything explicitly about
> > Raleigh. You can't simply argue that Viola is like a
> > character in the sonnets or wherever and that
> > character according to you is Raleigh, which makes
> > Viola a ringer for Raleigh.
>
> Of course I can. If I propose a theory
> based on a reading of one or two texts,
> and then I find confirmation in dozens
> of others, it can only be true. How
> else do you think these things work?
> Are you expecting Jove to send a
> thunderbolt, or to find a confirmation
> in some goat's entrails
No, Paul, I expect a document from circa 1600
saying, "Shakespeare sure got Raleigh right in
his What You Will."
> >> such as: "false
> >> womens fashion /A man in hue . . "
> >> There is nothing in Macbeth that hints
> >> at Raleigh. There is no Elizabeth
> >> character and no one with whom such a
> >> character could foolishly fall in love.
> >> No one pleads for a heir of anyone's
> >> body to 'preserve that beauty'.
>
> > They were both men, neither disguised himself as a
> > woman at any time, they were poets (Macbeth spoke
> > like a poet), they were both courageous, neither had
> > a twin brother. But I'm not a zealot, so can't
> > devote a major portion of my time to finding more
> > similarities. Plus, I can say that Shakespeare
> > thought of Raliegh as being like Macbeth.
>
> Sure -- on the ground that they both
> wore trousers.
Also, both names have two syllables and seven letters. And end in h.
And Shakespeare thought of Raleigh as Scotch, the way you say
he thought of Raleigh as not a gentleman even though he was.
> >> It is YOUR case that the plot of 12th
> >> Night could be fitted into Macbeth's
> >> court. Let's see you do it.
>
> > This is idiotic. You have many more details about
> > Elizabeth's court to work with than I have of
> > Macbeth's.
>
> That could help you. You could make
> 'reasonable' suppositions. In any
> case, you could switch to the court
> of (say) Queen Victoria, or Kennedy's
> Camelot -- on which you have much
> more information.
It'd be easy, yes--for Camelot. Kennedy is Viola, and Bobby
is his twin brother. Jackie is Olivia. Nixon is Malvolio.
It's too obvious for me to have to spell it out further.
> > Plus, that Twelfth Night's plots are not
> > significantly like what was going on in Elizabeth's
> > court does not mean they may not have been more like
> > them than they were like what was going on in some
> > other courts.
>
> Why should the plot of Twelfth Night
> better fit Elizabeth's court than some
> others? (The only sensible answer is
> that the playwright made it that way.)
No, you did.
> >> So what? I only make a case on those
> >> (very large) parts that I CAN fit into
> >> Elizabeth's court. Your response is
> >> to claim that they could be fitted into
> >> almost any court. So name a few, and
> >> show how it could be done with one of
> >> them.
>
> > I fit much larger parts into the Gl'Ingannati court,
> > so have no need to fit it into any other court.
>
> Liar. You say that it no more fits that
> of Elizabeth than any other. So fit it
> to SOME other.
Drop the liar crap, moron. I did say that, but
forgot I said it. I don't lie. But, wait, it doesn't
matter that I said that. I said and still say it
doesn't fit Elizabeth's court any more than
it fits any other court. But I do not need to say
more about it because--see above,
> > This argument, obviously, have gone down the same
> > drain all our longer arguments have. Again, you say
> > you're right, I'm wrong, and I say I'm right and
> > you're wrong, and it ends there
>
> Nope. You cannot do what you (explicitly
> or implicitly) claim you can do. Your
> failure is obvious and pathetic.
Why can't you get someone to agree with you on that?
> It's not different in principle from one of my
> explanations of the Sonnets. They work.
> Yours don't.
Except that many agree with mine, none with yours. (I know
they agree with mine because most of mine are pretty
much the same as others' already stated.)
> In fact, Strats don't even
> try to make theirs work. The words of
> the play, or the poem, are there because
> they're there because they're there.
Do you not believe that some playwrights, even good
ones, use words to advance (imagined) plotting, elucidate
(made-up) characters and and provide verbal pleasure,
and little else?
> > But I am very interested to know just what makes
> > Twelfth Night a superior play for you. It's not its
> > plot.
>
> To a large extent it is a caricature of
> Elizabeth's court. If you miss that
> aspect -- as Strats necessarily do --
> then you fail to grasp much of the
> purpose of the play.
Would the play be of no value if it
were not a caricature of Elizabeth's court?
Let's say Olivia has a father but he's off
in Italy fighting a war, and her mother is dead,
so Olivia is running the estate. Have her like
or something Elizabeth was know not to
like, or hate something Elizabeth was
known to love. Make the family non-noble
but rich. Make Viola female instead of male.
Change Orsino's name to Vladimir. Etc.
Would they play no longer appeal to you?
Hey, how come (I just realize) you didn't answer
my response to what you said about the C, U's etc.
as showing Olivia like bawdry. You were definitely
wrong there, why not admit it?
> The play comes to life because it was
> about real people. Maybe you can pick
> that up, even when you think that all
> the characters are purely fictional.
How about some examples of this?
> It's probably like reading Sonnet 18
> without any sense that it is about
> Mary QS, etc., -- thinking that it's
> only about the weather.
Straw horse, Paul You can't get it through your
head that because I (I alone, very possibly) think
it is MOST about summer means that I think
it is ONLY about that.
> It's poetry
> as nursery rhymes. It's literary
> appreciation for small children.
Right, small children like Coleridge, Milton, Keats . . .
Come right down to it, and you're saying you're the only
adult in the world who has read the poem since you're
the only one who understands it the way you do.
--Bob
Peter Groves
news:20c69af0-f410-4af1...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...[ ... ]
> >>>> (16) Elizabeth/Olivia is 'a Cataian'
> >>>> (investor in China).
> >>>> (17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who
> >>>> took a delight in his personal fool;
> >>>> (18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools
> >>>> herself;
> >> There was absolutely NO need to make
> >> the fool situation exactly parallel to
> >> that of Elizabeth's.
>
> > It was not exactly parallel,
>
> Of course it was. You point to no
> difference.
The fool's name was different. His owner was not a king. But I
pointed to no differences because I can't remember much about
the fool and haven't time to reread the play (but probably
soon will now that you've annoyed me enough).
***Only someone who had never read the play could imagine that "Olivia kept
no fools herself":
Enter MARIA and Feste
MARIA
Nay, either tell me where thou hast been, or I will
not open my lips so wide as a bristle may enter in
way of thy excuse: my lady will hang thee for thy absence.
Feste
Let her hang me: he that is well hanged in this
world needs to fear no colours.
...
MARIA
Yet you will be hanged for being so long absent; or,
to be turned away, is not that as good as a hanging to you?
Feste
Many a good hanging prevents a bad marriage; and,
for turning away, let summer bear it out.
...
MARIA
Peace, you rogue, no more o' that. Here comes my
lady: make your excuse wisely, you were best.
Exit
Feste
Wit, an't be thy will, put me into good fooling!
Those wits, that think they have thee, do very oft
prove fools; and I, that am sure I lack thee, may
pass for a wise man: for what says Quinapalus?
'Better a witty fool, than a foolish wit.'
Enter OLIVIA with MALVOLIO
God bless thee, lady!
OLIVIA
Take the fool away.
Feste
Do you not hear, fellows? Take away the lady.
OLIVIA
Go to, you're a dry fool; I'll no more of you:
besides, you grow dishonest.
Peter G.
Paul Crowley
>>>>>> (16) Elizabeth/Olivia is 'a Cataian'
>>>>>> (investor in China).
>>>>>> (17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who
>>>>>> took a delight in his personal fool;
>>>>>> (18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools
>>>>>> herself;
>>>>
>>>> There was absolutely NO need to make
>>>> the fool situation exactly parallel to
>>>> that of Elizabeth's.
> ***Only someone who had never read the play
> could imagine that "Olivia kept no fools
> herself":
>
> Enter MARIA and Feste
>
> MARIA
> Nay, either tell me where thou hast been, or I
> will not open my lips so wide as a bristle may
> enter in way of thy excuse: my lady will hang
> thee for thy absence.
[..]
> Peter G.
You have not read the play properly.
The Clown specifically states that he
is not Lady Olivia's fool, and that she
keeps no fools.
Yet I accept that there seems to be some
ambiguity, in that The Fool is expected
to attend court after some fashion.
Possibly he was kept on from her father's
time (surviving through the five years
of Edward VI and the six years of Mary)
as a general 'Court Jester'.
In fact, he seems (from the play) to have
been adopted by Leicester. That would
have been quite natural, given Leicester's
constant presence at court in the 1560s,
with his own substantial party. The
Fool's wit was, no doubt, more welcome
in that circle. The Queen, with her dog-
in-the-manger attitude, probably found
this a little irritating, especially as
Leicester's attendance at court began
to decline, as his amorous attentions
found more rewarding interests.
However, he is clearly not Elizabeth's
Fool after the fashion that many monarchs,
especially Henry VIII, kept personal fools.
VIOLA
Art not thou the Lady Olivia's fool?
Clown
No, indeed, sir; the Lady Olivia has no folly:
she will keep no fool, sir, till she be married;
and fools are as like husbands as pilchards are
to herrings; the husband's the bigger: I am
indeed not her fool, but her corrupter of words.
VIOLA
I saw thee late at the Count Orsino's.
Clown
Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb like the
sun, it shines every where. I would be sorry,
sir, but the fool should be as oft with your
master as with my mistress: I think I saw your
wisdom there.
Paul.
Peter Groves
news:h088ul$s0v$1...@aioe.org...
And he's always in dead earnest, of course.
>
> Yet I accept that there seems to be some
> ambiguity, in that The Fool is expected
> to attend court after some fashion.
> Possibly he was kept on from her father's
> time (surviving through the five years
> of Edward VI and the six years of Mary)
> as a general 'Court Jester'.
>
> In fact, he seems (from the play) to have
> been adopted by Leicester. That would
> have been quite natural, given Leicester's
> constant presence at court in the 1560s,
> with his own substantial party. The
> Fool's wit was, no doubt, more welcome
> in that circle. The Queen, with her dog-
> in-the-manger attitude, probably found
> this a little irritating, especially as
> Leicester's attendance at court began
> to decline, as his amorous attentions
> found more rewarding interests.
>
> However, he is clearly not Elizabeth's
> Fool after the fashion that many monarchs,
> especially Henry VIII, kept personal fools.
We can all agree that he isn't Elizabeth's fool .
>
> VIOLA
> Art not thou the Lady Olivia's fool?
>
> Clown
> No, indeed, sir; the Lady Olivia has no folly:
> she will keep no fool, sir, till she be married;
> and fools are as like husbands as pilchards are
> to herrings; the husband's the bigger: I am
> indeed not her fool, but her corrupter of words.
It's a little embarrassing to have to point this out, but this is a joke (at
the expense of husbands): it is as her fool, or "her corrupter of words",
that his attendance at her household is required. It's ironic that you
accuse your sane opponents of being "humourless"; perhaps if it doesn't
involve bawdy or scatology you don't get it (though even here there's a hint
of possible cuckoldry).
Peter G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
>
> news:20c69af0-f410-4af1...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 3, 1:56 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
> > >>>> (16) Elizabeth/Olivia is 'a Cataian'
> > >>>> (investor in China).
> > >>>> (17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who
> > >>>> took a delight in his personal fool;
> > >>>> (18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools
> > >>>> herself;
> > >> There was absolutely NO need to make
> > >> the fool situation exactly parallel to
> > >> that of Elizabeth's.
>
> > > It was not exactly parallel,
>
> > Of course it was. You point to no
> > difference.
>
> The fool's name was different. His owner was not a king. But I
> pointed to no differences because I can't remember much about
> the fool and haven't time to reread the play (but probably
> soon will now that you've annoyed me enough).
>
> ***Only someone who had never read the play could imagine that "Olivia kept
> no fools herself":
Come on, Peter--I've read the play several times and seen it once or
twice. Nonetheless, I
haven't memorized it.
>
> Enter MARIA and Feste
>
> MARIA
>
> Nay, either tell me where thou hast been, or I will
> not open my lips so wide as a bristle may enter in
> way of thy excuse: my lady will hang thee for thy absence.
>
> Feste
>
> Let her hang me: he that is well hanged in this
> world needs to fear no colours.
>
Nice: absolute evidence that Feste was Olivia's fool. So Olivia
could not be based on Elizabeth!!!
Gee, I can't wait to the the tortue or logic that gets Paul out of
this!
(And now much of the play comes back to me.)
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> "Paul Crowley" <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote in message
so. And
he himself says his is HER corrupter of words, so he is hers, or in
her
employ. You lose, Paul. Admit it.
>
>
>
> > VIOLA
> > I saw thee late at the Count Orsino's.
>
> > Clown
> > Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb like the
> > sun, it shines every where. I would be sorry,
> > sir, but the fool should be as oft with your
> > master as with my mistress: I think I saw your
> > wisdom there.
"With MY mistress." You lose, Paul.
Thanks, Peter, dor coming to my aid. I knew someone would.
But remember, Elizabeth was the ONLY unmarried female head
of a househould in the world between 1550 and 1603.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>>>>>>>> (17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who
>>>>>>>> took a delight in his personal fool;
>>>>>>>> (18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools
>>>>>>>> herself;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was absolutely NO need to make
>>>>>> the fool situation exactly parallel to
>>>>>> that of Elizabeth's.
>>
>>> ***Only someone who had never read the play
>>> could imagine that "Olivia kept no fools
>>> herself":
>>>
>>> Enter MARIA and Feste
>>>
>>> MARIA
>>> Nay, either tell me where thou hast been, or I
>>> will not open my lips so wide as a bristle may
>>> enter in way of thy excuse: my lady will hang
>>> thee for thy absence.
>> [..]
>>
>> You have not read the play properly.
>> The Clown specifically states that he
>> is not Lady Olivia's fool, and that she
>> keeps no fools.
>
> And he's always in dead earnest, of course.
We can only operate on what he says,
while allowing that he is often joking,
or being ironic or sarcastic. Here
we have no good reason to doubt his
explicit words.
Fools tend to joke. Why do you feel
that this particular joke is worthy
of attention?
> it is
> as her fool, or "her corrupter of words", that his
> attendance at her household is required.
This is nonsensical. No such job was
known in Early Modern households,
royal or otherwise. The role of fools --
especially those of monarchs -- is well
understood. Here it is clear that (just
like Elizabeth) the Lady Olivia has little
affection for fools, but tolerates their
presence on occasion, accepting that
royal households traditionally maintain
them.
The similarity to Elizabeth's attitude is
acute. It is inconceivable that the poet
could have had any other household
in mind when outlining this peculiar
relationship between a mistress and 'her
fool'.
> It's ironic
> that you accuse your sane opponents of being
> "humourless"; perhaps if it doesn't involve bawdy or
> scatology you don't get it (though even here there's a
> hint of possible cuckoldry).
I had no reason to comment upon this
joke. I quoted it because of the text
immediately before and immediately after.
The poet is commenting upon well-known
facts of human biology: males tend to
fool around; women don't; it is only
males (and particularly male monarchs)
who need, or can tolerate fools; they
have no real place in a household run
by women. Lear, Macbeth, Anthony or
Brutus all had or could have used fools.
Goneril, Regan, Lady Macbeth,
Cleopatra or Portia would have had no
use for them.
And Elizabeth would certainly have
treated any husband as a fool (i.e.
even more than most women treat
their husbands).
Paul.
Peter Groves
Fairly obviously, because you are taking it literally as an assertion that
he is not Olivia's fool.
>> it is
>> as her fool, or "her corrupter of words", that his
>> attendance at her household is required.
>
> This is nonsensical. No such job was
> known in Early Modern households,
And again, you are being absurdly literal-minded: "her corrupter of words"
is Feste's own ironic description of his role as her (witty) fool.
> royal or otherwise. The role of fools --
> especially those of monarchs -- is well
> understood. Here it is clear that (just
> like Elizabeth) the Lady Olivia has little
> affection for fools, but tolerates their
> presence on occasion, accepting that
> royal households traditionally maintain
> them.
So you're admitting that he *is* her fool?
Peter G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Yet this same fool's words you take as a joke later when
your loyalty to your delusional system requires you to.
In any case, here the fool says he is Olivia's something.
What about that, Paul? Just what is his position with Olivia?
He's a fool and a member of Olivia's household, yet he is
not her fool. Ah, he's not a fool at all, just mislabeled that
in the script as one of Oxford's subtle jokes.
Haw, when we ask Paul questions like this he tell us if you
have to explain a joke, it's not a joke. And an American
isn't bright enough for comedy. (I dunno his opinion of
Aussies.)
> > it is
> > as her fool, or "her corrupter of words", that his
> > attendance at her household is required.
>
> This is nonsensical. No such job was
> known in Early Modern households,
> royal or otherwise. The role of fools --
> especially those of monarchs -- is well
> understood. Here it is clear that (just
> like Elizabeth) the Lady Olivia has little
> affection for fools, but tolerates their
> presence on occasion, accepting that
> royal households traditionally maintain
> them.
And when they are present, they consider themselves "hers."
> The similarity to Elizabeth's attitude is
> acute. It is inconceivable that the poet
> could have had any other household
> in mind when outlining this peculiar
> relationship between a mistress and 'her
> fool'.
The "inconceivable" made me guffaw. The Hamlet commentary
of Willedever's made me guffaw several times, but this
"inconceivable" assured your continued standing at the
top of my list of Most Hilarious Wacks of All-Time, Paul.
> > It's ironic
> > that you accuse your sane opponents of being
> > "humourless"; perhaps if it doesn't involve bawdy or
> > scatology you don't get it (though even here there's a
> > hint of possible cuckoldry).
>
> I had no reason to comment upon this
> joke. I quoted it because of the text
> immediately before and immediately after.
>
> The poet is commenting upon well-known
> facts of human biology: males tend to
> fool around; women don't; it is only
> males (and particularly male monarchs)
> who need, or can tolerate fools; they
> have no real place in a household run
> by women. Lear, Macbeth, Anthony or
> Brutus all had or could have used fools.
> Goneril, Regan, Lady Macbeth,
> Cleopatra or Portia would have had no
> use for them.
>
> And Elizabeth would certainly have
> treated any husband as a fool (i.e.
> even more than most women treat
> their husbands).
It wouldn't be too funny if it applied only to some
husband Elizabeth might have had. It's funny because
universally true that wives consider their husbands
fools (at lest sometimes).
I see that the snipper stopped answering before:
> > VIOLA
> > I saw thee late at the Count Orsino's.
> > Clown
> > Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb like the
> > sun, it shines every where. I would be sorry,
> > sir, but the fool should be as oft with your
> > master as with my mistress: I think I saw your
> > wisdom there.
This he will no doubt tell us is a joke. He is not really
Olivia's mistress. Or, wait! The her is some other
woman not mentioned in the play.
Meanwhile, the Paulgram lets my last post about his over-all view
sit unanswered.
--Bob
--Bob
Paul Crowley
[..]
>> The similarity to Elizabeth's attitude is
>> acute. It is inconceivable that the poet
>> could have had any other household
>> in mind when outlining this peculiar
>> relationship between a mistress and 'her
>> fool'.
>
> The "inconceivable" made me guffaw. The Hamlet
> commentary of Willedever's made me guffaw several
> times, but this "inconceivable" assured your
> continued standing at the top of my list of Most
> Hilarious Wacks of All-Time, Paul.
I am using 'inconceivable' in the usual
sense. No doubt you, as a Rigidnik,
have your own peculiar definition of it.
If someone said that one of your neighbours
-- let's say a widowed Mrs Jones, who lived
alone (as far as anyone knew) -- had a fool.
That is they were saying that she was on a
par with Henry VIII, and this person she
supposedly employed did nothing but seek to
amuse and distract her.
Would you remark, on hearing this story:
'That's inconceivable'? Or, if you heard
another neighbour doing so, would you
upbraid them for misusing the word?
It is, in fact, inconceivable that any
never-married, rich, non-royal noble-
woman would employ a fool. You will,
of course, not be able to find any
such example, and if you were to ask
any historian of the age, you would be
told 'the notion is inconceivable'.
I should add 'employing a fool' to my
list (of 'never-married', 'rich',
'noble' and 'independent'). But you
would probably think that unfair.
[..]
> I see that the snipper stopped answering before:
>
>>> VIOLA
>>> I saw thee late at the Count Orsino's.
>>>
>>> Clown
>>> Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb like the
>>> sun, it shines every where. I would be sorry,
>>> sir, but the fool should be as oft with your
>>> master as with my mistress: I think I saw your
>>> wisdom there.
>
> This he will no doubt tell us is a joke. He is not
> really Olivia's mistress. Or, wait! The her is
> some other woman not mentioned in the play.
I have commented upon this. Clearly the
Fool was spending most of his time with
Leicester, and the Queen (who did not
really want the Fool around) was annoyed,
or pretending to be annoyed, about this.
(He was highly probably Tarlton, btw.)
> Meanwhile, the Paulgram lets my last post about his
> over-all view sit unanswered.
Your post was too long to get past my
server. That's what happens to those who
never snip. Their posts get treated as
junk -- usually correctly. I'll go to
Google to retrieve it sometime.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>>> VIOLA
>>>> Art not thou the Lady Olivia's fool?
>>>>
>>>> Clown
>>>> No, indeed, sir; the Lady Olivia has no folly:
>>>> she will keep no fool, sir, till she be married;
>>>> and fools are as like husbands as pilchards are
>>>> to herrings; the husband's the bigger: I am
>>>> indeed not her fool, but her corrupter of words.
>>>
>>> It's a little embarrassing to have to point this out,
>>> but this is a joke (at the expense of husbands):
>>
>> Fools tend to joke. Why do you feel
>> that this particular joke is worthy
>> of attention?
>
> Fairly obviously, because you are taking it literally as
> an assertion that he is not Olivia's fool.
The Clown here is hardly going to plainly
lie -- as you would have him doing. He is
saying that he is not the Lady Olivia's
fool in _some_ sense -- and I take that
sense to be the monarch's close confident,
after the manner of Henry VIII's fools.
>>> it is
>>> as her fool, or "her corrupter of words", that his
>>> attendance at her household is required.
>>
>> This is nonsensical. No such job was
>> known in Early Modern households,
>
> And again, you are being absurdly literal-minded: "her
> corrupter of words" is Feste's own ironic description of
> his role as her (witty) fool.
It clearly means something other than "witty
fool". I suggest that Elizabeth did not
find his humour to her taste, and accused
him of merely playing with words.
>> royal or otherwise. The role of fools --
>> especially those of monarchs -- is well
>> understood. Here it is clear that (just
>> like Elizabeth) the Lady Olivia has little
>> affection for fools, but tolerates their
>> presence on occasion, accepting that
>> royal households traditionally maintain
>> them.
>
> So you're admitting that he *is* her fool?
He is 'her fool' in the sense that William
Winter was her admiral, Sir Christopher
Wray was her Chief Justice, and William
Painter was her Clerk of the Ordnance.
She employed all these people. But he
was not 'her fool' in the sense like that
of 'her confessor'. There was little or
nothing personal in the relationship.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> The similarity to Elizabeth's attitude is
> >> acute. It is inconceivable that the poet
> >> could have had any other household
> >> in mind when outlining this peculiar
> >> relationship between a mistress and 'her
> >> fool'.
>
> > The "inconceivable" made me guffaw. The Hamlet
> > commentary of Willedever's made me guffaw several
> > times, but this "inconceivable" assured your
> > continued standing at the top of my list of Most
> > Hilarious Wacks of All-Time, Paul.
>
> I am using 'inconceivable' in the usual
> sense. No doubt you, as a Rigidnik,
> have your own peculiar definition of it.
As a rigidnik (and at times I am that), I take it to mean exactly
what it customarily does: "not able to be conceived (because
impossible).
> If someone said that one of your neighbours
> -- let's say a widowed Mrs Jones, who lived
> alone (as far as anyone knew) -- had a fool.
> That is they were saying that she was on a
> par with Henry VIII, and this person she
> supposedly employed did nothing but seek to
> amuse and distract her.
>
> Would you remark, on hearing this story:
> 'That's inconceivable'? Or, if you heard
> another neighbour doing so, would you
> upbraid them for misusing the word?
You know, Paulgram, sometimes you say something
so annoyingly stupid, I have to get up and take a walk,
growling to myself; here you made me laugh so hard,
I had to get up and take a little walk to calm down.
If I heard that my neighbor "had a fool," I would do something
that would never occur to you: I would ask for further data. I
would say something, "What are you saying? You mean a
caps and bells fool like nobles 400 years or more ago have?"
(Note: saying someone is on par with Henry VIII because he
has a fool is ridiculous. Not only kings had fools. The fool
in Twelfth Night is not employed by king or queen.)
If further data convinced me it was true, I would say something
like, "How very strange, but to each his own." I would certainly
not saying it was inconceivable. I would say it was inconceivable
if I read in the newspaper that a certain woman I know very well had
just won the Nobel Prize in Physics. Because it WOULD be
inconceivable.
> It is, in fact, inconceivable that any
> never-married, rich, non-royal noble-
> woman would employ a fool.
Yet Olivia does as has been demonstrated beyond doubt by
Peter Groves.
> You will, of course, not be able to find any
> such example, and if you were to ask
> any historian of the age, you would be
> told 'the notion is inconceivable'.
This last is absurd. But surely you could e.mail just
one such historian and ask him.
> I should add 'employing a fool' to my
> list (of 'never-married', 'rich',
> 'noble' and 'independent'). But you
> would probably think that unfair.
Why would you? Your claim is that neither Olivia nor
Elizabeth employed a fool. Or did you mean "NOT
employing a fool," refusing to be swayed by what
Feste clearly says.
> [..]
>
> > I see that the snipper stopped answering before:
>
> >>> VIOLA
> >>> I saw thee late at the Count Orsino's.
>
> >>> Clown
> >>> Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb like the
> >>> sun, it shines every where. I would be sorry,
> >>> sir, but the fool should be as oft with your
> >>> master as with my mistress: I think I saw your
> >>> wisdom there.
>
> > This he will no doubt tell us is a joke. He is not
> > really Olivia's mistress. Or, wait! The her is
> > some other woman not mentioned in the play.
>
> I have commented upon this. Clearly the
> Fool was spending most of his time with
> Leicester, and the Queen (who did not
> really want the Fool around) was annoyed,
> or pretending to be annoyed, about this.
> (He was highly probably Tarlton, btw.)
Ah, now you are saying the fool WAS employed by the queen.
If so, deft move: again, employment by the queen or non-
employment by the queen prove you right. Still, you have
no evidence that the queen employed a fool.
> > Meanwhile, the Paulgram lets my last post about his
> > over-all view sit unanswered.
>
> Your post was too long to get past my
> server. That's what happens to those who
> never snip. Their posts get treated as
> junk -- usually correctly. I'll go to
> Google to retrieve it sometime.
>
> Paul.
I suspect if I used an excuse like that, you would call me
a liar; but I accept your explanation and will snip more in
the future.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
From: "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
[..]
>> If so, it has to
>> be about it while she could have an heir
>> of her body. Why on earth would the
>> Stratman date a play back more than
>> 20 years?
>
> Why did he go back 1600 to write about Julius
> Caesar? If the plot captured him, why should he
> care where or when he took it from? People are
> still writing WWII novels. You're really out of
> it, Paul.
Do you know any childless women in
their sixties? Would you write a
play about them, setting them thirty
or so years ago, with their friends
then (mostly still alive now) urging
them to have a child before it was
too late?
Would you raise the topic with the
monarch, bearing mind her power?
Would your theatre company (assuming
the crazy Strat scenario) allow you to
put on such a play?
[..]
>>> Precisely my poinT: you would have no
>>> difficulty finding real and fictional women
>>> who were noble.
>>
>> So how is it that you can't find ONE
>> other never-married, rich, noblewoman
>> who managed her own house and estates
>> -- neither in real life, nor in drama,
>> nor in the whole of literature?
>
> The same reason NO ONE can find a SINGLE
> sensible argument against your reading of the
> sonnets, even though NO ONE agrees with that
> reading.
I'm sure you are right here. Strats
(and quasi-Strats) cannot accept my
Sonnet readings, nor my argument here
about Twelfth Night. So what can
they do? Answer: the same as everyone
with a quasi-religious belief coming
up against evidence or an unpleasantly
rational argument against it -- bury
your head in the sand.
[..]
>>> Prove also that the urging of Elizabeth to marry did not
>>> give Shakespeare the idea to use the standard motive for
>>> marrying in his play.
>
>> The notion is absurd. Elizabeth was the
>> only female of the day who was in a position
>> to deny males selected for her to marry.
>> She was also probably the only one to have
>> strong reasons for that course of action.
>
> I forgot. Women were slaves then. None could
> influence a father. None could have a religious
> calling or be homosexual, or simply not be attracted
> to a male her family wanted her to marry.
You really should learn some history
sometime -- and maybe some human
geography as well. Modern Florida is
not the exact model for all humanity
for all times.
> Romeo and Juliet could never have happened in
> real life.
Maybe you're getting the idea --
slowly.
>>> I deny, by the way, that no one ever told a romantic
>>> heroine or hero refusing to marry that she or he should
>>> in order to pass on her or his intelligence, beauty,
>>> character or the like, but I'm not going to devote my
>>> declining years researching it.
>
>> Sure -- you and every other Strat. You
>> just dumbly assume the strange requests
>> in this play (and in the Sonnets) were
>> common or ordinary behaviour. The
>> level of stupidity is hard to fathom.
>
> What in the world is strange about telling
> someone that an advantage of marrying is passing
> on one's genes?
There was never any need to tell any
early modern woman. Nor would she
have understood the advice. There
was nothing she could do about it.
(With ONE huge exception, of course
-- and that woman was advised and
advised and advised -- until she made
the giving of such advice illegal,
but even that did not stop it.)
> Erasmus wrote an essay about it.
An essay addressed to males.
> He is consered an important author, Paul,
> although I realize only Shakespeare was an
> important author for you.
Strats are obliged to be ignorant of
all history, and to remain ignorant.
>>> No and yes. You are cherry-picking.
>
>> So -- if you had any competence -- you
>> could also "cherry pick" from the play
>> to show that it was really by a near-
>> peasant author from the English midlands,
>> and was written around 1600. How come
>> that you (and every other Strat) is so
>> incompetent?
>
> "'Twelfth Night' was written between 1599--the
> publication of the "new map" with the
> augmentation of the Indies' referred to in
> 3.2.76-77
What 'new map'? Do you not think that
new maps came out frequently after
Columbus found them (in 1492 btw).
> --and late 1601, in time for the
> earliest recorded performance in February 1602.
> The play may have been written afor a
Note the ' . . may . . '.
> performance on January 6, 1601, when Queen E.
> (1) paid the Chamberlain's Men to entertain a
> visiting Italian nobleman named ORsino.
Yeah, yeah. Entertain a visitor by
showing him on stage, supposedly
being mistreated by a Queen figure,
and then marrying a near-stranger.
> If so,
> then the play must have been written in late
> 1600, but most scholars believe that this theory
> is inaccurate,
Most 'scholars' haven't got the
faintest clue.
> although the much-talked-about
> vbisitor may have inspired Shakespeare's choice
> of a name for his duke, suggesting 1601 as the
> date of compostion, "Two piecesof evidence point
> to the latter half of that year.
Why does ANYONE pay attention
to this kind of drivel?
>> The only thing (in the whole canon)
>> that Strats can find that "links" to
>> their delusional system is the truly
>> absurd "hate-away" line in the Sonnets.
>
> Not quite, asshole, as we've told you countless
> times. Again, some from memory: In The Taming of
> the Shrew there are names of men Shakespeare's
> father is recorded as having known, living near
> where he lived
Sure -- Smith, Brown and Jones, no
doubt.
When THIS is your best 'evidence'
you really should give up.
> and names of families in places
> near Stratford known to have lived there.
> There's a joke on Richard Field's name.
God help us.
[..]
>>> I don't have to, because I can connect
>>> the plays to the plays it was based on.
>
>> Stratfordians (as an industry) should
>> do it, and would do it -- if they could.
>> They can't.
>
> They have no need or desire to.
We were talking about 'cherry-picking'.
Thousands (literally) of Strats and
quasi-Strats have done their best in
this respect, slowly picking over every
tiny detail in the canon for centuries.
In all that time, they have got
NOTHING.
Surely, at some point, you must realise
that you are on the wrong track?
Or maybe not. Stupidity can get
extraordinarily ingrained.
>> It is easy to state the reasons. I have
>> done so often. Raleigh introduced a new
>> set of feminine fashions to male courtiers:
>> long hair, earrings, perfume, make-up.
>> Oxford was naturally intensely jealous of
>> his success. Other courtiers shared his
>> feelings. All this is recorded history.
>
> But the reasons are insufficient. Introducing a
> new set of fashions some people thought
> effeminate is not the same as being a woman
> who is pretending to be a man--except to
> someone who needs to believe that for
> the sake of an insane conspiracy theory.
The question is whether or not a court
rival would WANT to portray him as
a female -- and whether or not that
suggestion would seem amusing (and
relevant ) to other members of the
court.
>>> Counter-question: if I say Olivia was based on Ann
>>> Hathaway, what can you say against me? Wait, let me
>>> hypothesize Orsino (whose name I confuse with
>>> Orlando) is based on Ann Hathaway. I say it "suited
>>> Shakespeare to have done this." Disprove me.
>
>> You would have to state some supporting
>> facts and give some reasons. You can't,
>> and haven't any.
>
> Sure, I do. Shakespeare wanted to make fun of his
> wife. He didn't like her (2nd-best bed). We don't
> know why, but that's enough. We simply assume Ann
> was too head-in-the-clouds for Will. Etc. I could
> do better, but I can't afford the time I'd need to
> work it all out since I'm not insanely dedicated to
> an impossible conspiracy theory like you are.
None of this makes the slightest sense.
Who is being amused? What ARE
Shagsper's suggestions? What is their
point?
[..]
>> IF the play ended in the
>> wrong sort of marriages you might have a
>> point. It would have been tactless for
>> Oxford to have told the Queen to marry a
>> specific person. And he certainly was
>> never in favour of a marriage to Leicester
>> (although he might have preferred that to
>> no marriage at all.) So he has Olivia
>> marry a purely fictional 'twin'. The
>> marriage of Orsino (Leicester) to Viola
>> (Raleigh) was obviously impossible, and
>> no more than a joke.
>
> Unfalsifiability.
Nonsense. As with my Sonnet readings,
I am telling you about an historical
event. Twelfth Night was written for
the English court in (or closely
around) 1578. I have shown how its
plotting and characterisation were
for the amusement of the court in
general, and the Queen in particular.
IF that theory was false, it would be
very easy for you (or any Strat or
quasi-Strat here) to point out errors
or ways in which it did not fit those
people at that time.
Your claim is that Twelfth Night no
more fits that court than it describes
the one of Barak & Michelle Obama --
or any other court in history. Yet
you cannot begin to defend your claim.
Could Oxford have written so abusively
about Philip Sidney? Would anyone
(especially the Queen) have objected
so strongly that it would have been
impermissible? Is Oxford's tone
about Leicester (Orsino) about right?
Is his representation of Elizabeth
as Olivia acceptable? And so on
for each character.
The fit is perfect. You cannot deny
it. Nor would you dream of trying
to fit it to any other court at any
other time.
> The play is in Italy because it's fiction; it's
> about an unmarried head of household because non-
> fiction. How can I possibly show it's just a play,
> not a satire on Elizabeth's court if everything
> dissimilarity is simply fiction or a joke?
You can show (a) how my claims are wrong;
OR (b) how the play would fit the court
of Queen Victoria (or any other) just as
well.
It is easy to falsify erroneous historical
claims when they set out a fair amount of
detail about a well-known set of events.
> Now I grant you that a playwright may well be
> intensely concerned with something going on in his
> life, and grab a source because he thinks he can
> use it to express his feelings and thoughts about
> it, but I deny any decent playwright would not have
> chosen the source primarily for its potential as a
> play.
I have no idea what you are saying.
[..]
> It'd be easy, yes--for Camelot. Kennedy is Viola,
> and Bobby is his twin brother. Jackie is Olivia.
> Nixon is Malvolio. It's too obvious for me to have
> to spell it out further.
Yeah, yeah. Who do you think you are fooling?
[..]
>> To a large extent it is a caricature of
>> Elizabeth's court. If you miss that
>> aspect -- as Strats necessarily do --
>> then you fail to grasp much of the
>> purpose of the play.
>
> Would the play be of no value if it
> were not a caricature of Elizabeth's court?
Do you mean if it was not seen as that
-- in the way Strats never can?
Sure -- it has much value. The nursery
rhyme 'Humpty Dumpty' also has much
value for children, even when they do
not know what it means.
> Let's say Olivia has a father but he's off
> in Italy fighting a war, and her mother is dead,
> so Olivia is running the estate.
You show that you are quite ignorant
of history. Such a thing just did NOT
happen. Never-married aristocratic
young females were not trained in any
kind of estate management. They were
kept away from almost everything that
would be useful in that regard. This
applied from before 1200 to after 1900.
How can you be so ignorant?
> Have her like
> or something Elizabeth was know not to
> like, or hate something Elizabeth was
> known to love. Make the family non-noble
> but rich. Make Viola female instead of male.
> Change Orsino's name to Vladimir. Etc.
> Would they play no longer appeal to you?
Twelfth Night is based on reality. The
poet knows that his initial audience
will recognise huge amounts of detail
that we miss. Later audiences (ignorant
of all that detail) pick up that it has
a kind of reality -- but are like you
(and other Strats) quite incapable of
doing any analysis, or working out what
its true basis.
> Hey, how come (I just realize) you didn't answer
> my response to what you said about the C, U's etc.
> as showing Olivia like bawdry. You were definitely
> wrong there, why not admit it?
The play was performed for an audience.
In it was 'the Lady Olivia'. If she had
not liked it, it would no longer be in
the play.
>> The play comes to life because it was
>> about real people. Maybe you can pick
>> that up, even when you think that all
>> the characters are purely fictional.
>
> How about some examples of this?
Numerous works of art (e.g. novels) are
based on the author's experience. We can
often tell this -- from the detail and
apparent confidence of the author, and
our inability to spot mistakes. "Purely
fictional" works (as routinely envisaged
by Strats) are rare, and are extremely
hard to do well.
>> It's probably like reading Sonnet 18
>> without any sense that it is about
>> Mary QS, etc., -- thinking that it's
>> only about the weather.
>
> Straw horse, Paul You can't get it through your
> head that because I (I alone, very possibly) think
> it is MOST about summer means that I think
> it is ONLY about that.
>
>> It's poetry
>> as nursery rhymes. It's literary
>> appreciation for small children.
>
> Right, small children like Coleridge, Milton, Keats
> . . . Come right down to it, and you're saying
> you're the only adult in the world who has read the
> poem since you're the only one who understands it
> the way you do.
Sure -- it's how things happen. It's
not as significant as being the first
to realise that time does not flow at
a fixed rate, but it's something.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> >> If so, it has to
> >> be about it while she could have an heir
> >> of her body. Why on earth would the
> >> Stratman date a play back more than
> >> 20 years?
>
> > Why did he go back 1600 to write about Julius
> > Caesar? If the plot captured him, why should he
> > care where or when he took it from? People are
> > still writing WWII novels. You're really out of
> > it, Paul.
>
> Do you know any childless women in
> their sixties? Would you write a
> play about them, setting them thirty
> or so years ago, with their friends
> then (mostly still alive now) urging
> them to have a child before it was
> too late?
Your question was, "Why on earth would the
Stratman date a play back more than
20 years?" I told you why. The plot captured him.
You forget that I don't go along with your insane
notion that the play is closely based on
Elizabeth's court.
If your notion was valid, then the play would not
be about a childless woman in her sixties, but
about THAT woman WHEN SHE WAS YOUNG.
Finally, the play has almost nothing to do with
anyone's urging a childless woman to have a child.
Only ONCE in the play does anyone say anything
about anyone's having a child (that I recall), and
that, for everyone but you, is merely a romantic
comedy argument for the plot's sake. It allows us
to view poor Viola helping the man she loves win
the love of someone else. This is important, Paul.
She could have used any argument but took this
one because it is a good one. It's valid: a good reason
to marry is to pass your genes or property on to
another generation. It also allows the one making it
to fflatter the recipient. That's particular effective
narratively in this case because it allows Viola to
come across as clever and eloquent--against what
she most desires. Also, it shows her recognition of
what a good match for Orsino Olivia is and suggests
she is aware, unhappily for her, of her possible
inferiority to her as a match for the one she loves.
All this is romantic comedy stuff, Paul. It need have
nothing to do with Elizabeth. If it does, it's only in
passing. I might add that no country or even house
is at stake. No one is going to go to war against
Olivia if she remains single.
> Would you raise the topic with the
> monarch, bearing mind her power?
> Would your theatre company (assuming
> the crazy Strat scenario) allow you to
> put on such a play?
No one of the time is known to have considered
the play to have anything to do with Elizabeth. It
was in fact put on when the queen was sixty. Even
if it were about Elizabeth, it would be easy to claim
it was just a romantic comedy, and only coincidentally
related to her. And, hey, Paul, the lines about passing
on her beauty to the next generation could have been deleted,
leaving the play with NO HINT it was about the succession.
> >>> Precisely my poinT: you would have no
> >>> difficulty finding real and fictional women
> >>> who were noble.
>
> >> So how is it that you can't find ONE
> >> other never-married, rich, noblewoman
> >> who managed her own house and estates
> >> -- neither in real life, nor in drama,
> >> nor in the whole of literature?
>
> > The same reason NO ONE can find a SINGLE
> > sensible argument against your reading of the
> > sonnets, even though NO ONE agrees with that
> > reading.
>
> I'm sure you are right here. Strats
> (and quasi-Strats) cannot accept my
> Sonnet readings, nor my argument here
> about Twelfth Night. So what can
> they do? Answer: the same as everyone
> with a quasi-religious belief coming
> up against evidence or an unpleasantly
> rational argument against it -- bury
> your head in the sand.
> [..]
Why did you never respond to what I asked you
about a situation in which one person believes
Statement X true and one believes it false? My
question about the situation (or a like situation)
was this: if the first person can get a thousand
people to agree with him and the second person
can get NO ONE to agree with him, which is
more likely to be right?
> >>> Prove also that the urging of Elizabeth to marry did not
> >>> give Shakespeare the idea to use the standard motive for
> >>> marrying in his play.
>
> >> The notion is absurd. Elizabeth was the
> >> only female of the day who was in a position
> >> to deny males selected for her to marry.
> >> She was also probably the only one to have
> >> strong reasons for that course of action.
>
> > I forgot. Women were slaves then. None could
> > influence a father. None could have a religious
> > calling or be homosexual, or simply not be attracted
> > to a male her family wanted her to marry.
>
> You really should learn some history
> sometime -- and maybe some human
> geography as well. Modern Florida is
> not the exact model for all humanity
> for all times.
Paul, I've lived in more places than Florida. But I'm
not a rigidnik--I can use common sense and my knowledge
of men and women, and of families, and of the variability
of people, to know that SOME women in ANY society are
going to rebel against being slaves. Shakespeare shows
women dominating men or at least getting their way with
them to a degree ALL the time. Reread the Merry Wives,
sometime.
Yet none of Shakespeare's heroines act
like slaves. Why is that, Paul? Why didn't
Juliet do exactly as her family wanted, for instance?
> > Romeo and Juliet could never have happened in
> > real life.
>
> Maybe you're getting the idea -- slowly.
If the idea is valid, why does no one agree with you that it is?
> >>> I deny, by the way, that no one ever told a romantic
> >>> heroine or hero refusing to marry that she or he should
> >>> in order to pass on her or his intelligence, beauty,
> >>> character or the like, but I'm not going to devote my
> >>> declining years researching it.
>
> >> Sure -- you and every other Strat. You
> >> just dumbly assume the strange requests
> >> in this play (and in the Sonnets) were
> >> common or ordinary behaviour. The
> >> level of stupidity is hard to fathom.
>
> > What in the world is strange about telling
> > someone that an advantage of marrying is passing
> > on one's genes?
>
> There was never any need to tell any
> early modern woman. Nor would she
> have understood the advice.
Talk about strange. They wuz so dumm
back then that a blond-haired woman married
to a brown-haired man wouldn't have known
her blond-haired girl got his hair from her mother?
Of course they knew things like that and of
course they would have known a reason to
marry would be to pass on their good traits,
but one in arguing that would be reminding them
of it, something that is often done in arguments.
>There was nothing she could do about it.
Snip of Elizabeth The Exception crap
>
> > Erasmus wrote an essay about it.
>
> An essay addressed to males.
Ah, so inapplacable to women. It wasn't in English, either.
> > He is consered an important author, Paul,
> > although I realize only Shakespeare was an
> > important author for you.
>
> Strats are obliged to be ignorant of
> all history, and to remain ignorant.
It's not just "Strats," Paul, it's everyone but you.
> >>> No and yes. You are cherry-picking.
>
> >> So -- if you had any competence -- you
> >> could also "cherry pick" from the play
> >> to show that it was really by a near-
> >> peasant author from the English midlands,
> >> and was written around 1600. How come
> >> that you (and every other Strat) is so
> >> incompetent?
>
> > "'Twelfth Night' was written between 1599--the
> > publication of the "new map" with the
> > augmentation of the Indies' referred to in
> > 3.2.76-77
>
> What 'new map'? Do you not think that
> new maps came out frequently after
> Columbus found them (in 1492 btw).
the "new map" with the augmentation of the Indies'
as I wrote
>
> > --and late 1601, in time for the
> > earliest recorded performance in February 1602.
> > The play may have been written afor a
>
> Note the ' . . may . . '.
Yes, Paul, I'm not quoting a rigidnki but a scholar.
>
> > performance on January 6, 1601, when Queen E.
> > (1) paid the Chamberlain's Men to entertain a
> > visiting Italian nobleman named Orsino.
>
> Yeah, yeah. Entertain a visitor by
> showing him on stage, supposedly
> being mistreated by a Queen figure,
> and then marrying a near-stranger.
It is not evidence that Shakespeare's Orsino was
based on the Italian but that Shakespeare took the
latter's name, which would support the hypothesis
that the play was written after 1601.
> > If so,
> > then the play must have been written in late
> > 1600, but most scholars believe that this theory
> > is inaccurate,
>
> Most 'scholars' haven't got the faintest clue.
Ha, I never thought of that. But you're undoubtedly right:
they disagree with you on most things (but, ironically,
not here); therefore, they "haven't got the faintest clue."
The evidence, the hard evidence, this guy alludes to is
not clues because it contradicts your insane evidence-free
hypothesis.
> > although the much-talked-about
> > visitor may have inspired Shakespeare's choice
> > of a name for his duke, suggesting 1601 as the
> > date of compostion, "Two piecesof evidence point
> > to the latter half of that year.
>
> Why does ANYONE pay attention
> to this kind of drivel?
I dunno. They should be paying attention to the
fact that "Orsino" means "ursine" instead, right?
I'll break here and continue in a second post.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > Not quite, asshole, as we've told you countless
> > times. Again, some from memory: In The Taming of
> > the Shrew there are names of men Shakespeare's
> > father is recorded as having known, living near
> > where he lived
>
> Sure -- Smith, Brown and Jones, no
> doubt.
No, as you should know because we've told you many times, the
names were not particularly common, and I believe in one case the
correct vocation was attached. Even if Smith, Brown and Jones,
no doubt, they show that "Hate-away" as Hathaway (a pun even though
Somer as tent-pole as Darnley is SO much better) is not the only
link, as you argued, but are not willing to concede you were wrong
in arguing.
> When THIS is your best 'evidence'
> you really should give up.
Did I say it was? The best evidence is the monument. This is
merely a counter argument to YOUR best argument, which is
that we can't match Shakespeare's life to the plays and sonnets.
> > and names of families in places
> > near Stratford known to have lived there.
> > There's a joke on Richard Field's name.
>
> God help us.
These are links, moron. You have NO explicit links to
Oxford in the texts or outside them. Nothing says he
wrote the plays. Nothing. You claim a perfect conspiracy
erased them. Well, I claim a near-perfect conspiracy
erased the missing links to Shakespeare, the conspiracy
carried out by Oxford and friends to make it seem he wrote
the plays rather than Shakespeare, which you can no more
refute than I can refute yours.
> [..]
>
> >>> I don't have to, because I can connect
> >>> the plays to the plays it was based on.
>
> >> Stratfordians (as an industry) should
> >> do it, and would do it -- if they could.
> >> They can't.
>
> > They have no need or desire to.
Oh, and of course they HAVE. Bullough, for instance.
> We were talking about 'cherry-picking'.
> Thousands (literally) of Strats and
> quasi-Strats have done their best in
> this respect, slowly picking over every
> tiny detail in the canon for centuries.
> In all that time, they have got
> NOTHING.
>
> Surely, at some point, you must realise
> that you are on the wrong track?
>
> Or maybe not. Stupidity can get
> extraordinarily ingrained.
Right. I mentioned links above. I and everyone else keep
reminding you that records on commoners from then are sparse,
so we have very little in Shakespeare's life to link to. But links as
good
as yours have been made. Autolycus, for instance, is as close to
Shakespeare's father (a traveling trader) as Polonius is to Burghley.
However, links are IRRELEVANT because authorship is best
determined by evidence external to the texts involved such as
names on title pages.
> >> It is easy to state the reasons. I have
> >> done so often. Raleigh introduced a new
> >> set of feminine fashions to male courtiers:
> >> long hair, earrings, perfume, make-up.
> >> Oxford was naturally intensely jealous of
> >> his success. Other courtiers shared his
> >> feelings. All this is recorded history.
>
> > But the reasons are insufficient. Introducing a
> > new set of fashions some people thought
> > effeminate is not the same as being a woman
> > who is pretending to be a man--except to
> > someone who needs to believe that for
> > the sake of an insane conspiracy theory.
> The question is whether or not a court
> rival would WANT to portray him as
> a female -- and whether or not that
> suggestion would seem amusing (and
> relevant ) to other members of the court.
You don't know anything about who wants what, Paul. Or
do you have external evidence, like a letter by someone
in Elizabeth's court about the play? Why can't I just say
Oxford would never want to portray Raleigh that way, so
he couldn't have written the play? My opinion against
yours. But we know that when that is the case, you are
always the one who wins.
> >>> Counter-question: if I say Olivia was based on Ann
> >>> Hathaway, what can you say against me? Wait, let me
> >>> hypothesize Orsino (whose name I confuse with
> >>> Orlando) is based on Ann Hathaway. I say it "suited
> >>> Shakespeare to have done this." Disprove me.
>
> >> You would have to state some supporting
> >> facts and give some reasons. You can't,
> >> and haven't any.
>
> > Sure, I do. Shakespeare wanted to make fun of his
> > wife. He didn't like her (2nd-best bed). We don't
> > know why, but that's enough. We simply assume Ann
> > was too head-in-the-clouds for Will. Etc. I could
> > do better, but I can't afford the time I'd need to
> > work it all out since I'm not insanely dedicated to
> > an impossible conspiracy theory like you are.
>
> None of this makes the slightest sense.
> Who is being amused? What ARE
> Shagsper's suggestions? What is their
> point?
Why, Shakespeare's friends an neighbors. He gave them
free airplane tickets to London for them, and arranged
a private performance of the play.
Paul, you really are a moron. My man didn't write the play for
particular people. Like all known great playwrights, he wrote it
for THE WORLD. He based Orsino on Ann (everything about
Orsino suggests Ann to those of us in the know) because he thought
the resulting character would work narratively and as a character
in his own right to give pleasure to his audiences.
We haven't done it even once because you are
perfect. What in your life indicates you are
even competent at anything? Why isn't there
an entry on you in any reference book about
ANYthing? How can anyone point out an error
in something of yours that you will accept when
you a rigidnikally incapable of accepting anything
in your delusional system as erroneous (unless you
can make it work anyway, as you--in your own eyes--
make Olivia's having a fool work after adamently
claiming she didn't have one.
> Your claim is that Twelfth Night no
> more fits that court than it describes
> the one of Barack & Michelle Obama --
> or any other court in history. Yet
> you cannot begin to defend your claim.
>
> Could Oxford have written so abusively
> about Philip Sidney? Would anyone
> (especially the Queen) have objected
> so strongly that it would have been
> impermissible? Is Oxford's tone
> about Leicester (Orsino) about right?
> Is his representation of Elizabeth
> as Olivia acceptable? And so on
> for each character.
>
> The fit is perfect. You cannot deny
> it. Nor would you dream of trying
> to fit it to any other court at any
> other time.
I tie it to GI'Ingannati. I would not dream of tying it
to any real court.
> > The play is in Italy because it's fiction; it's
> > about an unmarried head of household because non-
> > fiction. How can I possibly show it's just a play,
> > not a satire on Elizabeth's court if everything
> > dissimilarity is simply fiction or a joke?
>
> You can show (a) how my claims are wrong;
> OR (b) how the play would fit the court
> of Queen Victoria (or any other) just as
> well.
Not to you, Paul. How could I? You refuse to accept
anything against your claims as valid.
> It is easy to falsify erroneous historical
> claims when they set out a fair amount of
> detail about a well-known set of events.
Not to a rigidnik if the falsification goes against his beliefs.
> > Now I grant you that a playwright may well be
> > intensely concerned with something going on in his
> > life, and grab a source because he thinks he can
> > use it to express his feelings and thoughts about
> > it, but I deny any decent playwright would not have
> > chosen the source primarily for its potential as a
> > play.
>
> I have no idea what you are saying.
That's because you know nothing about plays and play-writing.
> > It'd be easy, yes--for Camelot. Kennedy is Viola,
> > and Bobby is his twin brother. Jackie is Olivia.
> > Nixon is Malvolio. It's too obvious for me to have
> > to spell it out further.
>
> Yeah, yeah. Who do you think you are fooling?
It's idiotic, isn't it. But no more idiotic to most people
who know the play than your match-ups. And I don't
have an Ogburn to guide me nor ten years to hallucinate
the amount of pseudo-details you allege support you.
> >> To a large extent it is a caricature of
> >> Elizabeth's court. If you miss that
> >> aspect -- as Strats necessarily do --
> >> then you fail to grasp much of the
> >> purpose of the play.
>
> > Would the play be of no value if it
> > were not a caricature of Elizabeth's court?
>
> Do you mean if it was not seen as that
> -- in the way Strats never can?
>
> Sure -- it has much value. The nursery
> rhyme 'Humpty Dumpty' also has much
> value for children, even when they do
> not know what it means.
Okay, Would it have no more value than "Humpty Dumpty?."
> > Let's say Olivia has a father but he's off
> > in Italy fighting a war, and her mother is dead,
> > so Olivia is running the estate.
>
> You show that you are quite ignorant
> of history. Such a thing just did NOT
> happen. Never-married aristocratic
> young females were not trained in any
> kind of estate management. They were
> kept away from almost everything that
> would be useful in that regard. This
> applied from before 1200 to after 1900.
> How can you be so ignorant?
Uh, Paul, some people can do things using common sense,
and maybe a relative or trusted servant. I know that a rigidnik
like you cannot believe it, but self-education IS possible, as
William Shakespeare proves, to your horror.
But let us accept the extreme difficulty of managing an estate and
the
impossibility of doing it without Proper Training (and assume that
Shakespeare wouldn't have ignored all that on the grounds that
his plot worked if he did and no one would worry about the
unlikelihood of a real-life Olivia just as no one worries (except
dimwits) about the absurdity of Viola getting away with posing as a
man
and other unlikely things that happen in the play). Let
Olivia have a father who has gone to England on business, and left
Olivia in charge, with a Polonius to help her. Let us further have
her exposed to bawdry, nor asked to marry so as to pass on
her beauty or anything else. In other words, if Olivia was, even to
you, nothing like Elizabeth, would it be any more worth watching
than a television soap opera, or a pantomiming of "Humpty Dumpty?"
By the way, I don't think you ever showed me how the play reveals that
Olivia enjoys bawdry. Something else occurred to me: why isn't a
character based on Burghley in the play if it was so detailed a
satire
of her court as you claim?
> > Have her like
> > or something Elizabeth was know not to
> > like, or hate something Elizabeth was
> > known to love. Make the family non-noble
> > but rich. Make Viola female instead of male.
> > Change Orsino's name to Vladimir. Etc.
> > Would they play no longer appeal to you?
>
> Twelfth Night is based on reality. The
> poet knows that his initial audience
> will recognise huge amounts of detail
> that we miss. Later audiences (ignorant
> of all that detail) pick up that it has
> a kind of reality -- but are like you
> (and other Strats) quite incapable of
> doing any analysis, or working out what
> its true basis.
Yes, yes, yes. But what if it were not. I want to
know if it would still have more value than a nursery rhyme
to exaltedly sensitive and perceptive people like you.
> > Hey, how come (I just realize) you didn't answer
> > my response to what you said about the C, U's etc.
> > as showing Olivia like bawdry. You were definitely
> > wrong there, why not admit it?
>
> The play was performed for an audience.
> In it was 'the Lady Olivia'. If she had
> not liked it, it would no longer be in
> the play.
Sorry, Paul, but your answer is worthless. You maintain that
Olivia is like Elizabeth because both enjoy bawdry. But so far
as I know, Olivia is never exposed to bawdry in the play. So
she cannot be said to enjoy it.
>
> >> The play comes to life because it was
> >> about real people. Maybe you can pick
> >> that up, even when you think that all
> >> the characters are purely fictional.
>
> > How about some examples of this?
> Numerous works of art (e.g. novels) are
> based on the author's experience. We can
> often tell this -- from the detail and
> apparent confidence of the author, and
> our inability to spot mistakes. "Purely
> fictional" works (as routinely envisaged
> by Strats) are rare, and are extremely
> hard to do well.
No "Strat" evisages "purely fictional" works. We envisage
works that are essentially fictional, which means using
reality (because it is impossible not to) but not copying it,
or coming very close to copying it. I've written a novel, and I
think there is only one scene in it that is closely modeled on
an incident from my real life, but there are thousands of
passing details from my life. I think most novels are like
that. A draft of a novel I wrote right after graduating from high
school
was a satire on my high school and had characters based
on students and teachers I'd known, but they were exaggerated
and change in many details, and much that never happened put
it, and lots that happened taken out. That's what made it fiction.
The later novel is science fiction and basically not based on anything
in real life--except that it's main character closely resembles me,
to the extent of having my name!
Okay, I got carried away in my enjoyment about writing about myself.
The point, though, is that in most cases, fiction overlaps different
portions of reality while wholly ignoring reality in too complex a
manner
for it to reveal much about its author. If a hero is brave, does that
mean
his creator was brave portraying himself, or a coward idealizing
himself?
Etc. Reading Oxford's life into the plays is a silly tactic you
follow because
you have no other way to keep from acknowledging that someone without
Proper Training wrote the plays. You must have Proper Training for
your author,
because that requires Trainers, and must result in Those Who Have Been
Trained,
or conformists, You loathe the idea of a Shakespeare, because that
would
mean Non-Conformity Triumphant, or a Free Country with a variety of
people,
some of whom are not servile mediocrities doing what people like you
think
they should.
> >> It's probably like reading Sonnet 18
> >> without any sense that it is about
> >> Mary QS, etc., -- thinking that it's
> >> only about the weather.
>
> > Straw horse, Paul You can't get it through your
> > head that because I (I alone, very possibly) think
> > it is MOST about summer means that I think
> > it is ONLY about that.
>
> >> It's poetry
> >> as nursery rhymes. It's literary
> >> appreciation for small children.
>
> > Right, small children like Coleridge, Milton, Keats
> > . . . Come right down to it, and you're saying
> > you're the only adult in the world who has read the
> > poem since you're the only one who understands it
> > the way you do.
>
> Sure -- it's how things happen. It's
> not as significant as being the first
> to realise that time does not flow at
> a fixed rate, but it's something.
Ah, you are saying James Clerk Maxwell and Newton, among others,
were children in their appreciation of physics? And Coleridge and all
the others of his time and earlier and later times who have been
satisfied with poetry at their level--i.e., without connections to
important happenings in some royal court, had no more than a child's
ability to appreciate poetry?
Asid from that, why was Einstein's suggestion accepted so quickly by
so many (excluding me, although I admit to not knowing enough to
reject it),
and your hypothesis not accepted by anyone? Okay, yours hasn't
been around for long, but I believe Einstein's was initially quickly
accepted by a few of his peers. I can't imagine you won't get a wack
or two on your side during the next fify or sixty years, but you will
never have even as many on your side as the Bacon woman did.
Another problem for you is that no understanding of a poem, so far
as I know, has been universally accepted, then centuries (or even
decades) later being overthrown by one gifted reader. Here we have
a poem considered a love poem comparing its addressee to a
summer day. Almost every reader has had a different idea of the
details but they have all accepted my description as capturing the
main essence of the poem. Now you say they are all wrong.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>>>> If so, it has to
>>>> be about it while she could have an heir
>>>> of her body. Why on earth would the
>>>> Stratman date a play back more than
>>>> 20 years?
>>>
>>> Why did he go back 1600 to write about Julius
>>> Caesar? If the plot captured him, why should he
>>> care where or when he took it from? People are
>>> still writing WWII novels. You're really out of
>>> it, Paul.
>>
>> Do you know any childless women in
>> their sixties? Would you write a
>> play about them, setting them thirty
>> or so years ago, with their friends
>> then (mostly still alive now) urging
>> them to have a child before it was
>> too late?
>
> Your question was, "Why on earth would the
> Stratman date a play back more than 20 years?"
NO, it wasn't. Note my words at the top:
"If so . . ". And it was: "IF the whole
play is about her [Elizabeth's] court . . "
> I told you why. The plot captured him. You
> forget that I don't go along with your insane
> notion that the play is closely based on
> Elizabeth's court.
You specifically accepted (just for
the argument) that the Stratman was
writing about Elizabeth's court of
20 or so years earlier.
> If your notion was valid, then the play would not
> be about a childless woman in her sixties, but
> about THAT woman WHEN SHE WAS YOUNG.
So what? If you write a play about
a childless aunt of yours setting it
when she was young, and in effect,
accusing her of selfishness for never
having children, is she going to be
pleased?
> Finally, the
> play has almost nothing to do with anyone's
> urging a childless woman to have a child. Only
> ONCE in the play does anyone say anything about
> anyone's having a child (that I recall), and
> that, for everyone but you, is merely a romantic
> comedy argument for the plot's sake.
It is NEVER a romantic argument.
You won't find it in any play or
any novel or any other work of art.
Nor will you encounter it in real
life or recorded history. It is
not one in the play.
> It allows us to view poor Viola helping the man
> she loves win the love of someone else. This is
> important, Paul. She could have used any argument
> but took this one because it is a good one.
It's unknown in English literature --
especially addressed to a woman --
with the exception of works addressed
to the person of Queen Elizabeth in
the years 1558-1581.
> It's valid:
It's unknown.
>> Would you raise the topic with the
>> monarch, bearing mind her power?
>> Would your theatre company (assuming
>> the crazy Strat scenario) allow you to
>> put on such a play?
>
> No one of the time is known to have considered
> the play to have anything to do with Elizabeth.
Since you have no idea when they play
was written, you are merely regurgitating
Stratfordian mythos (i.e. religion).
> It was in fact put on when the queen was sixty.
Not true. Strat records (probably forged)
tell of a performance at the Inns of Court
when she was 69.
It was in fact put on 400 years after
she died --- my irrelevant fact to match
yours.
> Even if it were about Elizabeth, it would be easy
> to claim it was just a romantic comedy, and only
> coincidentally related to her.
What would be the point of such a
play? Would you write a play on (say)
the presidency of Lincoln -- but conceal
that fact from your audience? Or on
some royal court? Or on what? Why
write on X (a matter of some public
interest) -- but conceal the fact from
every member of the audience?
[..]
> Why did you never respond to what I asked you
> about a situation in which one person believes
> Statement X true and one believes it false? My
> question about the situation (or a like situation)
> was this: if the first person can get a thousand
> people to agree with him and the second person
> can get NO ONE to agree with him, which is
> more likely to be right?
If you are a geologist around 1930,
you will follow everyone else in your
discipline and say that continents
could not possibly move. It is routine
not to accept new ideas -- no matter
how good or well evidenced.
>>> I forgot. Women were slaves then. None could
>>> influence a father. None could have a religious
>>> calling or be homosexual, or simply not be attracted
>>> to a male her family wanted her to marry.
>>
>> You really should learn some history
>> sometime -- and maybe some human
>> geography as well. Modern Florida is
>> not the exact model for all humanity
>> for all times.
>
> Paul, I've lived in more places than Florida.
I'd bet that you'd need GPS to
tell the difference.
> But I'm not a rigidnik--I can use common sense
> and my knowledge of men and women, and of
> families, and of the variability of people, to
> know that SOME women in ANY society are going to
> rebel against being slaves.
Try to find out about (say) modern
Saudi Arabia, and what really happens
to women there who rebel. Ever heard
of 'honour killings'? -- Although I
don't think they're necessary in that
place, everything being so well
organised.
> Shakespeare shows
> women dominating men or at least getting their
> way with them to a degree ALL the time. Reread
> the Merry Wives, sometime.
Find out how many women held salaried
official roles in Elizabethan England.
> Yet none of Shakespeare's heroines act
> like slaves.
Saudi women are not slaves, nor are
women in similar countries. That does
not mean that they can become educated
or get jobs or drive cars. Obviously
there are deep differences in attitude
as regards most Western women, then as
well as now -- BUT, in many respects,
there used to be great similarities as
well.
I still find your ignorance astonishing.
>>> What in the world is strange about telling
>>> someone that an advantage of marrying is passing
>>> on one's genes?
>>
>> There was never any need to tell any
>> early modern woman. Nor would she
>> have understood the advice.
>
> Talk about strange. They wuz so dumm back
> then that a blond-haired woman married to a
> brown-haired man wouldn't have known her
> blond-haired girl got his hair from her
> mother? Of course they knew things like that
> and of course they would have known a reason
> to marry would be to pass on their good
> traits, but one in arguing that would be
> reminding them of it, something that is often
> done in arguments.
I was NOT talking about information.
Imagine (if you can) talking to a
Saudi woman (obviously you'd have to
disguise yourself as a woman just to
get access) about how many children
she should have. Do you think she
might understand you?
Heck, you probably do. OK, imagine
talking to a Saudi cow about how many
calves it should have. Would IT
understand you? Saudis treat their
women like cows. And Saudi women
have about as much information and
as much choice in such matters as
Saudi cows. English women around
1600 might have been slightly better
off -- but only very slightly.
>> Strats are obliged to be ignorant of
>> all history, and to remain ignorant.
>
> It's not just "Strats," Paul, it's everyone
> but you.
On this matter, your ignorance is far
deeper than that of most educated
people -- even that of Strats.
>>> visiting Italian nobleman named Orsino.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. Entertain a visitor by
>> showing him on stage, supposedly
>> being mistreated by a Queen figure,
>> and then marrying a near-stranger.
>
> It is not evidence that Shakespeare's Orsino
> was based on the Italian but that Shakespeare
> took the latter's name, which would support
> the hypothesis that the play was written after
> 1601.
Anyone who had visited Italy or studied
its literature would have heard of the
Orsino family. The relationship to
Leicester, with his family emblem of
the white bear is FAR stronger. When
allied to the relationship with the
Queen-figure in the play (and the
dealings about clowns) there should be
no doubt as to the reason for the use
of the name.
>> Why does ANYONE pay attention
>> to this kind of drivel?
>
> I dunno. They should be paying attention to
> the fact that "Orsino" means "ursine" instead,
> right?
Yep. You've got something right --
no doubt by accident.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>>> If so, it has to
> >>>> be about it while she could have an heir
> >>>> of her body. Why on earth would the
> >>>> Stratman date a play back more than
> >>>> 20 years?
>
> >>> Why did he go back 1600 to write about Julius
> >>> Caesar? If the plot captured him, why should he
> >>> care where or when he took it from? People are
> >>> still writing WWII novels. You're really out of
> >>> it, Paul.
>
> >> Do you know any childless women in
> >> their sixties? Would you write a
> >> play about them, setting them thirty
> >> or so years ago, with their friends
> >> then (mostly still alive now) urging
> >> them to have a child before it was
> >> too late?
>
> > Your question was, "Why on earth would the
> > Stratman date a play back more than 20 years?"
>
> NO, it wasn't. Note my words at the top:
> "If so . . ". And it was: "IF the whole
> play is about her [Elizabeth's] court . . "
It's hard to remember things like that when having
to deal with the number of lunacies you let loose.
But my answer below works either way.
> > I told you why. The plot captured him. You
> > forget that I don't go along with your insane
> > notion that the play is closely based on
> > Elizabeth's court.
>
> You specifically accepted (just for
> the argument) that the Stratman was
> writing about Elizabeth's court of
> 20 or so years earlier.
I don't remember that. Still, if what was going on
in Elizabeth's court would have made a good plot
at the time it was going on, it would make a good
plot twenty years later.
> > If your notion was valid, then the play would not
> > be about a childless woman in her sixties, but
> > about THAT woman WHEN SHE WAS YOUNG.
>
> So what? If you write a play about
> a childless aunt of yours setting it
> when she was young, and in effect,
> accusing her of selfishness for never
> having children, is she going to be
> pleased?
The "accusation" is a compliment: you have terrific
genes you ought to pass on. It is just part of a play
in which Olivia is mostly shown to be a superior person.
It would also depend on the aunt. Not all aunts are
hyper-sensitively incapable of bearing even the smallest
apparent slights. Plus, as I've said somewhere, the "offensive
lines could easily have been removed when she saw the play.
> > Finally, the
> > play has almost nothing to do with anyone's
> > urging a childless woman to have a child. Only
> > ONCE in the play does anyone say anything about
> > anyone's having a child (that I recall), and
> > that, for everyone but you, is merely a romantic
> > comedy argument for the plot's sake.
>
> It is NEVER a romantic argument.
Your saying it isn't doesn't make it not. In the scen,
Viola says Olivia's face is excellently done. That is a
romantic comedy wooing line. She goes on to say,
"'Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white/ Nature's
own sweet and cunning hand laid on.
Viola is complimenting her, Paul. It is part of her attempt
to make her accept Orsino.
Then she goes on, CONTINUING TO COMPLIMENT HER
ON HER BEAUTY by telling her she is "the cruelest she alive"
if she goes to her death without leaving the world a copy
of her face. Hyperbole claiming she is the beautiful woman
in the world because of the amount of beauty she would be
taking out of the world by not having children. No mention of
selfishness. And the accusation of cruelty is obviously a joke.
The passage has nothing to do with effects on the Nation, let
me repeat.
Viola does go on to criticize Olivia--not as selfish, but "too proud."
Then the scene goes on about what it is clearly about, Viola's
attempt to convince Olivia of Orsino's love for her, with more
hyperbole,
this time about how poor Orsino is living "a deadly life" or dying,
because
of her denial. The part about having children is just a step in a
very
dramatic episode of wooing, that Olivia comically turns into a kind
of wooing by Viola of her, and ends with Olivia infatuated with Viola.
Tell me, once Viola tells Olivia how beautiful she is, what kind of
climax
should follow instead of the you must pass on your beauty? What can
she say that can make the praise of Olivia's beauty become an argument
for
her to get married? Note, that Shakespeare needs Viola to praise
Olivia's
beauty (on behalf of Orsino) to help Olivia fall in love with the
praiser (who
seems sincerely to agree with Orsino). If Viola does not add the part
about
passing on her beauty, how isthe praise of Olivia's beauty
appropriate?
I'm sure I didn't express that too well, but I'm not going to bother
mending it,
because you won't understand it.
> You won't find it in any play or
> any novel or any other work of art.
> Nor will you encounter it in real
> life or recorded history. It is
> not one in the play.
>
> > It allows us to view poor Viola helping the man
> > she loves win the love of someone else. This is
> > important, Paul. She could have used any argument
> > but took this one because it is a good one.
>
> It's unknown in English literature --
> especially addressed to a woman --
> with the exception of works addressed
> to the person of Queen Elizabeth in
> the years 1558-1581.
>
> > It's valid:
>
> It's unknown.
What is it if not an argument for Olivia to get married, and marry
Orsino? If it's such an argument in a romantic comedy, how is
it not a romantic comedy argument, even if Shakesspeare was
the only one to use it, which I can't believe. (How many comedies
of the time have you read, Paul?)
> >> Would you raise the topic with the
> >> monarch, bearing mind her power?
> >> Would your theatre company (assuming
> >> the crazy Strat scenario) allow you to
> >> put on such a play?
>
> > No one of the time is known to have considered
> > the play to have anything to do with Elizabeth.
>
> Since you have no idea when the play
> was written, you are merely regurgitating
> Stratfordian mythos (i.e. religion).
I have an excellent idea about when it was written, from
what the writer I cited says. Name me a single play of
the time (to be Crowleyan) whose first recorded performance
was twenty years aftger it was written.
As for religion, what supernatural belief is part of this
"Stratfordian mythos" you speak of. (Besides the fact
that the hero-god is capable of self-reliance.)
> > It was in fact put on when the queen was sixty.
>
> Not true. Strat records (probably forged)
> tell of a performance at the Inns of Court
> when she was 69.
Wow, you got me there. You were speaking of her
in her sixties. You said it would horribly offend her
if performed when she was in her sixties. But it was,
if we accept evidence, hard evidence. Which you are
incapable of doing. But you accept the forged reports that Oxford
could read--why? He clearly had an IQ of about 50.
> It was in fact put on 400 years after
> she died --- my irrelevant fact to match
> yours.
I just stated why its being put on when she was 60 or 69,
who cares which, was not irrelevant. It meant that a play
you claim would have deeply offended her was performed,
anyway.
> > Even if it were about Elizabeth, it would be easy
> > to claim it was just a romantic comedy, and only
> > coincidentally related to her.
>
> What would be the point of such a
> play? Would you write a play on (say)
> the presidency of Lincoln -- but conceal
> that fact from your audience? Or on
> some royal court? Or on what? Why
> write on X (a matter of some public
> interest) -- but conceal the fact from
> every member of the audience?
According to you that's exactly what Oxford did. But
anyone could write a play, not on but based on, a
contemporary president with names changed and
the plot changed to make the play more effective,
with any anger from the politicians it was based on deflected
by the claim that it was just a political play that had
resemblance to real events by chance.
> [..]
>
> > Why did you never respond to what I asked you
> > about a situation in which one person believes
> > Statement X true and one believes it false? My
> > question about the situation (or a like situation)
> > was this: if the first person can get a thousand
> > people to agree with him and the second person
> > can get NO ONE to agree with him, which is
> > more likely to be right?
>
> If you are a geologist around 1930,
> you will follow everyone else in your
> discipline and say that continents
> could not possibly move. It is routine
> not to accept new ideas -- no matter
> how good or well evidenced.
Why won't you answer my simply yes/no question?
I agree that you could be right even though no one
agreed with you, but would that be true in most cases?
Would that be true in more than five percent of such
cases?
> >>> I forgot. Women were slaves then. None could
> >>> influence a father. None could have a religious
> >>> calling or be homosexual, or simply not be attracted
> >>> to a male her family wanted her to marry.
>
> >> You really should learn some history
> >> sometime -- and maybe some human
> >> geography as well. Modern Florida is
> >> not the exact model for all humanity
> >> for all times.
>
> > Paul, I've lived in more places than Florida.
>
> I'd bet that you'd need GPS to
> tell the difference.
You've never been to America. I suspect you've never
been more than fifty miles from where you now live.
> > But I'm not a rigidnik--I can use common sense
> > and my knowledge of men and women, and of
> > families, and of the variability of people, to
> > know that SOME women in ANY society are going to
> > rebel against being slaves.
>
> Try to find out about (say) modern
> Saudi Arabia, and what really happens
> to women there who rebel. Ever heard
> of 'honour killings'? -- Although I
> don't think they're necessary in that
> place, everything being so well
> organised.
You're saying women never rebel there. So no women
could ever be punished. But how do you know? Have
you lived there? What about the women who rebelled and
were not punished but got their way? How do you know
there weren't any? Why would their success be publicized?
Again, what in the world do you know about men and women?
> > Shakespeare shows
> > women dominating men or at least getting their
> > way with them to a degree ALL the time. Reread
> > the Merry Wives, sometime.
>
> Find out how many women held salaried
> official roles in Elizabethan England.
Ah, that's going to tell us how many got their way. But
you did not respond to my point. Why do so many women
in Shakespeare's plays (and in Boccacio and just about
everything I've read) so often get their way with men?
> > Yet none of Shakespeare's heroines act
> > like slaves.
>
> Saudi women are not slaves, nor are
> women in similar countries. That does
> not mean that they can become educated
> or get jobs or drive cars. Obviously
> there are deep differences in attitude
> as regards most Western women, then as
> well as now -- BUT, in many respects,
> there used to be great similarities as
> well.
You have stated that Elizabethan women had no say in
whom they'd marry (and just about everything else, it
seems to me). That sounds like slavery to me.
> I still find your ignorance astonishing.
>
> >>> What in the world is strange about telling
> >>> someone that an advantage of marrying is passing
> >>> on one's genes?
>
> >> There was never any need to tell any
> >> early modern woman. Nor would she
> >> have understood the advice.
>
> > Talk about strange. They wuz so dumm back
> > then that a blond-haired woman married to a
> > brown-haired man wouldn't have known her
> > blond-haired girl got his hair from her
> > mother? Of course they knew things like that
> > and of course they would have known a reason
> > to marry would be to pass on their good
> > traits, but one in arguing that would be
> > reminding them of it, something that is often
> > done in arguments.
>
> I was NOT talking about information.
> Imagine (if you can) talking to a
> Saudi woman (obviously you'd have to
> disguise yourself as a woman just to
> get access) about how many children
> she should have. Do you think she
> might understand you?
That's absurd. I wouldn't be someone trying to get
her to marry a friend of mine. But I can certainly
imagine a Saudi woman not wanting to marry
a man her father said she should, and saying she
didn't want to marry yet, she was too young, and he,
not being a rigidnik so not commanding her, trying
to convince her to marry before she was too old to
pass on her beauty by having children. I expect (mostly
from movies, I admit) that many men would tell their daughters
to marry because they wanted grandchildren. But modern
parents often use that as an argument to get a child of there's to
consider
marriage.
> Heck, you probably do. OK, imagine
> talking to a Saudi cow about how many
> calves it should have. Would IT
> understand you? Saudis treat their
> women like cows. And Saudi women
> have about as much information and
> as much choice in such matters as
> Saudi cows. English women around
> 1600 might have been slightly better
> off -- but only very slightly.
Saudi women are not slaves, but cows.
> >> Strats are obliged to be ignorant of
> >> all history, and to remain ignorant.
>
> > It's not just "Strats," Paul, it's everyone
> > but you.
>
> On this matter, your ignorance is far
> deeper than that of most educated
> people -- even that of Strats.
Get someone to agree with you here, in public.
> >>> visiting Italian nobleman named Orsino.
>
> >> Yeah, yeah. Entertain a visitor by
> >> showing him on stage, supposedly
> >> being mistreated by a Queen figure,
> >> and then marrying a near-stranger.
Only a rigidnik would be offended by being shown handsome
and wonderful in all respects but not able to win a woman, but
ending up with one just as good.
> > It is not evidence that Shakespeare's Orsino
> > was based on the Italian but that Shakespeare
> > took the latter's name, which would support
> > the hypothesis that the play was written after
> > 1601.
>
> Anyone who had visited Italy or studied
> its literature would have heard of the
> Orsino family. The relationship to
> Leicester, with his family emblem of
> the white bear is FAR stronger. When
> allied to the relationship with the
> Queen-figure in the play (and the
> dealings about clowns) there should be
> no doubt as to the reason for the use
> of the name.
No doubt. Or do you mean "little doubt?" Why did you
never acknowledge that I bested you on your ridiculous
defense of your use of "inconceivable," by the way. How often
it is that that happens. You say something moronic, I
show how moronic it is, and you snip my response and never
refer to the matter again.
> >> Why does ANYONE pay attention
> >> to this kind of drivel?
>
> > I dunno. They should be paying attention to
> > the fact that "Orsino" means "ursine" instead,
> > right?
>
> Yep. You've got something right --
> no doubt by accident.
Sure, performing a play with one of the portagonists named
Orsino (what other plays used the name, Paul?) can't
have anything to do with a man named Orsino who was in the
audience) but a man named Orsino must have something to
do with bears.
--Bob
Mike
MM:
"O' Faqir these satsangis have taught you the method of hanging at the
gallows. Only this experience of the manifestation of my form at
different places, of which I am never aware, has changed my life. . .
My experiences prove that Yogi, Meditator, Guru, Disciple and even the
aspirant of salvation are in bondage. . . These people who create my
form with their mental forces to fulfill their worldly desires are not
interested to know the Truth. They do not hang themselves on the
gallows, because they depend on the support of my Form. Whereas to a
man on the gallows there is no support. This is the highest stage."
Faqir Chand (1886-1981)
Michael Martin
> --Bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paul Crowley
[..]
>>> and names of families in places
>>> near Stratford known to have lived there.
>>> There's a joke on Richard Field's name.
>>
>> God help us.
>
> These are links, moron. You have NO explicit
> links to Oxford in the texts or outside them.
> Nothing says he wrote the plays. Nothing. You
> claim a perfect conspiracy erased them.
There was nothing 'perfect' about
the cover-up. It merely had to be
good enough to take in some utter
fools who wanted to be fooled.
> Right. I mentioned links above. I and everyone
> else keep reminding you that records on
> commoners from then are sparse, so we have very
> little in Shakespeare's life to link to. But
> links as good as yours have been made.
> Autolycus, for instance, is as close to
> Shakespeare's father (a travelling trader) as
> Polonius is to Burghley.
Utterly ridiculous. There was no one
else in the country like Burghley, not
at any time. Nor is there anyone else
in literature like Polonius. Whereas
Autolycus was a distinct type of
travelling salesman.
> However, links are
> IRRELEVANT because authorship is best determined
> by evidence external to the texts involved such
> as names on title pages.
Names like "Will Shake-speare".
What sort of idiot do you have
to be, to be taken in by that?
>> The question is whether or not a court
>> rival would WANT to portray him as
>> a female -- and whether or not that
>> suggestion would seem amusing (and
>> relevant ) to other members of the court.
>
> You don't know anything about who wants what, Paul.
> Or do you have external evidence, like a letter by
> someone in Elizabeth's court about the play? Why
> can't I just say Oxford would never want to portray
> Raleigh that way, so he couldn't have written the
> play? My opinion against yours.
No. You'd have to present some arguments.
Perhaps you might say that they were always
the best of friends. Of course, you never
do present any such arguments, since you
have none.
> Paul, you really are a moron. My man didn't write
> the play for particular people. Like all known
> great playwrights, he wrote it for THE WORLD.
Yeah, yeah. No great artist ever
based his works on any local matter.
> He based Orsino on Ann (everything about Orsino
> suggests Ann to those of us in the know) because he
> thought the resulting character would work
> narratively and as a character in his own right to
> give pleasure to his audiences.
Even Strats know that this isn't how
creative artists work. They are always
looking for some immediate motivation
or characterisation -- and always failing.
[..]
> Okay, Would it have no more value than "Humpty
> Dumpty?."
"Humpty Dumpty" is of immense value to
children.
> But let us accept the extreme difficulty of managing
> an estate and the impossibility of doing it without
> Proper Training (and assume that Shakespeare
> wouldn't have ignored all that on the grounds that
> his plot worked if he did and no one would worry
> about the unlikelihood of a real-life Olivia just as
> no one worries (except dimwits) about the absurdity
> of Viola getting away with posing as a man and other
> unlikely things that happen in the play). Let
> Olivia have a father who has gone to England on
> business, and left Olivia in charge, with a Polonius
> to help her. Let us further have her exposed to
> bawdry, nor asked to marry so as to pass on her
> beauty or anything else. In other words, if Olivia
> was, even to you, nothing like Elizabeth, would it
> be any more worth watching than a television soap
> opera, or a pantomiming of "Humpty Dumpty?"
I haven't a clue what you are on about
here. Have you some question?
>> Twelfth Night is based on reality. The
>> poet knows that his initial audience
>> will recognise huge amounts of detail
>> that we miss. Later audiences (ignorant
>> of all that detail) pick up that it has
>> a kind of reality -- but are like you
>> (and other Strats) quite incapable of
>> doing any analysis, or working out what
>> its true basis.
>
> Yes, yes, yes. But what if it were not.
Too hypothetical a question. What if
Michaelangelo had not been a Christian
and had painted the Sistine Chapel with
scenes from Greek mythology. Would it
still be great art? What if Dickens had
been a Russian and wrote his books
about London, never having visited the
city? What if Tolstoy was Chinese?
> The point, though, is that in most cases, fiction
> overlaps different portions of reality while wholly
> ignoring reality in too complex a manner for it to reveal
> much about its author. If a hero is brave, does that
> mean his creator was brave portraying himself, or a
> coward idealizing himself? Etc. Reading Oxford's life
> into the plays is a silly tactic you follow because you
> have no other way to keep from acknowledging that someone
> without Proper Training wrote the plays. You must have
> Proper Training for your author, because that requires
> Trainers, and must result in Those Who Have Been Trained,
> or conformists,
Sheer nonsense. Oxford's "training" was as
a child, or adolescent. Remember that his
father had his own company of actors in his
own house. His "training" was also writing
Romeus & Juliet, Gorbuduc, translating Ovid's
Metamorphoses, writing the Rape of Lucrece,
Venus & Adonis, Willobie His Avisa, and
much else.
> You loathe the idea of a Shakespeare, because that would
> mean Non-Conformity Triumphant, or a Free Country with a
> variety of people, some of whom are not servile
> mediocrities doing what people like you think they
> should.
Exactly wrong. You have clearly never met
uneducated rural English (or even ordinary
English). Their most distinctive characteristic
is that they _know_their_place_. The
Stratman and his parents and children could
not have been otherwise. Above them were
local gentry, above them local lords, above
them local bigwigs. No one who was not
superior gentry would think of reading plays,
let alone writing them.
> Ah, you are saying James Clerk Maxwell and Newton,
> among others, were children in their appreciation of
> physics?
They would not deny it themselves. Every
great scientist is aware of the huge
extent of his ignorance.
> And Coleridge and all the others of his time
> and earlier and later times who have been satisfied
> with poetry at their level--i.e., without connections
> to important happenings in some royal court, had no
> more than a child's ability to appreciate poetry?
They would accept (I am sure) that their
appreciation of many works was sorely
deficient. They might not know which
they misunderstood, but they would
hardly be so foolish as to claim the kind
of omniscience you seem to think they
would.
[..]
> Another problem for you is that no understanding of
> a poem, so far as I know, has been universally
> accepted, then centuries (or even decades) later
> being overthrown by one gifted reader.
Many texts (e.g. biblical) have been subject
to radical reinterpretations. As one rough
example of the sort of thing that happens,
the early Church destroyed many Roman
statues (e.g. of Emperors) but left standing
those it mistakenly thought were of
Constantine.
> Here we have a poem considered a love poem comparing
> its addressee to a summer day. Almost every reader
> has had a different idea of the details but they
> have all accepted my description as capturing the
> main essence of the poem. Now you say they are all
> wrong.
Not exactly. The poem IS about a Summer's
day, and blah-blah. But it is ALSO about
much else. They were misled. The poet
knew how they would read it. It's also a
leg-pull.
It's really not hard to see. And it is
impossible to deny.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> There was nothing 'perfect' about
> the cover-up. It merely had to be
> good enough to take in some utter
> fools who wanted to be fooled.
What was imperfect about it, Paul? What piece of
direct evidence that Oxford was Shakespeare survives?
> > Right. I mentioned links above. I and everyone
> > else keep reminding you that records on
> > commoners from then are sparse, so we have very
> > little in Shakespeare's life to link to. But
> > links as good as yours have been made.
> > Autolycus, for instance, is as close to
> > Shakespeare's father (a travelling trader) as
> > Polonius is to Burghley.
>
> Utterly ridiculous. There was no one
> else in the country like Burghley, not
> at any time. Nor is there anyone else
> in literature like Polonius. Whereas
> Autolycus was a distinct type of
> travelling salesman.
I laughed out loud at this but have to admit
not with my soul as I sometimes do at what
you say, Paul. I think I grimaced while trying
to laugh, and that spoiled my laughter. Assertion is
not argument. In this case, your assertion is
especially idiotic. Polonius to everybody but wacks
is a well-individualized specimen of a standard type,
or maybe a combination of two standard types--
the high-ranking incompetent official and the
over-zealous father. Autolycus is a well-individualized
specimen of a con artist. Like (almost?) all the greatest
dramatic characters, the two are stereotypes. Plays are
not long enough to put a Leopold Bloom in.
> > However, links are
> > IRRELEVANT because authorship is best determined
> > by evidence external to the texts involved such
> > as names on title pages.
>
> Names like "Will Shake-speare".
> What sort of idiot do you have
> to be, to be taken in by that?
Does the term "idiot" mean very much if
in covers 98% of the people familiar with Shakespeare
AND people not able to fend for themselves?
Aside from that, regardless of how poor they are as
evidence to you, they ARE direct specimens of evidence.
> >> The question is whether or not a court
> >> rival would WANT to portray him as
> >> a female -- and whether or not that
> >> suggestion would seem amusing (and
> >> relevant ) to other members of the court.
>
> > You don't know anything about who wants what, Paul.
> > Or do you have external evidence, like a letter by
> > someone in Elizabeth's court about the play? Why
> > can't I just say Oxford would never want to portray
> > Raleigh that way, so he couldn't have written the
> > play? My opinion against yours.
>
> No. You'd have to present some arguments.
> Perhaps you might say that they were always
> the best of friends. Of course, you never
> do present any such arguments, since you
> have none.
You never present arguments for your stand, either. I could make
up arguments like you do, but I haven't time.
> > Paul, you really are a moron. My man didn't write
> > the play for particular people. Like all known
> > great playwrights, he wrote it for THE WORLD.
>
> Yeah, yeah. No great artist ever
> based his works on any local matter.
What does that have to do with Shakespeare's writing for
the world rather than for some group of people?
> > He based Orsino on Ann (everything about Orsino
> > suggests Ann to those of us in the know) because he
> > thought the resulting character would work
> > narratively and as a character in his own right to
> > give pleasure to his audiences.
>
> Even Strats know that this isn't how
> creative artists work. They are always
> looking for some immediate motivation
> or characterisation -- and always failing.
Here the person with no creativity whatever except in defense
of a hypothesis only he believes in is telling someone who has
written a number of plays, poems, novels and texts on creativity
that he knows better he knows better "how creative artists work."
You don't, Paul. You come close to knowing absolutely nothing
valid about how creative artists work.
> [..]
>
> > Okay, Would it have no more value than "Humpty
> > Dumpty?."
>
> "Humpty Dumpty" is of immense value to
> children.
Would it have no more value to adults than "Humpty Dumpty?"
And: why do you continually dodge but requiring me to add
things obviously implied in my challenges to you?
>
> > But let us accept the extreme difficulty of managing
> > an estate and the impossibility of doing it without
> > Proper Training (and assume that Shakespeare
> > wouldn't have ignored all that on the grounds that
> > his plot worked if he did and no one would worry
> > about the unlikelihood of a real-life Olivia just as
> > no one worries (except dimwits) about the absurdity
> > of Viola getting away with posing as a man and other
> > unlikely things that happen in the play). Let
> > Olivia have a father who has gone to England on
> > business, and left Olivia in charge, with a Polonius
> > to help her. Let us further have her exposed to
> > bawdry, nor asked to marry so as to pass on her
> > beauty or anything else. In other words, if Olivia
> > was, even to you, nothing like Elizabeth, would it
> > be any more worth watching than a television soap
> > opera, or a pantomiming of "Humpty Dumpty?"
>
> I haven't a clue what you are on about
> here. Have you some question?
Good move. If in the play we have been discussing (TWELFTH NIGHT)
the characters were changed so that not even you could say they
were based on people in Elizabeth's court, but the plot and all
the dialogue that didn't indicate to you The Truth were left as is,
would you consider the play (TWELFTH NIGHT) to be any more
worth watching than a television soap or some kind of
performance of "Humpty Dumpty?"
> >> Twelfth Night is based on reality. The
> >> poet knows that his initial audience
> >> will recognise huge amounts of detail
> >> that we miss. Later audiences (ignorant
> >> of all that detail) pick up that it has
> >> a kind of reality -- but are like you
> >> (and other Strats) quite incapable of
> >> doing any analysis, or working out what
> >> its true basis.
>
> > Yes, yes, yes. But what if it were not?
>
> Too hypothetical a question. What if
> Michaelangelo had not been a Christian
> and had painted the Sistine Chapel with
> scenes from Greek mythology. Would it
> still be great art?
What's wrong with that question? Would it?
> What if Dickens had
> been a Russian and wrote his books
> about London, never having visited the
> city?
How is that in any way whatever comparable to
what I am asking? You won't answer because
you know any answer you can make will prove
you an absolute moron even more beyond doubt than
what you've said so far.
> What if Tolstoy was Chinese?
Or from Mars. You have caught me out. My asking you
to consider how you would evaluate Twelfth Night if small
changes were made in the dialogue that removed all of
Olivia's alleged direct connections to Elizabeth (there aren't
many) and/or changed them so they made her the opposite
of Elizabeth, and Viola's to Raleigh, etc., is just like asking
me how you would evaluate War and Peace if Tolstoi had been
Chinese.
> > The point, though, is that in most cases, fiction
> > overlaps different portions of reality while wholly
> > ignoring reality in too complex a manner for it to reveal
> > much about its author. If a hero is brave, does that
> > mean his creator was brave portraying himself, or a
> > coward idealizing himself? Etc. Reading Oxford's life
> > into the plays is a silly tactic you follow because you
> > have no other way to keep from acknowledging that someone
> > without Proper Training wrote the plays. You must have
> > Proper Training for your author, because that requires
> > Trainers, and must result in Those Who Have Been Trained,
> > or conformists,
>
> Sheer nonsense. Oxford's "training" was as
> a child, or adolescent. Remember that his
> father had his own company of actors in his
> own house. His "training" was also writing
> Romeus & Juliet, Gorbuduc, translating Ovid's
> Metamorphoses, writing the Rape of Lucrece,
> Venus & Adonis, Willobie His Avisa, and
> much else.
Oxford could not have written the plays without that training, right?
> > You loathe the idea of a Shakespeare, because that would
> > mean Non-Conformity Triumphant, or a Free Country with a
> > variety of people, some of whom are not servile
> > mediocrities doing what people like you think they
> > should.
>
> Exactly wrong. You have clearly never met
> uneducated rural English (or even ordinary
> English). Their most distinctive characteristic
> is that they _know_their_place_.
All of them, right.
> The Stratman and his parents and children could
> not have been otherwise. Above them were
> local gentry, above them local lords, above
> them local bigwigs. No one who was not
> superior gentry would think of reading plays,
> let alone writing them.
Shakespeare's father's father was a farmer; he wasn't. How
could that have happened?
> > Ah, you are saying James Clerk Maxwell and Newton,
> > among others, were children in their appreciation of
> > physics?
>
> They would not deny it themselves. Every
> great scientist is aware of the huge
> extent of his ignorance.
Do you believe they were children in their appreciation
of physics? Do you really believe they would claim to
know no more about physics than a child?
> > And Coleridge and all the others of his time
> > and earlier and later times who have been satisfied
> > with poetry at their level--i.e., without connections
> > to important happenings in some royal court, had no
> > more than a child's ability to appreciate poetry?
>
> They would accept (I am sure) that their
> appreciation of many works was sorely
> deficient. They might not know which
> they misunderstood, but they would
> hardly be so foolish as to claim the kind
> of omniscience you seem to think they
> would.
Why am I arguing with you? You simply twist everything
I say so you can make some lame answer to it. You say
that to appreciate Twelfth Night without knowing it was
about Elizabeth's court equals appreciating ONLY as
a child would appreciate "Humpty Dumpty." Since that
is the way Coleridge appreciated it, you are saying (this is logic,
Paul)
that Coleridge's ability to appreciate of literature was no better
than a child's. I say it was better than a child's though not
requiring omniscience.
> [..]
>
> > Another problem for you is that no understanding of
> > a poem, so far as I know, has been universally
> > accepted, then centuries (or even decades) later
> > being overthrown by one gifted reader.
>
> Many texts (e.g. biblical) have been subject
> to radical reinterpretations. As one rough
> example of the sort of thing that happens,
> the early Church destroyed many Roman
> statues (e.g. of Emperors) but left standing
> those it mistakenly thought were of
> Constantine.
You have a genius for completely invalid analogies. We're talking
about literary texts. They're much more complicated than
statues without labels on them.
> > Here we have a poem considered a love poem comparing
> > its addressee to a summer day. Almost every reader
> > has had a different idea of the details but they
> > have all accepted my description as capturing the
> > main essence of the poem. Now you say they are all
> > wrong.
>
> Not exactly. The poem IS about a Summer's
> day, and blah-blah. But it is ALSO about
> much else. They were misled. The poet
> knew how they would read it. It's also a
> leg-pull.
You're saying they missed the point of the poem. You have
also said that their understanding of the poem made them
unable to appreciate it more than a chold would appreciate
"Humpty Dumpty."
> It's really not hard to see. And it is
> impossible to deny.
>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
Right. Impossible. But everyone but you does deny it. Weird.
Tell me again, Paul--why are you not incredibly famous. Surely
you have not limited your genius to Shakespeare studies? What else
have you done, and what name did you use to do it--since I know
of no great work with your HLAS attached to it.
Here's another challenge: give me the name and address of anyone in
your family and I'll give you the names of my brothers and sister.
The idea
would be that I would write your brother or sister or cousin and ask
if
that person considers you sane or not. You could ask the same of
one of my siblings. I'll bet you wouldn't dare do this. I don't know
why.
Your being an inmate in an insane asylum has to be proof of how
superior
you are to the fools who put you there and to the world at large.
PS, I'm pretty sure you skipped at least ten points of mine, but
you're in luck:
I'm too lazy to find them and post them again.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Night--or is he? Oxford could never leave him
out, could he?
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>> There was nothing 'perfect' about
>> the cover-up. It merely had to be
>> good enough to take in some utter
>> fools who wanted to be fooled.
>
> What was imperfect about it, Paul? What piece of
> direct evidence that Oxford was Shakespeare
> survives?
The name "Will Shake-speare" -- who
could possibly believe that was a real
one? The constant portrayal of well-
known people, especially the Queen.
Who could believe that anyone else
could have been that rich, independent
never-married noblewoman whose
household establishment included
professional fools?
>>> Right. I mentioned links above. I and everyone
>>> else keep reminding you that records on
>>> commoners from then are sparse, so we have very
>>> little in Shakespeare's life to link to. But
>>> links as good as yours have been made.
>>> Autolycus, for instance, is as close to
>>> Shakespeare's father (a travelling trader) as
>>> Polonius is to Burghley.
>>
>> Utterly ridiculous. There was no one
>> else in the country like Burghley, not
>> at any time. Nor is there anyone else
>> in literature like Polonius. Whereas
>> Autolycus was a distinct type of
>> travelling salesman.
>
> I laughed out loud at this but have to admit not
> with my soul as I sometimes do at what you say,
> Paul. I think I grimaced while trying to laugh,
> and that spoiled my laughter. Assertion is not
> argument. In this case, your assertion is
> especially idiotic. Polonius to everybody but
> wacks is a well-individualized specimen of a
> standard type, or maybe a combination of two
> standard types--the high-ranking incompetent
> official and the over-zealous father.
Name ONE other ancient, over-wordy,
pompous, long-term confidential
adviser to the monarch -- at any
time between 1400 and 1800. And
that's apart from the relationship
of his favourite daughter to the
hero-playwright.
>> Names like "Will Shake-speare".
>> What sort of idiot do you have
>> to be, to be taken in by that?
>
> Does the term "idiot" mean very much if in covers
> 98% of the people familiar with Shakespeare AND
> people not able to fend for themselves?
Never a problem.
[..]
>>
>>> Okay, Would it have no more value than "Humpty
>>> Dumpty?."
>> "Humpty Dumpty" is of immense value to
>> children.
>
> Would it have no more value to adults than "Humpty
> Dumpty?" And: why do you continually dodge but
> requiring me to add things obviously implied in my
> challenges to you?
I can't measure the value of such things.
Nor can you. Where would you start?
> Good move. If in the play we have been discussing
> (TWELFTH NIGHT) the characters were changed so
> that not even you could say they were based on
> people in Elizabeth's court, but the plot and all
> the dialogue that didn't indicate to you The Truth
> were left as is, would you consider the play
> (TWELFTH NIGHT) to be any more worth watching than
> a television soap or some kind of performance of
> "Humpty Dumpty?"
Wildly vague and absurdly hypothetical.
If Twelfth Night was re-written to be
like "The Terminator" -- with Arnold
Schwarzenegger, would it better than
Hamlet if that was re-written to be
like South Pacific?
The result (in each case) might be total
crap (very likely), or might be good.
How could you tell in advance?
> Or from Mars. You have caught me out. My asking
> you to consider how you would evaluate Twelfth
> Night if small changes were made in the dialogue
> that removed all of Olivia's alleged direct
> connections to Elizabeth (there aren't many)
> and/or changed them so they made her the opposite
> of Elizabeth, and Viola's to Raleigh, etc., is
> just like asking me how you would evaluate War and
> Peace if Tolstoi had been Chinese.
The changes only seem small to you.
Suppose that 'small changes' were made
to "Primary Colors", so that you could
not tell it had anything to do with Clinton
or with the Democratic campaign of 1992.
How would you evaluate the novel?
Suppose that 'small changes' were made
to "All the Kings Men", so that you did
not know it had anything to do with
Huey Long or Southern State government.
How would you evaluate the novel?
Such hypothetical counter-factuals
are impossible to answer. To pose
them is to demonstrate a complete
failure to grasp the point of the work
in question.
>> Sheer nonsense. Oxford's "training" was as
>> a child, or adolescent. Remember that his
>> father had his own company of actors in his
>> own house. His "training" was also writing
>> Romeus & Juliet, Gorbuduc, translating Ovid's
>> Metamorphoses, writing the Rape of Lucrece,
>> Venus & Adonis, Willobie His Avisa, and
>> much else.
>
> Oxford could not have written the plays without that
> training, right?
No doubt, without that training, he
could have written a lot of bad plays.
>>> You loathe the idea of a Shakespeare, because that would
>>> mean Non-Conformity Triumphant, or a Free Country with a
>>> variety of people, some of whom are not servile
>>> mediocrities doing what people like you think they
>>> should.
>> Exactly wrong. You have clearly never met
>> uneducated rural English (or even ordinary
>> English). Their most distinctive characteristic
>> is that they _know_their_place_.
>
> All of them, right.
It's a national (and prevailing) attitude.
>> The Stratman and his parents and children could
>> not have been otherwise. Above them were
>> local gentry, above them local lords, above
>> them local bigwigs. No one who was not
>> superior gentry would think of reading plays,
>> let alone writing them.
>
> Shakespeare's father's father was a farmer; he wasn't.
> How could that have happened?
With difficulty.
>>> Ah, you are saying James Clerk Maxwell and Newton,
>>> among others, were children in their appreciation of
>>> physics?
>>
>> They would not deny it themselves. Every
>> great scientist is aware of the huge
>> extent of his ignorance.
>
> Do you believe they were children in their
> appreciation of physics?
This is your phrase. I don't know
what it means. Maybe they would, maybe
they wouldn't.
> Do you really believe they would claim to know no more
> about physics than a child?
I have never said (or suggested) any
such thing.
> Why am I arguing with you? You simply twist
> everything I say so you can make some lame answer to
> it. You say that to appreciate Twelfth Night without
> knowing it was about Elizabeth's court equals
> appreciating ONLY as a child would appreciate "Humpty
> Dumpty."
I didn't say that. I was only
suggesting an analogy.
>> Not exactly. The poem IS about a Summer's
>> day, and blah-blah. But it is ALSO about
>> much else. They were misled. The poet
>> knew how they would read it. It's also a
>> leg-pull.
>
> You're saying they missed the point of the poem.
They miss virtually all of the sense
of the poem
> You have also said that their understanding of the
> poem made them unable to appreciate it more than a
> chold would appreciate "Humpty Dumpty."
It's an analogy. I don't really know
what's going on in such minds. But I
know it's not much. Children are
vastly more trustworthy.
[..]
Why shouldn't he leave him out?
He had more than enough interesting
characters, and Burghley never tried
to be interesting. Twelfth Night was
not concerned with any serious court
or government business, or even much
daytime activity, so Burghley's presence
would not have been especially
appropriate.
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> There was nothing 'perfect' about
> >> the cover-up. It merely had to be
> >> good enough to take in some utter
> >> fools who wanted to be fooled.
>
> > What was imperfect about it, Paul? What piece of
> > direct evidence that Oxford was Shakespeare
> > survives?
>
> The name "Will Shake-speare" -- who
> could possibly believe that was a real
> one?
This statement proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Crowely does
not understand what is meant by the word 'evidence'. As a matter of
fact, Crowley has been provided with actual evidence that the name
"Will Shakespeare" was a real name in England in the 1500's and
1600's. This evidence proves Crowley's conclusion to be wrong, so he
simply pretends that it does not exist (or that it is forged or
faked).
Additionally, the question that was posed to Crowley was:
"What piece of direct evidence that Oxford was Shakespeare survives?"
Crowley's grasp of anything even remotely approaching logic is so weak
that he actually seems to believe that his unsupported conclusion that
"Will Shakespeare" was not a real name is evidence that Oxford was the
author. Even assuming that "Will Shakespeare" was not a "real
name" (whatever that is supposed to mean) would not be a fact tending
to prove that Oxford was the author.
<The constant portrayal of well-
> known people, especially the Queen.
Here, Crowley indulges in his favorite pastime, circular reasoning.
He assumes that the author was Oxford, and uses that assumption to
interpret the works to be thinly-veiled commentaries on the court of
Queen Elizabeth, and he then takes his interpretations as evidence for
Onford being the author. Here again, Crowley shows how weak is his
grasp of logic. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the
works are roman a clefs concerning Elizabeth's court, that fact would
not tend to prove that Oxford was the author.
> Who could believe that anyone else
> could have been that rich, independent
> never-married noblewoman whose
> household establishment included
> professional fools?
More circular reasoning. All characters in all works of literature
must be modeled on an actual person. Therefore, even though there are
many things in Twelfth Night that don't resemble Elizabeth's court in
any way, shape or form (even when twisted and tortured at Crowley's
hands), the play absolutely must be about Elizabeth.
[snip]
> >> Names like "Will Shake-speare".
> >> What sort of idiot do you have
> >> to be, to be taken in by that?
King James was an idiot?
> > Does the term "idiot" mean very much if in covers
> > 98% of the people familiar with Shakespeare AND
> > people not able to fend for themselves?
>
> Never a problem.
The megalomaniac Crowley considers himself more intelligent than 98%
of the people living now and of all those who have lived since 1600.
How could all of those people failed to realize that "will
Shakespeare" was not a real name (whatever that is supposed to mean)>
[Snip of stupid "Humpty Dumpty" argument -- but what happened to
Coleridge?]
> >> Sheer nonsense. Oxford's "training" was as
> >> a child, or adolescent. Remember that his
> >> father had his own company of actors in his
> >> own house. His "training" was also writing
> >> Romeus & Juliet, Gorbuduc, translating Ovid's
> >> Metamorphoses, writing the Rape of Lucrece,
> >> Venus & Adonis, Willobie His Avisa, and
> >> much else.
Here's another piece of Crowley's method. He simply makes things up
out of thin air and states them as categorical fact without ever
supplying any actual evidentiary support for his conclusions.
According to Crowley, at the age of 11, Oxford wrote 'Gorboduc'. Why
Sir Thomas Sackville, 1st Earl of Dorset, and Thomas Norton put their
names to it will remain a mystery, until such time as Crowley pulls
some more "evidence" from out of the sky.
According to Crowley, and his airy assumptions, 'The Tragical History
of Romeus and Juliet,' a narrative poem first published in 1562 by
Arthur Brooke, was written by Oxford at age 12. What is the evidence
for this claim? Don't bother asking, because Crowley will never tell.
Poor Arthur Golding suffers the same fate as Sackville, Norton and
Brooke, at Crowley's hands. Evidence that Oxford translated Ovid's
'Metamorphoses' -- don't bother asking, since Crowley will never
supply any actual evidence, but will only offer speculation and call
it evidence.
Rape of Lucrece and Venus & Adonis. Since, according to Crowley,
Oxford was Shakespeare, these works must have been written by Oxford.
"Logic" such as that is the best he can summon in support of his
evidence-defying conclusions.
'Wilobie His Avisa'? Crowley has admitted that he hasn't even done
any analysis of this work and yet he feel justified in claiming that
Avisa in 'Willobie' is Queen Elizabeth and that it was written some
twenty years before it was first published. What is the evidence that
support's Corwley's conclusion that this work was written by Oxford.
Was Henry Willobie the real name of a real person?
[snip]
> >> Not exactly. The poem IS about a Summer's
> >> day, and blah-blah. But it is ALSO about
> >> much else. They were misled. The poet
> >> knew how they would read it. It's also a
> >> leg-pull.
>
> > You're saying they missed the point of the poem.
>
> They miss virtually all of the sense
> of the poem
Only the megalomaniac Crowley, out of all the people who have lived
since Shakespeare's time, KNOWS the poet and gets the full sense of
the poem.
Why does ANYONE pay attention to his kind of drivel?
Dom
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> There was nothing 'perfect' about
> >> the cover-up. It merely had to be
> >> good enough to take in some utter
> >> fools who wanted to be fooled.
>
> > What was imperfect about it, Paul? What piece of
> > direct evidence that Oxford was Shakespeare
> > survives?
> The name "Will Shake-speare" -- who
> could possibly believe that was a real
> one? The constant portrayal of well-
> known people, especially the Queen.
> Who could believe that anyone else
> could have been that rich, independent
> never-married noblewoman whose
> household establishment included
> professional fools?
The name, which NO ONE till Ogburn or whoever it was
three or four centuries later took the name as a clue.
And it was not direct evidence that Oxford was Shakespeare.
Your other crap is not direct evidence of anything, much
less than it's evidence that Oxford was Shakespeare.
> > I laughed out loud at this but have to admit not
> > with my soul as I sometimes do at what you say,
> > Paul. I think I grimaced while trying to laugh,
> > and that spoiled my laughter. Assertion is not
> > argument. In this case, your assertion is
> > especially idiotic. Polonius to everybody but
> > wacks is a well-individualized specimen of a
> > standard type, or maybe a combination of two
> > standard types--the high-ranking incompetent
> > official and the over-zealous father.
>
> Name ONE other ancient, over-wordy,
> pompous, long-term confidential
> adviser to the monarch -- at any
> time between 1400 and 1800. And
> that's apart from the relationship
> of his favourite daughter to the
> hero-playwright.
Polonius to everybody but
wacks is a well-individualized specimen of a
standard type, or maybe a combination of two
standard types--the high-ranking incompetent
official and the over-zealous father. Sources
are plentiful in Commedia del'arte. I'm not going
to bother finding them.
> >> Names like "Will Shake-speare".
> >> What sort of idiot do you have
> >> to be, to be taken in by that?
>
> > Does the term "idiot" mean very much if in covers
> > 98% of the people familiar with Shakespeare AND
> > people not able to fend for themselves?
>
> Never a problem.
SNIP
> > Would it have no more value to adults than "Humpty
> > Dumpty?" And: why do you continually dodge but
> > requiring me to add things obviously implied in my
> > challenges to you?
>
> I can't measure the value of such things.
> Nor can you. Where would you start?
You can't measure the value of things yet you tell
us that the plot and diction would only have
the appeal of a nursery rhyme.
> > Good move. If in the play we have been discussing
> > (TWELFTH NIGHT) the characters were changed so
> > that not even you could say they were based on
> > people in Elizabeth's court, but the plot and all
> > the dialogue that didn't indicate to you The Truth
> > were left as is, would you consider the play
> > (TWELFTH NIGHT) to be any more worth watching than
> > a television soap or some kind of performance of
> > "Humpty Dumpty?"
>
> Wildly vague and absurdly hypothetical.
> If Twelfth Night was re-written to be
> like "The Terminator" -- with Arnold
> Schwarzenegger, would it better than
> Hamlet if that was re-written to be
> like South Pacific?
I'm not asking you that, you moron. In real life are
you a politician? Good grief. I say Twelfth Night
could easily be rewritten so nothing in it indicated
Olivia was Elizabeth without changing very much.
If you doubt it, list each line and stage direction you
claim makes Olivia Elizabeth and I will fix it so the
play is hardly changed but the match no longer exists.
For example, I could change the lines about
bearing children to ones about her being cruel because
her indifference to Orsino is dooming all those in
his employ because he is too melancholy to
run his estates properly. Assume that Shakespeare
made the change--i.e., that the lines were at his
level. We would have the play nearly as it is now
without the parallels you say are in it. Would it
then be as worth reading as a nursery rhyme?
> The result (in each case) might be total
> crap (very likely), or might be good.
> How could you tell in advance?
The changes would be minimal.
> > Or from Mars. You have caught me out. My asking
> > you to consider how you would evaluate Twelfth
> > Night if small changes were made in the dialogue
> > that removed all of Olivia's alleged direct
> > connections to Elizabeth (there aren't many)
> > and/or changed them so they made her the opposite
> > of Elizabeth, and Viola's to Raleigh, etc., is
> > just like asking me how you would evaluate War and
> > Peace if Tolstoi had been Chinese.
>
> The changes only seem small to you.
Right, that's your out.
> Suppose that 'small changes' were made
> to "Primary Colors", so that you could
> not tell it had anything to do with Clinton
> or with the Democratic campaign of 1992.
> How would you evaluate the novel?
I would say it was a piece of junk, so no different than
it was unchanged. But there are ten times as
many parallels at least between the plot of the novel
and the Clintons than there are between ... but I
keep saying this and you ignore me.
>
> Suppose that 'small changes' were made
> to "All the Kings Men", so that you did
> not know it had anything to do with
> Huey Long or Southern State government.
> How would you evaluate the novel?
> Such hypothetical counter-factuals
> are impossible to answer. To pose
> them is to demonstrate a complete
> failure to grasp the point of the work
> in question.
You've won. All I can say is that everything in
my life indicates that I'm more likely to be
right in what I'm saying than you are, you
who have done nothing but spout nonsense
on the Internet.
> >> Sheer nonsense. Oxford's "training" was as
> >> a child, or adolescent. Remember that his
> >> father had his own company of actors in his
> >> own house. His "training" was also writing
> >> Romeus & Juliet, Gorbuduc, translating Ovid's
> >> Metamorphoses, writing the Rape of Lucrece,
> >> Venus & Adonis, Willobie His Avisa, and
> >> much else.
>
> > Oxford could not have written the plays without that
> > training, right?
>
> No doubt, without that training, he
> could have written a lot of bad plays.
Exactly. A rigidnik cannot conceive of anyone's
doing anything worthwhile without training.
> >>> You loathe the idea of a Shakespeare, because that would
> >>> mean Non-Conformity Triumphant, or a Free Country with a
> >>> variety of people, some of whom are not servile
> >>> mediocrities doing what people like you think they
> >>> should.
> >> Exactly wrong. You have clearly never met
> >> uneducated rural English (or even ordinary
> >> English). Their most distinctive characteristic
> >> is that they _know_their_place_.
>
> > All of them, right.
>
> It's a national (and prevailing) attitude.
For all of them, according to you.
> >> The Stratman and his parents and children could
> >> not have been otherwise. Above them were
> >> local gentry, above them local lords, above
> >> them local bigwigs. No one who was not
> >> superior gentry would think of reading plays,
> >> let alone writing them.
>
> > Shakespeare's father's father was a farmer; he wasn't.
> > How could that have happened?
>
> With difficulty.
But it happened.
> >>> Ah, you are saying James Clerk Maxwell and Newton,
> >>> among others, were children in their appreciation of
> >>> physics?
>
> >> They would not deny it themselves. Every
> >> great scientist is aware of the huge
> >> extent of his ignorance.
>
> > Do you believe they were children in their
> > appreciation of physics?
>
> This is your phrase. I don't know
> what it means. Maybe they would, maybe
> they wouldn't.
What an asshole. Do you believe they had the intelligence
and knowledge of children concerning physics?
> > Do you really believe they would claim to know no more
> > about physics than a child?
>
> I have never said (or suggested) any
> such thing.
QUOTE:
ME: "Ah, you are saying James Clerk Maxwell and Newton,
among others, were children in their appreciation of physics?"
YOU: "They would not deny it themselves."
Let me explain your words to you: they mean, Maxwell and
Newton would not say they were not "children in their
appreciation of physics." "Appreciation" is
having knowledge of, to grasp the nature of, worth."
You'll wiggle out of this, I know, but you won't convince anyone
you "never said (or suggested): what I said you did.
> > Why am I arguing with you? You simply twist
> > everything I say so you can make some lame answer to
> > it. You say that to appreciate Twelfth Night without
> > knowing it was about Elizabeth's court equals
> > appreciating ONLY as a child would appreciate "Humpty
> > Dumpty."
>
> I didn't say that. I was only
> suggesting an analogy.
You twist everything I say, and constantly rephrase what you said.
It's too much for me.
>
> >> Not exactly. The poem IS about a Summer's
> >> day, and blah-blah. But it is ALSO about
> >> much else. They were misled. The poet
> >> knew how they would read it. It's also a
> >> leg-pull.
>
> > You're saying they missed the point of the poem.
>
> They miss virtually all of the sense
> of the poem
>
> > You have also said that their understanding of the
> > poem made them unable to appreciate it more than a
> > chold would appreciate "Humpty Dumpty."
>
> It's an analogy. I don't really know
> what's going on in such minds. But I
> know it's not much. Children are
> vastly more trustworthy.
>
> [..]
>
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > I do want to know why Burghley is not in Twelfth
> > Night--or is he? Oxford could never leave him
> > out, could he?
>
> Why shouldn't he leave him out?
> He had more than enough interesting
> characters, and Burghley never tried
> to be interesting. Twelfth Night was
> not concerned with any serious court
> or government business, or even much
> daytime activity, so Burghley's presence
> would not have been especially
> appropriate.
>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
Burghley was the most important figure in the court,
and Oxford supposedly spent a lot of time satirizing
him in Hamlet. If he were out to make fun of the
court, he could not have left him out.
With that, I'm quitting this thread. You're impossible to
argue with. You can believe it's because you are infallible
but you'll never get anyone to agree with you.
--Bob G.
Peter Groves
news:8c2bd490-aa0a-4ae8...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
***And have you noticed that when Crowley thought that Olivia didn't keep a
fool, that was evidence that she represented Elizabeth. Now that I've
persuaded him that she did, that in turn becomes evidence that she
represents Elizabeth.
Peter G.
Paul Crowley
> ***And have you noticed that when Crowley thought
> that Olivia didn't keep a fool, that was evidence
> that she represented Elizabeth. Now that I've
> persuaded him that she did, that in turn becomes
> evidence that she represents Elizabeth.
Elizabeth had no fool _after_the_
_fashion_ of her father, Henry VIII,
who loved fools. In the play, the
Clown explicitly states that Olivia
has no fool, and reminds us that
Olivia's father liked fools.
Elizabeth DID employ fools in the
court establishment -- presumably
following tradition. We can see
from the play that Olivia employed
fools in her establishment.
In this respect alone, the parallels
between Elizabeth and Olivia are
acutely precise. No one else in the
country (nor in Europe) matches
these conditions -- not at any time
in recorded history.
Is all this not evidence?
Nah -- not to a Strat. To them,
Twelfth Night is an entirely invented
story, nothing to do with any royal
court.
How stupid is it possible to get?
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
> ***And have you noticed that when Crowley thought
> that Olivia didn't keep a fool, that was evidence
> that she represented Elizabeth. Now that I've
> persuaded him that she did, that in turn becomes
> evidence that she represents Elizabeth.
Crowley is quite dishonest. He will alter his theory from one post to
the next, never acknowledge that he has done so, and then pretend that
he has not changed a thing.
CROWLEY THEN:
> There is much in detail in the play that supports the identification. There are (it > seems) constant pleas to "Lady Olivia" that she should marry and have an heir:
> VIOLA
>' Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
> Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid on:
> Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
> If you will lead these graces to the grave
> And leave the world no copy.
> Like most monarchs of the day, Henry VIII took pleasure in clowns. But > Elizabeth did not, and employed none. These attitudes are played out in the > play:
> CURIO He is not here, so please your lordship that
> should sing it.
> DUKE ORSINO Who was it?
> CURIO Feste, the jester, my lord; a fool that the
> lady Olivia's father took much delight in.
> He is about the house.
> DUKE ORSINO Seek him out, and play the tune
> the while.
[From post # 1 in thread ‘Dating of Twelfth Night’, 2/20/09]
According to Crowley, Elizabeth employed no fools, and her attitude
toward fools (that she disliked fools) is played out in the play. Has
Crowley ever cited any source for his allegation that Elizabeth did
not take pleasure in fools at her court?
Additionally, it seems to Crowley that thare are constant pleas to
Olivia that she should marry and bear an heir. Does one such plea
amount to “constant pleas”?
CROWLEY NOW:
> Elizabeth had no fool _after_the_ _fashion_ of her father, Henry VIII, who loved > fools. In the play, the Clown explicitly states that Olivia has no fool, and > reminds us that Olivia's father liked fools.
> Elizabeth DID employ fools in the court establishment -- presumably following > tradition. We can see from the play that Olivia employed fools in her >establishment.
> In this respect alone, the parallels between Elizabeth and Olivia are acutely > precise. No one else in the country (nor in Europe) matches these conditions -- > not at any time in recorded history.
According to Crowley’s most recent conclusion pulled from thin air
(contradicting his previous bare assertion), Elizabeth DID employ
fools, and her attitude toward fools (whatever it may now be) is
played out in the play with acute precision.
Even stranger, Crowley claims that the play states explicitly that
Olivia had no fool. He then claims that “[w]e can see from the play
that Olivia employed fools” in the court establishment. I’m sure he
will be able to cite the specific language in the play that supports
these disparate conclusions.
> Is all this not evidence?
No. It is merely Crowleyian speculation devoid of any factual
underpinning.
> Nah -- not to a Strat. To them, Twelfth Night is an entirely invented story, > nothing to do with any royal court.
> How stupid is it possible to get?
I’m sure that Crowley will one day provide the answer to this question
as he continues to plumb the depths of his abysmal stupidity
Dom
sashe...@tiscali.co.uk
What a load of old cobblers. Have you spent your life locked in a room
with only The Darling Buds of May and Harry Enfield's Mr Cholmondley-
Warner sketches to watch? Have you never heard of the Peasants'
Revolt, the Gordon Riots, the Luddites, Toxteth? Oh yeah, right
subserviant they were. You clearly have no understanding of the
British people, our history, or even of our geography - and to be that
disconnected from your own environment is quite an achievement (at
least I think you are physically present here, on which planet your
brain resides is quite another matter).
SB.
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
Paul Crowley
> Crowley is quite dishonest. He will alter his
> theory from one post to the next
I certainly modify details of my theory
from time to time. It is not long since
I remarked that Raleigh was not in Twelfth
Night, only then to realise that he is
represented by Viola.
> never acknowledge that he has done so, and then
> pretend that he has not changed a thing.
I invariably state how I am modifying
my theory, and why.
> CROWLEY THEN:
> > There is much in detail in the play that
> > supports the identification. There are (it
> > seems) constant pleas to "Lady Olivia" that
> > she should marry and have an heir:
>
>> VIOLA
>> ' Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
>> Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid on:
>> Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
>> If you will lead these graces to the grave
>> And leave the world no copy.
[..]
> According to Crowley, Elizabeth employed no
> fools
I have not changed in this regard. I said
that Elizabeth HAD no fools. "Had" is
not the same as "employed" -- since to
HAVE a fool is -- in the sense normally
taken -- to have a personal relationship
with the fool, much as Henry VIII did,
and as is routinely displayed in
literature, as with King Lear and his
Fool.
> and her attitude toward fools (that she
> disliked fools) is played out in the play. Has
> Crowley ever cited any source for his allegation
> that Elizabeth did not take pleasure in fools at
> her court?
*Fools and Jesters at the English Court"
by John Southworth (2003) quotes (p. 137)
Sir Edmund Chambers " . . for indeed we
hear of no fool Elizabeth's court . . "
but then goes on to show that he was
wrong, quoting much detailed evidence
from (e.g.) the wardrobe records, to
show that fools were in the court almost
continuously.
However, the tradition on which Chambers
was relying makes obvious sense. Women
(as opposed to men) are rarely inclined
to have much tolerance for fools (of the
generic kind) or put up with foolery.
The records of her dealings with any fools
who attended her court are skimpy, but
such as there are indicate her dislike of
them. There is little friendly in any of
the few recorded exchanges.
> Additionally, it seems to Crowley that thare are
> constant pleas to Olivia that she should marry
> and bear an heir. Does one such plea amount to
> constant pleas ?
The one plea arising in this text can
be taken as representative of more.
It tells us that such a plea is fitting
and permissible -- an exceedingly rare
situation. Can you quote ANY roughly
similar plea made to ANY roughly similar
female in ANY literature at ANY time in
ANY culture?
Can you refer to ANY roughly similar
plea made to ANY roughly similar female
in ANY recorded history at ANY time in
ANY culture?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>> You loathe the idea of a Shakespeare, because that would
>>> mean Non-Conformity Triumphant, or a Free Country with a
>>> variety of people, some of whom are not servile
>>> mediocrities doing what people like you think they
>>> should.
>>
>> Exactly wrong. You have clearly never met
>> uneducated rural English (or even ordinary
>> English). Their most distinctive characteristic
>> is that they _know_their_place_.
>
> What a load of old cobblers. Have you spent your life
> locked in a room with only The Darling Buds of May and
> Harry Enfield's Mr Cholmondley-Warner sketches to watch?
> Have you never heard of the Peasants' Revolt, the Gordon
> Riots, the Luddites, Toxteth?
Never heard of football hooligans?
That kind of (working class) tradition
was very much behind the Gordon Riots
and much else in your list. Certainly
sometimes the lower classes became
more persecuted than usual, and rebelled.
So what?
> Oh yeah, right subserviant
> they were. You clearly have no understanding of the
> British people,
I'm talking of the English. Scots, Irish,
Americans, and most other nationalities
have societies have much less class
distinction. Most of their governing
Cabinet does not come from one very-
expensive school -- nor has done for the
past few hundred years. People of other
nationalities are either horrified or
amused at the stuffiness and class-
distinctions that overwhelm England.
Are you really claiming that
ENGLAND is an egalitarian society
-- or has the least ambitions to be
one?
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
> Dominic Hughes wrote:
> > Crowley is quite dishonest. He will alter his
> > theory from one post to the next
>
> I certainly modify details of my theory
> from time to time. It is not long since
> I remarked that Raleigh was not in Twelfth
> Night, only then to realise that he is
> represented by Viola.
One example does not make a rule. See below, where I demonstrate that
you have dishonestly snipped a verbatim quotation, and then lied about
what you said.
> > never acknowledge that he has done so, and then
> > pretend that he has not changed a thing.
>
> I invariably state how I am modifying
> my theory, and why.
No, you don't.
> > CROWLEY THEN:
> > > There is much in detail in the play that
> > > supports the identification. There are (it
> > > seems) constant pleas to "Lady Olivia" that
> > > she should marry and have an heir:
>
> >> VIOLA
> >> ' Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
> >> Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid on:
> >> Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
> >> If you will lead these graces to the grave
> >> And leave the world no copy.
> [..]
> > According to Crowley, Elizabeth employed no
> > fools
>
> I have not changed in this regard. I said
> that Elizabeth HAD no fools.
You are either suffering from senile dementia or you are lying. You
said, and I am quoting you exactly:
"Like most monarchs of the day, Henry VIII took pleasure in
clowns. But Elizabeth did not, and employed none. These attitudes
are played out in the play."
You have dishonestly snipped this quotation from my post, and then
claimed that you had actually "said that Elizabeth HAD no fools." Are
you a liar or are you suffering from some mental illness? Or is it
both?n
"...EMPLOYED none." Those are your words.
> "Had" is
> not the same as "employed" -- since to
> HAVE a fool is -- in the sense normally
> taken -- to have a personal relationship
> with the fool, much as Henry VIII did,
> and as is routinely displayed in
> literature, as with King Lear and his
> Fool.
"...EMPLOYED none." Those are your words.
> > and her attitude toward fools (that she
> > disliked fools) is played out in the play. Has
> > Crowley ever cited any source for his allegation
> > that Elizabeth did not take pleasure in fools at
> > her court?
>
> *Fools and Jesters at the English Court"
> by John Southworth (2003) quotes (p. 137)
> Sir Edmund Chambers " . . for indeed we
> hear of no fool Elizabeth's court . . "
> but then goes on to show that he was
> wrong, quoting much detailed evidence
> from (e.g.) the wardrobe records, to
> show that fools were in the court almost
> continuously.
Yes, there were many fools in Elizabeth's Court, some of whom were
employed by her (Pace, Clod, Tarleton, even some female fools)...and
some of them were fools that she HAD, to use your terminology, meaning
that she had personal relationships with them (they could "undumpish"
her, and could tell her more on her faults than could her chaplains).
From 'The History of Court Fools' by Irene Andrews:
pp. 168-169
This fool [Clod], who was an official court fool, must have been a
fellow of as much humour as Yoric himself, if we may judge from one
sample of his wit, which is no bad sample of his license also, and
which is good warrant for his acuteness and discrimination, to boot.
At the court of Elizabeth there was many a cleric of the Vicar of Bray
school, and among them Dean Perne, who had oscillated from one faith
to another three or four times in about a dozen years, and who never
felt in a state of finality anywhere. Perne, with Archbishop Whitgift,
was in attendance on the Queen one wet day, when her Majesty was
desirous of going out for a walk. The desire was an unwise one, for
Elizabeth was in ill health ; but the divines were not bold enough to
dissuade her. But Clod, the Queen's fool, was also present, and he had
the courage which the others lacked. " Madam," said he, " Heaven
dissuades you, for it is cold and wet ; and earth dissuades you, for
it is damp and dirty. Heaven dissuades you, too, by this heavenly man,
Archbishop Whitgift ; and earth dissuades you, by me, your fool, Clod,
lump of clay as I am. But if neither can prevail you, here is the Dean
Perne, who is neither of heaven nor of earth, but hangs between the
two, and he too dissuades you."
The above was witty license at the expense of a courtier ; but Clod
could exercise wit and audacity at the expense of the Queen. Elizabeth
once reproached him with not altogether fulfilling the duties of his
office. "How so?" asked Clod; "in what have I failed?" "In this,"
answered the Queen, "you are ready enough to point your sharp satire
at the faults of other people, but you never say a word of mine."
"Ah!" exclaimed the jester, "that is because I am saved the trouble by
so many deputies. Why should I remind your Majesty of your faults,
seeing that these are in everybody's mouth, and you may hear of them
hourly?"
pp. 174-178
From all these sources we make out that Tarleton served some sort of
apprenticeship in London, and must have had a very fair education for
one of his class, seeing that he is described as being " superficially
seen in learning," and having so much as " a bare insight into the
Latin tongue." Not so bad for a young swineherd, whose wit stood him
in good stead for what he lacked in book-learning. To what calling he
was bound apprentice is not known : he is said to have been for some
time a water carrier ; and it was, perhaps, disgust at the drudgery,
added
to inclination for other liquids, that made of him a tavern- keeper.
His grosser sense led him to tippling ; but he had intellect enough to
qualify him for writing ballads and com- posing historical pantomimes.
Like many modern actors, he united the parts of player and vintner ;
starred on many stages, sometimes played more than one part in the
same piece, and he shifted from inn to inn, as landlord, as he did
from stage to stage, as an actor. He was Boniface respectively of
three taverns, at least; at Colchester, and in London, in Gracechurch-
street and Paternoster-row.
He had probably been for some years a player, slowly rising, by dint
of his wit, his squint, and his flat nose, to pre-eminence, when in
1583 he was appointed one of the Queen's players, and one of the
grooms of her chamber. Stowe remarks, that till the year just
mentioned, Elizabeth had no company of actors of her own, but that at
the date named, and at the request of Sir Francis Walsingham, twelve
of the best players were chosen from among the companies in the
service of divers great lords ; and that these were " sworn the
Queen's servants, and were allowed wages and liveries as grooms of the
chamber." Stowe notices " two rare men" among this selected troop, "
viz. Thomas Wilson, for a quick, delicate, refined, extemporal wit ;
and Richard Tarleton, for a wondrous, plentiful, pleasant, extemporal
wit, he was the wonder of his time."
As court jester, Tarleton became as famous and as influential as any
official who ever wore clown's suit. Fuller calls him a master of his
faculty, who, "when Queen Elizabeth was serious, I dare not say
sullen, "and out of good humour, he could undumpish her at his
pleasure."
As in other courts, suitors to the Sovereign not unfrequently first
presented themselves to the jester. "He was their usher to prepare
their advantageous access to her." He doubt- less lined his pockets
with pistoles thereby ; and for his royal pay he also gave good
measure of wholesome severities. "He told the Queen," says Fuller, "
more of her faults than most of her chaplains ; and cured her
melancholy better than all of her physicians."
If the Queen admired Dick, the latter had a great measure of reverence
for his mistress. He could compare her, he said, to nothing more fitly
than a sculler ; for, he added, " neither the Queen nor the sculler
hath a fellow." He nevertheless, and as a matter of course, could take
great liberties with her. The very first of the ' court witty jests,'
tells us of his attempting to draw the Queen out of a fit of
discontent by " a quaint jest," in which he pretended to be a thirsty
drunkard, and called aloud for beer. The liquor was duly supplied to
him, and that so liberally, that Elizabeth gave orders that he should
have no more, lest he should turn beast, and shame himself. " Fear you
not," said Tarleton, " for your beer is small enough." So, perhaps,
was the jester's wit, but the Queen thought well of it, for " her
Majesty laughed heartily, and commanded that he should have enough."
Elizabeth probably enjoyed fully as much the jests which her chartered
buffoon made at the expense of her courtiers. Some of these were sorry
enough ; and he would be no less savage on the personal defects and
deformities of ladies as well as lords, than the most unscrupulous of
the " Fous du Eoi" at the court of France. To a lady, suffering from
an eruption on the face, and who consequently declined to drink wine
with the rest, he exclaimed, " A murrain of that face which makes all
the body fare the worse for it." This rudeness, which drove the poor
lady from table, was only rewarded by a shout of laughter.
Tarleton wore his fool's attire when the Queen dined ; and even
attended her thus attired when she dined abroad, " in his clown's
apparel ; being all dinner- while in the presence with her, to make
her merry." There seems to have been a distrust of the power of the
host and the guests to make themselves agreeable, and so the Queen
took her fool with her, even when she dined at the Lord Treasurer's,
at Burleigh House, in the Strand. It was to the gate of that house
that Tarleton gave the name of " his Lordship's alms- gate," because,
he said, it was for ever closed.
On one occasion, the noble owner of this mansion having thus
entertained the Queen, besought her Majesty to remain all night; a
request to which she would not for a moment listen. The lords present
applied to Tarletcn, offering him any reward if he could succeed in
inducing the Queen to sleep at Burleigh House. The rest of the story
is so strange, that I prefer leaving it to my readers as it is given
in the Shakespeare Society's reprint of the old jest- book. " Quoth
he, ' Procure me the parsonage of Sherd.' They caused the patent to be
drawn presently. He got on a parson's gown and a corner cap, and
standing upon the stairs where the Queen should descend, he repeated
these words : ' A parson or no parson ? A parson or no parson ?* but
after she knew his meaning, she not only stayed all night, but the
next day willed that he should have possession of the benefice. A
madder parson was never ; for he threatened to turn the bell-metal
into lining for his purse, which he did, the parsonage and all, into
ready money."
At this period the court jester was not bound to reside within the
precincts of the court, and to wear no suit but his clown's apparel,
without permission to the contrary. This custom had even fallen into
disuse in France, where it had prevailed for a very lengthened period.
Tarleton.' s official duties, however, kept him late at court. We find
him on one occasion wending homeward at one in the morning, when it
was unlawful for the lieges to be abroad after ten o'clock at night.
He accordingly fell into the hands of the watch, to whom, on being
challenged, he had announced himself as " a woman ;" for what is the
use, he asked, of my telling you what you know? The watch declared he
must be committed for being out-of-doors after ten o'clock. "It is now
past one!" cried the watch, emphasizing the enormity. "Good!" said
Tarleton ; "if it be past one o'clock, it will not be ten these eight
hours. "Watchmen had wont to have more wit ; but for want of sleep
they have turned fools." The guardians of the night recognized the
Queen's jester, and they let him pass, rejoiced at being entertained
for a moment by an official whose duty it was to entertain her
Majesty's sacred self.
From 'Domestic Life of Queen Elizabeth,' by S. Hubert:
In 1583 Sir Francis Walsingham introduced the celebrated Dick Tarleton
to the Queen, and he soon became one of the most popular comedians in
London and was appointed to the “high and honourable” office of court
jester to her highness. Several robes were purchased for him in Paris,
to appear before the Queen at dinner, dressed as a buffoon or jester.
His duty on those occasions was to make the Queen “merrie”.
Fuller styles him as a master of his faculty who, “when Elizabeth was
serious and out of good humor, could undumpish her at his pleasure.”
When persons about court had “small compliments” to seek, Tarleton
acted as their usher to pave the way, and lying to his pockets with
silver and gold by this means. Notwithstanding, however, the liberal
gratification of his rapacity, Dick was ever needy and always in
debt.
Fuller relates that “laughing Dick Tarleton” told the Queen “more of
her faults than most of her chaplains; and cured her melancholy better
than all her physicians.” “If the Queen admired Dick,” observes the
author of ‘Court Fools,’ “the latter felt great reverence for his
mistress. He could compare her, he said to nothing more fitly than a
sculler; for, he added, neither the Queen nor the sculler hath a
fellow.”
Disraeli states that Tarleton possessed considerable power of
extemporizing satirical rhymes on the events of the day. Lord
Burleigh and other courtiers, who secretly hated Leicester, instructed
Tarleton to allude to that nobleman's Court favor, when making his
satirical sallies upon the Queen. She, however, took it in good part,
although sometimes mortified at the pertness of his observations.
An example from 'History of Court Fools':
Tarleton, who was then the best comedian in England, had made a
pleasant play, and when it was acting before the Queen, he pointed at
Sir Walter Raleigh, and said, ' See, the Knave commands the Queen ! '
for which he was corrected by a frown from the Queen ; yet he had the
confidence to add that he (Raleigh) was of too much and too
intolerable a power. And going on with the same liberty, he reflected
on the over-great power and riches of the Earl of Leicester ; which
was so universally applauded by all that were present, that she
thought fit, for the present, to bear these reflections with a seeming
unconcernedness. But yet she was so offended that she forbade
Tarleton and all her jesters from coming near her table, being
inwardly displeased with this impudent and unreasonable liberty."
> However, the tradition on which Chambers
> was relying makes obvious sense. Women
> (as opposed to men) are rarely inclined
> to have much tolerance for fools (of the
> generic kind) or put up with foolery.
Tradition doesn't trump evidence. Why use unsubstantiated
generalities about what women are like to try to prove your point.
Come up with some citations to actual facts or just admit that you're
wrong when you claim that Elizabeth did not take pleasure in the
antics of her fools.
> The records of her dealings with any fools
> who attended her court are skimpy, but
> such as there are indicate her dislike of
> them.
Really...what records are you referencing here, and how do they
indicate that Elizabeth disliked her fools? I'd like to see specific
examples from these records that you cite; otherwise, I'll have to
conclude that you are simply lying. You have yet to cite any source
for your allegation that Elizabeth did not take pleasure in fools at
her court?
>There is little friendly in any of
> the few recorded exchanges.
Wrong, as I have already shown.
What recorded exchanges are you citing here? Please identify the
specific "recorded exchanges" to which you are alluding here.
In addition, since Tarleton didn't even come to the Court until 1583,
how could Oxford, writing the play in 1577-1588, have used Queen
Elizabeth's alleged dislike of her clown as a model for Olivia's
alleged dislike of her clown?
Additionally, you snipped the following:
"According to Crowley’s most recent conclusion pulled from thin air
(contradicting his previous bare assertion), Elizabeth DID employ
fools, and her attitude toward fools (whatever it may now be) is
played out in the play with acute precision.
Even stranger, Crowley claims that the play states explicitly that
Olivia had no fool. He then claims that “[w]e can see from the play
that Olivia employed fools” in the court establishment. I’m sure he
will be able to cite the specific language in the play that supports
these disparate conclusions."
I suppose you had no answer.
> > Additionally, it seems to Crowley that thare are
> > constant pleas to Olivia that she should marry
> > and bear an heir. Does one such plea amount to
> > constant pleas ?
>
> The one plea arising in this text can
> be taken as representative of more.
No, a single plea in the text can not possibly be taken as
representative of more such pleas. There is no indication in the play
itself that this one argument can be interpreted to mean that many are
making the same argument.
In addition, the one reference in the play is not that Olivia should
marry and produce an heir...it is that she should marry and have a
child in order to pass on her beauty. It has nothing whatsoever to do
with the need for an heir to govern when she is gone, or any question
of succession, as you would have it.
"Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
If you will lead these graces to the grave
And leave the world no copy."
> It tells us that such a plea is fitting
> and permissible -- an exceedingly rare
> situation.
Not all that rare. To indulge in the vague generalities about people
that are your stock in trade, parents are always on their female
children to get married and have children. This is such a commonplace
that it has become a cliche -- in literature and in life.
>Can you quote ANY roughly
> similar plea made to ANY roughly similar
> female in ANY literature at ANY time in
> ANY culture?
The angel spoke to Mary....
I haven't read Jane Austen in some time, but, if memory serves, hew
works would include one character pleading with another to marry and
have children. I'm sure there are probably others.
> Can you refer to ANY roughly similar
> plea made to ANY roughly similar female
> in ANY recorded history at ANY time in
> ANY culture?
See above. There is a somewhat insipid comic strip that runs in the
daily papers here, entitled "Cathy", in which a mother constantly
pleads with her daughter to marry and have children. It is a cliche.
Of course, in Twelfth Night it is merely one throwaway line out of the
entire play, and it doesn't signify what you think it does.
Dom
Paul Crowley
> One example does not make a rule. See below, where I
> demonstrate that you have dishonestly snipped a
> verbatim quotation
You did not say it was a verbatim quotation,
-- and I cannot find it. Nor do you give
a date, nor a computer reference.
> You are either suffering from senile dementia or
> you are lying. You said, and I am quoting you
> exactly:
>
> "Like most monarchs of the day, Henry VIII
> took pleasure in clowns. But Elizabeth did not,
> and employed none. These attitudes are played
> out in the play."
I cannot find this in my copies of posts
made. Naturally, you quote no date
and no reference. Nor can the Advanced
Search of Google Groups find it anywhere
(although that search does not seem to be
working properly). I have had a few
computer problems recently, and that post
may somehow have got lost. IF I did write
it, then I was wrong to use the word
'employed'.
> "...EMPLOYED none." Those are your words.
Please identify this post -- using the
Google number. Or even the date.
I see that this was published in 1858 and
is packed with sentimental trash. Her
"Clod" is transparently a pure invention.
Southworth does not mention her book.
> pp. 168-169
> This fool [Clod], who was an official court fool,
> must have been a fellow of as much humour as
> Yoric himself, if we may judge from one sample of
> his wit, which is no bad sample of his license
> also, and which is good warrant for his acuteness
> and discrimination, to boot.
<rest of drivel snipped>
> pp. 174-178
>
> From all these sources
What 'sources'?
Tarleton certainly was real -- but much of
this 'account' is plain fantasy.
> we make out that Tarleton served some sort of
> apprenticeship in London, and must have had a
> very fair education for one of his class, seeing
> that he is described as being " superficially
> seen in learning," and having so much as " a bare
> insight into the Latin tongue." Not so bad for a
> young swineherd, whose wit stood him in good
> stead for what he lacked in book-learning. To
> what calling he was bound apprentice is not known
> : he is said to have been for some time a water
> carrier ; and it was, perhaps, disgust at the
> drudgery,
[..]
> As court jester, Tarleton became as famous and as
> influential as any official who ever wore clown's
> suit. Fuller calls him a master of his faculty,
> who, "when Queen Elizabeth was serious, I dare
> not say sullen, "and out of good humour, he could
> undumpish her at his pleasure."
No respectable authority quotes this.
It is so obviously an invention --
whether of Irene Andrews or of some
earlier and equally reliable 'historian'.
[..]
> If the Queen admired Dick, the latter had a great
> measure of reverence for his mistress. He could
> compare her, he said, to nothing more fitly than
> a sculler ; for, he added, " neither the Queen
> nor the sculler hath a fellow." He nevertheless,
> and as a matter of course, could take great
> liberties with her. The very first of the ' court
> witty jests,' tells us of his attempting to draw
> the Queen out of a fit of discontent by " a
> quaint jest," in which he pretended to be a
> thirsty drunkard, and called aloud for beer. The
> liquor was duly supplied to him, and that so
> liberally, that Elizabeth gave orders that he
> should have no more, lest he should turn beast,
> and shame himself. " Fear you not," said
> Tarleton, " for your beer is small enough." So,
> perhaps, was the jester's wit, but the Queen
> thought well of it, for " her Majesty laughed
> heartily, and commanded that he should have
> enough."
Surely even someone as stupid as you
should be able to detect that this is
plain nonsense?
<snip of more drivel>
>> However, the tradition on which Chambers
>> was relying makes obvious sense. Women
>> (as opposed to men) are rarely inclined
>> to have much tolerance for fools (of the
>> generic kind) or put up with foolery.
>
> Tradition doesn't trump evidence.
And you call the above large quote
'evidence'?
>> The records of her dealings with any fools
>> who attended her court are skimpy, but
>> such as there are indicate her dislike of
>> them.
>
> Really...what records are you referencing here, and how do they
> indicate that Elizabeth disliked her fools? I'd like to see specific
> examples from these records that you cite; otherwise, I'll have to
> conclude that you are simply lying. You have yet to cite any source
> for your allegation that Elizabeth did not take pleasure in fools at
> her court?
>
>> There is little friendly in any of
>> the few recorded exchanges.
>
> Wrong, as I have already shown.
What a total fool you are. Do you
believe EVERYTHING you are told?
(Obviously you believe a lot -- such
as the reality of the name "Will
Shake-speare". Astonishingly stupid.
> What recorded exchanges are you citing here?
> Please identify the specific "recorded
> exchanges" to which you are alluding here.
The are mentioned in various books, such
as Southworth. I am not going to copy
them in.
> In addition, since Tarleton didn't even come to the
> Court until 1583,
And you know this how? (Unfortunately,
we are all too familiar with the orifice from
which you obtain your 'information'.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tarlton
" . . . At one time he may have been an inn-
keeper, but in 1583, when he is mentioned as
one of the original member of the Queen's Men,
he was already an experienced actor. . ."
Southworth mentions an incident in 1567
involving Elizabeth and an unnamed fool of
the Earl of Leicester. He suggests that
it was probably Tarleton (then aged 37).
Tarleton is often mentioned in the same
breath as Yorick, and they could well
be the same. He would have been 25 when
the poet was five:
Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow
of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he
hath borne me on his back a thousand times;
> how could Oxford, writing the play in 1577-1588,
> have used Queen Elizabeth's alleged dislike of
> her clown as a model for Olivia's alleged
> dislike of her clown?
What a profound fool you are.
> In addition, the one reference in the play is
> not that Olivia should marry and produce an
> heir...it is that she should marry and have a
> child in order to pass on her beauty. It has
> nothing whatsoever to do with the need for an
> heir to govern when she is gone, or any question
> of succession, as you would have it.
The poet could hardly specify 'succession'
(any more than he does in the Sonnets).
He might as well have put the real names
for the characters.
> "Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
> If you will lead these graces to the grave
> And leave the world no copy."
>
>> It tells us that such a plea is fitting
>> and permissible -- an exceedingly rare
>> situation.
>
> Not all that rare. To indulge in the vague
> generalities about people that are your stock in
> trade, parents are always on their female
> children to get married and have children.
You are as ignorant as Grumman.
The world today is different -- in this
respect -- from that of 100 and more
years ago. You will find no such pleas
(addressed to daughters) ANYWHERE.
Try to imagine such a plea in modern
Saudi Arabia.
> This is such a commonplace that it has become a
> cliche -- in literature and in life.
Could it be made illegal for Americans
to claim to know history?
>> Can you quote ANY roughly
>> similar plea made to ANY roughly similar
>> female in ANY literature at ANY time in
>> ANY culture?
>
> The angel spoke to Mary....
Yeah, yeah. A roughly similar case.
Was Mary given a choice btw?
> I haven't read Jane Austen in some time, but, if
> memory serves, hew works would include one
> character pleading with another to marry and
> have children.
No such pleas are addressed to daughters
(not in Jane Austen nor in any other
literature of her times or before).
> I'm sure there are probably others.
So many you can't recall them.
>> Can you refer to ANY roughly similar
>> plea made to ANY roughly similar female
>> in ANY recorded history at ANY time in
>> ANY culture?
>
> See above. There is a somewhat insipid comic
> strip that runs in the daily papers here,
> entitled "Cathy", in which a mother constantly
> pleads with her daughter to marry and have
> children. It is a cliche.
God help us. How is it possible to
be so ignorant? Are you aware that
the position of women in society has
changed? The 19th Amendment to the
Constitution, granting women the right
to vote was passed in 1920
> Of course, in Twelfth Night it is merely one
> throwaway line out of the entire play, and it
> doesn't signify what you think it does.
Its presence in a modern play might
not be significant. But in one
written in the 16th Century it was
dramatically unique; it could only
have been addressed to one person.
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
> Dominic Hughes wrote:
> > One example does not make a rule. See below, where I
> > demonstrate that you have dishonestly snipped a
> > verbatim quotation
>
> You did not say it was a verbatim quotation,
> -- and I cannot find it. Nor do you give
> a date, nor a computer reference.
You just keep making yourself look worse.
Here are the options: 1.) you are unable to read; 2) you are lying and
trying to bluff your way through this situation; and/or 3.) you really
do have some sort of mental or physical problem that prevents your
from seeing anything that contradicts your point of view. I provided
the entire quotation and I cited exactly where it came from (something
that you snipped from my post). I stated explicitly where the
qotation was found when I said the following:
[From post # 1 in thread ‘Dating of Twelfth Night’, 2/20/09]
Anyone with any intelligence and the slightest familiarity with this
newsgroupp should be able to find the quotation given the information
that I provided.
> > You are either suffering from senile dementia or
> > you are lying. You said, and I am quoting you
> > exactly:
>
> > "Like most monarchs of the day, Henry VIII
> > took pleasure in clowns. But Elizabeth did not,
> > and employed none. These attitudes are played
> > out in the play."
>
> I cannot find this in my copies of posts
> made. Naturally, you quote no date
> and no reference.
Wrong, once again. As stated before, I referred you to the very first
post in the thread entitled 'Dating of Twelfth Night', from February
20 of 2009. Are you having eye troubles -- I'm being serious here
(since I suffer from such problems myself)?
This was in the post above: [From post # 1 in thread ‘Dating of
Twelfth Night’, 2/20/09]
I quoted you exactly, as follows:
*************************************
There is much in detail in the play that supports the identification.
There are (it seems) constant pleas to "Lady Olivia" that she should
marry and have an heir:
VIOLA
'Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid on:
Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
If you will lead these graces to the grave
And leave the world no copy.
Like most monarchs of the day, Henry VIII took pleasure in clowns.
But Elizabeth did not, and employed none. These attitudes are played
out in the play:
CURIO He is not here, so please your lordship that
should sing it.
DUKE ORSINO Who was it?
CURIO Feste, the jester, my lord; a fool that the
lady Olivia's father took much delight in.
He is about the house.
DUKE ORSINO Seek him out, and play the tune
the while.
*************************************
>Nor can the Advanced
> Search of Google Groups find it anywhere
> (although that search does not seem to be
> working properly). I have had a few
> computer problems recently, and that post
> may somehow have got lost. IF I did write
> it, then I was wrong to use the word
> 'employed'.
You did use it, as I have shown.
> > "...EMPLOYED none." Those are your words.
>
> Please identify this post -- using the
> Google number. Or even the date.
What is wrong with you? I already gave you the title of the thread,
the position of the post in the thread, and the date on which it was
posted (all of which you somehow missed in my original post). Here is
the link to the quotation:
/>
> I see that this was published in 1858 and
> is packed with sentimental trash. Her
> "Clod" is transparently a pure invention.
> Southworth does not mention her book.
Hilarious. Ms. Andrews invented a fool. Only a fool would
automatically leap to such a conclusion. Have you read Mr.
Southworth's book, or are you merely jumping to another conclusion?
> > pp. 168-169
> > This fool [Clod], who was an official court fool,
> > must have been a fellow of as much humour as
> > Yoric himself, if we may judge from one sample of
> > his wit, which is no bad sample of his license
> > also, and which is good warrant for his acuteness
> > and discrimination, to boot.
>
> <rest of drivel snipped>
For those of you who don't speak Crowley, <rest of drivel snipped>
translates as, "I don't know any way to handle what is said here so
I'm going to summarily dismiss it."
> > pp. 174-178
>
> > From all these sources
>
> What 'sources'?
The two books that I cited and all of the accounts of Elizabeth's
court fools that were provided therein. The ones you can't even begin
to deal with.
> Tarleton certainly was real -- but much of
> this 'account' is plain fantasy.
Why are you so inarticulate that you are unable to say why or how the
'account' is plain fantasy? You are unable to offer any explanation
whatsoever. Do you have problems writing coherently, logically and
intelligently, just as you have problems with reading with anything
appoaching comprehension?
You consistently resort to unsupported assumptions when confronted
with evidence that is contrary to your conclusions (that must be a
fake, joke, forgery, invention, conspiracy, etc.), is just one of the
reasons that you are not considered to be interested in any honest
debate. You summarily dismiss any sources that contradict your theory
and do so without any evidence to support your dismissal of the
sources. That practice gets very tiresome.
> > we make out that Tarleton served some sort of
> > apprenticeship in London, and must have had a
> > very fair education for one of his class, seeing
> > that he is described as being " superficially
> > seen in learning," and having so much as " a bare
> > insight into the Latin tongue." Not so bad for a
> > young swineherd, whose wit stood him in good
> > stead for what he lacked in book-learning. To
> > what calling he was bound apprentice is not known
> > : he is said to have been for some time a water
> > carrier ; and it was, perhaps, disgust at the
> > drudgery,
>
> [..]
Why did you snip the following:
He had probably been for some years a player, slowly rising, by dint
of his wit, his squint, and his flat nose, to pre-eminence, when in
1583 he was appointed one of the Queen's players, and one of the
grooms of her chamber.
> > As court jester, Tarleton became as famous and as
> > influential as any official who ever wore clown's
> > suit. Fuller calls him a master of his faculty,
> > who, "when Queen Elizabeth was serious, I dare
> > not say sullen, "and out of good humour, he could
> > undumpish her at his pleasure."
>
> No respectable authority quotes this.
> It is so obviously an invention --
> whether of Irene Andrews or of some
> earlier and equally reliable 'historian'.
I'm sure you'll be along now any minute to cite all of the respectable
authorities who don't quote Fuller on this matter.
From 'Wise Words and Quaint Counsels', by Thomas Fuller:
Characters {continued)
Thomas Tarlton the Jester
My intelligence of the certainty of his birth-place coming too late, I
fix him here, who indeed was bom at Condover in the neighbouring
county of Shropshire, where still some of his name and relations
remain. Here he was in the field, keeping his father's swine, when a
servant of
Robert earl of Leicester (passing this way to his lord's lands in his
barony of Denbigh) was so highly pleased with his happy unhappy
answers, that he brought him to court, where he became the most famous
jester to queen Elizabeth.
Many condemn his (vocation I cannot term it, for it is a coming
without a calling) employment as unwarrantable. Such maintain, that it
is better to be a fool of God's making, born so into the world, or a
fom of man's nuddng, jeered into it by general derision, than a fool
of one's own making, by his voluntary affecting thereof. Such say
also, he had better continued in his trade of swine-keeping, which
(though more painful, and less profitable) his conscience changed to
loss, for a jester's place in the court, who, of all men, have the
hardest account to make for every idle word that they abundantly
utter.
Others allege, in excuse of their practices, that princes in all ages
were allowed their jesters [?], whose virtue consisted in speaking
anything without control : that jesters often heal what flatterers
hurt, so that princes by them arrive at the notice of their errors,
seeing jesters carry about with them an act of indemnity for
whatsoever they say or do : that princes, overburdened with state-
business, must have their diversions; and that those words are not
censurable for absolutely idle which lead to lawful delight.
Our Tarlton was master of his faculty. When queen Elizabeth was
serious (I dare not say sullen) and out of good humour, he could un-
dumpish her at his pleasure. Her highest favourites would, in some
cases, go to Tarlton before they would go to the queen, and he was
their usher to prepare their advantageous access unto her. In a word,
he told the queen more of her faults than most of her chaplains, and
cured her melancholy better than all of her physicians.
Much of his merriment lay in his very looks and actions, according to
the epitaph written upon him :
'Hie situs est cnjns poterat vox, actio, vnltas,
£x Heraclito reddeie Democritom.'
Indeed the self-same words, spoken by another, would hardly move a
merry man to smile; which, uttered by him, would force a sad soul to
laughter.
http://www.archive.org/stream/wisewordsandqua00fullgoog/wisewordsandqua00fullgoog_djvu.txt
Your assumptions are wrong -- again. If this is an "invention", as
you calim, why are you so inarticulate that you are unable to
demonstrate why or how you come to that conclusion. The mere fact
that you say it is an "invention" does not make it so. Do you have
anyhting else to offer in support of your claim?
> [..]
Did you really mean to snip this:
As in other courts, suitors to the Sovereign not unfrequently first
presented themselves to the jester. "He was their usher to prepare
their advantageous access to her." He doubt- less lined his pockets
with pistoles thereby ; and for his royal pay he also gave good
measure of wholesome severities. "He told the Queen," says Fuller, "
more of her faults than most of her chaplains ; and cured her
melancholy better than all of her physicians."
I can only surmise that you snipped this particular portion of
Fuller's work because it demonstrates (to use your terminology) that
Queen Elizabeth HAD a fool.
> > If the Queen admired Dick, the latter had a great
> > measure of reverence for his mistress. He could
> > compare her, he said, to nothing more fitly than
> > a sculler ; for, he added, " neither the Queen
> > nor the sculler hath a fellow." He nevertheless,
> > and as a matter of course, could take great
> > liberties with her. The very first of the ' court
> > witty jests,' tells us of his attempting to draw
> > the Queen out of a fit of discontent by " a
> > quaint jest," in which he pretended to be a
> > thirsty drunkard, and called aloud for beer. The
> > liquor was duly supplied to him, and that so
> > liberally, that Elizabeth gave orders that he
> > should have no more, lest he should turn beast,
> > and shame himself. " Fear you not," said
> > Tarleton, " for your beer is small enough." So,
> > perhaps, was the jester's wit, but the Queen
> > thought well of it, for " her Majesty laughed
> > heartily, and commanded that he should have
> > enough."
>
> Surely even someone as stupid as you
> should be able to detect that this is
> plain nonsense?
Here's another reason that people don't care to engage in any
discussion with you. You constantly resort to such ad hominem
attacks. In addition, while you are certainly free to call me
whatever names you choose, I'm not the one who has a demonstrated
difficulty in reading simple sentences or in keeping my theory
straight. Finally, why are you so inarticulate that you are
completely unable to explain why you find Thomas Fuller's description
of events to be "plain nonsense". Fuller was held in high esteem by
such worthies as Lamb, Coleridge, Southey and others.
> <snip of more drivel>
[See translation above.] Mr. Crowley is (congenitally) ill-equipped
to handle sources which contradict his deeply-held faith and so he
summarily, and without reason, dismisses those sources. In fact, he
is so pathologicaly avers to consideration of such sources that he
must snip it so that he cannot even see the passages anymore.
In this instance, Mr. Crowley has gone out on a limb and, like a
frightened cat, he can't find a way down. He first said that Queen
Elizabeth had employed no fools, and actually disliked fools. Without
acknowledging that he had changed his position, he later said that she
did, in fact, employ fools, but that she HAD no fools (meaning that
she had no personal relationship with any of them) and that she
disliked fools. Now, confronted with sources which contradict his
claim that Elizabeth did not HAVE fools, Mr. Crowley is reduced to his
normal practice of denial and of simplistic arguments against the
evidence (drivel, invention, plain nonsense). As usual, he is utterly
incapable of explaining how he has arrived at these simplistic
conjectures, or of explaining what in the sources themselves
justififes him in jumping to such conclusions.
Pathetic, really.
> >> However, the tradition on which Chambers
> >> was relying makes obvious sense. Women
> >> (as opposed to men) are rarely inclined
> >> to have much tolerance for fools (of the
> >> generic kind) or put up with foolery.
>
> > Tradition doesn't trump evidence.
>
> And you call the above large quote
> 'evidence'?
Yes. The written statements of Thomas Fuller would certainly count as
evidence. If you had any ability to build a rational and coherent
argument, you might mount an attack on its credibility, strength,
etc., but you are too inarticulate to do so. By the way, where is the
evidence to back up your claims that:
1.) Elizabeth did not HAVE fools: and
2.) Elizabeth did not take any pleasure in fools.
By the way, you snipped the following (coming directly after I stated
that tradition does not trump evidence):
Why use unsubstantiated generalities about what women are like to try
to prove your point. Come up with some citations to actual facts or
just admit that you're wrong when you claim that Elizabeth did not
take pleasure in the antics of her fools.
It is apparent that you are unable to supply citations to actual facts
to support your claims.
You have yet to cite anything whasoever to support your claims in this
matter (other than vague references to unidentified "recorded
exchanges", none of which you can even produce), and yet you continue
to pontificate and bluster your way through this discussion.
Pathetic.
> >> The records of her dealings with any fools
> >> who attended her court are skimpy, but
> >> such as there are indicate her dislike of
> >> them.
>
> > Really...what records are you referencing here, and how do they
> > indicate that Elizabeth disliked her fools? I'd like to see specific
> > examples from these records that you cite; otherwise, I'll have to
> > conclude that you are simply lying. You have yet to cite any source
> > for your allegation that Elizabeth did not take pleasure in fools at
> > her court?
>
> >> There is little friendly in any of
> >> the few recorded exchanges.
[What "recorded exchanges" would those be?]
> > Wrong, as I have already shown.
>
> What a total fool you are.
At least I can read, and my memory isn't shot. I don't think you
should be throwing stones, considering your recent record here.
>Do you
> believe EVERYTHING you are told?
No. For instance, I don't believe anything that you tell me. As an
example, you have stated that there are RECORDS which reveal that
Queen Elizabeth did not take pleasure in fools -- that she disliked
them, in fact. When asked to provide citations to the records that
you claim exist, you skate away and fail to name a single one or to
even provide any excerpts from them. Until you can identify these
records and produce some of them, you are shown to be a liar and a bad
one at that.
> (Obviously you believe a lot -- such
> as the reality of the name "Will
> Shake-speare". Astonishingly stupid.
Back to this idiocy. You've already been shown evidence for the fact
that William Shakespeare was not an uncommon name, so the only person
who is "astonishingly stupid" here is you.
> > What recorded exchanges are you citing here?
> > Please identify the specific "recorded
> > exchanges" to which you are alluding here.
>
> The are mentioned in various books, such
> as Southworth. I am not going to copy
> them in.
Nice dodge. If you won't (or can't) copy them in, then identify what
records you are referring to, where they are located, who produced
them, etc. (as I have done), and I'll try to locate them on my own.
This is so obviously an invention on your part that you are making
yourself look ridiculous.
> > In addition, since Tarleton didn't even come to the
> > Court until 1583,
>
> And you know this how? (Unfortunately,
> we are all too familiar with the orifice from
> which you obtain your 'information'.)
Thomas Fuller is my orifice?
"He had probably been for some years a player, slowly rising, by dint
of his wit, his squint, and his flat nose, to pre-eminence, when in
1583 he was appointed one of the Queen's players, and one of the
grooms of her chamber." -- Thomas Fuller
Your statement is quite ironic in light of the fact that you can't
seem to provide a single source for your "information" -- other than
the allegation that it is found in the "recorded exchanges" --
exchanges which you are never able to produce. You are in a-hole
[read that quickly] and you should stop digging.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tarlton
> " . . . At one time he may have been an inn-
> keeper, but in 1583, when he is mentioned as
> one of the original member of the Queen's Men,
> he was already an experienced actor. . ."
>
> Southworth mentions an incident in 1567
> involving Elizabeth and an unnamed fool of
> the Earl of Leicester. He suggests that
> it was probably Tarleton (then aged 37).
And you call a "suggestion" evidence?
Ha, what a total fool you are.
What was the incident that Southworth mentions? Can you provide the
excerpt from Southworth regarding this matter?
> Tarleton is often mentioned in the same
> breath as Yorick, and they could well
> be the same. He would have been 25 when
> the poet was five:
Notice the circular reasoning involved here. You really are a dunce.
> Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow
> of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he
> hath borne me on his back a thousand times;
>
> > how could Oxford, writing the play in 1577-1588,
> > have used Queen Elizabeth's alleged dislike of
> > her clown as a model for Olivia's alleged
> > dislike of her clown?
>
> What a profound fool you are.
More brilliant argumentation from the great Crowley. Why is it that
you are so inarticulate? Are you brain damaged?
And, once again, you snipped the following:
"According to Crowley’s most recent conclusion pulled from thin air
(contradicting his previous bare assertion), Elizabeth DID employ
fools, and her attitude toward fools (whatever it may now be) is
played out in the play with acute precision.
Even stranger, Crowley claims that the play states explicitly that
Olivia had no fool. He then claims that “[w]e can see from the play
that Olivia employed fools” in the court establishment. I’m sure he
will be able to cite the specific language in the play that supports
these disparate conclusions."
I suppose you still had no answer.
> > In addition, the one reference in the play is
> > not that Olivia should marry and produce an
> > heir...it is that she should marry and have a
> > child in order to pass on her beauty. It has
> > nothing whatsoever to do with the need for an
> > heir to govern when she is gone, or any question
> > of succession, as you would have it.
>
> The poet could hardly specify 'succession'
> (any more than he does in the Sonnets).
Mind reading and circular reasoning by The Pathetic Crowley.
> He might as well have put the real names
> for the characters.
According to your theory, he pretty much did.
> > "Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
> > If you will lead these graces to the grave
> > And leave the world no copy."
>
> >> It tells us that such a plea is fitting
> >> and permissible -- an exceedingly rare
> >> situation.
>
> > Not all that rare. To indulge in the vague
> > generalities about people that are your stock in
> > trade, parents are always on their female
> > children to get married and have children.
>
> You are as ignorant as Grumman.
> The world today is different -- in this
> respect -- from that of 100 and more
> years ago. You will find no such pleas
> (addressed to daughters) ANYWHERE.
> Try to imagine such a plea in modern
> Saudi Arabia.
This is a complete non sequitur. Who cares about modern times and
what happens in Saudi Arabia, and the fact hat the world today is much
different from the world of 1600. Those matters are irrelevant to the
question at hand. We're discussing the conventions of Shakespeare's
times.
> > This is such a commonplace that it has become a
> > cliche -- in literature and in life.
>
> Could it be made illegal for Americans
> to claim to know history?
More brilliant argumentation...why are you so inarticulate, bordering
on illiterate?
> >> Can you quote ANY roughly
> >> similar plea made to ANY roughly similar
> >> female in ANY literature at ANY time in
> >> ANY culture?
>
> > The angel spoke to Mary....
>
> Yeah, yeah. A roughly similar case.
> Was Mary given a choice btw?
"Mary said, “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it to me according
to your word.” The angel departed from her."
> > I haven't read Jane Austen in some time, but, if
> > memory serves, hew works would include one
> > character pleading with another to marry and
> > have children.
>
> No such pleas are addressed to daughters
> (not in Jane Austen nor in any other
> literature of her times or before).
This is laughable. I don't believe you.
> > I'm sure there are probably others.
>
> So many you can't recall them.
It isn't something that I ever paid special attention to you in my
previous reading, I don't know of any studies regarding the issue, and
I don't claim to have read every piece of literature since the dawn of
time. Unlike you, I don't claim to KNOW that no such plea has ever
been addressed to a daughter in any piece of literature writtens
since the dawn of time.
> >> Can you refer to ANY roughly similar
> >> plea made to ANY roughly similar female
> >> in ANY recorded history at ANY time in
> >> ANY culture?
>
> > See above. There is a somewhat insipid comic
> > strip that runs in the daily papers here,
> > entitled "Cathy", in which a mother constantly
> > pleads with her daughter to marry and have
> > children. It is a cliche.
>
> God help us. How is it possible to
> be so ignorant?
I don't know, but if God can help you, maybe you will stop
demostrating how it is possible to be so ignorant.
>Are you aware that
> the position of women in society has
> changed?
Of course. What does that have to do with the literary work that we
are discussing?
>The 19th Amendment to the
> Constitution, granting women the right
> to vote was passed in 1920
And I', certainly glad it was.
> > Of course, in Twelfth Night it is merely one
> > throwaway line out of the entire play, and it
> > doesn't signify what you think it does.
>
> Its presence in a modern play might
> not be significant. But in one
> written in the 16th Century it was
> dramatically unique; it could only
> have been addressed to one person.
So you keep saying, but I don't believe everything I'm told,
especially when it is pulled out of your orifice and wiped on the
page.
Dom
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
with simple words: "employed a fool" is wholly different for it
from "had a fool," and "once" can mean "constantly" if
the program has said somthing happened in the play that
can be shown to have happened just once.
Carry on, Dom. Maybe in a month I'll be recovered enough
to take over again.
--Bob
sasheargold
What are you recovering from, Bob?
SB.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
From my bouts with the undefeatable Paulgram.
--Bob
Dominic Hughes
Isn't it amazing? It is like stepping through the looking glass.
In the Crowleyian universe, the "recorded exchanges" that I have
provided for everyone to read (in some length) are inventions and are
not evidence for the proposition that Elizabeth HAD fools, while the
"recorded exchanges" that Crowley has failed and refused to provide,
so that we are unable to examine them at all, are true and are
evidence for Crowley's claim that Elizabeth EMPLOYED fools (though he
originally denied even this) but that she took no pleasure whatsoever
in them.
In the Crowleyian universe, I can cite the title of a thread, the
position of a post therein (# 1), and the date that it was posted, all
to assist Mr. Crowley in remembering what he himself has said, and
Crowley can tell me that I have not done so, and then call me a fool,
etc.
I'll do the best I can, but a month may be stretching it. Get well
soon, Bob.
Dom
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Maybe I won't have to, Dom--maybe you've finally done the
impossible and forced so many contradictions its programming
leads to that the Paulgram has crashed. I notice it has been silent
for a while. I think it may be the math. Computer programs aren't
too good with the proposition that 1 = more than 1.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>> You did not say it was a verbatim quotation,
>> -- and I cannot find it. Nor do you give
>> a date, nor a computer reference.
>
> You just keep making yourself look worse.
>
> Here are the options: 1.) you are unable to read; 2)
> you are lying and trying to bluff your way through
> this situation; and/or 3.) you really do have some
> sort of mental or physical problem that prevents
> your from seeing anything that contradicts your
> point of view. I provided the entire quotation and
> I cited exactly where it came from (something that
> you snipped from my post). I stated explicitly
> where the qotation was found when I said the
> following:
>
> [From post # 1 in thread �Dating of Twelfth Night�,
> 2/20/09]
My main mistake here was appalling -- so
serious that I cannot understand how I
made it. Somehow I assumed that you had
a serious point, and had some slight
honesty.
The words you bring out were in my FIRST
post on Twelfth Night way back in February,
in which I remarked that Raleigh was
conspicuous by his absence from the play.
OK, I see that in your last post you mention
the date, and perhaps I should have seen it
-- but the care I take in reading your posts
has rapidly diminished -- I skip over the
great bulk of the abuse and the utter
nonsense.
>>> You are either suffering from senile dementia or
>>> you are lying. You said, and I am quoting you
>>> exactly:
>>> "Like most monarchs of the day, Henry VIII
>>> took pleasure in clowns. But Elizabeth did not,
>>> and employed none. These attitudes are played
>>> out in the play."
>>
>> I cannot find this in my copies of posts
>> made.
I assumed it must have been in posts made
within the last couple of months, where we
have been discussing the play. I did not
conceive that it could be in my very first,
back last February -- which was no more than
a the briefest possible introduction to the
topic of the Dating of the play, with this
as little more than an aside.
[..]
>> "Clod" is transparently a pure invention.
>> Southworth does not mention her book.
>
> Hilarious. Ms. Andrews invented a fool. Only a
> fool would automatically leap to such a conclusion.
Only a total fool would take this garbage
as factually correct.
> From 'Wise Words and Quaint Counsels', by Thomas Fuller:
Fuller is, I suppose, a "source" that can
be quoted (if primarily for reasons of
historical curiosity in the man himself) --
but certainly he is not a 'source' that
can trusted. He was writing some 90 years
after the event, and few (if any) of his
'facts' are reliable. For example, his
information on Tarleton is is so poor that
he calls him 'Thomas' rather than 'Richard'.
[..]
> Did you really mean to snip this:
> As in other courts, suitors to the Sovereign not
> unfrequently first presented themselves to the
> jester. "He was their usher to prepare their
> advantageous access to her." He doubt- less lined
> his pockets with pistoles thereby ; and for his
> royal pay he also gave good measure of wholesome
> severities. "He told the Queen," says Fuller, " more
> of her faults than most of her chaplains ; and cured
> her melancholy better than all of her physicians."
Do you really believe this crap . .
from an 'authority' that could not get
the name right of the principal fool of
the age?
>> And you call the above large quote
>> 'evidence'?
>
> Yes. The written statements of Thomas Fuller would
> certainly count as evidence.
On what basis? Would your opinions about
some events of 90 years ago (picked up
only through gossip) be 'evidence'?
Could we take you as an authority on
(say) the Turkish-Armenian conflict on
the basis of what you had 'enquired
upon' with your friends and neighbours?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tarlton
>> " . . . At one time he may have been an inn-
>> keeper, but in 1583, when he is mentioned as
>> one of the original member of the Queen's Men,
>> he was already an experienced actor. . ."
>>
>> Southworth mentions an incident in 1567
>> involving Elizabeth and an unnamed fool of
>> the Earl of Leicester. He suggests that
>> it was probably Tarleton (then aged 37).
>
> And you call a "suggestion" evidence?
> Ha, what a total fool you are.
The record comes from the Spanish
ambassador, Guzman de Silva, in a despatch
to King Philip. It is contemporary, and
there seem to be no apparent reasons for
distortion.
The suggestion is made by a person who has
studied the topic in some depth and whose
opinion is more reliable than anyone you
know.
>> Tarleton is often mentioned in the same
>> breath as Yorick, and they could well
>> be the same. He would have been 25 when
>> the poet was five:
>
> Notice the circular reasoning involved here. You
> really are a dunce.
'Circular reasoning' is your term for
any persuasive Oxfordian argument.
Tarleton died in 1588, and was buried
in St. Leonard, Shoreditch. It is
entirely possible that soon after
Oxford did encounter a grave-digger
in that churchyard (he lived 2 miles
north, and it was on his way into
London). Or he may have heard a story
about such a meeting, giving him the
basis for the scene in Hamlet.
The Stratman OTOH could hardly have
ever seen Tarleton. His twins were
born in 1585, and (taking the crazy
Stratfordian assumption that he went
to London) he hardly got there in
time.
Peter Thomson in his DNB account of
Tarleton suggests that he was could
have been the model for Falstaff, and
this has been argued extensively
elsewhere. His will was apparently
written in the house of Emma Ball, a
Shoreditch prostitute.
Oxford would have known the character
and antics of Tarleton intimately.
The Stratman could only have got them
second- or third-hand.
>>> "Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
>>> If you will lead these graces to the grave
>>> And leave the world no copy."
>>>> It tells us that such a plea is fitting
>>>> and permissible -- an exceedingly rare
>>>> situation.
>>>
>>> Not all that rare. To indulge in the vague
>>> generalities about people that are your stock in
>>> trade, parents are always on their female
>>> children to get married and have children.
>>
>> You are as ignorant as Grumman.
>> The world today is different -- in this
>> respect -- from that of 100 and more
>> years ago. You will find no such pleas
>> (addressed to daughters) ANYWHERE.
>> Try to imagine such a plea in modern
>> Saudi Arabia.
>
> This is a complete non sequitur. Who cares about
> modern times and what happens in Saudi Arabia,
I am simply trying to get you to realise
that other civilisations ARE different,
in the remote and exceedingly faint hope
that you might begin to realise that
other times WERE different.
> and the fact hat the world today is much different
> from the world of 1600. Those matters are
> irrelevant to the question at hand. We're
> discussing the conventions of Shakespeare's times.
Grumman is interestingly identical to you
in this regard. Like you, he simply cannot
conceive that females ever routinely did
what they were told -- and were assumed
not to have opinions on whom (let alone
whether) they should marry.
>>>> Can you quote ANY roughly
>>>> similar plea made to ANY roughly similar
>>>> female in ANY literature at ANY time in
>>>> ANY culture?
>>>
>>> The angel spoke to Mary....
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. A roughly similar case.
>> Was Mary given a choice btw?
>
> "Mary said, �Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it
> to me according to your word.� The angel departed
> from her."
Yep -- right. Mary was NOT given a choice.
The notion that she might possibly have
had an opinion on the matter was never
even imagined.
>>> I haven't read Jane Austen in some time, but, if
>>> memory serves, hew works would include one
>>> character pleading with another to marry and
>>> have children.
>>
>> No such pleas are addressed to daughters
>> (not in Jane Austen nor in any other
>> literature of her times or before).
>
> This is laughable. I don't believe you.
So where are the numerous counter-
examples from your extensive knowledge
of history and literature?
I've asked this question here many
times (mostly to Grumman). Where are
the numerous counter-examples from
the extensive knowledge of history
and literature from Strats generally?
>>>> Can you refer to ANY roughly similar
>>>> plea made to ANY roughly similar female
>>>> in ANY recorded history at ANY time in
>>>> ANY culture?
No answer -- there can be none.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
do with "once" have been extracted. Its routine concerning the way
Olivia can "have" a fool but not "employ" him has been skillfully
revised so that it can react to the subject without discussing it.
The boilerplate and misrepresentation of opponent's statements and
positions remain. The insane belief that a playwright cannot invent a
character but only model one on someone he has known (Tarleton, for
instance) remains.
I find particularly fascinating its insistence that no woman even
thought for herself until, I suppose, men finally gave them the right
to vote.
In any case, I'm still too battered by the Paulgram's logic to be able
to take him on again now.
--Bob
Mike
but.net> wrote:
> Ooops, the Paulgram has been repaired. �All its instructions having to
> do with "once" have been extracted. �Its routine concerning the way
> Olivia can "have" a fool but not "employ" him has been skillfully
> revised so that it can react to the subject without discussing it.
> The boilerplate and misrepresentation of opponent's statements and
> positions remain. �The insane belief that a playwright cannot invent a
> character but only model one on someone he has known (Tarleton, for
> instance) remains.
MM:
It remains because he needs the links to the Queen and to Eddie de
Vere. If he doesn't have those, then everything becomes moot. Oxford
couldn't have written the canon. Olivia had nothing to do with the
Queen. Olivia was a Goddess, such as Venus. Crowley does her no
justice by making her a mortal queen.
> I find particularly fascinating its insistence that no woman even
> thought for herself until, I suppose, men finally gave them the right
> to vote.
MM:
He doesn't let women think for themselves? Hmmmm. I hate to say it,
but this is contrary to the author of the canon. The author of the
canon praised Mary Sidney and Aemelia Lanyer. Aemelia is even known
as one of the first feminists. Mary Sidney was also assertive,
despite her sex. Shakespeare even made women to be Goddesses, as
Olivia and Titania.
> In any case, I'm still too battered by the Paulgram's logic to be able
> to take him on again now.
>
> --Bob
MM:
Paulgram's emotions seem invincible, and I can see why you concluded
that he might be a computer program. LOL
Michael Martin
Dominic Hughes
> Dominic Hughes wrote:
> >> You did not say it was a verbatim quotation,
> >> -- and I cannot find it. Nor do you give
> >> a date, nor a computer reference.
>
> > You just keep making yourself look worse.
>
> > Here are the options: 1.) you are unable to read; 2)
> > you are lying and trying to bluff your way through
> > this situation; and/or 3.) you really do have some
> > sort of mental or physical problem that prevents
> > your from seeing anything that contradicts your
> > point of view. I provided the entire quotation and
> > I cited exactly where it came from (something that
> > you snipped from my post). I stated explicitly
> > where the qotation was found when I said the
> > following:
>
> > 2/20/09]
>
> My main mistake here was appalling -- so
> serious that I cannot understand how I
> made it. Somehow I assumed that you had
> a serious point, and had some slight
> honesty.
There was a serious point, even though you don't want to admit it, and
I have been nothing but honest (if you believe otherwise, please
explain).
The serious point is that you pull your claims from out of whatever
horifice is handy.
Back in February, you were alleging that one of the similarities
betwee Olivia and Queen Elizabeth that showed that one was modeled on
the other was that they employed no fools. In your June 1 post in
this thread, you were still making that same claim:
"(17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who took a delight in his personal
fool;
(18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools herself;"
[That is a verbatim quote from your post in this thread.]
> The words you bring out were in my FIRST
> post on Twelfth Night way back in February,
> in which I remarked that Raleigh was
> conspicuous by his absence from the play.
So what? You were still making the exact same claim as to court fools
as recently as June 1. Raleigh has nothing to do with this
discussion.
> OK, I see that in your last post you mention
> the date, and perhaps I should have seen it
Thank you for this "small" admission. It was not in my "last" post --
it was in my very first post addressing this issue.
> -- but the care I take in reading your posts
> has rapidly diminished -- I skip over the
> great bulk of the abuse and the utter
> nonsense.
I knew it would happen. You attempt to blame me for your own laziness
and lack of ability to read with anything even remotely approaching
comprehension, and then you accuse me of engaging in abuse. Pot/
kettle. You skip over (and snip) the parts that you simply can't
address with some easy and dismissive dodge.
> >>> You are either suffering from senile dementia or
> >>> you are lying. You said, and I am quoting you
> >>> exactly:
> >>> "Like most monarchs of the day, Henry VIII
> >>> took pleasure in clowns. But Elizabeth did not,
> >>> and employed none. These attitudes are played
> >>> out in the play."
>
> >> I cannot find this in my copies of posts
> >> made.
>
> I assumed it must have been in posts made
> within the last couple of months, where we
Thank you for acknowledging that your general practice is merely to
"assume" things. We would all profit from a change in that practice.
> have been discussing the play. I did not
> conceive that it could be in my very first,
> back last February -- which was no more than
> a the briefest possible introduction to the
> topic of the Dating of the play, with this
> as little more than an aside.
So what -- you were still making the same claim as recently as June
9th in this very thread, and not as an aside.
And again, from your post on June 2nd:
Crowley:
>> (17) Elizabeth/Olivia had a father who
>> took a delight in his personal fool;
>> (18) Elizabeth/Olivia kept no fools
>> herself;
Grumman
> Good grief. You mean Shakespeare made sure the
> fool in the play wasn't from Olivia's court
> because Elizabeth had no fool--instead of
> because the plot worked best that way (and he
> generally used just one fool per comedy)?
Crowley
"How exactly is it that 'the plot worked best that way'? She might
well have had
her own fool. Or that fool could have been passing, in the way they
often do.
There was absolutely NO need to make the fool situation exactly
parallel to
that of Elizabeth's."
[That is a verbatim quote from your post in this thread.]
When challenged by Peter Groves's assertion that Olivia did keep a
fool (Feste), you continued to stick by your bare-assed assertion that
Olivia kept no fools, and engaged in more incredible speculation as to
the situation in Elizabeth's court, still maintaining that she did not
employ fools, while slightly shifting the goalposts. From your post of
June 4th, in this thread:
Crowley:
"You have not read the play properly. The Clown specifically states
that he is not Lady Olivia's fool, and that she keeps no fools.
Yet I accept that there seems to be some ambiguity, in that The Fool
is expected
to attend court after some fashion.
Possibly he was kept on from her father's time (surviving through the
five years
of Edward VI and the six years of Mary) as a general 'Court Jester'.
In fact, he seems (from the play) to have been adopted by Leicester.
That would
have been quite natural, given Leicester's constant presence at court
in the 1560s,
with his own substantial party. The Fool's wit was, no doubt, more
welcome
in that circle. The Queen, with her dog-in-the-manger attitude,
probably found
this a little irritating, especially as Leicester's attendance at
court began to decline, as his amorous attentions found more rewarding
interests.
However, he is clearly not Elizabeth's Fool after the fashion that
many monarchs,
especially Henry VIII, kept personal fools."
[That is a verbatim quote from your post in this thread.]
And again, on June 5th:
Groves:
> it is
> as her fool, or "her corrupter of words", that his
> attendance at her household is required.
This is nonsensical. No such job was known in Early Modern households,
royal or otherwise. The role of fools -- especially those of monarchs
-- is well understood. Here it is clear that (just like Elizabeth)
the Lady Olivia has little affection for fools, but tolerates their
presence on occasion, accepting that royal households traditionally
maintain them.
The similarity to Elizabeth's attitude is acute. It is inconceivable
that the poet could have had any other household in mind when
outlining this peculiar relationship between a mistress and 'her
fool'.
[That is a verbatim quote from your post in this thread.]
You were starting to shift positions at that point, from a claim that
there were no fools in Elizabeth's court to a claim that there may
have been a fool there, but certainly not employed by Elizabeth, and
she took no pleasure in such fools. Later that same day (June 5) you
"refined" your claim even more:
Crowley:
"The Clown here is hardly going to plainly lie -- as you would have
him doing. He is
saying that he is not the Lady Olivia's fool in _some_ sense -- and I
take that sense to be the monarch's close confident, after the manner
of Henry VIII's fools.
He is 'her fool' in the sense that William Winter was her admiral, Sir
Christopher
Wray was her Chief Justice, and William Painter was her Clerk of the
Ordnance.
She employed all these people. But he was not 'her fool' in the sense
like that of 'her confessor'. There was little or nothing personal in
the relationship.
[That is a verbatim quote from your post in this thread.]
Again, on June 9th, in response to Mr. Groves, you make a further
"refinement" to your claim:
Peter Groves wrote:
> ***And have you noticed that when Crowley thought
> that Olivia didn't keep a fool, that was evidence
> that she represented Elizabeth. Now that I've
> persuaded him that she did, that in turn becomes
> evidence that she represents Elizabeth.
Crowley:
Elizabeth had no fool _after_the_ _fashion_ of her father, Henry VIII,
who loved fools. In the play, the Clown explicitly states that
Olivia
has no fool, and reminds us that Olivia's father liked fools.
Elizabeth DID employ fools in the court establishment -- presumably
following tradition. We can see from the play that Olivia employed
fools in her establishment.
In this respect alone, the parallels between Elizabeth and Olivia are
acutely precise. No one else in the country (nor in Europe) matches
these conditions -- not at any time in recorded history.
[That is a verbatim quote from your post in this thread.]
And later that same day:
Crowley:
I have not changed in this regard. I said that Elizabeth HAD no
fools. "Had" is
not the same as "employed" -- since to HAVE a fool is -- in the sense
normally
taken -- to have a personal relationship with the fool, much as Henry
VIII did, and as is routinely displayed in literature, as with King
Lear and his Fool.
[That is a verbatim quote from your post in this thread.]
Your claim that your position had not changed is pretty comical in
light of the history of "recorded exchanges" in this thread.
Then you were confronted with evidence that Elizabeth "HAD" fools,
contradicting your newest claim. This sent you into denial mode.
> [..]
>
> >> "Clod" is transparently a pure invention.
> >> Southworth does not mention her book.
>
> > Hilarious. Ms. Andrews invented a fool. Only a
> > fool would automatically leap to such a conclusion.
>
> Only a total fool would take this garbage
> as factually correct.
I don't take it as factually correct. I take it as evidence which can
be weighed and sifted to determine whether or not it is true. Only a
total fool would dismiss it summarily without even attemtping to
ascertain its credibility and relaibility.
> > From 'Wise Words and Quaint Counsels', by Thomas Fuller:
>
> Fuller is, I suppose, a "source" that can
> be quoted (if primarily for reasons of
> historical curiosity in the man himself) --
> but certainly he is not a 'source' that
> can trusted. He was writing some 90 years
> after the event, and few (if any) of his
> 'facts' are reliable. For example, his
> information on Tarleton is is so poor that
> he calls him 'Thomas' rather than 'Richard'.
All of those factors certainly go to the question of Fuller's
credibility and his accuracy, but they do not eliminate him as a
witness on this issue, and they do not mean that his writings are not
evidence on this matter. On the other hand, you have yet to provide
one scintilla of evidence to support your revised assertion that,
while Elizabeth may have employed fools, she did not take pleasure in
them and none of them had any personal relationship with her.
> [..]
>
> > Did you really mean to snip this:
> > As in other courts, suitors to the Sovereign not
> > unfrequently first presented themselves to the
> > jester. "He was their usher to prepare their
> > advantageous access to her." He doubt- less lined
> > his pockets with pistoles thereby ; and for his
> > royal pay he also gave good measure of wholesome
> > severities. "He told the Queen," says Fuller, " more
> > of her faults than most of her chaplains ; and cured
> > her melancholy better than all of her physicians."
>
> Do you really believe this crap . .
> from an 'authority' that could not get
> the name right of the principal fool of
> the age?
And yet you believe the crap that you pull from your orifice, crap for
which you can offer no supporting evidence whasoever. Do I believe
Fuller's accounts? Not neccessarily, although they are much closer in
time to the events of the day than anything you have provided. The
reliability of Fuller's account is yet to be determined. It is
evidence for one proposition. It is up to you to provide evidence that
rebuts that proposition and tends to prove your proposition. Why are
you unable to do so?
> >> And you call the above large quote
> >> 'evidence'?
> > Yes. The written statements of Thomas Fuller would
> > certainly count as evidence.
>
> On what basis? Would your opinions about
> some events of 90 years ago (picked up
> only through gossip) be 'evidence'?
Do you believe this is an accurate assessment of what Fuller did in
writing his works? Do you have any documentation that is closer in
time to the events described which contradicts Fuller's accounts?
Where are the "recorded exchanges" (found in Southworth's book) that
you keep telling us about but never providing.
> Could we take you as an authority on
> (say) the Turkish-Armenian conflict on
> the basis of what you had 'enquired
> upon' with your friends and neighbours?
Certainly not. But that really isn't analogous to what Fuller did.
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tarlton
> >> " . . . At one time he may have been an inn-
> >> keeper, but in 1583, when he is mentioned as
> >> one of the original member of the Queen's Men,
> >> he was already an experienced actor. . ."
>
> >> Southworth mentions an incident in 1567
> >> involving Elizabeth and an unnamed fool of
> >> the Earl of Leicester. He suggests that
> >> it was probably Tarleton (then aged 37).
>
> > And you call a "suggestion" evidence?
> > Ha, what a total fool you are.
>
> The record comes from the Spanish
> ambassador, Guzman de Silva, in a despatch
> to King Philip. It is contemporary, and
> there seem to be no apparent reasons for
> distortion.
What does the record say? I have just ordered Southworth's book.
I'll read about the incident for myself. I wonder at the fact that
you are unable to provide any detail about this record and this
suggestion. Are you actually using Southworth's book as a source or
are you getting this information from some other source?
> The suggestion is made by a person who has
> studied the topic in some depth and whose
> opinion is more reliable than anyone you
> know.
And yet it is still only a suggestion and the fool remains unnamed. I
should be receiving Southworth's book any day now and I will be able
to examine the evidence that he provides for this suggestion.
> >> Tarleton is often mentioned in the same
> >> breath as Yorick, and they could well
> >> be the same. He would have been 25 when
> >> the poet was five:
>
> > Notice the circular reasoning involved here. You
> > really are a dunce.
>
> 'Circular reasoning' is your term for
> any persuasive Oxfordian argument.
Not at all. It is my term, and a generally accepted term in the study
of logic, to describe the type of logical fallacy in which you indulge
on a consistent basis.
> Tarleton died in 1588, and was buried
> in St. Leonard, Shoreditch. It is
> entirely possible that soon after
> Oxford did encounter a grave-digger
> in that churchyard (he lived 2 miles
> north, and it was on his way into
> London). Or he may have heard a story
> about such a meeting, giving him the
> basis for the scene in Hamlet.
Or one of Michael Martin's multiple muses could have descended from
Mount Olympus to whisper the story in Lord Oxenforde's ear. Why do
you engage in such ridiculous speculation?
> The Stratman OTOH could hardly have
> ever seen Tarleton. His twins were
> born in 1585, and (taking the crazy
> Stratfordian assumption that he went
> to London) he hardly got there in
> time.
Right...two to three years would hardly have been enough time, and
there is no way that the Startfordian William Shakespeare could have
possibly been in London prior to the conception of his twins. And
wasn't Oxenforde given a military command in the Netherlands in 1585?
> Peter Thomson in his DNB account of
> Tarleton suggests that he was could
> have been the model for Falstaff, and
> this has been argued extensively
> elsewhere. His will was apparently
> written in the house of Emma Ball, a
> Shoreditch prostitute.
So what?
> Oxford would have known the character
> and antics of Tarleton intimately.
> The Stratman could only have got them
> second- or third-hand.
Your use of conclusory language does not prove the thruth of your
assertions.
> >>> "Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
> >>> If you will lead these graces to the grave
> >>> And leave the world no copy."
> >>>> It tells us that such a plea is fitting
> >>>> and permissible -- an exceedingly rare
> >>>> situation.
>
> >>> Not all that rare. To indulge in the vague
> >>> generalities about people that are your stock in
> >>> trade, parents are always on their female
> >>> children to get married and have children.
>
> >> You are as ignorant as Grumman.
> >> The world today is different -- in this
> >> respect -- from that of 100 and more
> >> years ago. You will find no such pleas
> >> (addressed to daughters) ANYWHERE.
> >> Try to imagine such a plea in modern
> >> Saudi Arabia.
>
> > This is a complete non sequitur. Who cares about
> > modern times and what happens in Saudi Arabia,
>
> I am simply trying to get you to realise
> that other civilisations ARE different,
> in the remote and exceedingly faint hope
> that you might begin to realise that
> other times WERE different.
I am fully aware that other civilizations and other times are and were
different.
> > and the fact hat the world today is much different
> > from the world of 1600. Those matters are
> > irrelevant to the question at hand. We're
> > discussing the conventions of Shakespeare's times.
>
> Grumman is interestingly identical to you
> in this regard. Like you, he simply cannot
> conceive that females ever routinely did
> what they were told -- and were assumed
> not to have opinions on whom (let alone
> whether) they should marry.
Nice strawman. I fully realize that the role of women in society has
changed significantly, and that different cultures treat women
differently.
>
> >>>> Can you quote ANY roughly
> >>>> similar plea made to ANY roughly similar
> >>>> female in ANY literature at ANY time in
> >>>> ANY culture?
>
> >>> The angel spoke to Mary....
>
> >> Yeah, yeah. A roughly similar case.
> >> Was Mary given a choice btw?
>
> > "Mary said, “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it
> > to me according to your word.” The angel departed
> > from her."
>
> Yep -- right. Mary was NOT given a choice.
> The notion that she might possibly have
> had an opinion on the matter was never
> even imagined.
>
> >>> I haven't read Jane Austen in some time, but, if
> >>> memory serves, hew works would include one
> >>> character pleading with another to marry and
> >>> have children.
>
> >> No such pleas are addressed to daughters
> >> (not in Jane Austen nor in any other
> >> literature of her times or before).
>
> > This is laughable. I don't believe you.
>
> So where are the numerous counter-
> examples from your extensive knowledge
> of history and literature?
This is still laughable. I haven't read every piece of literature
ever written and so I will not state categorically that no such pleas
are addressed to any women in any works of literature ever written.
You, on the other hand, who have obviously read little literature,
feel justified in stating categorically that no other examples exist.
This is typical of your faulty methods.
> I've asked this question here many
> times (mostly to Grumman). Where are
> the numerous counter-examples from
> the extensive knowledge of history
> and literature from Strats generally?
>
> >>>> Can you refer to ANY roughly similar
> >>>> plea made to ANY roughly similar female
> >>>> in ANY recorded history at ANY time in
> >>>> ANY culture?
>
> No answer -- there can be none.
I did answer your question, but you chose to dishonestly snip it.
It isn't something that I ever paid special attention to in my
previous reading, I don't know of any studies regarding the issue, and
I don't claim to have read every piece of literature since the dawn of
time. Unlike you, I don't claim to KNOW that no such plea has ever
been addressed to a daughter in any and every piece of literature
ever written. In order to answer your question, one would have to
spend more time that you or I have.
What is truly laughable is that you have utterly failed to address the
issue that drove these posts -- that is, your newest claim that
Elizabeth may in fact have employed court fools but she didn't take
any pleasure in them, actually disliked them, and none of them ever
had a personal relationship with her. You have spent a considerable
bit of time and effort addressing everything except this particular
issue.
Are you, at last, willing to admit that your argument as to the
similarities between Elizabeth and Olivia should not include their
employment of fools or their relationship to court fools? Are you
willing to strike that from your list as unproven.
If not, it is incumbent upon you to provide some evidence to support
your claims.
You have yet to cite anything whatsoever to support your claims in
this matter (other than vague references to unidentified "recorded
exchanges", none of which you can even produce), and yet you continue
to pontificate and bluster your way through this discussion.
As an example, you have stated that there are RECORDS which reveal
that Queen Elizabeth did not take pleasure in fools -- that she
disliked them, in fact. When asked to provide citations to the
records that you claim exist, you skate away and fail to name a single
one or to even provide any excerpts from them. Until you can identify
these records and produce some of them, you are shown to be a liar and
a bad one at that.
> > What recorded exchanges are you citing here?
> > Please identify the specific "recorded
> > exchanges" to which you are alluding here.
> The are mentioned in various books, such
> as Southworth. I am not going to copy
> them in.
Nice dodge. If you won't (or can't) copy them in, then identify what
records you are referring to, where they are located, who produced
them, etc. (as I have done), and I'll try to locate them on my own.
This is so obviously an invention on your part that you are making
yourself look ridiculous.
I should be receiving my copy of Southworth's book by next Tuesday at
the latest.
Dom
Paul Crowley
[..]
>> The Stratman OTOH could hardly have
>> ever seen Tarleton. His twins were
>> born in 1585, and (taking the crazy
>> Stratfordian assumption that he went
>> to London) he hardly got there in
>> time.
>
> Right...two to three years would hardly have
> been enough time, and there is no way that
> the Startfordian William Shakespeare could
> have possibly been in London prior to the
> conception of his twins.
We have no reason to think that he
would have been in London. The birth
of his twins is the only record we have
of him during the ten years and more
after 1581. It would be reasonable to
assume that he spent at least five years
at home providing for his wife and small
children -- assuming that we had some
good reason to believe that he actually
left Stratford.
> And wasn't Oxenforde given a military command in
> the Netherlands in 1585?
No. What relevance would it have anyway?
>> Peter Thomson in his DNB account of
>> Tarleton suggests that he was could
>> have been the model for Falstaff, and
>> this has been argued extensively
>> elsewhere. His will was apparently
>> written in the house of Emma Ball, a
>> Shoreditch prostitute.
>
> So what?
If you had any familiarity with the canon
you would not need to ask:
KING HENRY V
ACT II, SCENE III London. Before a tavern.
[Enter PISTOL, Hostess, NYM, BARDOLPH, and Boy]
Hostess Prithee, honey-sweet husband, let me bring thee to Staines.
PISTOL No; for my manly heart doth yearn.
Bardolph, be blithe: Nym, rouse thy vaunting veins:
Boy, bristle thy courage up; for Falstaff he is dead,
And we must yearn therefore.
BARDOLPH Would I were with him, wheresome'er he is, either in
heaven or in hell!
Hostess Nay, sure, he's not in hell: he's in Arthur's
bosom, if ever man went to Arthur's bosom. A' made
a finer end and went away an it had been any
christom child; a' parted even just between twelve
and one, even at the turning o' the tide: for after
I saw him fumble with the sheets and play with
flowers and smile upon his fingers' ends, I knew
there was but one way; for his nose was as sharp as
a pen, and a' babbled of green fields. 'How now,
sir John!' quoth I 'what, man! be o' good
cheer.' So a' cried out 'God, God, God!' three or
four times. Now I, to comfort him, bid him a'
should not think of God; I hoped there was no need
to trouble himself with any such thoughts yet. So
a' bade me lay more clothes on his feet: I put my
hand into the bed and felt them, and they were as
cold as any stone; then I felt to his knees, and
they were as cold as any stone, and so upward and
upward, and all was as cold as any stone.
NYM They say he cried out of sack.
Hostess Ay, that a' did.
>>>> No such pleas are addressed to daughters
>>>> (not in Jane Austen nor in any other
>>>> literature of her times or before).
>>>
>>> This is laughable. I don't believe you.
>>
>> So where are the numerous counter-
>> examples from your extensive knowledge
>> of history and literature?
>
> This is still laughable. I haven't read every piece
> of literature ever written and so I will not state
> categorically that no such pleas are addressed to
> any women in any works of literature ever written.
It is a very simple claim and, if false,
very easily disproved. It is not so
much the fact that you can't disprove
it that marks your total lack of all
historical understanding, as that the
proposition (in any form) has never
occurred to you. You actually believe
that women generally could decide
whom (and whether or not) they
could marry! How ignorant is it
possible to get? It's as though you
assumed that people always had cars
and TV, and could always get all they
wanted from the local superstore.
> You, on the other hand, who have obviously read
> little literature, feel justified in stating
> categorically that no other examples exist. This is
> typical of your faulty methods.
The difference is that I have some
historical sensibility -- and you have
none.
> What is truly laughable is that you have utterly
> failed to address the issue that drove these posts
> -- that is, your newest claim that Elizabeth may in
> fact have employed court fools but she didn't take
> any pleasure in them
The relevant issues here are:
(a) Is the Lady Olivia a representation
of Queen Elizabeth?
(b) Is Viola one of Walter Raleigh?
(c) Are Malvolio, Aguecheek, Sir Toby
Belch, representations of Christopher
Hatton, Philip Sidney and Lord Hunsdon?
Your pathetic attempts try to focus on
some tiny detail is simply to distract
from these basic claims. They are either
substantially true, or ridiculously false.
The play is either about Elizabeth's court
in the late 1570s, OR it has no more to
do with that court than it does with those
of President Obama or the Emperor
Augustus.
If the latter were true, then it would
be trivially simple for you (or for any
Strat or quasi-Strat) to demonstrate it.
But you (and they) never begin to
attempt any such thing.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
for you or someone else to demonstrate it. Why hasn't anyone
yet even attempted to do it?
--Bob
TomFoster
> Your pathetic attempts try to focus on
> some tiny detail is simply to distract
> from these basic claims.
>
> Paul.
Well done guys. This is as close as you or anyone will ever get to
forcing Crowley to admit he's wrong about something. This is a major
victory. Savour it.
Tom
Dominic Hughes
> Dominic Hughes wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> The Stratman OTOH could hardly have
> >> ever seen Tarleton. His twins were
> >> born in 1585, and (taking the crazy
> >> Stratfordian assumption that he went
> >> to London) he hardly got there in
> >> time.
>
> > Right...two to three years would hardly have
> > been enough time, and there is no way that
> > the Startfordian William Shakespeare could
> > have possibly been in London prior to the
> > conception of his twins.
>
> We have no reason to think that he
> would have been in London.
And no reason to think he wasn't in London.
>The birth
> of his twins is the only record we have
> of him during the ten years and more
> after 1581. It would be reasonable to
> assume that he spent at least five years
> at home providing for his wife and small
> children -- assuming that we had some
> good reason to believe that he actually
> left Stratford.
Your "reasonable assumptions" mean absolutely nothing in the face of
overwhelming eviden e that he ended up in London. I have to laugh
when you use the ryal "we"/
> > And wasn't Oxenforde given a military command in
> > the Netherlands in 1585?
>
> No. What relevance would it have anyway?
Reasonable assumptions might have him out of London.
So what.
> >>>> No such pleas are addressed to daughters
> >>>> (not in Jane Austen nor in any other
> >>>> literature of her times or before).
>
> >>> This is laughable. I don't believe you.
>
> >> So where are the numerous counter-
> >> examples from your extensive knowledge
> >> of history and literature?
>
> > This is still laughable. I haven't read every piece
> > of literature ever written and so I will not state
> > categorically that no such pleas are addressed to
> > any women in any works of literature ever written.
>
> It is a very simple claim and, if false,
> very easily disproved.
No, you idiot, it isn't that simple. For you to say that no such
pleas have ever appeaered in any other literary work you would have to
have read or studied every other literary work ever written. Instead,
you are content to pull conclusions out of your arse.
> It is not so
> much the fact that you can't disprove
> it that marks your total lack of all
> historical understanding,
How does historical understanding have anything to do with the sum of
all literature ever written. Is every piece of literature ever
written a roman a clef?
>as that the
> proposition (in any form) has never
> occurred to you. You actually believe
> that women generally could decide
> whom (and whether or not) they
> could marry!
No, actually, I don't believe that and I have no idea why you would
say such a thing, excepr for the fact that, in your arrogant
ignorance, you have demonstrated a habit of constructing strawmen to
argue with (and you usually lose even then).
> How ignorant is it
> possible to get?
You provide the answer to your own question.
>It's as though you
> assumed that people always had cars
> and TV, and could always get all they
> wanted from the local superstore.
What an ignoramus you are...what specific thing have I ever said that
supports such an idiotic assertion?
> > You, on the other hand, who have obviously read
> > little literature, feel justified in stating
> > categorically that no other examples exist. This is
> > typical of your faulty methods.
>
> The difference is that I have some
> historical sensibility -- and you have
> none.
Another strawman...and you lose again. If by "historic sensibility"
you mean an understanding of the difference between various ages and
cultures, I'm way ahead of you. In fact, ironically enough, you have
demonstrated on numerous occasions a propensity for using modern
sensibilities to suggest what Elizabethans would or would not have
done (the discussion of literate and illiterate families comes to mind
as an example of your penchant for engaging in such idiotic
practices).
> > What is truly laughable is that you have utterly
> > failed to address the issue that drove these posts
> > -- that is, your newest claim that Elizabeth may in
> > fact have employed court fools but she didn't take
> > any pleasure in them
>
> The relevant issues here are:
> (a) Is the Lady Olivia a representation
> of Queen Elizabeth?
You have yet to show that to be true.
> (b) Is Viola one of Walter Raleigh?
No, and your pathetic attempt to show so is laughably insipid.
> (c) Are Malvolio, Aguecheek, Sir Toby
> Belch, representations of Christopher
> Hatton, Philip Sidney and Lord Hunsdon?
Maybe. But you have provided no evidence to conclude that they are.
Nice dodge, by the way. We were discussing your assertion as to court
fools and how Olivia and Queen Elizabeth shared a precise practice and
attitude to the employment of such fools. Thanks for conclusively
demonstrating that you pulled that claim out of your arse, with no
absolutely evidence whatsoever to support it.
> Your pathetic attempts try to focus on
> some tiny detail is simply to distract
> from these basic claims.
It is your detail and you were the one who made the claim. Your
inability to defend your claim is what is pathetic. I'm looking
forward to getting Southworth's book. It should shed more light on
your claims in this thread and whther or not you have been honest
about them.
> They are either
> substantially true, or ridiculously false.
And, since you are making the claims, based on various details, it is
up to you to produce evidence tending to prove that they are
substantially true. Unfortunately, you are too inarticulate, or too
ill-equipped to do so -- either that, or you simply can't locate any
evidence to substantiate the claims you pyull from your arse.
It is hilarious how you have snipped all of the arguments that you are
simply (and I mean that word to also imply that you are simple) unable
to handle.
> The play is either about Elizabeth's court
> in the late 1570s, OR it has no more to
> do with that court than it does with those
> of President Obama or the Emperor
> Augustus.
Or it is a work of the imagination based on a previous work. Your
belief that all characters and events in all literary works must be
based or modelled on real people and real events is simply insane.
> If the latter were true, then it would
> be trivially simple for you (or for any
> Strat or quasi-Strat) to demonstrate it.
> But you (and they) never begin to
> attempt any such thing.
Because that would be an exercise in stupidity. Why would anyone sane
attempt to show that a play written around 1600 was about Obama (which
would involve an ability on the auhtor's part to see the future) or
Augustus (which would involve an ability on the author's part to
either channel the voices of the dead or do some serious historical
research)? All we have to do is show that your interpretation is
incorrect, or that you have not proven it to be true. That is done at
HLAs every day.
Dom
Paul Crowley
>> The birth
>> of his twins is the only record we have
>> of him during the ten years and more
>> after 1581. It would be reasonable to
>> assume that he spent at least five years
>> at home providing for his wife and small
>> children -- assuming that we had some
>> good reason to believe that he actually
>> left Stratford.
>
> Your "reasonable assumptions" mean absolutely
> nothing in the face of overwhelming eviden e that he
> ended up in London. I have to laugh when you use
> the ryal "we"/
There is no evidence that he did more
than occasionally visit London. Of
course, someone else used a pseudonym
similar to his name. Before the name
became too famous, others used it to
dodge taxes and the likes.
If you had any intelligence you would
see the close similarity between the
reported life and death of Tarleton
and the fictional life and death of
Falstaff.
>>>>>> No such pleas are addressed to daughters
>>>>>> (not in Jane Austen nor in any other
>>>>>> literature of her times or before).
>>>>> This is laughable. I don't believe you.
>>>> So where are the numerous counter-
>>>> examples from your extensive knowledge
>>>> of history and literature?
>>> This is still laughable. I haven't read every piece
>>> of literature ever written and so I will not state
>>> categorically that no such pleas are addressed to
>>> any women in any works of literature ever written.
>> It is a very simple claim and, if false,
>> very easily disproved.
>
> No, you idiot, it isn't that simple. For you to say
> that no such pleas have ever appeaered in any other
> literary work you would have to have read or studied
> every other literary work ever written.
You would only have to read a few
literary works to find accounts of a
human situation that you claim was
not uncommon. Agreed: you have
probably not even read a few.
[..]
>> as that the
>> proposition (in any form) has never
>> occurred to you. You actually believe
>> that women generally could decide
>> whom (and whether or not) they
>> could marry!
>
> No, actually, I don't believe that and I have no
> idea why you would say such a thing, excepr for the
> fact that, in your arrogant ignorance, you have
> demonstrated a habit of constructing strawmen to
> argue with (and you usually lose even then).
OK -- you don't actually believe anything.
You just say whatever happens to sound
good to hollow head at the moment. You
don't know whether or not there were -- in
literature or history -- any other instances
of a woman being asked to procreate (to
preserve her beauty or otherwise). Nor do
you know how common or uncommon
such a request was.
>> The relevant issues here are:
>> (a) Is the Lady Olivia a representation
>> of Queen Elizabeth?
>
> You have yet to show that to be true.
What evidence would you accept? Are these
facts connected? (a) Elizabeth is the only
known female in history (before ~1900) to
whom such a request was made (and very
frequently made), and (b) Olivia is the only
known female in literature to whom such a
request is made.
>> (b) Is Viola one of Walter Raleigh?
>
> No, and your pathetic attempt to show so is
> laughably insipid.
The suggestion that a woman in a
play represents a well-known man is,
in principle, near crazy. To call it
'insipid' shows that you have no idea
what is going on.
[..]
>> They are either
>> substantially true, or ridiculously false.
>
> And, since you are making the claims, based on
> various details, it is up to you to produce evidence
> tending to prove that they are substantially true.
The evidence is overwhelming. We have,
for example, the facts that (a) Elizabeth
is the only known female in history (before
~1900) to whom such a request was made
(and very frequently made), and (b) Olivia
is the only known female in literature to
whom such a request is made.
Similar parallels can be made about all
the other characters in the play, and
in real life.
> Unfortunately, you are too inarticulate, or too ill-
> equipped to do so -- either that, or you simply
> can't locate any evidence to substantiate the claims
> you pyull from your arse.
For any serious debate it is necessary
for both sides to engage their minds.
Of course, on issues involving a paradigm
shift this does not happen, and cannot
happen. One generation just dies with
minds unchanged, and a new one grows up
utterly mystified why anyone should ever
have believed anything so silly.
Strats cannot engage their minds on this
issue. They know that they should be
able to point out the lunacy of my theories.
But they just can't do it. Not an insuperable
problem of course; some kind of (exceedingly
vague) rationalisation can always be made.
If not, the whole matter can simply be
dismissed from the mind.
>> The play is either about Elizabeth's court
>> in the late 1570s, OR it has no more to
>> do with that court than it does with those
>> of President Obama or the Emperor
>> Augustus.
>
> Or it is a work of the imagination based on a
> previous work.
Try to focus. Your 'alternative' is
not on the same plane.
>> If the latter were true, then it would
>> be trivially simple for you (or for any
>> Strat or quasi-Strat) to demonstrate it.
>> But you (and they) never begin to
>> attempt any such thing.
>
> Because that would be an exercise in stupidity. Why
> would anyone sane attempt to show that a play
> written around 1600 was about Obama (which would
> involve an ability on the auhtor's part to see the
> future
In the context, not much of a problem.
> or Augustus (which would involve an ability
> on the author's part to either channel the voices of
> the dead or do some serious historical research)?
There are (and were) plenty of details on
the court of Augustus. Never heard of the
'Augustan Age' and its great poets and
writers?
> All we have to do is show that your interpretation
> is incorrect,
Nope. You should be able to show that
it has no relationship whatsoever to the
reading of the play or to the facts of
history. That is your claim. Your
inability (and that of Strats generally)
could hardly be more conspicuous.
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
> Dominic Hughes wrote:
> >> The birth
> >> of his twins is the only record we have
> >> of him during the ten years and more
> >> after 1581. It would be reasonable to
> >> assume that he spent at least five years
> >> at home providing for his wife and small
> >> children -- assuming that we had some
> >> good reason to believe that he actually
> >> left Stratford.
>
> > Your "reasonable assumptions" mean absolutely
> > nothing in the face of overwhelming eviden e that he
> > ended up in London. I have to laugh when you use
> > the ryal "we"/
>
> There is no evidence that he did more
> than occasionally visit London.
This is false. There is plenty of evidence that he lived and worked
in London, You say that such evidence is forged by a conspiracy, but
you are unable to show any evidence to support that assertion.
>Of
> course, someone else used a pseudonym
> similar to his name.
Of course, this is merely an assumption on your part. It is not a
fact. You are so lacking in ability to think logically that you
seriously believe that it is a proven fact, but that just isn't so.
> Before the name
> became too famous, others used it to
> dodge taxes and the likes.
Right. More assumptions pulled from out of the ether.
I am familiar with the passage from the play, and I can see a
similarity between Falstaff and tarleton, but, still, so what? This
does nothing to address our discussion of court fools and it does not
tend to prove your assertion that Oxenforde wrote the plays or based
the character of Falstaff on Tarleton. These are simply more
assertions on your part, devoid of any evidentiary basis.
> >>>>>> No such pleas are addressed to daughters
> >>>>>> (not in Jane Austen nor in any other
> >>>>>> literature of her times or before).
> >>>>> This is laughable. I don't believe you.
> >>>> So where are the numerous counter-
> >>>> examples from your extensive knowledge
> >>>> of history and literature?
> >>> This is still laughable. I haven't read every piece
> >>> of literature ever written and so I will not state
> >>> categorically that no such pleas are addressed to
> >>> any women in any works of literature ever written.
> >> It is a very simple claim and, if false,
> >> very easily disproved.
>
> > No, you idiot, it isn't that simple. For you to say
> > that no such pleas have ever appeaered in any other
> > literary work you would have to have read or studied
> > every other literary work ever written.
>
> You would only have to read a few
> literary works to find accounts of a
> human situation that you claim was
> not uncommon. Agreed: you have
> probably not even read a few.
I'm sure I've read a lot more than you ever have, and with more
understanding of them. Your claim is still ridiculous.
> >> as that the
> >> proposition (in any form) has never
> >> occurred to you. You actually believe
> >> that women generally could decide
> >> whom (and whether or not) they
> >> could marry!
>
> > No, actually, I don't believe that and I have no
> > idea why you would say such a thing, excepr for the
> > fact that, in your arrogant ignorance, you have
> > demonstrated a habit of constructing strawmen to
> > argue with (and you usually lose even then).
>
> OK -- you don't actually believe anything.
I believe in a lot of things.
I believe that you are pathetically incabable of putting together a
logical and coherent argument in support of your conclusions,
generally conclusions which are pulled out of the air (such as your
claim that Elizabeth employed no fools, your subsequent claim that,
well, she may have employed some fools, but she didn't enjoy them,
your follow-up claim that Elizabeth employed fools but she didn't HAVE
fools, etc.). I believe that you have no notion as to what qualifies
as a fact. I believe that you dodge and skate away from any
discussion in which your unsupported conclusions are shown to be
incorrect. I beleive a lot of things.
> You just say whatever happens to sound
> good to hollow head at the moment.
This is serious projection on your part. You simply make up whatever
conclusions you think will tend to support your zero-evidence
conclusions, and your assertions don't emanate from your hollow
head...you pull them directly out of your arse. If I read
Southworth's book and there are none of the "recorded exchanges" that
you allege are in there, what will you say then? Will you finally
admit that you simply lie to suit your needs?
>You
> don't know whether or not there were -- in
> literature or history -- any other instances
> of a woman being asked to procreate (to
> preserve her beauty or otherwise). Nor do
> you know how common or uncommon
> such a request was.
All of which I've acknowledged in pointing out that you calim to know
whether or not there were any other instances in all of recorded
literature.
> >> The relevant issues here are:
> >> (a) Is the Lady Olivia a representation
> >> of Queen Elizabeth?
>
> > You have yet to show that to be true.
>
> What evidence would you accept? Are these
> facts connected? (a) Elizabeth is the only
> known female in history (before ~1900) to
> whom such a request was made (and very
> frequently made), and (b) Olivia is the only
> known female in literature to whom such a
> request is made.
Even if I accepted your assertion that "Olivia is the only known
female" in recorded literature who was requested to get married and
pass along her beauty (which I don't), that one throw-away line in an
entire play does not mean Olivia is modelled on Queen Elizabeth and
the requests made to her to get married and give birth to an heir (in
order to address the succession issue).
> >> (b) Is Viola one of Walter Raleigh?
>
> > No, and your pathetic attempt to show so is
> > laughably insipid.
>
> The suggestion that a woman in a
> play represents a well-known man is,
> in principle, near crazy. To call it
> 'insipid' shows that you have no idea
> what is going on.
Why are you so inarticulate that you are unable to say why you claim
that I have no idea what is going on. I know full well what is going
on. You are jumping to your usual conclusions as a result of engaging
in circular reasoning. You are crazy and insipid.
>
> >> They are either
> >> substantially true, or ridiculously false.
>
> > And, since you are making the claims, based on
> > various details, it is up to you to produce evidence
> > tending to prove that they are substantially true.
>
> The evidence is overwhelming. We have,
> for example, the facts that (a) Elizabeth
> is the only known female in history (before
> ~1900) to whom such a request was made
> (and very frequently made), and (b) Olivia
> is the only known female in literature to
> whom such a request is made.
One throwaway line in an entire play is your overwhelming evidence.
You have just proved my belief that you have no clue as to how to go
about making a logical and coherent argument to support your
assertions/
> Similar parallels can be made about all
> the other characters in the play, and
> in real life.
And yet you never make them -- or, when you do, they are shown to be
as ridiculously unfounded as your claims about court fools and how
Olivia and Elizabeth treated them exactly the same.
> > Unfortunately, you are too inarticulate, or too ill-
> > equipped to do so -- either that, or you simply
> > can't locate any evidence to substantiate the claims
> > you pyull from your arse.
>
> For any serious debate it is necessary
> for both sides to engage their minds.
Yes. It is far better for both parties to engage their minds.
However, you are at a disadvantage in any battle of wits because you
are only half-armed -- which makes you a halfwit.
> Of course, on issues involving a paradigm
> shift this does not happen, and cannot
> happen. One generation just dies with
> minds unchanged, and a new one grows up
> utterly mystified why anyone should ever
> have believed anything so silly.
When do you think your new paradigm will be accepted?
> Strats cannot engage their minds on this
> issue. They know that they should be
> able to point out the lunacy of my theories.
> But they just can't do it.
We do it all the time. The problem is that you are so insane, and so
arrogant, that you can not even admit that your crazy notions have
even been chgallenged. You and I have just spent a considerable amout
of time debating your claims as to Elizabeth's court fools and the
relationship of those real people to the characters in Twelfth Night.
The only evidence that has been provided so far shows that your claims
are not correct. You will not acknowledge that fact...you have simply
run away from the argument altogether. Months from now, if the
subject of Twelfth Night comes up, you will claim that Olivia's
relationship to court fools exactly duplicates Elizabeth's
relationship to court fools. It is a pattern of behavior in which you
consistently engage -- the fact that you don't recognize this about
yourself is just one indication that you are not rational.
>Not an insuperable
> problem of course; some kind of (exceedingly
> vague) rationalisation can always be made.
That is your method exactly. Vague generalities such as "Fake!
Forgery! Joke! Invention! Conspiracy", etc.
> If not, the whole matter can simply be
> dismissed from the mind.
More projection. What is your final position on Elizabeth, court
fools, and Olivia?
> >> The play is either about Elizabeth's court
> >> in the late 1570s, OR it has no more to
> >> do with that court than it does with those
> >> of President Obama or the Emperor
> >> Augustus.
>
> > Or it is a work of the imagination based on a
> > previous work.
>
> Try to focus. Your 'alternative' is
> not on the same plane.
What in the world is that supposed to mean? Are you joining Michael
Martin in claiming to speak from a "higher" plane? Is that your meds
speaking?
> >> If the latter were true, then it would
> >> be trivially simple for you (or for any
> >> Strat or quasi-Strat) to demonstrate it.
> >> But you (and they) never begin to
> >> attempt any such thing.
>
> > Because that would be an exercise in stupidity. Why
> > would anyone sane attempt to show that a play
> > written around 1600 was about Obama (which would
> > involve an ability on the auhtor's part to see the
> > future
>
> In the context, not much of a problem.
So you believe that an author in 1600 could reasonably foresee and
write about a black man being elected President of the US in 2008.
You are crazy.
> > or Augustus (which would involve an ability
> > on the author's part to either channel the voices of
> > the dead or do some serious historical research)?
>
> There are (and were) plenty of details on
> the court of Augustus. Never heard of the
> 'Augustan Age' and its great poets and
> writers?
More strawmen. As I said, an author in 1600 could have written a play
on Augustus by researching the known literature on the subject -- just
as a playwright could base a play on a previous piece of literature.
Thanks for proving my point.
> > All we have to do is show that your interpretation
> > is incorrect,
>
> Nope. You should be able to show that
> it has no relationship whatsoever to the
> reading of the play or to the facts of
> history. That is your claim. Your
> inability (and that of Strats generally)
> could hardly be more conspicuous.
In order for us to fully address your conclusions it would be
necessary for you to set them forth and to provide the evidence that
you claim supports them, somehting that you never do (since you have
no comprehension as to what qualifies as evidence or fact). That
being said, your interpretations are constantly subjected to
demolition here at HLAS -- something that, in your delusional state,
you are unable to even admit. The only things conspicuous here are
that you are not rational and that your theory is accepted by noone
but you.
Dom
Paul Crowley
>> There is no evidence that he did more
>> than occasionally visit London.
>
> This is false. There is plenty of evidence
> that he lived and worked in London, You say
> that such evidence is forged by a conspiracy,
I can't think of any evidence (indicating
that the Stratman was in London) that was
forged by a conspiracy. The use of the
poet's name for tax registration was done
by individuals for their own purposes (they
might have known or suspected that it was
not real one).
> I am familiar with the passage from the play, and
> I can see a similarity between Falstaff and
> tarleton, but, still, so what?
So the Stratman arrives in London after
Tarleton's death -- AND writes several
plays with him as a central character,
never having met the man?
> This does nothing to address our discussion of
> court fools and it does not tend to prove your
> assertion that Oxenforde wrote the plays or based
> the character of Falstaff on Tarleton. These are
> simply more assertions on your part, devoid of
> any evidentiary basis.
You have no idea what evidence is.
You are even prepared to disregard all
the evidence for the Stratman's illiteracy
(that of his parents, his wife, his siblings
and his daughters, and of his own 'signature').
[..]
>>>> The relevant issues here are:
>>>> (a) Is the Lady Olivia a representation
>>>> of Queen Elizabeth?
>>>
>>> You have yet to show that to be true.
>>
>> What evidence would you accept?
No answer.
>> Are these
>> facts connected? (a) Elizabeth is the only
>> known female in history (before ~1900) to
>> whom such a request was made (and very
>> frequently made), and (b) Olivia is the only
>> known female in literature to whom such a
>> request is made.
>
> Even if I accepted your assertion that "Olivia is
> the only known female" in recorded literature who
> was requested to get married and pass along her
> beauty (which I don't)
And which astonishingly you can't deny.
Even so, you must accept that any such
female must have been extremely rare,
and the matching with Elizabeth an
extraordinary coincidence. But a
Strat, incapable of assessing evidence,
will always prefer 'an extraordinary
coincidences' to an uncomfortable
reality.
The pleas made to Elizabeth throughout
the first half of her reign were
unprecedented. Not one of those who
pleaded with her (to marry and have an
heir) could think of the least precedent in
history or in literature on which he could
call. There is nothing like this in the Bible,
nor in Greek mythology, nor anywhere.
If there had been, there would have been
no end of the references to it.
Likewise, there have been none since
Elizabeth. If there had been the case(s)
would be easy to recall.
> that one throw-away line in an entire play
It does not matter whether it's one line
or a hundred. It is present. The plea
was made.
> does not mean Olivia is modelled on Queen
> Elizabeth and the requests made to her to get
> married and give birth to an heir (in order to
> address the succession issue).
Yeah, yeah. You really understand evidence.
IF the playwright had been hauled up in
court, and accused of impugning Elizabeth,
what defence could he have used? That
he really meant someone else?
>>>> (b) Is Viola one of Walter Raleigh?
>>>
>>> No, and your pathetic attempt to show so is
>>> laughably insipid.
>>
>> The suggestion that a woman in a
>> play represents a well-known man is,
>> in principle, near crazy. To call it
>> 'insipid' shows that you have no idea
>> what is going on.
>
> Why are you so inarticulate that you are unable
> to say why you claim that I have no idea what is
> going on. I know full well what is going on.
> You are jumping to your usual conclusions as a
> result of engaging in circular reasoning. You
> are crazy and insipid.
The vacuous abuse confirms my point.
Here are two propositions:
(A) The playwright had the Queen and her
court and, above all, Raleigh in mind
when writing Viola's lines (and the
responses to 'her');
(B) He had no thought whatsoever of the
Queen or Raleigh, and drew Viola's
character and wrote her words purely
for entertainment -- as the common, bog-
standard, brain-dead Strat conceives
(think Peter Groves).
Would it be possible for an intelligent
reader to consider the words of the play
and decide which proposition is the more
likely? Let's try it for another case:
Here are two similar propositions:
(A) The writer of "Primary Colors" had
Bill Clinton mind when writing Jack
Stanton's lines;
(B) He had no thought whatsoever of
Clinton.
How would you tell which of these
propositions was true?
Let me help you. You identify striking,
or even unique, characteristics and
circumstances of the real life person
and see if they are replicated in the
apparently fictional work.
Can you think of any that apply to
Elizabeth, Raleigh, et al and Twelfth
Night?
>> Similar parallels can be made about all
>> the other characters in the play, and
>> in real life.
>
> And yet you never make them
I have set them out in some detail.
> -- or, when you do,
You must learn English sometime.
'Never' is not the same as 'sometimes'.
> they are shown to be as ridiculously unfounded as
> your claims about court fools and how Olivia and
> Elizabeth treated them exactly the same.
The parallel here is acutely precise.
[..]
> Months from now, if the subject of Twelfth Night
> comes up, you will claim that Olivia's
> relationship to court fools exactly duplicates
> Elizabeth's relationship to court fools.
As indeed it does. You have not presented
one whit of evidence to the contrary.
>>>> The play is either about Elizabeth's court
>>>> in the late 1570s, OR it has no more to
>>>> do with that court than it does with those
>>>> of President Obama or the Emperor
>>>> Augustus.
>>>
>>> Or it is a work of the imagination based on a
>>> previous work.
>>
>> Try to focus. Your 'alternative' is
>> not on the same plane.
>
> What in the world is that supposed to mean? Are
> you joining Michael Martin in claiming to speak
> from a "higher" plane? Is that your meds
> speaking?
IF the play is what you say it is: "a work
of the imagination based on a previous
work" THEN it has no more to do with
that court than it does with those of
President Obama or the Emperor Augustus.
Your 'alternative' is a nothing -- a
vacuous product of a vacuous mind.
>>> Because that would be an exercise in stupidity. Why
>>> would anyone sane attempt to show that a play
>>> written around 1600 was about Obama (which would
>>> involve an ability on the auhtor's part to see the
>>> future
>>
>> In the context, not much of a problem.
>
> So you believe that an author in 1600 could
> reasonably foresee and write about a black man
> being elected President of the US in 2008. You
> are crazy.
No. According to YOU (and to Strats
generally) the play (12th Night) has no
more to do with the court of Elizabeth,
than it has to do with ANY other court
(it does not matter which you name -- it
could be that of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz,
the Vogon captain in charge of overseeing
the destruction of the Earth).
[..]
> In order for us to fully address your conclusions
> it would be necessary for you to set them forth
> and to provide the evidence that you claim
> supports them, somehting that you never do (since
> you have no comprehension as to what qualifies as
> evidence or fact). That being said, your
> interpretations are constantly subjected to
> demolition here at HLAS
Who here (including you) has set out to
show that Viola could not possibly be a
representation of Raleigh? That _should_
be extremely easy. Or that Olivia could
not possibly be one of Elizabeth?
You have not made the slightest effort.
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
> Dominic Hughes wrote:
> >> There is no evidence that he did more
> >> than occasionally visit London.
>
> > This is false. There is plenty of evidence
> > that he lived and worked in London, You say
> > that such evidence is forged by a conspiracy,
>
> I can't think of any evidence (indicating
> that the Stratman was in London) that was
> forged by a conspiracy.
You are so dense that you can't even remember your own arguments. You
have previously contended that the records of court cases showing that
William Shakespeare was a shareholder in the Globe Theatre (in London)
were the work of the conspirator/jokesters you claim were hiding the
fact that Oxenforde was the true author. Now you say you know of no
such forgeries.
>The use of the
> poet's name for tax registration was done
> by individuals for their own purposes (they
> might have known or suspected that it was
> not real one).
What evidence do you have for your assertion that the use of the
poet's name, William Shakespeare, was used by individuals for their
own purposes...you have none. It is just one more conclusion pulled
out of thin air without the least bit of evidence or factual material
to support it. The tax records, and other documentary records (such
as those described in the Mountjoy suit) are evidence that Shakespeare
was, in fact, living in London.
> > I am familiar with the passage from the play, and
> > I can see a similarity between Falstaff and
> > tarleton, but, still, so what?
>
> So the Stratman arrives in London after
> Tarleton's death -- AND writes several
> plays with him as a central character,
> never having met the man?
Actually, he may very possibly have met Tarleton in Stratford. The
Queen's Men, of which acting company Tarleton was a member, toured
Oxfordshire in 1587, and the tour included a performance in Stratford-
upon-Avon. The Queen's Men were down one member on that visit to
Stratford due to the death of the actor William Knell. These are all
facts. This is speculation but that opening may very well have served
as Shakespeare's entry into the theatre world.
> > This does nothing to address our discussion of
> > court fools and it does not tend to prove your
> > assertion that Oxenforde wrote the plays or based
> > the character of Falstaff on Tarleton. These are
> > simply more assertions on your part, devoid of
> > any evidentiary basis.
>
> You have no idea what evidence is.
Nice dodge. You still have provided no evidence whatsoever for you
claim as to court fools (regarding Elizabeth and Olivia), or for your
claim that Oxenforde wrote the plays or based the character of
Falstaff on Tarleton, or even that Oxenforde ever even saw Tarleton.
Your speculations with regard to Oxenforde's knowledge of Tarleton
["Tarleton died in 1588, and was buried in St. Leonard, Shoreditch.
It is entirely possible that soon after Oxford did encounter a grave-
digger in that churchyard (he lived 2 miles
north, and it was on his way into London). Or he may have heard a
story about such a meeting, giving him the basis for the scene in
Hamlet."] are certainly no better, and are actually worse, than the
possibility that Shakespeare would have seen Tarleton, and possibly
have even become a member of the acting troupe when it performed in
Startford.
> You are even prepared to disregard all
> the evidence for the Stratman's illiteracy
You have never provided evidence that proves he was illiterate. There
is much evidence to the contrary.
> (that of his parents, his wife, his siblings
> and his daughters, and of his own 'signature').
If his parents, wife, and children were illiterate, that is not
evidence that he was illiterate. It would only be evidence that they
were illiterate. Since there is evidence that he was an actor in the
Chamberlain's/King's Men, it is more likely than not that he was
literate. As to the signatures, some experts doubt that they are even
his. They do not prove what you wish they proved.
> [..]
>
> >>>> The relevant issues here are:
> >>>> (a) Is the Lady Olivia a representation
> >>>> of Queen Elizabeth?
>
> >>> You have yet to show that to be true.
>
> >> What evidence would you accept?
>
> No answer.
Here is your answer:
I would accept a well-reasoned argument, something you are
pathetically incapable of producing. Your attempt to show that
Twelfth Night was modelled on Queen Elizabeth's court relies on flimsy
to non-existent parallels, such as your conclusion that Olivia and
Elizabeth treated court fools exactly the same, indicating an "acutely
precise" parallel. It turns out not to have been precise at all, and
it isn't a parallel at all. It is merely a conclusion, purely
conjectural, that you pulled out of thin air even though you had no
evidence to support it, much like the way most of your arguments are
made.
> >> Are thesse
> >> facts connected? (a) Elizabeth is the only
> >> known female in history (before ~1900) to
> >> whom such a request was made (and very
> >> frequently made), and (b) Olivia is the only
> >> known female in literature to whom such a
> >> request is made.
No. As I have attempted to show you (but your inability to think
logically prevents your from grasping), they are not proven facts.
You have not provided any evidence to show that Elizabeth was the only
female who was told she needed to marry and have a child to avoid a
succession crisis (I seem to recall that Mary was pressured to marry
and have an heir); in order to prove this claim, you would have to
provide the identities of all females (let's limit it to nobility) in
history prior to 1900 and show that none of them were told they had to
marry (something that you have acknowledged was done all the time,
women of that time having no choice in the matter). You also have not
demonstrated that Olivia is the only known female in all of literature
who was advised that she should marry and have a child in order to
pass along her beauty. She is the only one you know of, and the only
one I can think of, but that doesn't mean that she IS, in fact, the
only one in literary history to be told such a thing.
> > Even if I accepted your assertion that "Olivia is
> > the only known female" in recorded literature who
> > was requested to get married and pass along her
> > beauty (which I don't)
>
> And which astonishingly you can't deny.
Not very astonishing considering that no human being could possibly
have read all of the literature ever written.
> Even so, you must accept that any such
> female must have been extremely rare,
> and the matching with Elizabeth an
> extraordinary coincidence.
It isn't a match, although you keep claiming it is. Elizabeth was
pressured politically to marry in order to have an heir to avoid a
succession crisis. Olivia is advised that one of the reasons she
should considering marrying is that it would be wrong not to pass on
her beauty. The parallel that you think is there does not, in fact,
exist, and there is no coincidence.
>But a
> Strat, incapable of assessing evidence,
> will always prefer 'an extraordinary
> coincidences' to an uncomfortable
> reality.
There is no evidence here. There is merely your conjecture that there
is an 'extraordinary coincidence' between one throw-away line in
Twelfth Night and the pressure to marry that was applied to
Elizabeth. This shows just how far you are willing to stretch things
in order to find one of your 'extraordianry coincidences'. And, if
you can't stretch things, you will simply invent them, just as you did
with your "acutely precise" parallel regarding court fools, an
'extraordinary coincidence' that turned out to be extraordinary or a
coincidental parallel at all.
> The pleas made to Elizabeth throughout
> the first half of her reign were
> unprecedented.
> Not one of those who
> pleaded with her (to marry and have an
> heir) could think of the least precedent in
> history or in literature on which he could
> call. There is nothing like this in the Bible,
> nor in Greek mythology, nor anywhere.
> If there had been, there would have been
> no end of the references to it.
So what? There is no reference to a succession crisis in Twelfth
Night either.
> Likewise, there have been none since
> Elizabeth. If there had been the case(s)
> would be easy to recall.
There was a recent case in Japan where there was pressure to marry and
produce a male heir, and there was even pressure put on Prince Charles
to find and marry a suitable partner.
> > that one throw-away line in an entire play
>
> It does not matter whether it's one line
> or a hundred. It is present. The plea
> was made.
Yes, it does matter. If it is simply one throw-away line in an entire
play, that has nothing whatsoever to do with succession, it should not
be stretched into a parallel with Queen Elizabeth's situation. If the
author truly meant to address the pressure on Elizabeth to marry and
produce an heir, he surely would have, and could have, seen fit to at
least make more of the argument (without making it explicitly about
succession). The pleas are not at all the same, and one plea cannot
be transformed into general or multiple pleas as you would wish to
have it.
> > does not mean Olivia is modelled on Queen
> > Elizabeth and the requests made to her to get
> > married and give birth to an heir (in order to
> > address the succession issue).
>
> Yeah, yeah. You really understand evidence.
A lot better than you do.
> IF the playwright had been hauled up in
> court, and accused of impugning Elizabeth,
> what defence could he have used? That
> he really meant someone else?
More evidence that he did not intend this line to be a reference to
Elizabeth...he wasn't worried at all about it being seen as impugning
Elizabeth. His defence would have been that it was one line in a play
and was about the beauty of Olivia, and had no parallel whatsoever to
Elizabeth. Is there any record of Elizabeth commenting upon this
supposed parallel? In fact, until the insane Paul Crowley came along,
has anyone else ever interpreted this line to be a reference to the
pressure put on Elizabeth to marry and have an heir?
There you go again. Where did your brain get infected with the notion
that all works of literature must be thinly veiled treatments of
actual events, and not works of the imagination designed to educate or
entertain?
> Would it be possible for an intelligent
> reader to consider the words of the play
> and decide which proposition is the more
> likely? Let's try it for another case:
Why not try it for Twelfth Night? All you ever do is list your
conclusions without providing any evidence in support of those
conclusions, and without producing any analysis to show how you
arrived at that conclusion.
> Here are two similar propositions:
> (A) The writer of "Primary Colors" had
> Bill Clinton mind when writing Jack
> Stanton's lines;
> (B) He had no thought whatsoever of
> Clinton.
> How would you tell which of these
> propositions was true?
>
> Let me help you. You identify striking,
> or even unique, characteristics and
> circumstances of the real life person
> and see if they are replicated in the
> apparently fictional work.
That wouldn't be necessary in the case of Primary Colors, since it was
marketed as being a caricature of Clinton. I don't need your help.
> Can you think of any that apply to
> Elizabeth, Raleigh, et al and Twelfth
> Night?
It is your claim that needs justification. It is up to you to supply
the "striking. or even unique, characteristics and circumstances of
the real life person" (and supply supporting evidence to prove that
those characteristics and circumstances actually existed) and then to
explain and demonstrate how you arrive at the conclusion that they are
replicated in the play. Why are you so inarticulate that you are
unable to do so? You simply make conclusions but you provide no
analysis...just more conclusions. For instance:
1. You offer up the conclusory statement that the one line in the
play about marrying is a direct parallel to the situation in which
Elizabeth was pressured to marry.
2. It is pointed out to you that there is onle one line in the play
and it has nothing to do with the issue of succession.
3. You offer up conclusory statements that one line is sufficient to
demonstrate that it was a general sentiment in the play (ridiculous)
and that the author would have feared making explicit reference to the
succession issue.
> >> Similar parallels can be made about all
> >> the other characters in the play, and
> >> in real life.
>
> > And yet you never make them
>
> I have set them out in some detail.
Yes, I particularly liked the one about court fools. Maybe I'll take
the time to dissect all of your other supposed parallels and
demonstrate how they are either wrong or are similarly fabricated.
fwiw, you don't actually set them out in detail. You simply list
conclusions, and, when challenged on them, you issue other
conclusions. You have an aversion to detail (recall the "mistris Mal'
discussion).
> > -- or, when you do,
> > they are shown to be as ridiculously unfounded as
> > your claims about court fools and how Olivia and
> > Elizabeth treated them exactly the same.
>
> The parallel here is acutely precise.
That is pretty funny, considering the fact that you have altered and
revised your "acutely precise" parallel over the last week.
When are you going to provide any evidence whatsoever to prove the
conclusion about court fools? Thanks for proving my point about your
method. You simply repeat your conclusion, failing to even
acknowledge that you have produced no evidence at all in support of
your conclusion. I can't wait to read the "recorded exchanges" in
Southworth's book that you allege support your claim. I'm hoping the
book arrives tomorrow.
> > Months from now, if the subject of Twelfth Night
> > comes up, you will claim that Olivia's
> > relationship to court fools exactly duplicates
> > Elizabeth's relationship to court fools.
>
> As indeed it does. You have not presented
> one whit of evidence to the contrary.
>
Now this is where you are simply delusional and where you demonstrate
that you don't know what constitutes evidence. I have produced long
passages from various authors showing that, not only did Elizabeth
employ fools (which you first claimed was not true), but that she had
personal relationships with some of her fools. You, on the other
hand, have produced no evidence whatsoever for your claims (other than
vague references to some "recorded exchanges" set forth in
Southworth's book) that Elizabeth did employ fools but she disliked
them, merely put up with them because it was tradition, and certainly
never had any relationship with them.
Here's your opportunity to prove the "acutely precise" parallel. List
your evidence for Elizabeth and for Olivian and provide an analysis
which demonstrates the precision of the parallel. Let's see the
"recorded exchanges" from Southworth's book. Or will you dodge the
question?
> >>>> The play is either about Elizabeth's court
> >>>> in the late 1570s, OR it has no more to
> >>>> do with that court than it does with those
> >>>> of President Obama or the Emperor
> >>>> Augustus.
>
> >>> Or it is a work of the imagination based on a
> >>> previous work.
>
> >> Try to focus. Your 'alternative' is
> >> not on the same plane.
>
> > What in the world is that supposed to mean? Are
> > you joining Michael Martin in claiming to speak
> > from a "higher" plane? Is that your meds
> > speaking?
>
> IF the play is what you say it is: "a work
> of the imagination based on a previous
> work" THEN it has no more to do with
> that court than it does with those of
> President Obama or the Emperor Augustus.
Correct. Not all literature has to do with real people and real
events. Don't you know that? I thought everyone understood that
aspect of literature? For instance, 'The Story of Edgar Sawtelle' is
a recently published novel which somewhat loosely uses the plot of
Hamlet as a starting point for its plot. The characters are highly
original and the book is exceptionally well-written, but it is not
modelled on any particular characters or circumstances. It is an
excellent example of a work of literature that you would describe as
fitting "my alternative". It is a brilliant novel -- it is not
vacuous, nor is it the product of a vacuous mind.
I'm beginning to believe you have a vacuum where your mind should be.
> Your 'alternative' is a nothing -- a
> vacuous product of a vacuous mind.
What an idiotic statement. A brilliant work of a brilliant
imagination is somehow inferior to a mere roman a clef? In what
way? Why are you so inarticulate that you are unable to explain why
you claim that to be true? Do you think that 'Primary Colors'
qualifies as great literature?
> >>> Because that would be an exercise in stupidity. Why
> >>> would anyone sane attempt to show that a play
> >>> written around 1600 was about Obama (which would
> >>> involve an ability on the auhtor's part to see the
> >>> future
>
> >> In the context, not much of a problem.
>
> > So you believe that an author in 1600 could
> > reasonably foresee and write about a black man
> > being elected President of the US in 2008. You
> > are crazy.
>
> No. According to YOU (and to Strats
> generally) the play (12th Night) has no
> more to do with the court of Elizabeth,
> than it has to do with ANY other court
> (it does not matter which you name -- it
> could be that of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz,
> the Vogon captain in charge of overseeing
> the destruction of the Earth).
Correct...and you have failed, miserably, to show that Twelfth Night
has anything to do with Elizabeth's court.
> > In order for us to fully address your conclusions
> > it would be necessary for you to set them forth
> > and to provide the evidence that you claim
> > supports them, somehting that you never do (since
> > you have no comprehension as to what qualifies as
> > evidence or fact). That being said, your
> > interpretations are constantly subjected to
> > demolition here at HLAS
>
> Who here (including you) has set out to
> show that Viola could not possibly be a
> representation of Raleigh? That _should_
> be extremely easy. Or that Olivia could
> not possibly be one of Elizabeth?
I chose to address the issue of court clowns, and I (and others here
at HLAS) showed that your conclusion on that question was incorrect.
In fact, we did more than that. We demonstrated that you merely
invented that supposed parallel and had no evidence to support it. It
was a fine example of how you make things up, and then have to attempt
to move the goalposts or simply dodge the questions altogether. If I
can find the time, I'll be more than happy to address your assertion
that Viola is modelled on Raleigh. In order to facilitate that, would
you mind setting out in your reply all of the factors and evidence, in
detail (from Raleigh's life and from within the play), that you claim
supports that conclusion, so that I can make my argument as thorough
as possible.
> You have not made the slightest effort.
Hilarious. Your argument about the "acute precision" of the court
fool parallel has been shot down in flames. Only you would be so
arrogant to have decided not to bail out on that one. I've spent more
time and effort on that issue than the subject deserves, but I'll be
more than happy to address any of your other points so long as you'll
take the time and effort to set out your analysis and your evidence.
Arguing against mere conclusions is not profitable for anyone.
Dom
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> So the Stratman arrives in London after
> Tarleton's death -- AND writes several
> plays with him as a central character,
> never having met the man?
You never met the man, either, so how do you know
he resembled Falstaff?
> You have no idea what evidence is.
Sure, he does: it's that and only that fact or
speculation that the Master, Paul Crowley, accepts
as evidence. But, like all "Strats," he's a weasel
and pretends it is what is in the primary records
that can reasonably be shown to indicate what
he believes it what happened, particularly if
most others concerned with the question
agree with him and only one person does not.
> You are even prepared to disregard all
> the evidence for the Stratman's illiteracy
> (that of his parents, his wife, his siblings
one of whom was a actor, and another of whom
left a signature
> and his daughters,
one of whom married a doctor and left a signature
and was accounted in a primary source as wise.
> and of his own 'signature').
You have what you call evidence of his illiteracy
but refuse to accept that there is evidence of
his literacy which reasonable people consider
stronger than your evidence, for instance--a primary
source that speaks of "all he hath writ," evidence
that he worked as a actor, a vocation generally
requiring literacy; and his signature which some
people who claim he was illiterate say were
written by scribes, and which the huge majority
of sane observers take as evidence of literacy.
> >>>> The relevant issues here are:
> >>>> (a) Is the Lady Olivia a representation
> >>>> of Queen Elizabeth?
>
> >>> You have yet to show that to be true.
>
> >> What evidence would you accept?
> No answer.
I'll give you one: an extermal primary source that
says someone of the time thought Oivia a
representative of Elizabeth.
> >> Are these
> >> facts connected? (a) Elizabeth is the only
> >> known female in history (before ~1900) to
> >> whom such a request was made (and very
> >> frequently made), and (b) Olivia is the only
> >> known female in literature to whom such a
> >> request is made.
>
> > Even if I accepted your assertion that "Olivia is
> > the only known female" in recorded literature who
> > was requested to get married and pass along her
> > beauty (which I don't)
>
> And which astonishingly you can't deny.
Yes, that anyone would not have read everything in
recordced literature and REMEMBERED it is
astonishing--but you have to take into account
that not everyone is a supergenius like you.
> Even so, you must accept that any such
> female must have been extremely rare,
> and the matching with Elizabeth an
> extraordinary coincidence. But a
> Strat, incapable of assessing evidence,
> will always prefer 'an extraordinary
> coincidences' to an uncomfortable
> reality.
And you'll take one alleged match while ignoring a hundred
non-matches.
> The pleas made to Elizabeth throughout
> the first half of her reign were
> unprecedented. Not one of those who
> pleaded with her (to marry and have an
> heir) could think of the least precedent in
> history or in literature on which he could
> call. There is nothing like this in the Bible,
> nor in Greek mythology, nor anywhere.
> If there had been, there would have been
> no end of the references to it.
You really think no human being would have thought
to suggest that having an heir would be a good
reason to get married? Unbelievable.
> Likewise, there have been none since
> Elizabeth. If there had been the case(s)
> would be easy to recall.
>
> > that one throw-away line in an entire play
>
> It does not matter whether it's one line
> or a hundred. It is present. The plea
> was made.
It absolutely fits into the logic of the scene,
is not a thought alien to any sane human being,
so would readily have occurred to a playwright
with no interest in making a connect to Elizabeth
so need not have had anything to do with her.
What commentator on the play has ever said
anything about what a miraculously unique passage
it was? Why has Shakespeare not been ardently
praised for coming up with it?
> > does not mean Olivia is modelled on Queen
> > Elizabeth and the requests made to her to get
> > married and give birth to an heir (in order to
> > address the succession issue).
>
> Yeah, yeah. You really understand evidence.
> IF the playwright had been hauled up in
> court, and accused of impugning Elizabeth,
> what defence could he have used? That
> he really meant someone else?
He would say the passage has nothing to do with
any succession but only to do with flattering a
character, making an argument, and furthering a plot.
He would have pointed out that the character was
completely unlike the queen in numerous ways, and
for all essential purposes based on a character from
a source-play. He would have pointed out that
ON ONE noticed the "impugning" except the
Paulgram. If none of that worked, he could claim
he thought he was complimenting the queen on
her beauty, and meant no harm. He might also note
that he had written a lot of plays she liked, and that
her people enjoyed, so should be forgiven his few errors
of judgement.
>
>
>
>
> >>>> (b) Is Viola one of Walter Raleigh?
>
> >>> No, and your pathetic attempt to show so is
> >>> laughably insipid.
>
> >> The suggestion that a woman in a
> >> play represents a well-known man is,
> >> in principle, near crazy. To call it
> >> 'insipid' shows that you have no idea
> >> what is going on.
>
> > Why are you so inarticulate that you are unable
> > to say why you claim that I have no idea what is
> > going on. I know full well what is going on.
> > You are jumping to your usual conclusions as a
> > result of engaging in circular reasoning. You
> > are crazy and insipid.
>
> The vacuous abuse confirms my point.
Why do you not show what is going on?
> Here are two propositions:
> (A) The playwright had the Queen and her
> court and, above all, Raleigh in mind
> when writing Viola's lines (and the
> responses to 'her');
> (B) He had no thought whatsoever of the
> Queen or Raleigh, and drew Viola's
> character and wrote her words purely
> for entertainment -- as the common, bog-
> standard, brain-dead Strat conceives
> (think Peter Groves).
You keep straw-dogging. No one thinks Shakespeare
wrote "purely" for entertainment. Or just about no one.
The sane only know that he had the talent to invent
a character like Viola the way all writers at his level do--from
things he learned of human nature from many women (and
even men), from commedia dell'arte and other characters
from previous writers' works, and sheer inventiveness. And
making her speech entertaining, and narratively effective was
hugely important to him. It's possible he needed it to express
deep feelings of his own on top of that but we have no record
of his feelings outside the text so we can't deal with that
possibility.
> Would it be possible for an intelligent
> reader to consider the words of the play
> and decide which proposition is the more
> likely? Let's try it for another case:
>
> Here are two similar propositions:
> (A) The writer of "Primary Colors" had
> Bill Clinton mind when writing Jack
> Stanton's lines;
> (B) He had no thought whatsoever of
> Clinton.
>
> How would you tell which of these
> propositions was true?
>
> Let me help you. You identify striking,
> or even unique, characteristics and
> circumstances of the real life person
> and see if they are replicated in the
> apparently fictional work.
>
> Can you think of any that apply to
> Elizabeth, Raleigh, et al and Twelfth
> Night?
List them. I find NONE there in the way they are
in the dumb book you are obsessed with. For one thing,
the novel was about politics, as was Clinton; the play
has nothing to do with politics the way Elizabeth and
Raleigh did. No male in the novel is portrayed as
a female. Etc. Everyone who read the novel thought
it was about Clinton, and many said so. NO ONE
that we know of who saw the play left any record to
show he thought it was about Elizabeth.
Is that conclusive evidence against your view? No,
but it's evidence, and you are incredibly far out
of your mind to say it is not.
> >> Similar parallels can be made about all
> >> the other characters in the play, and
> >> in real life.
>
> > And yet you never make them
>
> I have set them out in some detail.
No, you have not. If you had, to be Crowleyan about it,
it should be a simple matter for you to collect what you
have said and repeat it all in one post.
> > -- or, when you do,
>
> You must learn English sometime.
> 'Never' is not the same as 'sometimes'.
Ah, a good point, at last.
> > they are shown to be as ridiculously unfounded as
> > your claims about court fools and how Olivia and
> > Elizabeth treated them exactly the same.
>
> The parallel here is acutely precise.
Only because you reject all evidence of dissimilarity, and
simply assert similarity wherever you can.
>
> > Months from now, if the subject of Twelfth Night
> > comes up, you will claim that Olivia's
> > relationship to court fools exactly duplicates
> > Elizabeth's relationship to court fools.
>
> As indeed it does. You have not presented
> one whit of evidence to the contrary.
Crowley, the first person ever to propose a hypothesis
that no one could find ANY evidence at all against. Yet,
amazingly, NO ONE accepts his hypothesis.
> >>>> The play is either about Elizabeth's court
> >>>> in the late 1570s, OR it has no more to
> >>>> do with that court than it does with those
> >>>> of President Obama or the Emperor
> >>>> Augustus.
>
> >>> Or it is a work of the imagination based on a
> >>> previous work.
>
> >> Try to focus. Your 'alternative' is
> >> not on the same plane.
>
> > What in the world is that supposed to mean? Are
> > you joining Michael Martin in claiming to speak
> > from a "higher" plane? Is that your meds
> > speaking?
>
> IF the play is what you say it is: "a work
> of the imagination based on a previous
> work" THEN it has no more to do with
> that court than it does with those of
> President Obama or the Emperor Augustus.
Not so. It could easily include a few details about
both Elizabeth's court, and Augustus's. Writers tend
to use anything that seems effective to them. Moreover,
the more complex their plots, the more likely it is that
those plots will parallel actual events here and there.
> Your 'alternative' is a nothing -- a
> vacuous product of a vacuous mind.
Exactly. You don't have a better idea of what the play
may have been based on, you have the ONLY reasonable
idea of that. Yet . . . no one accepts it!
> >>> Because that would be an exercise in stupidity. Why
> >>> would anyone sane attempt to show that a play
> >>> written around 1600 was about Obama (which would
> >>> involve an ability on the author's part to see the
> >>> future
> >> In the context, not much of a problem.
>
> > So you believe that an author in 1600 could
> > reasonably foresee and write about a black man
> > being elected President of the US in 2008. You
> > are crazy.
>
> No. According to YOU (and to Strats
> generally) the play (12th Night) has no
> more to do with the court of Elizabeth,
> than it has to do with ANY other court
> (it does not matter which you name -- it
> could be that of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz,
> the Vogon captain in charge of overseeing
> the destruction of the Earth).
You're right. A dedicated Nostradamus-type wack like you
could, after years of work, find strained reasons to argue
that the play predicted Obama (Viola), Hilary (Feste)
and Putin (Olivia).
> > In order for us to fully address your conclusions
> > it would be necessary for you to set them forth
> > and to provide the evidence that you claim
> > supports them, something that you never do (since
> > you have no comprehension as to what qualifies as
> > evidence or fact). That being said, your
> > interpretations are constantly subjected to
> > demolition here at HLAS
>
> Who here (including you) has set out to
> show that Viola could not possibly be a
> representation of Raleigh?
Why would any sane person try to show
Viola could not POSSIBLY have been Raleigh.
Anything is possible. But we have certainly
shown that there is very good reason to
believe she was not: Raleigh is a man
and Viola a woman, and Raleigh didn't have a twin
brother.
> That _should_
> be extremely easy. Or that Olivia could
> not possibly be one of Elizabeth?
Why don't you show that Olivia could not POSSIBLY
be anyone but Elizabeth?
> You have not made the slightest effort.
Do you really believe that? Or does "not made the
slightest doubt" mean something other than
"did not try to mak any argument whatever against
my proposition" to you?
--Bob G.
ignoto
>
> The pleas made to Elizabeth throughout
> the first half of her reign were
> unprecedented. Not one of those who
> pleaded with her (to marry and have an
> heir) could think of the least precedent in
> history or in literature on which he could
> call.
Nonsense:
"Many sought her; but she [Daphne], averse to all suitors, impatient of
control and without thought of man, roamed the pathless woods, nor cared
at all that Hymen, love or wedlock might be. Often her father said:
"Daughter, you owe me a son-in-law" and often: "Daughter, you owe me
grandsons." But she, hating the wedding torch as if it were a thing of
evil, would blush rosy red all over her face, and, clinging around her
father's neck with coaxing arms, would say: "O father..." (Ovid,
Metapmorphoses, Book I (Loeb, Miller trans p37)
> There is nothing like this in the Bible,
> nor in Greek mythology, nor anywhere.
> If there had been, there would have been
> no end of the references to it.
You mean YOU can find no such argument, but that should not much concern
us as you (like the rest of your tribe) are clearly incompetent.
> Likewise, there have been none since
> Elizabeth. If there had been the case(s)
> would be easy to recall.
>
>> that one throw-away line in an entire play
>
> It does not matter whether it's one line
> or a hundred. It is present. The plea
> was made.
Ah, I see, so since Henry V has a passing reference to salmon there must
be within it a social commentary on the elizabethan fishing industry.
In fact, 12th Night is not about some demand that Olivia produce an
heir, it is about the various forms of deceit (self and other) that
attend on love. The argument that a woman produce children is only
obscurely related to the argument of the play in the sense that children
are the natural product of a heterosexual marriage (and so may be an
inducement to marry).
[snip]
Ign.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks, Ignoto. I knew someone would come
up with a precedent for Viola's argument. The Paulgram
will invalidate it by showing some small way the precedent
differs from Viola's argument (e.g.,Daphne was not a single
woman in charge of a large estate), but it's good enough for me.
--Bob
nordicskiv2
<00343f71-722f-46a9...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 3:10 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> > Dominic Hughes wrote:
> > > One example does not make a rule. See below, where I
> > > demonstrate that you have dishonestly snipped a
> > > verbatim quotation
> > You did not say it was a verbatim quotation,
> > -- and I cannot find it. Nor do you give
> > a date, nor a computer reference.
> You just keep making yourself look worse.
Indeed -- and that is a feat that anyone following this exchange
would scarcely have believed possible. However, as is his wont, Mr.
Crowley has achieved the seemingly impossible by surpassing even
himself.
> Here are the options: 1.) you are unable to read;
Mr. Crowley has given conclusive proof of that deficiency upon
numerous occasions. This incident occurred before you joined the
group, Dom, but ask Mr. Crowley about the "Ray Mignot" sonnet -- it
contains a glaring grammatical gaffe in the very first line, yet Mr.
Crowley, on the basis of his "reading," pronounced it genuine, in his
typically ignorant pontifications on the poem.
> 2) you are lying and
> trying to bluff your way through this situation;
Mr. Crowley has been bluffing most amusingly for years.
> and/or 3.) you really
> do have some sort of mental or physical problem that prevents your
> from seeing anything that contradicts your point of view.
The options enumerated are not mutually exclusive, and most veteran
Crowley watchers would probably vote for all of the above.
> I provided
> the entire quotation and I cited exactly where it came from (something
> that you snipped from my post). I stated explicitly where the
> qotation was found when I said the following:
>
> [From post # 1 in thread ‘Dating of Twelfth Night’, 2/20/09]
>
> Anyone with any intelligence and the slightest familiarity with this
> newsgroupp
That's not fair -- you're excluding Crowley at the outset!
The question is, of course, rhetorical.
Well, of course -- how on earth would could one possibly hope to
support some of Crowley's hilarious inventions with *evidence*?
Because when one doesn't know what one is talking about, it is best
not to express oneself too clearly.
Because, as usual, Mr. Crowley has no other "argument" to offer.
> Come up with some citations to actual facts or
> just admit that you're wrong when you claim that Elizabeth did not
> take pleasure in the antics of her fools.
>
> It is apparent that you are unable to supply citations to actual facts
> to support your claims.
>
> You have yet to cite anything whasoever to support your claims in this
> matter (other than vague references to unidentified "recorded
> exchanges", none of which you can even produce), and yet you continue
> to pontificate and bluster your way through this discussion.
> Pathetic.
Yes, this is a standard Crowley strategy. Elizabeth is fond of it
as well: she is continually asserting that it is "on record that
[insert your favorite farcical invention here]", but *where* it is "on
record" Elizabeth does not disclose. Crowley operates in the same
manner, but with slightly different habitual "weasel words" and
phrases.
> > >> The records of her dealings with any fools
> > >> who attended her court are skimpy, but
> > >> such as there are indicate her dislike of
> > >> them.
> > > Really...what records are you referencing here, and how do they
> > > indicate that Elizabeth disliked her fools? I'd like to see specific
> > > examples from these records that you cite; otherwise, I'll have to
> > > conclude that you are simply lying. You have yet to cite any source
> > > for your allegation that Elizabeth did not take pleasure in fools at
> > > her court?
> > >> There is little friendly in any of
> > >> the few recorded exchanges.
> [What "recorded exchanges" would those be?]
The ones that he has conjured up by means of wishful thinking.
> > > Wrong, as I have already shown.
> > What a total fool you are.
> At least I can read, and my memory isn't shot. I don't think you
> should be throwing stones, considering your recent record here.
Absolutely!
> > Do you
> > believe EVERYTHING you are told?
> No. For instance, I don't believe anything that you tell me.
Very prudent.
> As an
> example, you have stated that there are RECORDS which reveal that
> Queen Elizabeth did not take pleasure in fools -- that she disliked
> them, in fact. When asked to provide citations to the records that
> you claim exist, you skate away and fail to name a single one or to
> even provide any excerpts from them. Until you can identify these
> records and produce some of them, you are shown to be a liar and a bad
> one at that.
It's amazing, isn't it? Elizabeth often says "Scholars believe
that..." or "It's on record that...", but when she is asked *which*
scholars or *which* records, no answer is forthcoming; Mr. Crowley's
approach is exactly the same.
> > (Obviously you believe a lot -- such
> > as the reality of the name "Will
> > Shake-speare". Astonishingly stupid.
> Back to this idiocy. You've already been shown evidence for the fact
> that William Shakespeare was not an uncommon name, so the only person
> who is "astonishingly stupid" here is you.
Well, not the *only* person -- there are several others who qualify
-- but Mr. Crowley can still claim pride of place.
Many anti-Stratfordians exhibit a fondness for circular reasoning,
but Mr. Crowley has elevated the practice to an art form.
The uncanny ability to read minds -- often of those dead for some
four centuries -- is a common anti-Stratfordian attribute.
Willedever, Elizabeth, and Mr. Crowley all exhibit an eldritch,
otherwordly telepathic communion with the dead.
Mr. Crowley is quite fond of bringing up Saudi Arabia and many
other places where he has never resided, whose languages he neither
reads nor speaks, and about whose cultures he knows nothing. See the
thread containing this classic post
for the amusing occasion upon which Crowley pronounced the production
of literature impossible in most societies, except in certain
circumstances (known only to himself), and asserted that Spanish South
America had produced "next to nothing":
"The ghastly nature of nearly all South American
regimes for the past 300 years or so would be
only one part of their problem. But it would have
been more than enough to stifle the growth of
any decent and independent literary tradition."
Apparently he is unfamiliar with Borges, Cortázar, García Marquez,
Ocampo, Bolaño, Mistral, Neruda, Vargas LLosa, and countless others.
Mr. Crowley made a very similar claim about literature under the
Soviet Union: he claimed that "decent literature" was next to
impossible under authoritarian regimes. Evidently he believes
Pasternak, Mandel'shtam, Akhmatova, Gumilyov, and many others to have
been engaged in the production of pornography. Perhaps the funniest
moment in the entire thread occurred when Mr. Crowley extolled the
virtues of such thoroughgoing linguistic and cultural ignorance:
"Have you noticed how the sense people talk often
seems to be directly inverse to the number of
languages they claim to speak?"
I am not making this up. Indeed, Mr. Crowley's effusions defy even
parody -- it would be impossible to invent or even to burlesque the
sorts of hilarious pronouncements that he produces with such
predictable regularity.
I don't want to offend by impugning anyone's religious beliefs, but
no deity has yet seen fit to help Mr. Crowley in that way.
Paul Crowley
>> I can't think of any evidence (indicating
>> that the Stratman was in London) that was
>> forged by a conspiracy.
>
> You are so dense that you can't even remember your
> own arguments. You have previously contended that
> the records of court cases showing that William
> Shakespeare was a shareholder in the Globe Theatre
> (in London) were the work of the
> conspirator/jokesters
These 'records' are reported words
in a court case in 1635 about events
of some thirty or more years earlier.
They merely reflect the fact that by
1635 the myth was well established.
Cuthbert Burbage was trying to get his
money back -- not going to try to set
the supposed 'historical record' straight
(even assuming that he might have
known some of the truth).
> you claim were hiding the fact that Oxenforde was
> the true author. Now you say you know of no such
> forgeries.
I can't see any forgery. Nor can I
see any evidence that the Stratman
was in London.
>> (that of his parents, his wife, his siblings
>> and his daughters, and of his own 'signature').
>
> If his parents, wife, and children were illiterate,
> that is not evidence that he was illiterate.
If you met a man who you discovered
had illiterate parents, an illiterate
wife and illiterate children, would
you expect him to be literate himself?
Add up all those men who matched those
criteria. What fraction of them were
literate themselves?
Do facts matter? Does evidence count?
Nah -- never to a Strat.
It
> would only be evidence that they were illiterate.
> Since there is evidence that he was an actor in the
> Chamberlain's/King's Men, it is more likely than not
> that he was literate. As to the signatures, some
> experts doubt that they are even his. They do not
> prove what you wish they proved.
They are too similar and too bad, and
in too many places, to be written by
anyone else.
>>>>>> The relevant issues here are:
>>>>>> (a) Is the Lady Olivia a representation
>>>>>> of Queen Elizabeth?
>>>>>
>>>>> You have yet to show that to be true.
>>>>
>>>> What evidence would you accept?
>>
>> No answer.
>
> Here is your answer:
> I would accept a well-reasoned argument,
Read the question again. This is a dodge
-- probably undertaken quite automatically
and unthinkingly.
So you want me to list the few billion
women who have lived, with evidence
from each (an affidavit?) to the effect
that they were never so asked?
> to avoid a succession crisis (I seem to
> recall that Mary was pressured to marry and have an
> heir);
Not true. Mary was crowned on 1 Oct 1553,
and married on 25 July 1554 (to Philip
of Spain). It could hardly have been done
more quickly.
>> Even so, you must accept that any such
>> female must have been extremely rare,
>> and the matching with Elizabeth an
>> extraordinary coincidence.
>
> It isn't a match, although you keep claiming it is.
> Elizabeth was pressured politically to marry in
> order to have an heir to avoid a succession crisis.
> Olivia is advised that one of the reasons she should
> considering marrying is that it would be wrong not
> to pass on her beauty.
The succession was not a topic that
could be openly discussed. Guess what
means a courtier might use to get
around that rule.
Are Strats born stupid? Do the achieve
stupidity, or is stupidity thrust upon
them?
> There is no evidence here. There is merely your
> conjecture that there is an 'extraordinary
> coincidence' between one throw-away line in Twelfth
> Night and the pressure to marry that was applied to
> Elizabeth. This shows just how far you are willing
> to stretch things in order to find one of your
> 'extraordianry coincidences'. And, if you can't
> stretch things, you will simply invent them, just as
> you did with your "acutely precise" parallel
> regarding court fools, an 'extraordinary
> coincidence' that turned out to be extraordinary or
> a coincidental parallel at all.
What other European female noble
(a) had a father who loved fools
(b) employed them herself, but
(c) of whom could be said "she will
keep no fool, sir, till she be
married;" . . ?
>> Likewise, there have been none since
>> Elizabeth. If there had been the case(s)
>> would be easy to recall.
>
> There was a recent case in Japan where there was
> pressure to marry and produce a male heir, and there
> was even pressure put on Prince Charles to find and
> marry a suitable partner.
Err . . we are talking about the 16th
century -- not the modern world. Things
have changed -- mostly fairly recently.
Apparently it was not until 1968 that
women could sit on juries all over the
USA (Alabama being the last state to
change).
>>> that one throw-away line in an entire play
>>
>> It does not matter whether it's one line
>> or a hundred. It is present. The plea
>> was made.
>
> Yes, it does matter. If it is simply one throw-
> away line in an entire play, that has nothing
> whatsoever to do with succession, it should not be
> stretched into a parallel with Queen Elizabeth's
> situation. If the author truly meant to address
> the pressure on Elizabeth to marry and produce an
> heir, he surely would have, and could have, seen
> fit to at least make more of the argument (without
> making it explicitly about succession).
He could have suggested that the world
would be a poorer place if she did not
pass on her beauty.
Do you think that might have done the trick?
>> IF the playwright had been hauled up in
>> court, and accused of impugning Elizabeth,
>> what defence could he have used? That
>> he really meant someone else?
>
> More evidence that he did not intend this line to
> be a reference to Elizabeth...he wasn't worried at
> all about it being seen as impugning Elizabeth.
It could hardly be about Elizabeth if it
was written around 1600. The Queen was
nearing seventy, and not likely to have
a child.
> His defence would have been that it was one line in
> a play and was about the beauty of Olivia, and had
> no parallel whatsoever to Elizabeth.
Written in the late 1570s there was only
one woman who could have been indicated.
The poet got away with the line because
he had a particularly close relationship
to her.
> Is there any record of Elizabeth commenting upon
> this supposed parallel?
You mean you haven't read Queen Elizabeth's
comments upon the canonical plays?
> In fact, until the insane Paul Crowley came along,
> has anyone else ever interpreted this line to be a
> reference to the pressure put on Elizabeth to marry
> and have an heir?
The dating of the play to the 1570s with
the identification of Malvolio as Hatton
has been routine in Oxfordian circles for
many decades. I sure this line has been
discussed before and I doubt if any
Oxfordian would reject my 'interpretation'.
My major contribution here is the
identification of Viola as Raleigh.
>> Here are two propositions:
>> (A) The playwright had the Queen and her
>> court and, above all, Raleigh in mind
>> when writing Viola's lines (and the
>> responses to 'her');
>> (B) He had no thought whatsoever of the
>> Queen or Raleigh, and drew Viola's
>> character and wrote her words purely
>> for entertainment -- as the common, bog-
>> standard, brain-dead Strat conceives
>> (think Peter Groves).
>
> There you go again. Where did your brain get
> infected with the notion that all works of
> literature must be thinly veiled treatments of
> actual events, and not works of the imagination
> designed to educate or entertain?
There you go again -- unable to read.
I specifically allow for the common,
bog-standard, brain-dead Strat (think
Dominic Hughes).
>> Let me help you. You identify striking,
>> or even unique, characteristics and
>> circumstances of the real life person
>> and see if they are replicated in the
>> apparently fictional work.
[..]
>> Can you think of any that apply to
>> Elizabeth, Raleigh, et al and Twelfth
>> Night?
>
> It is your claim that needs justification. It is up
> to you to supply the "striking. or even unique,
> characteristics and circumstances of the real life
> person"
Can you quote ANY roughly similar plea
made to ANY roughly similar female in
ANY literature at ANY time in ANY
culture?
Can you refer to ANY roughly similar plea
made to ANY roughly similar female in ANY
recorded history at ANY time in ANY
culture?
> You have an aversion to detail (recall the "mistris
> Mal' discussion).
I quoted all the relevant detail in that
case. We know of one case of a portrait of
a "Mistris Mal", of reasons why it should
remain undusted, and why it should be
mentioned in a play like this. What more
could you want? Do you think I was present
for the conversations between the courtiers
and the cleaning staff? Your problem is
that you cannot come to any conclusion
(even provisional) unless it accords with
what you were told at school.
What is more to the point is that I have
found hundreds of such items of this
nature in the canon, and I could readily
find another few hundred.
Each one of them is better than ALL
that Strats have 'discovered' in the
canon over the past 400 years to support
their (ludicrous) case for the illiterate
Stratman's authorship.
>>> Months from now, if the subject of Twelfth Night
>>> comes up, you will claim that Olivia's
>>> relationship to court fools exactly duplicates
>>> Elizabeth's relationship to court fools.
>>
>> As indeed it does. You have not presented
>> one whit of evidence to the contrary.
>>
> Now this is where you are simply delusional and
> where you demonstrate that you don't know what
> constitutes evidence. I have produced long passages
> from various authors showing that, not only did
> Elizabeth employ fools (which you first claimed was
> not true), but that she had personal relationships
> with some of her fools.
These 'authorities' were from 'sources'
written about 100 years after the event
which could not even get right the name
of the relevant fool. Only a complete
half-wit would read truth into such
'sources'.
> Hilarious. Your argument about the "acute
> precision" of the court fool parallel has been shot
> down in flames.
By your quotes from Thomas Fuller.
What a laugh.
There have been thousands of quite
foolish books published since 1600.
I sure you would be delighted to quote
from any (or all) of them -- regarding
any nonsense that took your fancy as
'proof'.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> The pleas made to Elizabeth throughout
>> the first half of her reign were
>> unprecedented. Not one of those who
>> pleaded with her (to marry and have an
>> heir) could think of the least precedent in
>> history or in literature on which he could
>> call.
>
> Nonsense:
>
> "Many sought her; but she [Daphne], averse to all
> suitors, impatient of control and without thought of
> man, roamed the pathless woods, nor cared at all that
> Hymen, love or wedlock might be. Often her father
> said: "Daughter, you owe me a son-in-law" and often:
> "Daughter, you owe me grandsons." But she, hating the
> wedding torch as if it were a thing of evil, would
> blush rosy red all over her face, and, clinging around
> her father's neck with coaxing arms, would say: "O
> father..." (Ovid, Metapmorphoses, Book I (Loeb, Miller
> trans p37)
Not a bad attempt. But I'm sure that
you won't find any Elizabethan male
openly comparing Elizabeth to Daphne.
She was a nymph, not a goddess, and
nymphs have a reputation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymph
> In fact, 12th Night is not about some demand that
> Olivia produce an heir,
No one said it was. The Queen would
have found a play devoted to that topic
uncongenial. It was illegal to raise
it. The most we should expect to get
is a quick reference.
> it is about the various forms of deceit (self and
> other) that attend on love.
It's about that and much else.
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
> Dominic Hughes wrote:
> >> I can't think of any evidence (indicating
> >> that the Stratman was in London) that was
> >> forged by a conspiracy.
>
> > You are so dense that you can't even remember your
> > own arguments. You have previously contended that
> > the records of court cases showing that William
> > Shakespeare was a shareholder in the Globe Theatre
> > (in London) were the work of the
> > conspirator/jokesters
>
> These 'records' are reported words
> in a court case in 1635 about events
> of some thirty or more years earlier.
> They merely reflect the fact that by
> 1635 the myth was well established.
I have no idea why you are mentioning a lawsuit that took place in
1635.
I'm talking about the following (and we have discussed this in the
past):
Dave Kathman:
"I think Crowley must be referring here to the 1619 Court of Requests
lawsuit Witter v. Heminges and Condell, which discusses the history of
the shares in the Globe and Blackfriars playhouses. Actually, the
1615 lawsuit Ostler v. Heminges (in which "Heminges" is John Heminges
and "Ostler" is his daughter Thomasina, the widow of William Ostler)
discusses the history of the Globe and Blackfriars shares in much more
detail, and it's all in Latin in the middle of a huge roll of
parchment sheets stitched together, so it would have been very
difficult to forge.
But those two lawsuits are not by any means the only documents that
mention William Shakespeare as Nicholas Brend's tenant at the Globe,
and I'm pretty sure that they're not what Dominic was referring to.
There's the inventory post mortem of Thomas Brend, dated May 21, 1599,
which lists among Brend's property "vna Domo de novo edificata... in
occupatione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum" ("a house newly built...
occupied by William Shakespeare and others"). Thomas Brend's son
Nicholas inherited his property, and on October 7, 1601, Nicholas
Brend signed the deed of trust to which Dominic is presumably
referring; it lists among his properties a "playhowse" occupied by
"Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent.". Three days later,
another document similar lists Burbage and Shakespeare as the tenants
of the "playhowse". Nicholas Brend died on October 12, and the
properties including the Globe passed to his infant son Matthew, with
John Bodley, John Collet, and Sir Matthew Browne controlling them in
trust. A deed of 1608, by which John Collet sold John Bodley his
interest in the trust, lists property including a "playhouse" with
tenants "Richard Burbage and William Shakespeare, gentlemen". Later
documents of 1622, 1624, and 1633 copy the description in the original
1601 deed of trust, as was customarily done in legal documents.
> Cuthbert Burbage was trying to get his
> money back -- not going to try to set
> the supposed 'historical record' straight
> (even assuming that he might have
> known some of the truth).
>
> > you claim were hiding the fact that Oxenforde was
> > the true author. Now you say you know of no such
> > forgeries.
>
> I can't see any forgery.
That's pretty funny, considering you see them everywhere.
>Nor can I
> see any evidence that the Stratman
> was in London.
You don't see anything, but that isn't funny at all, as it is a
symptom of your delusional belief that whatever evidence runs counter
to your story cannot be evidence at all (or must be forged, etc.) You
are completely and irrationally blind to any evidence which
contradicts your theory. If you had one eye you'd be a cyclops.
Swinging about in your blindness, you allege that Nobody has ever
offered evidence to rebut your irrational claims. From now on, I
shall address you as Polyphemus Crowley.
> >> (that of his parents, his wife, his siblings
> >> and his daughters, and of his own 'signature').
>
> > If his parents, wife, and children were illiterate,
> > that is not evidence that he was illiterate.
You have never proven that all of these relatives were illiterate, so
your initial assumption, upon which your ultimate assumption is based,
is not valid.
> If you met a man who you discovered
> had illiterate parents, an illiterate
> wife and illiterate children, would
> you expect him to be literate himself?
Why would you bring modern cultural expectations into a discussion of
a completely different time and culture? What I would expect has no
bearing on what someone in 1600 would, or would not, expect. Even
today, while I might expect that such a man would himself be
illiterate, that would not necessarily be so. Of course, all of this
is not evidence as to wheher or not, Shakespeare, his parents, or his
children were illiterate.
> Add up all those men who matched those
> criteria. What fraction of them were
> literate themselves?
What does this have to do with Shakespeare's culture and time? You
have recently acknowledged that the times and culture were much
different then. I would think that someone in 1600 meeting William
Shakespeare, and knowing him to be an actor, and having seen his name
on title pages, would expect him to be literate.
> Do facts matter? Does evidence count?
Yes, of course. When are you going to present some facts and
evidence? Your speculations and your questions as to probabilities
are not evidence.
> Nah -- never to a Strat.
This is ironic. Strats have confronted you with actual, documentary
evidence, but you dismiss it, out of hand and with no evidentiary
justification.
> It
> > would only be evidence that they were illiterate.
> > Since there is evidence that he was an actor in the
> > Chamberlain's/King's Men, it is more likely than not
> > that he was literate. As to the signatures, some
> > experts doubt that they are even his. They do not
> > prove what you wish they proved.
>
> They are too similar and too bad, and
> in too many places, to be written by
> anyone else.
I notice you dodged the evidence about him being an actor in the
Chamberlain's/King's men. Your subjective opinion of Shakespeare's
signature as being "bad" does not prove that he was illiterate. If,
in fact, he did sign his name, that is a fact which would tend to
prove that he was literate. I know a lawyer in the building next door
whose signature on official documents is so "bad" that it is
indecipherable..he is not illiterate.
> >>>>>> The relevant issues here are:
> >>>>>> (a) Is the Lady Olivia a representation
> >>>>>> of Queen Elizabeth?
>
> >>>>> You have yet to show that to be true.
>
> >>>> What evidence would you accept?
>
> >> No answer.
>
> > Here is your answer:
> > I would accept a well-reasoned argument,
>
> Read the question again. This is a dodge
> -- probably undertaken quite automatically
> and unthinkingly.
It is not a dodge at all. I'm telling you that I would accept a well-
reasoned argument making the case that Olivia was modelled on
Elizabeth. What is your problem...sorry, rhetorical question.
That is exactly what you are asking me to do. You want me to search
the history of every woman ever born to counter your ridiculous
argument. If it is too onerous and absurd for you to do that, it is
equally onerous and absurd for me to undertake such a fool's errand.
The point that you are missing is that you are the one who is
contending that you know for a fact that Elizabeth was the only woman
who was ever the subject of such a plea. The burden of proving that
falls on you, even though it is impossible to prove such a statement
true (or false).
> > to avoid a succession crisis (I seem to
> > recall that Mary was pressured to marry and have an
> > heir);
>
> Not true. Mary was crowned on 1 Oct 1553,
> and married on 25 July 1554 (to Philip
> of Spain). It could hardly have been done
> more quickly.
>
> >> Even so, you must accept that any such
> >> female must have been extremely rare,
> >> and the matching with Elizabeth an
> >> extraordinary coincidence.
>
> > It isn't a match, although you keep claiming it is.
> > Elizabeth was pressured politically to marry in
> > order to have an heir to avoid a succession crisis.
> > Olivia is advised that one of the reasons she should
> > considering marrying is that it would be wrong not
> > to pass on her beauty.
>
> The succession was not a topic that
> could be openly discussed. Guess what
> means a courtier might use to get
> around that rule.
Right...by including one throw-away line about marrying and passing on
beauty in a play that otherwise has nothing to do with the political
questions of the day.
If the author truly meant to address the pressure on Elizabeth to
marry and produce an heir, he surely would have, and could have, seen
fit to at least make more of the argument (without making it
explicitly about succession). The pleas are not at all the same, and
one plea cannot be transformed into general or multiple pleas as you
would wish to have it.
> Are Strats born stupid?
No. Congenital stupidity appears to exclusively belong to you and
others who suffer from the same irrationality.
> Do the {learn English} achieve
> stupidity, or is stupidity thrust upon
> them?
Your stupidity is constantly thrust upon us, and it gets very
tiresome.
> > There is no evidence here. There is merely your
> > conjecture that there is an 'extraordinary
> > coincidence' between one throw-away line in Twelfth
> > Night and the pressure to marry that was applied to
> > Elizabeth. This shows just how far you are willing
> > to stretch things in order to find one of your
> > 'extraordianry coincidences'. And, if you can't
> > stretch things, you will simply invent them, just as
> > you did with your "acutely precise" parallel
> > regarding court fools, an 'extraordinary
> > coincidence' that turned out to be extraordinary or
> > a coincidental parallel at all.
>
> What other European female noble
> (a) had a father who loved fools
> (b) employed them herself, but
> (c) of whom could be said "she will
> keep no fool, sir, till she be
> married;" . . ?
The sad part is that you won't even understand how stupid your
argument is here, or even acknowledge that your "acutely precise"
parallel has been altered every time it has been shown not to be true.
Why do you contend that the line is applicable to the real Elizabeth?
> >> Likewise, there have been none since
> >> Elizabeth. If there had been the case(s)
> >> would be easy to recall.
>
> > There was a recent case in Japan where there was
> > pressure to marry and produce a male heir, and there
> > was even pressure put on Prince Charles to find and
> > marry a suitable partner.
>
> Err . . we are talking about the 16th
> century -- not the modern world. Things
> have changed -- mostly fairly recently.
> Apparently it was not until 1968 that
> women could sit on juries all over the
> USA (Alabama being the last state to
> change).
I understand that quite well. So why do you bring up modern
expectations so often in an attempt to show what probabilities were in
effect in 1600 England?
> >>> that one throw-away line in an entire play
>
> >> It does not matter whether it's one line
> >> or a hundred. It is present. The plea
b> >> was made.
>
> > Yes, it does matter. If it is simply one throw-
> > away line in an entire play, that has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with succession, it should not be
> > stretched into a parallel with Queen Elizabeth's
> > situation. If the author truly meant to address
> > the pressure on Elizabeth to marry and produce an
> > heir, he surely would have, and could have, seen
> > fit to at least make more of the argument (without
> > making it explicitly about succession).
>
> He could have suggested that the world
> would be a poorer place if she did not
> pass on her beauty.
He could have done a lot of things. That doesn't change the fact that
we're discussing one brief statement out of the entire play, and that
you want to stretch that into meaning something outside of the play,
which meaning is not justified by the play itself.
> Do you think that might have done the trick?
What trick...if you mean fooling you into following your delusions to
their irrational end, then, yes, it would do the trick.
> >> IF the playwright had been hauled up in
> >> court, and accused of impugning Elizabeth,
> >> what defence could he have used? That
> >> he really meant someone else?
>
> > More evidence that he did not intend this line to
> > be a reference to Elizabeth...he wasn't worried at
> > all about it being seen as impugning Elizabeth.
>
> It could hardly be about Elizabeth if it
> was written around 1600. The Queen was
> nearing seventy, and not likely to have
> a child.
Now you're finally making some progress. The play was not about
Elizabeth.
> > His defence would have been that it was one line in
> > a play and was about the beauty of Olivia, and had
> > no parallel whatsoever to Elizabeth.
>
> Written in the late 1570s there was only
> one woman who could have been indicated.
Well, if you ever supply some evidence tending to prove that it was
written in the 1570's, we can consider that evidence. Until then,
this is mere speculation on your part.
> The poet got away with the line because
> he had a particularly close relationship
> to her.
Please google the term "circular reasoning" and try to get a grasp on
the concept entailed therein. If you concentrate really hard you may,
at long last, come to an understanding of why your arguments are
logically flawed and do not constitute evidence (as that term is
understood by everyone but you).
> > Is there any record of Elizabeth commenting upon
> > this supposed parallel?
>
> You mean you haven't read Queen Elizabeth's
> comments upon the canonical plays?
Sarcasm.
> > In fact, until the insane Paul Crowley came along,
> > has anyone else ever interpreted this line to be a
> > reference to the pressure put on Elizabeth to marry
> > and have an heir?
>
> The dating of the play to the 1570s with
> the identification of Malvolio as Hatton
> has been routine in Oxfordian circles for
> many decades.
That doesn't do much to prove your claim. One character in a work
might be loosely based on a real person, but that doesn't mean that
everyone in the work is also based on real individuals. For instance,
the character of Willy Stark in 'All the King's Men' is generally
considered to be inspired by Huey Long. However, there are no real-
life counterparts for the other characters. In fact, Robert Penn
Warren denied that Stark was even based on Huey Long:
From wikipedia:
Warren denied that the Stark character was based on Long, referring to
attempts to relate the two men as "innocent boneheadedness." In his
introduction to the Modern Library edition, Warren writes:
"One of the unfortunate characteristics of our time is that the
reception of a novel may depend on its journalistic relevance. It is a
little graceless of me to call this characteristic unfortunate, and to
quarrel with it, for certainly the journalistic relevance of All The
King's Men had a good deal to do with what interest it evoked. My
politician hero, whose name, in the end, was Willie Stark, was quickly
equated with the late [US] Senator Huey P. Long....
This equation led, in different quarters, to quite contradictory
interpretations of the novel. On one hand, there were those who took
the thing to be a not-so-covert biography of, and apologia for,
Senator Long, and the author to be not less than a base minion of the
great man. There is really nothing to reply to this innocent
boneheadedness or gospel-bit hysteria. As Louis Armstrong is reported
to have said, there's some folks that, if they don't know, you can't
tell 'em... But on the other hand, there were those who took the thing
to be a rousing declaration of democratic principles and a tract for
the assassination of dictators. This view, though somewhat more
congenial to my personal political views, was almost as wide of the
mark. For better or worse, Willie Stark was not Huey Long. Willie
[Stark] was only himself....
[T]he difference between the person Huey P. Long and the fiction
Willie Stark, may be indicated by the fact that in the verse play
[Proud Flesh] the name of the politician was Talos — the name of the
brutal, blank-eyed 'iron groom' of Spenser's Fairie Queene, the
pitiless servant of the knight of justice. My conception grew wider,
but that element always remained, and Willie Stark remained, in one
way, Willie Talos. In other words, Talos is the kind of doom that
democracy may invite upon itself. The book, however, was never
intended to be a book about politics. Politics merely provided the
framework story in which the deeper concerns, whatever their final
significance, might work themselves out.[5]"
You might be suffering from "innocent boneheadedness"?
> I sure {learn English, Tarzan} this line has been
> discussed before and I doubt if any
> Oxfordian would reject my 'interpretation'.
More speculation.
> My major contribution here is the
> identification of Viola as Raleigh.
>
Run that by any Oxenfordian and see if they reject that
interpretation.
> >> Here are two propositions:
> >> (A) The playwright had the Queen and her
> >> court and, above all, Raleigh in mind
> >> when writing Viola's lines (and the
> >> responses to 'her');
> >> (B) He had no thought whatsoever of the
> >> Queen or Raleigh, and drew Viola's
> >> character and wrote her words purely
> >> for entertainment -- as the common, bog-
> >> standard, brain-dead Strat conceives
> >> (think Peter Groves).
>
> > There you go again. Where did your brain get
> > infected with the notion that all works of
> > literature must be thinly veiled treatments of
> > actual events, and not works of the imagination
> > designed to educate or entertain?
>
> There you go again -- unable to read.
> I specifically allow for the common,
> bog-standard, brain-dead Strat (think
> Dominic Hughes).
What a moron you are...it is quite obvious by the pejorative language
that you have used that you don't believe that the Strat option is not
worthy of consideration. In fact, later in the post you stated that
the Strat conception was the vacuous product of vacuous minds. You
appear to be blind to the possibility that an author does not need
real-life personages and events as models for his characters and plot
(think Polyphemus Crowley).
> >> Let me help you. You identify striking,
> >> or even unique, characteristics and
> >> circumstances of the real life person
> >> and see if they are replicated in the
> >> apparently fictional work.
> [..]
> >> Can you think of any that apply to
> >> Elizabeth, Raleigh, et al and Twelfth
> >> Night?
>
> > It is your claim that needs justification. It is up
> > to you to supply the "striking. or even unique,
> > characteristics and circumstances of the real life
> > person"
>
> Can you quote ANY roughly similar plea
> made to ANY roughly similar female in
> ANY literature at ANY time in ANY
> culture?
Daphne has been suggested as just one in literature.
> Can you refer to ANY roughly similar plea
> made to ANY roughly similar female in ANY
> recorded history at ANY time in ANY
> culture?
There you go again...back to that stupid argument which has already
been addressed.
> > You have an aversion to detail (recall the "mistris
> > Mal' discussion).
>
> I quoted all the relevant detail in that
> case. We know of one case of a portrait of
> a "Mistris Mal",
No, WE don't. You never even provided any evidence that a portrait of
Mary QS was ever even hung on the wall.
>of reasons why it should
> remain undusted,
All you provided was dusty speculation.
>and why it should be
> mentioned in a play like this.
You never provided any evidence for this claim.
>What more
> could you want?
I sure as hell won't settle for your speculation devoid of any
evidentiary support whasoever.
>Do you think I was present
> for the conversations between the courtiers
> and the cleaning staff? Your problem is
> that you cannot come to any conclusion
> (even provisional) unless it accords with
> what you were told at school.
Your problem is that you build strawmen like this last staement. My
schooling has nothing to do with your inability to elevate your
argumentation above mere speculation. Your problem is that you come
to conclusions on your speculations without basing them on any actual
evidence.
Your problem is that you cannot build a rational and coherent claim to
support the conslusions that you pull out of thin air.
You snipped the following. Is it because you are unable to put
together an argument in support of your conclusions?
> Would it be possible for an intelligent
> reader to consider the words of the play
> and decide which proposition is the more
> likely? Let's try it for another case:
Why not try it for Twelfth Night? All you ever do is list your
conclusions without providing any evidence in support of those
conclusions, and without producing any analysis to show how you
arrived at that conclusion.
> Here are two similar propositions:
> (A) The writer of "Primary Colors" had
> Bill Clinton mind when writing Jack
> Stanton's lines;
> (B) He had no thought whatsoever of
> Clinton.
> How would you tell which of these
> propositions was true?
> Let me help you. You identify striking,
> or even unique, characteristics and
> circumstances of the real life person
> and see if they are replicated in the
> apparently fictional work.
That wouldn't be necessary in the case of Primary Colors, since it was
marketed as being a caricature of Clinton. I don't need your help.
> Can you think of any that apply to
> Elizabeth, Raleigh, et al and Twelfth
> Night?
It is your claim that needs justification. It is up to you to supply
the "striking. or even unique, characteristics and circumstances of
> > -- or, when you do,
> > they are shown to be as ridiculously unfounded as
> > your claims about court fools and how Olivia and
> > Elizabeth treated them exactly the same.
> The parallel here is acutely precise.
That is pretty funny, considering the fact that you have altered and
revised your "acutely precise" parallel over the last week. When are
you going to provide any evidence whatsoever to prove the conclusion
about court fools? Thanks for proving my point about your method.
You simply repeat your conclusion, failing to even acknowledge that
you have produced no evidence at all in support of your conclusion. I
can't wait to read the "recorded exchanges" in Southworth's book that
you allege support your claim. I'm hoping the book arrives tomorrow.
> > Months from now, if the subject of Twelfth Night
> > comes up, you will claim that Olivia's
> > relationship to court fools exactly duplicates
> > Elizabeth's relationship to court fools.
> As indeed it does. You have not presented
> one whit of evidence to the contrary.
Now this is where you are simply delusional and where you demonstrate
that you don't know what constitutes evidence. I have produced long
passages from various authors showing that, not only did Elizabeth
employ fools (which you first claimed was not true), but that she had
personal relationships with some of her fools. You, on the other
hand, have produced no evidence whatsoever for your claims (other than
vague references to some "recorded exchanges" set forth in
Southworth's book) that Elizabeth did employ fools but she disliked
them, merely put up with them because it was tradition, and certainly
never had any relationship with them.
Here's your opportunity to prove the "acutely precise" parallel. List
your evidence for Elizabeth and for Olivian and provide an analysis
which demonstrates the precision of the parallel. Let's see the
"recorded exchanges" from Southworth's book. Or will you dodge the
question?
********************************************
You dodged the question!
********************************************
> IF the play is what you say it is: "a work
> of the imagination based on a previous
> work" THEN it has no more to do with
> that court than it does with those of
> President Obama or the Emperor Augustus.
Correct. Not all literature has to do with real people and real
events. Don't you know that? I thought everyone understood that
aspect of literature? For instance, 'The Story of Edgar Sawtelle' is
a recently published novel which somewhat loosely uses the plot of
Hamlet as a starting point for its plot. The characters are highly
original and the book is exceptionally well-written, but it is not
modelled on any particular characters or circumstances. It is an
excellent example of a work of literature that you would describe as
fitting "my alternative". It is a brilliant novel -- it is not
vacuous, nor is it the product of a vacuous mind.
I'm beginning to believe you have a vacuum where your mind should be.
> Your 'alternative' is a nothing -- a
> vacuous product of a vacuous mind.
What an idiotic statement. A brilliant work of a brilliant
imagination is somehow inferior to a mere roman a clef? In what
way? Why are you so inarticulate that you are unable to explain why
you claim that to be true? Do you think that 'Primary Colors'
qualifies as great literature?
> > In order for us to fully address your conclusions
Hilarious. Your argument about the "acute precision" of the court
fool parallel has been shot down in flames. Only you would be so
arrogant to have decided not to bail out on that one. I've spent more
time and effort on that issue than the subject deserves, but I'll be
more than happy to address any of your other points so long as you'll
take the time and effort to set out your analysis and your evidence.
Arguing against mere conclusions is not profitable for anyone.
You, Polyphemus Crowley, snipped quite a bit more without
acknowledging that you had, but I have already wasted more than enough
valuable time on you. I'm sure that the next time someone contends
that they have rebutted your claims, you will retreat to the hollow
cave that is your mind, and repeat endlessly, "Nobody' did this to
me!!" Even the other Cyclops/Oxenfordians will realize that you are
mad.
Dom
Peter Groves
news:h191o9$1cs$2...@aioe.org...
More <argumentum ex recto> from Crowley. Daphne was, of course, a type of
militant chastity, willing to become a vegetable rather than lose her
virginity. In the following acrostic poem by Peter Colse ("In commendation
of the vertuous, prudent, and chaste virgin, mistris Grace Horsey, daughter
to the right Worshipfull, sir Raph Horsey knight, and the Ladie Edith ."
[from Penelopes Complaint (1596)], Grace Horsey's chastity is praised in
just the same way as Elizabeth's, with all the usual suspects (Diana, Vesta,
etc) including Daphne:
1 G Glorious Nimph, Dianaes darling deere,
2 R Rose-garland dresse of damaske red and white,
3 A Adorne thou Vestaes shrine, her poesies weare,
4 C Conserude with sweete of honors high delight.
5 E Enter the Lyons caue he is thy friend,
6 Though Dragon shall saint George shal thee defend.
7 H Hunt as Diana did, with *Daphne* flie,
8 O Outrunne Apollo , trust not to his rage,
9 R Repose no trust in Cupids deitie,
10 S Say Frustra to his force, make him thy page.
11 E Enchase thou vertue with pearles of grace,
12 Y Yongsters may wonder at the enterlace.
In <The Duchess of Malfi>, Webster invokes Daphne in an argument addressed
to a women to marry (yes, I know, such things cannot occur in any
conceivable universe):
ANTONIO. When wilt thou marry, Cariola?
CARIOLA. Never, my lord.
ANTONIO. O, fie upon this single life! forgo it.
We read how Daphne, for her peevish flight,
Became a fruitless bay-tree; Syrinx turn'd
To the pale empty reed; Anaxarete
Was frozen into marble: whereas those
Which married, or prov'd kind unto their friends,
Were by a gracious influence transhap'd
Into the olive, pomegranate, mulberry,
Became flowers, precious stones, or eminent stars.
--
Peter G.
"Shakespeare is the happy hunting ground of all minds that have lost their
balance."
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > (b) Olivia is the only known female in literature to whom such a
> > request is made.
This claim has been to be beyond question invalid by Ignoto's
quotation from Ovid. There is therefore no compelling reason
to believe Olivia is based on Elizabeth because Viola tried
to persuade her to marry in order to have children.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
This post is so far beyond the pathetic
that at first I thought it must be a joke.
However, I'm now pretty sure it's serious
and nice reflection of Bob's absolute
rigidnikry.
In the first place it's quite false. Nigel
identified a Nymph (Daphne) -- not exactly
a human female, nor with a father or other
male relatives, likely (in fact, certain)
to impose particular kinds of social codes
upon her. Nigel might just have well have
referred to the goddess Pallas Athene --
a strict virgin.
BUT even if it were true! --- What would
one case matter? It might be thought to
change the odds of Olivia representing
Elizabeth from about a billion to one to
about a million to one.
Bob is such a dope that he thinks a single
-- and quite inappropriate -- parallel in
mythology is quite sufficient for the
Stratfordian case (on this point).
Paul.
Mike
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > According to the Paulgram:
>
> >>> (b) Olivia is the only known female in literature to whom such a
> >>> request is made.
>
> > This claim has been to be beyond question invalid by
> > Ignoto's quotation from Ovid. �There is therefore no
> > compelling reason to believe Olivia is based on
> > Elizabeth because Viola tried to persuade her to
> > marry in order to have children.
MM:
Neither Bob Grumman, nor Paul Crowley understand the play. Olivia is
God. Viola is the Living Master. Viola wanted Olivia to leave an
heir, a spiritual heir, not a worldly heir to have children.
Shakespeare was on a higher level, at least his message was, but he
was using worldly analogies to get the spiritual message across.
Anagram of Olivia, I, Viola. Very clear.
Why did Shakespeare suggest an heir? Answer: So the true seekers of
truth could find the truth, through a Living Master.
This play was written by Master Shakespeare, not by the student of
Edmund Spenser, Edward de Vere.
> This post is so far beyond the pathetic
> that at first I thought it must be a joke.
> However, I'm now pretty sure it's serious
> and nice reflection of Bob's absolute
> rigidnikry.
MM:
Do you expect him to fall for your slick hypothesis? LOL How could
anybody believe your theory, when you are so often on both sides of
the fence? Maybe somebody would be gullible enough?
> In the first place it's quite false. Nigel
> identified a Nymph (Daphne) -- not exactly
> a human female, nor with a father or other
> male relatives, likely (in fact, certain)
> to impose particular kinds of social codes
> upon her. �Nigel might just have well have
> referred to the goddess Pallas Athene --
> a strict virgin.
MM:
That would be closer to the Shakespearean rendition of Olivia for
Venus! That would be better than trying to make the Goddess Olivia be
a mortal Queen!
> BUT even if it were true! --- What would
> one case matter? �It might be thought to
> change the odds of Olivia representing
> Elizabeth from about a billion to one to
> about a million to one.
MM:
One case matters, if it is closer to the truth than a million or
billion of your assertions that Olivia was the Queen.
> Bob is such a dope that he thinks a single
> -- and quite inappropriate -- parallel in
> mythology is quite sufficient for the
> Stratfordian case (on this point).
>
> Paul.
MM:
You act like you've given us SO MUCH evidence that the Queen was
represented by Olivia. You haven't. You're slick, but that bird
won't fly. All you have done is whine that nobody could disprove your
hypothesis. You have never proved it, yourself. You're always,
dodging, reflecting issues back on Strats, when the onus is on YOU,
BUBBA? Get it?
IMO, a parallel from mythology would be a lot better than your
absolutely ridiculous contentions, that they intended a massive cover-
up, but apparently didn't want it to be too massive. I mean, give me
a break. Either they wanted a massive cover-up or they didn't. You
can't have your cake and eat it, too, although you would probably like
that very much, as you could not be defeated in a debate, if you
played both sides. We're onto you, Paul Crowley.
Michael Martin
Mike
MM:
I agree, Ignoto wins clearly. Crowley loses. Ignoto's quote from
Metamorphoses is very important, IMO. It's almost a copy of the role
of Olivia. Shakespeare might have been inspired by it. It's the same
principle, two Goddesses. Apollo and Daphne were Gods/Goddesses, not
mortals. Crowley continues to try to pigeonhole Olivia as a mortal.
She was not mortal.
Michael Martin
Mike
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > According to the Paulgram:
>
> >>> (b) Olivia is the only known female in literature to whom such a
> >>> request is made.
>
> > This claim has been to be beyond question invalid by
> > Ignoto's quotation from Ovid. �There is therefore no
> > compelling reason to believe Olivia is based on
> > Elizabeth because Viola tried to persuade her to
> > marry in order to have children.
>
> This post is so far beyond the pathetic
> that at first I thought it must be a joke.
MM:
It was a marvelous stroke by Ignoto. There's nothing pathetic about
it. He (Ignoto) has proved you wrong.
> However, I'm now pretty sure it's serious
> and nice reflection of Bob's absolute
> rigidnikry.
MM:
Isn't it comical, to see Crowley sweat, squirm, spin, skate, and
dodge? LOL
Bob is quoting Ignoto. Ignoto is quoting Ovid. Ovid is discussing
Apollo and Daphne. You reply is so weak and pitiful, Crowley. Why
don't you just admit that you were wrong on this?
We're discussing Gods and Goddesses, Apollo and Daphne, just as
Marlowe and Shakespeare so often did in their writings. Olivia was a
Goddess, not a mortal Queen.
> In the first place it's quite false. Nigel
> identified a Nymph (Daphne) -- not exactly
> a human female, nor with a father or other
> male relatives,
MM:
It's similar to Olivia, Crowley, although Shakespeare had to disguise
it by writing cryptically.
> likely (in fact, certain)
> to impose particular kinds of social codes
> upon her. �
MM:
Why do you say likely? Daphne was a Goddess, otherwise Apollo
wouldn't have been in pursuit of her. You seem to be dragging Daphne
down to a worldly level, just as you attempt to do with Olivia.
Daphne was above and beyond social codes, IMO. Mythology is blurred
to some extent, but that much should be clear enough.
> Nigel might just have well have
> referred to the goddess Pallas Athene --
> a strict virgin.
MM:
Well, you're getting closer to the truth, Crowley. Gods and Goddesses
are closer to Olivia, without a doubt.
> BUT even if it were true! --- What would
> one case matter? �It might be thought to
> change the odds of Olivia representing
> Elizabeth from about a billion to one to
> about a million to one.
>
> Bob is such a dope that he thinks a single
> -- and quite inappropriate -- parallel in
> mythology is quite sufficient for the
> Stratfordian case (on this point).
>
> Paul
MM:
I've already commented on Paul's glaring inability to prove his Queen/
Olivia hypothesis.
Michael Martin
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
You said, " Olivia is the only known female in literature to whom such
a
request is made."
This claim has been rendered beyond question invalid by Ignoto's
quotation from Ovid.
That you deny that this is so prove's not your rigidnikry, but your
hyper-rigidnikry.
--Bob
ignoto
> bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>
>> According to the Paulgram:
>>
>>>> (b) Olivia is the only known female in literature to whom such a
>>>> request is made.
>> This claim has been to be beyond question invalid by
>> Ignoto's quotation from Ovid. There is therefore no
>> compelling reason to believe Olivia is based on
>> Elizabeth because Viola tried to persuade her to
>> marry in order to have children.
>
> This post is so far beyond the pathetic
> that at first I thought it must be a joke.
> However, I'm now pretty sure it's serious
> and nice reflection of Bob's absolute
> rigidnikry.
>
> In the first place it's quite false. Nigel
> identified a Nymph (Daphne) -- not exactly
> a human female,
IIRC Lyly in 'Euphues His England' identifies QE as a nymph.
> nor with a father or other
> male relatives, likely (in fact, certain)
> to impose particular kinds of social codes
> upon her.
Fact: Ovid has Daphne's father (Peneus, the river god) asking his
daughter to get married and produce a son.
> Nigel might just have well have
> referred to the goddess Pallas Athene --
> a strict virgin.
Huh? You are the one who said: "Olivia is the only known female in
literature to whom such a request is made." The virginity of Pallas
Athene is not at all to the point.
>
> BUT even if it were true! --- What would
> one case matter? It might be thought to
> change the odds of Olivia representing
> Elizabeth from about a billion to one to
> about a million to one.
No. As your arguments are invariably perfect models of 'circulus in
demonstrando' the odds of Olivia representing QE are 1:1, 100%.
>
> Bob is such a dope that he thinks a single
> -- and quite inappropriate
The parallel is not inappropriate. Both QE and Daphne are rigid virgins,
strong willed, refusing the marriage bed despite forceful exhortations
to do so. If you followed your usual heuristic these circumstances alone
would be sufficient for you to declare Daphne the model of QE (or vice
versa) as it does not suit your purposes to do so, so you do not, which
merely demonstrates (once again) the subjective nature of your 'arguments'.
Ign.
Paul Crowley
> You said, " Olivia is the only known female in
> literature to whom such a request is made."
To what kind of 'female' do you think
I meant?
Did I mean female wasps? Female screws?
Female hinges? Female ferns? Female
flowers? Female spiders? Female bacteria?
Female dolphins? Female Vogon warriors?
Female Amazonians? Female fairies?
Female goblins? Female spirits?
This is a classic example of how you should
never try to enter into a serious discussion
with idiots.
Generations of 'politically-correct'
anthropologists (of the Margaret Mead
sort) have informed us that human
society is infinitely flexible, and that
human females can often be dominant.
So was I referring to these (mythical?)
South Sea Islands females? Or was I
making a statement about human biology?
I was doing NONE of those things.
> This claim has been rendered beyond question invalid
> by Ignoto's quotation from Ovid.
Ovid was describing creatures of fantasy.
I was talking about REAL human beings
-- in our culture: i.e. Western European.
> That you deny that this is so prove's not your
> rigidnikry, but your hyper-rigidnikry.
Are Strats necessarily idiots?
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Right, Paul. We think female goddesses who act like
human women in every way qualify as human beings.
Even if not, you are wrong, because--yes--if Daphne
had been for Ovid a female kangaroo, the point would
be made: someone advising someone else to get married
in order to bear children. Do you think a writer reading
Ovid's passage would not think it something he could use
because it applied to a goddess instead of a "real human
being?"
I am going to add your reply above to my Paulgram-defining
thread as perfect evidence of your refusal (almost) ever to
admit you're wrong, and of the extent you are willing to go
to avoid doing so.
--Bob
ignoto
Really?
cROWLEY:
"There is nothing like this [request for Olivia to marry and have
children] in the Bible, nor in Greek mythology, nor anywhere."
Greek mythology and the bible obviously deal with creatures other than
'real human beings'
> -- in our culture: i.e. Western European.
Really? When did Rome cease to be a part of Western Europe?
Ign.
ignoto
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>> bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>>
>>> According to the Paulgram:
>>>
>>>>> (b) Olivia is the only known female in literature to whom such a
>>>>> request is made.
>>> This claim has been to be beyond question invalid by
>>> Ignoto's quotation from Ovid. There is therefore no
>>> compelling reason to believe Olivia is based on
>>> Elizabeth because Viola tried to persuade her to
>>> marry in order to have children.
>>
>> This post is so far beyond the pathetic
>> that at first I thought it must be a joke. However, I'm now pretty
>> sure it's serious
>> and nice reflection of Bob's absolute
>> rigidnikry.
>>
>> In the first place it's quite false. Nigel
>> identified a Nymph (Daphne) -- not exactly
>> a human female,
>
> IIRC Lyly in 'Euphues His England' identifies QE as a nymph.
IOVIS ELIZABETH
Pallas, Iuno, Venus, cum Nympham numine plenam
spectarunt, 'nostra haec' quaeque triumphat 'erit.'
...
[JUPITER's ELIZABETH: When Pallas, Juno and Venus looked on a nymph
[Elizabeth] filled with divine majesty, Each of them boasted, 'This
nymph shall be mine': Euphues, ed Scragg (Revels Ed) at 356]
[Lyly was obvious confused as to the difference between a nymph and a
'real human being']
Ign.
Mike
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > You said, " Olivia is the only known female in
> > literature to whom such a request is made."
>
> To what kind of 'female' do you think
> I meant?
>
> Did I mean female wasps? �Female screws?
> Female hinges? �Female ferns? �Female
> flowers? �Female spiders? Female bacteria?
> Female dolphins? �Female Vogon warriors?
> Female Amazonians? �Female fairies?
> Female goblins? �Female spirits?
>
> This is a classic example of how you should
> never try to enter into a serious discussion
> with idiots.
MM:
Crowley, your dodging is getting more and more pitiful. You have
tried to make Olivia the Queen. You mentioned a female in
literature. There is no getting around that.
Just because you didn't qualify precisely your reference to females,
that is your problem, as I see it.
> Generations of 'politically-correct'
> anthropologists (of the Margaret Mead
> sort) have informed us that human
> society is infinitely flexible, and that
> human females can often be dominant.
MM:
So? That doesn't make Olivia the Queen.
> So was I referring to these (mythical?)
> South Sea Islands females? �Or was I
> making a statement about human biology?
MM:
Who knows? LOL
> I was doing NONE of those things.
MM:
Now, you tell us! Thank you, then.
> > This claim has been rendered beyond question invalid
> > by Ignoto's quotation from Ovid.
>
> Ovid was describing creatures of fantasy.
> I was talking about REAL human beings
> -- in our culture: i.e. Western European.
MM:
You're talking about real human beings, but whom was Shakespeare
talking about with his character, Olivia? That is the issue.
By the way, Crowley, the Gods and Goddesses are more real than we. We
are like bubbles on the surface of the ocean, very transitory. They
can even be Eternal, if they are high enough. You might need to read
more Shakespeare in order to learn this truth.
> > That you deny that this is so prove's not your
> > rigidnikry, but your hyper-rigidnikry.
>
> Are Strats necessarily idiots?
>
> Paul.
MM:
Idiots will try to confine Shakespeare to this physical world. He
often wrote about God, Goddesses, Jove, Venus, Apollo, etc... When you
learn not to pigeonhole the Strat Man as inconsiderately as you have
been doing, it will be a happy day for me. :-)
Michael Martin
Mike
> Paul Crowley wrote:
MM:
The odds are billions to one that Olivia was not Queen Elizabeth.
Unlike Crowley, I'll post some corroboration:
CURIO: Will you go hunt, my lord?
DUKE ORSINO: What, Curio?
CURIO: The hart.
DUKE ORSINO: Why, so I do, the noblest that I have:
O, when mine eyes did see Olivia first,
Methought she purged the air of pestilence!
That instant was I turn'd into a hart;
And my desires, like fell and cruel hounds,
E'er since pursue me.
MM:
Queen Elizabeth couldn't purge the air of pestilence. Only a Goddess
could do that. There, now. I've supplied evidence, and there is a
lot more where that came from, I'm sure. Crowley, meanwhile can't
supply one straw of evidence that Olivia was the Queen.
Anti-Strats keep posting their fantasies. They keep hurling ad
hominems at Strats, and the Strat Man, but when it comes to evidence,
their true colors are clear as can be.
Crowley has been trying to force the Queen into the canon, in order to
make a case for Oxfordianism. Once again, he has failed.
> > Bob is such a dope that he thinks a single
> > -- and quite inappropriate
>
> The parallel is not inappropriate. Both QE and Daphne are rigid virgins,
> strong willed, refusing the marriage bed despite forceful exhortations
> to do so. If you followed your usual heuristic these circumstances alone
> would be sufficient for you to declare Daphne the model of QE (or vice
> versa) as it does not suit your purposes to do so, so you do not, which
> merely demonstrates (once again) the subjective nature of your 'arguments'.
>
> Ign.
MM:
Obviously, if it won't support Oxfordianism, then Crowley throws it
out, however more reasonable it might be.
Michael Martin
> > -- parallel in
> > mythology is quite sufficient for the
> > Stratfordian case (on this point).
>
> > Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Paul Crowley
>>>> I can't think of any evidence (indicating
>>>> that the Stratman was in London) that was
>>>> forged by a conspiracy.
> I'm talking about the following (and we have
> discussed this in the past):
> Dave Kathman: "I think Crowley must be referring
> here to the 1619 Court of Requests lawsuit Witter
> v. Heminges and Condell, which discusses the
> history of the shares in the Globe and
> Blackfriars playhouses. Actually, the 1615
> lawsuit Ostler v. Heminges (in which "Heminges"
> is John Heminges and "Ostler" is his daughter
> Thomasina, the widow of William Ostler) discusses
> the history of the Globe and Blackfriars shares
> in much more detail, and it's all in Latin in the
> middle of a huge roll of parchment sheets
> stitched together, so it would have been very
> difficult to forge.
The cover-up was definitely under way by
1597 when the Stratman was paid a huge
amount of money. From at least that time
steps would have been taken to convey
the impression that "William Shakespeare"
was some kind of functionary within the
Lord Chamberlain's company, who wrote
plays while living in some remote country
retreat. From 1598 this name began to
appear on published quartos. Precautions
would have been taken (by Thomas Greene
or someone like him) to ensure that this
name appeared in legal documents that
might come up in court -- although never
in a context where legal obligations were
created that could have required the
appearance of this "Will Shake-speare" in
court.
Heminges and Condell were certainly
parties to the cover-up. Of course, it
would be nice to see exactly what they
did say, but the absence of any detail
from Stratfordian 'biographers' suggests
that it was not much.
> There's the inventory post mortem of Thomas
> Brend, dated May 21, 1599, which lists among
> Brend's property "vna Domo de novo edificata...
> in occupatione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum"
> ("a house newly built... occupied by William
> Shakespeare and others").
Did the person drawing up this inventory
know people in occupation? Or the role
of "Willielmi Shakespeare" in the set-up?
Or was he essentially referring to the play
bills that were around?
> Thomas Brend's son
> Nicholas inherited his property, and on October
> 7, 1601, Nicholas Brend signed the deed of trust
> to which Dominic is presumably referring; it
> lists among his properties a "playhowse" occupied
> by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare,
> gent.". Three days later, another document
> similar lists Burbage and Shakespeare as the
> tenants of the "playhowse". Nicholas Brend died
> on October 12, and the properties including the
> Globe passed to his infant son Matthew, with John
> Bodley, John Collet, and Sir Matthew Browne
> controlling them in trust. A deed of 1608, by
> which John Collet sold John Bodley his interest
> in the trust, lists property including a
> "playhouse" with tenants "Richard Burbage and
> William Shakespeare, gentlemen". Later documents
> of 1622, 1624, and 1633 copy the description in
> the original 1601 deed of trust, as was
> customarily done in legal documents.
What is there to say about such things?
The scribes wrote what they were told to
write -- by whom we do not know. They
are simply no more than names in documents,
which seem to imply no personal legal
obligation. Regrettably no one ever
records meeting the playwright -- which
is quite absurd.
>> I can't see any forgery.
>
> That's pretty funny, considering you see them
> everywhere.
I see some deception: the scribes were
given information which the informants
(at some point) knew to be false. But
this is hardly forgery -- in any usual
definition of the word.
>> Nor can I
>> see any evidence that the Stratman
>> was in London.
>
> You don't see anything, but that isn't funny at
> all,
There is NOTHING in the above
documents that links the Stratman to
them. The scribes (and some of their
informants) may have correctly understood
that someone using the pseudonym "Will
Shakespeare" had a strong connection to
the company (which was entirely true).
[..]
>> If you met a man who you discovered
>> had illiterate parents, an illiterate
>> wife and illiterate children, would
>> you expect him to be literate himself?
>
> Why would you bring modern cultural expectations
> into a discussion of a completely different time
> and culture?
Sure, dey woz differen den. Illiteracy
then was not the same as now (some
illiterates could read to some extent).
Likewise literacy then was not like
literacy now. People who could read
them probably would not be able to
read modern texts.
What a load of total crap!
> What I would expect has no bearing
> on what someone in 1600 would, or would not,
> expect. Even today, while I might expect that
> such a man would himself be illiterate, that
> would not necessarily be so. Of course, all of
> this is not evidence as to wheher or not,
> Shakespeare, his parents, or his children were
> illiterate.
Of course, it is. Go to any country,
and you'll find the same expectations
-- whatever the local rates of literacy.
[..]
>> It
>>> would only be evidence that they were illiterate.
>>> Since there is evidence that he was an actor in the
>>> Chamberlain's/King's Men, it is more likely than not
>>> that he was literate. As to the signatures, some
>>> experts doubt that they are even his. They do not
>>> prove what you wish they proved.
>>
>> They are too similar and too bad, and
>> in too many places, to be written by
>> anyone else.
>
> I notice you dodged the evidence about him being an actor in the
> Chamberlain's/King's men.
I noticed that you dodged the evidence
of the Stratman's inability to write --
from the evidence of his own hand.
The evidence of his being an actor is
(a) crazy -- he's shown at the top of
lists (by Ben Jonson) which can only
be some kind of joke;
(b) contradictory: why did he (or any
of his relations) never mention that he
had been a servant of the Royal House-
hold for the best part of two decades?
> Your subjective opinion of Shakespeare's
> signature as being "bad"
Typical lawyer trick. NO ONE (including
the clown Dominic) claims that they are
other than bad.
> does not prove that he was illiterate.
It does -- in the context of the day.
Literate people took care over their
signatures and penmanship. You will
not be able to find a badly written
Elizabethan signature -- other than
the Stratman's.
> If, in fact, he did sign his name, that is a fact
> which would tend to prove that he was literate.
> I know a lawyer in the building next door whose
> signature on official documents is so "bad" that
> it is indecipherable..he is not illiterate.
The fly on the wall has a better sense
of history than you.
>>>>>>>> The relevant issues here are:
>>>>>>>> (a) Is the Lady Olivia a representation
>>>>>>>> of Queen Elizabeth?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have yet to show that to be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What evidence would you accept?
>>>>
>>>> No answer.
>>>
>>> Here is your answer:
>>> I would accept a well-reasoned argument,
>>
>> Read the question again. This is a dodge
>> -- probably undertaken quite automatically
>> and unthinkingly.
>
> It is not a dodge at all. I'm telling you that I
> would accept a well-reasoned argument making the
> case that Olivia was modelled on Elizabeth. What
> is your problem...sorry, rhetorical question.
So you cannot distinguish between 'evidence'
and 'a well reasoned argument' !
Have you ever tried using a dictionary?
>> So you want me to list the few billion
>> women who have lived, with evidence
>> from each (an affidavit?) to the effect
>> that they were never so asked?
>
> That is exactly what you are asking me to do.
Not so. IF the world was as you say it
is, such women would be common -- in
history and literature. You can't think
of one. Nor can any Strat.
> You want me to search the history of every woman
> ever born to counter your ridiculous argument.
> If it is too onerous and absurd for you to do
> that, it is equally onerous and absurd for me to
> undertake such a fool's errand. The point that
> you are missing is that you are the one who is
> contending that you know for a fact that
> Elizabeth was the only woman who was ever the
> subject of such a plea. The burden of proving
> that falls on you, even though it is impossible
> to prove such a statement true (or false).
This is a typical 'argument' from someone
who hasn't a clue. You should be able to
find MANY examples -- but can't find one.
I have to prove such women don't exist --
by listing every woman who has ever lived.
[..]
>> What other European female noble
>> (a) had a father who loved fools
>> (b) employed them herself, but
>> (c) of whom could be said "she will
>> keep no fool, sir, till she be
>> married;" . . ?
>
> The sad part is that you won't even understand
> how stupid your argument is here
It's a simple question: "What other woman . . ?"
You (and the whole tribe of Strats) cannot
begin to suggest an answer.
> or even acknowledge that your "acutely precise"
> parallel has been altered every time it has been
> shown not to be true.
Defeat it by quoting some names.
> Why do you contend that the
> line is applicable to the real Elizabeth?
Defeat it by quoting some names.
Don't try to change the subject.
>>>> Likewise, there have been none since
>>>> Elizabeth. If there had been the case(s)
>>>> would be easy to recall.
>>> There was a recent case in Japan where there was
>>> pressure to marry and produce a male heir, and there
>>> was even pressure put on Prince Charles to find and
>>> marry a suitable partner.
>>
>> Err . . we are talking about the 16th
>> century -- not the modern world. Things
>> have changed -- mostly fairly recently.
>> Apparently it was not until 1968 that
>> women could sit on juries all over the
>> USA (Alabama being the last state to
>> change).
>
> I understand that quite well.
NO, you don't. You quoted Prince Charles.
> So why do you bring up modern expectations so
> often in an attempt to show what probabilities
> were in effect in 1600 England?
YOU brought up Prince Charles.
>> He could have suggested that the world
>> would be a poorer place if she did not
>> pass on her beauty.
>
> He could have done a lot of things. That doesn't
> change the fact that we're discussing one brief
> statement out of the entire play,
The statement is there. Deal with it.
>>>> IF the playwright had been hauled up in
>>>> court, and accused of impugning Elizabeth,
>>>> what defence could he have used? That
>>>> he really meant someone else?
>>>
>>> More evidence that he did not intend this line to
>>> be a reference to Elizabeth...he wasn't worried at
>>> all about it being seen as impugning Elizabeth.
>>
>> It could hardly be about Elizabeth if it
>> was written around 1600. The Queen was
>> nearing seventy, and not likely to have
>> a child.
>
> Now you're finally making some progress. The
> play was not about Elizabeth.
We can see why Strats have so ignorantly
assumed this for the past 300 years or
so. It is also to do with the 'suspension
of disbelief' that is necessary in the
theatre. Everything is assumed to be
fictional or a fairy-tale. It is not
subject to rational analysis. But as
soon as an intelligent person examines the
text closely, questions arise. They are
questions you can't answer.
>> Written in the late 1570s there was only
>> one woman who could have been indicated.
>
> Well, if you ever supply some evidence tending to
> prove that it was written in the 1570's, we can
> consider that evidence. Until then, this is mere
> speculation on your part.
Endless circularity. I have provided
thousands of items to show that many of
the works were written in and around the
1570s. You dismiss every one because of
your quasi-religious belief. No evidence
(let alone proof) is acceptable to you
(or any Strat) to show an early date.
>> The dating of the play to the 1570s with
>> the identification of Malvolio as Hatton
>> has been routine in Oxfordian circles for
>> many decades.
>
> That doesn't do much to prove your claim.
Of course not. I was merely showing the
error of your point that I was the first
to date this play to the 1570s.
> One character in a work might be loosely based on
> a real person
Or closely based on a real person. There
can be no doubt about most of the characters
in Twelfth Night. Nor has anyone here tried
to set out real differences between the
characters in the play and their real-life
counterparts.
> but that doesn't mean that everyone in the work
> is also based on real individuals. For instance,
> the character of Willy Stark in 'All the King's
> Men' is generally considered to be inspired by
> Huey Long. However, there are no real-life
> counterparts for the other characters. In fact,
> Robert Penn Warren denied that Stark was even
> based on Huey Long:
Denials of this nature are quite common,
even when the characters are very close.
But they are rarely believed -- in this
case as much as any.
>> My major contribution here is the
>> identification of Viola as Raleigh.
>>
> Run that by any Oxenfordian and see if they
> reject that interpretation.
Oxfordians are not barred from this forum.
The quasi-fascist PT brigade (e.g. Lynne)
prefer their private groups from which
they can exclude any 'heretical' Oxfordian
ideas, which might tend to undermine
their own sick ones.
[..]
>> Can you quote ANY roughly similar plea
>> made to ANY roughly similar female in
>> ANY literature at ANY time in ANY
>> culture?
>
> Daphne has been suggested as just one in literature.
So the Nymph Daphne is 'roughly similar'
to the Lady Olivia?
>> Can you refer to ANY roughly similar plea
>> made to ANY roughly similar female in ANY
>> recorded history at ANY time in ANY
>> culture?
>
> There you go again...back to that stupid argument
> which has already been addressed.
'Addressed' but never answered. And, as
always, you give no reasons for your
incapacity to answer.
<endless tedious repetition snipped>
Paul.
Peter Groves
really quite good here (he's clearly desperate).
--
Peter G
"Shakespeare is the happy hunting ground of all minds that have lost their
balance."
(James Joyce)
"Paul Crowley" <dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote in message
news:h1q60r$eck$1...@aioe.org...
ignoto
Sidney, Arcadia, III (1590):
"Philoclea looked vpon her, & cast downe her eie again. Aunt (said she)
I would I could be so much a mistres of my owne mind, as to yeelde to my
cousins vertuous request: for so I construe of it. But my hart is
already set (and staying a while on that word, she brought foorth
afterwards) to lead a virgins life to my death: for such a vow I haue in
my selfe deuoutly made. The heauens preuent such a mischiefe (said
Cecropia.) A vowe, quoth you? no, no, my deere neece, Nature, when you
were first borne, vowed you a woma[n], & as she made you child of a
mother, so to do your best to be mother of a child: she gaue you beautie
to moue loue; she gaue you wit to know loue; she gaue you an excelle[n]t
body to reward loue: which kind of liberall rewarding is crowned with
vnspeakable felicitie. For this, as it bindeth the receiuer, so it makes
happy the bestower: this doth not impouerish, but enrich the giuer. O
the sweet name of a mother: O the co[m]fort of co[m]forts, to see your
childre[n] grow vp, in who[m] you are (as it were) eternized: if you
could conceiue what a hart-tickling ioy it is to see your own litle
ones, with awfull loue come running to your lap, and like litle models
of your selfe, still cary you about them, you would thinke vnkindnes in
your own thoughts, that euer they did rebell against the mean vnto it. "
Lyly, Euphues (1579).
"[Ferado to his daughter Lucilla:]But this grieveth me most, that thou
art almost vowed to the vain order of the vestal virgins, despising - or
at least not desiring - the sacred bands of Juno her bed. If thy mother
had been of that mind when she was a maiden, thou hadst not been born to
be of this mind to be a virgin. Weigh with thyself what slender profit
they bring to the commonwealth, what slight pleasure to themselves, what
great grief to their parents, which most joy in their offspring and
desire most to enjoy the noble and blessed name of a grandfather. Thou
knowest that the tallest ash is cut down for fuel because it bareth no
good fruit, that the cow that gives no milk is brought to the slaughter,
that the drone that gathereth no honey is contemned, thatt he woman that
maketh herself barren by not marrying is accounted among the Graecian
ladies worswe than a carrion as Homer reporteth. Therefore Lucilla, if
thou have any care to be a comfort to my hoary airsor a commodity to thy
commonweal, frame thyself to that honourable estate of matrimony whioch
was sanctified in paradise, allowed of the patrioarchs, hallowed of the
old prophets, and commended of all persons.
If thou like any, be not ashamed to tell it me, which only am to exhort
thee, yea and as much as in me lieth to command thee, to love one. If he
be base, thy blood will make him noble; if beggarly, thy goods shall
make him wealthy; if a stranger, thy freedom may enfranchise him; if he
be young, he is the more fitter to be thy fere; if he be old, the liker
to thine aged father. For I had rather thiou shouldst lead a life to
thine own liking than to thy great torments lead apes in hell..."
Robert Greene, Mamillia (1583):
"[Madam Castilla:] And I myself, Mamillia, which once a wife and now a
widow, do speak by experience, that though virginity is pleasant, yet
marriage is more delightful. For in the first creation of the world God
made not Adam and Eva single virgins, but joined couples, so that
virginity is profitable to one, but marriage is profitable to many.
Whether is ye vine more regarded that beareth grapes, or ye ash that
hath nothing but leaves? The deer that increaseth the park, or the
barren doe? Whether is the hop-tree more esteemed that rots on the
ground than that which, clasping the pole, creepeth up & bringeth forth
fruit?
What, Mamillia, as virginity is fair and beautiful, so what by course of
kind is more unseemly than an old wrinkled maid? What is more pleasant
to the sight than a smaragd, yet what less profitable if it be not used?
What more delightful to the eyes than the colour of good wine, yet what
of less value if it cannot be tasted? There is nothing more fair than
the phoenix, yet nothing less necessary because she is single. Yea, even
the law of nature, Mamillia, wisheth society, and detesteth
solitariness. Whether even in thine own judgment, Mamillia, if thou
hadst a goodly orchard, wouldst thou wish nothing but blossoms to grow
continually, or the blossoms to fade and the trees to be fraught with
pleasant fruit? ...[etc]"
Ign.
Dominic Hughes
> Dominic Hughes wrote:
> >>>> I can't think of any evidence (indicating
> >>>> that the Stratman was in London) that was
> >>>> forged by a conspiracy.
> > I'm talking about the following (and we have
> > discussed this in the past):
> > Dave Kathman: "I think Crowley must be referring
> > here to the 1619 Court of Requests lawsuit Witter
> > v. Heminges and Condell, which discusses the
> > history of the shares in the Globe and
> > Blackfriars playhouses. Actually, the 1615
> > lawsuit Ostler v. Heminges (in which "Heminges"
> > is John Heminges and "Ostler" is his daughter
> > Thomasina, the widow of William Ostler) discusses
> > the history of the Globe and Blackfriars shares
> > in much more detail, and it's all in Latin in the
> > middle of a huge roll of parchment sheets
> > stitched together, so it would have been very
> > difficult to forge.
> The cover-up was definitely under way by
> 1597 when the Stratman was paid a huge
> amount of money.
This is baseless speculation on your part. You have no evidence to
support the claim that there was a cover-up underway in 1597 or that
part of the cover-up included the payment of a large sum of money that
year to Shakespeare of Stratford. The fact that you indulge in these
speculations does not make them facts. Will you admit that they are
simply conjectures on your part.
>From at least that time
> steps would have been taken to convey
> the impression that "William Shakespeare"
> was some kind of functionary within the
> Lord Chamberlain's company,
Base speculation...you have no evidence to support this conjecture.
> who wrote
> plays while living in some remote country
> retreat.
Base speculation...you have no evidence to support this conjecture.
What evidence exists to support the claim that the conspirator/
jokesters conveyed an impression that Shakespeare:
1. Was some kind of functionary within the Lord Chamberlain's men;
2. Who wrote plays while living in some remote country retreat?
>From 1598 this name began to
> appear on published quartos.
You stumbled upon a fact.
>Precautions
> would have been taken (by Thomas Greene
> or someone like him) to ensure that this
> name appeared in legal documents that
> might come up in court -- although never
> in a context where legal obligations were
> created that could have required the
> appearance of this "Will Shake-speare" in
> court.
More speculation on your part. You have no evidence to support these
claims.
Do you really fail to see and acknowledge that fact?
> Heminges and Condell were certainly
> parties to the cover-up.
No, they certainly have not been shown to have been part of any cover-
up. Where and what is your evidence for this claim?
>Of course, it
> would be nice to see exactly what they
> did say, but the absence of any detail
> from Stratfordian 'biographers' suggests
> that it was not much.
And the absence of any detailed evidence from you proves that, as
usual, all you have to say is speculative and devoid of factual
support.
> > There's the inventory post mortem of Thomas
> > Brend, dated May 21, 1599, which lists among
> > Brend's property "vna Domo de novo edificata...
> > in occupatione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum"
> > ("a house newly built... occupied by William
> > Shakespeare and others").
>
> Did the person drawing up this inventory
> know people in occupation?
Sure. He says he knows that one person definitely in occuation of the
newly built house is William Shakespeare.
>Or the role
> of "Willielmi Shakespeare" in the set-up?
What set-up would that be? The record is straightforward. Your
pitiful attempts to question it do nothing to affect the validity or
evidentiary strength of the document.
> Or was he essentially referring to the play
> bills that were around?
Why would he shirk his legal responsibilities in such a silly manner
as you suggest. Seriously, you've had seven days to come up with a
response to this evidence and these snippy, irrelevant non sequiturs
are the best you could do. Pitiful.
> > Thomas Brend's son
> > Nicholas inherited his property, and on October
> > 7, 1601, Nicholas Brend signed the deed of trust
> > to which Dominic is presumably referring; it
> > lists among his properties a "playhowse" occupied
> > by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare,
> > gent.".
A playhouse. Occupied by Richard Burbage and William Shakespeare.
>Three days later, another document
> > similar lists Burbage and Shakespeare as the
> > tenants of the "playhowse". Nicholas Brend died
> > on October 12, and the properties including the
> > Globe passed to his infant son Matthew, with John
> > Bodley, John Collet, and Sir Matthew Browne
> > controlling them in trust. A deed of 1608, by
> > which John Collet sold John Bodley his interest
> > in the trust, lists property including a
> > "playhouse" with tenants "Richard Burbage and
> > William Shakespeare, gentlemen". Later documents
> > of 1622, 1624, and 1633 copy the description in
> > the original 1601 deed of trust, as was
> > customarily done in legal documents.
>
> What is there to say about such things?
You certainly can't come up with anything relevant or helpful to your
theory.
> The scribes wrote what they were told to
> write -- by whom we do not know.
This is pure speculation on your part devoid of any factual support
whatsoever.
>They
> are simply no more than names in documents,
> which seem to imply no personal legal
> obligation.
You are blind, Polyphemus. The documents show that William
Shakespeare was a tenant of a playhouse (tenancy implies a legal
obligation). This is the best you've got?
> Regrettably no one ever
> records meeting the playwright -- which
> is quite absurd.
To you maybe.
> http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/bro...
>
> >> I can't see any forgery.
>
> > That's pretty funny, considering you see them
> > everywhere.
>
> I see some deception: the scribes were
> given information which the informants
> (at some point) knew to be false. But
> this is hardly forgery -- in any usual
> definition of the word.
This is hardly anything. It is mere speculation on your part with no
evidence whatsoever to support your case.
> >> Nor can I
> >> see any evidence that the Stratman
> >> was in London.
>
> > You don't see anything, but that isn't funny at
> > all,
>
> There is NOTHING in the above
> documents that links the Stratman to
> them.
Your penchant for denial is in full-force and effect here. The
documents demonstrate that William Shakespeare was a tenant in a
playhouse in London. The documents in the Mountjoy case, and other
documents, show that he lived in London.
>The scribes (and some of their
> informants) may have correctly understood
> that someone using the pseudonym "Will
> Shakespeare" had a strong connection to
> the company (which was entirely true).
Bare-assed speculation...the coin of the Crowleyian universe.
> [..]
>
> >> If you met a man who you discovered
> >> had illiterate parents, an illiterate
> >> wife and illiterate children, would
> >> you expect him to be literate himself?
>
> > Why would you bring modern cultural expectations
> > into a discussion of a completely different time
> > and culture?
>
> Sure, dey woz differen den. Illiteracy
> then was not the same as now (some
> illiterates could read to some extent).
> Likewise literacy then was not like
> literacy now. People who could read
> them probably would not be able to
> read modern texts.
>
> What a load of total crap!
Except that you cannot show that it is a load of total crap. In fact,
all you can do is offer your specious, crappy opinion, devoid of any
evidentiary support whatsoever. People who have studied the state of
literacy in 1600 England know better than you do, and people were
different then (which you acknowledge when it suits your purposes).
> > What I would expect has no bearing
> > on what someone in 1600 would, or would not,
> > expect. Even today, while I might expect that
> > such a man would himself be illiterate, that
> > would not necessarily be so. Of course, all of
> > this is not evidence as to wheher or not,
> > Shakespeare, his parents, or his children were
> > illiterate.
>
> Of course, it is. Go to any country,
> and you'll find the same expectations
> -- whatever the local rates of literacy.
Once again, you simply spout your opinions as if they were facts,
never supplying the first bit of evidence in support thereof. And
you're still bringing modern cultural expectations into a discussion
of a completely different time and culture? As I said before, anyone
in England in 1600 would expect Mr. William Shakespeare of Stratford
to be literate, even if they were told that his wife and daughters
were not literate.
> [..]
>
> >> It
> >>> would only be evidence that they were illiterate.
> >>> Since there is evidence that he was an actor in the
> >>> Chamberlain's/King's Men, it is more likely than not
> >>> that he was literate. As to the signatures, some
> >>> experts doubt that they are even his. They do not
> >>> prove what you wish they proved.
>
> >> They are too similar and too bad, and
> >> in too many places, to be written by
> >> anyone else.
>
> > I notice you dodged the evidence about him being an actor in the
> > Chamberlain's/King's men.
>
> I noticed that you dodged the evidence
> of the Stratman's inability to write --
> from the evidence of his own hand.
You're still dodging. And I didn't dodge the evidence of
Shakespeare's signatures. I said:
Your subjective opinion of Shakespeare's signature as being "bad" does
not prove that he was illiterate. If, in fact, he did sign his name,
that is a fact which would tend to prove that he was literate
> The evidence of his being an actor is
> (a) crazy -- he's shown at the top of
> lists (by Ben Jonson) which can only
> be some kind of joke;
More speculation on your part. And your sense of humor is nil.
> (b) contradictory: why did he (or any
> of his relations) never mention that he
> had been a servant of the Royal House-
> hold for the best part of two decades?
How do you know they did not mention it? Are you actually expecting
some written record to have been made. They really didn't have to
mention it since everyone already knew the fact (and there was a First
Folio and a Monument for all to see).
> > Your subjective opinion of Shakespeare's
> > signature as being "bad"
>
> Typical lawyer trick. NO ONE (including
> the clown Dominic) claims that they are
> other than bad.
"Bad" signatures do not equal illiteracy. I do not think they are
bad...the ones on the will are not as "good" as the others, but there
are many possible explanations for that other than illiteracy.
> > does not prove that he was illiterate.
>
> It does -- in the context of the day.
> Literate people took care over their
> signatures and penmanship. You will
> not be able to find a badly written
> Elizabethan signature -- other than
> the Stratman's.
More speculation. Have you studied every Elizabethan signature, or
are you just spouting opinions and claiming them to be facts? As I
recollect (and I could be wrong about this) some literate Elizabethans
signed their names differently for different occasions.
> > If, in fact, he did sign his name, that is a fact
> > which would tend to prove that he was literate.
> > I know a lawyer in the building next door whose
> > signature on official documents is so "bad" that
> > it is indecipherable..he is not illiterate.
>
> The fly on the wall has a better sense
> of history than you.
And more intelligence, and probably a better facility for explaining
himself, than you do. Nice dodge...explain how a "bad" signature is
evidence that the person signing his name is illiterate. History
shows, even in modern times, when illiteracy is not the same type of
problem that existed in 1600, that a "bad" signature is not evidence
of illiteracy. A signature remains some evidence of literacy.
Why are you so inarticulate that you are unable to explain what human
history has to do with your claim that "bad" signatures are evidence
for illiteracy?
> >>>>>>>> The relevant issues here are:
> >>>>>>>> (a) Is the Lady Olivia a representation
> >>>>>>>> of Queen Elizabeth?
>
> >>>>>>> You have yet to show that to be true.
>
> >>>>>> What evidence would you accept?
>
> >>>> No answer.
>
> >>> Here is your answer:
> >>> I would accept a well-reasoned argument,
>
> >> Read the question again. This is a dodge
> >> -- probably undertaken quite automatically
> >> and unthinkingly.
>
> > It is not a dodge at all. I'm telling you that I
> > would accept a well-reasoned argument making the
> > case that Olivia was modelled on Elizabeth. What
> > is your problem...sorry, rhetorical question.
>
> So you cannot distinguish between 'evidence'
> and 'a well reasoned argument' !
What? A well-reasoned argument contains evidence that supports the
ultimate end of the argument. Your reasoning is circular (as has been
pointed out to you many times) and you don't supply evidence to
buttress your speculations and assumptions.
> Have you ever tried using a dictionary?
I use the OED quite a bit, but what does that have to do with the fact
that you can't put together a coherent and logical argument based on
actual evidence?
> >> So you want me to list the few billion
> >> women who have lived, with evidence
> >> from each (an affidavit?) to the effect
> >> that they were never so asked?
>
> > That is exactly what you are asking me to do.
>
> Not so. IF the world was as you say it
> is, such women would be common -- in
> history and literature. You can't think
> of one. Nor can any Strat.
Ignoto is supplying more and more such references every day (including
today).
I'm sure you will either ignore those or find some silly point to try
to contest their applicability.
> > You want me to search the history of every woman
> > ever born to counter your ridiculous argument.
> > If it is too onerous and absurd for you to do
> > that, it is equally onerous and absurd for me to
> > undertake such a fool's errand. The point that
> > you are missing is that you are the one who is
> > contending that you know for a fact that
> > Elizabeth was the only woman who was ever the
> > subject of such a plea. The burden of proving
> > that falls on you, even though it is impossible
> > to prove such a statement true (or false).
>
> This is a typical 'argument' from someone
> who hasn't a clue. You should be able to
> find MANY examples -- but can't find one.
> I have to prove such women don't exist --
> by listing every woman who has ever lived.
Why should I be able to find many examples? This statement reveals
your base stupidity. I don't know how Ignoto is conducting his search
but he has supplied three more examples today. You lose.
The point that you are missing (still) is that you are the one who is
contending that you know for a fact that Elizabeth was the only woman
who was ever the subject of such a plea. The burden of proving that
falls on you, even though it is impossible to prove such a statement
true (or false). Why is it that you rarely, if ever, make any attempt
meet your burden to prove your conjectures?
> [..]
>
> >> What other European female noble
> >> (a) had a father who loved fools
> >> (b) employed them herself, but
> >> (c) of whom could be said "she will
> >> keep no fool, sir, till she be
> >> married;" . . ?
>
> > The sad part is that you won't even understand
> > how stupid your argument is here
>
> It's a simple question: "What other woman . . ?"
> You (and the whole tribe of Strats) cannot
> begin to suggest an answer.
Your premise is incorrect. Elizabeth did not simply employ
fools...she "HAD" fools (Olivia did not).
Are you even going to acknowledge the substantial changes that you
have been forced to make to your "acutely precise" court fools
parallel, or are you simply going to pretend that your new
configuration of the argument is what you have contended all along?
How dishonest are you?
> > or even acknowledge that your "acutely precise"
> > parallel has been altered every time it has been
> > shown not to be true.
>
> Defeat it by quoting some names.
Nice dodge...you aren't going to acknowledge that you have changed
your "acutely precise" parallel -- or that it still isn't acutely
precise. Elizabeth "HAD" fools, while Olivia did not. Your alleged
parallel s already defeated since one of the assumptions upon which it
rests (that Olivia and Elizabeth had an identical relationship to
their court fools) is in shambles.
> > Why do you contend that the
> > line is applicable to the real Elizabeth?
>
> Defeat it by quoting some names.
> Don't try to change the subject.
Nice dodge. You have said that there is an acutely precise parallel
between Elizabeth and Olivia when it comes to the matter of court
fools. Your position on this point has changed approximately five
times, and yet you still contend that the parallel is "acutely
precise"? I am not changing the argument at all; I am merely
requesting that you provide an explanation of your argument and that
you produce any evidence that you may have to support that argument.
I ask you to explain your argument and you are simply incapable of
doing so. Why are you so inarticulate. You ask us to argue against
your positions but then you won't even explain how you arrived at your
position, or supply the evidence that you claim lends it support.
I don't have to provide any names, because, as I have previously
demonstrated, the parallel does not exist as you have framed it (the
assumptions underlying your question have not been shown to be true,
and, if anything, have been shown to be false). I have supplied
evidence showing that Elizabeth's attitude and enjoyment of fools is
not the same as that shown by Olivia. You may provide evidence to
counter that argument but somehow I doubt that you ever will. I'm
still waiting on Southworth's book to be delivered. Since you have
previously acknowledged that he is an authoritative source on this
matter, I should be able to more fully address this question once I've
had a chance to review his book. Will I find the "recorded exchanges"
that you contend are cited therein, or did you make those up?
> >>>> Likewise, there have been none since
> >>>> Elizabeth. If there had been the case(s)
> >>>> would be easy to recall.
> >>> There was a recent case in Japan where there was
> >>> pressure to marry and produce a male heir, and there
> >>> was even pressure put on Prince Charles to find and
> >>> marry a suitable partner.
>
> >> Err . . we are talking about the 16th
> >> century -- not the modern world. Things
> >> have changed -- mostly fairly recently.
> >> Apparently it was not until 1968 that
> >> women could sit
>
> > I understand that quite well.
>
> NO, you don't. You quoted Prince Charles.
So what?
> > So why do you bring up modern expectations so
> > often in an attempt to show what probabilities
> > were in effect in 1600 England?
>
> YOU brought up Prince Charles.
I wasn't discussing probabilities, was I?
> >> He could have suggested that the world
> >> would be a poorer place if she did not
> >> pass on her beauty.
>
> > He could have done a lot of things. That doesn't
> > change the fact that we're discussing one brief
> > statement out of the entire play,
>
> The statement is there. Deal with it.
Thanks, but I already have. It is one throw-away line in an entire
play, and it is similar to passages in other literature of the time as
Ignoto and his examples from other works clearly demonstrate. Deal
with it.
> >>>> IF the playwright had been hauled up in
> >>>> court, and accused of impugning Elizabeth,
> >>>> what defence could he have used? That
> >>>> he really meant someone else?
>
> >>> More evidence that he did not intend this line to
> >>> be a reference to Elizabeth...he wasn't worried at
> >>> all about it being seen as impugning Elizabeth.
>
> >> It could hardly be about Elizabeth if it
> >> was written around 1600. The Queen was
> >> nearing seventy, and not likely to have
> >> a child.
>
> > Now you're finally making some progress. The
> > play was not about Elizabeth.
>
> We can see why Strats have so ignorantly
> assumed this for the past 300 years or
> so.
We are constantly exposed to the assumptions that you make, since that
is all that you do. Why are you so ignorant and iarticulate that you
can only cast aspersions but cannot explain your positions, other than
to spout conclusory speculations.
> It is also to do with the 'suspension
> of disbelief' that is necessary in the
> theatre. Everything is assumed to be
> fictional or a fairy-tale.
Find a dictionary. Look up the term "suspension of disbelief"(for
your future information it is usually referred to as "the willing
suspension of disbelief"). It does not mean what you appear to think
it means. While there, look up the term "circular reasoning".
I do not assume that everything that is ever written for the theatre
is fictional or a fairy-tale. On the other hand, I also don't
necessarily assume (as you do) that all works written for the theatre
in the Elizabethan age were thinly veiled accounts of Elizabeth's
court. You're the one involved in making assumptions here.
>It is not
> subject to rational analysis.
Even plays that are fictional are subject to rational analysis. Do
you have any idea at all about the subject upon which you are so
unintelligently ponitificating?
> But as
> soon as an intelligent person examines the
> text closely, questions arise. They are
> questions you can't answer.
I answer your inane questions all the time, to the extent that such
asinine questions can be answered. It would help if you actually made
an argument before asking a question, but you rarely, if ever, do
that. You simply throw out conjectures and ask why isn't this true?
For instance, you claimed that Elizabeth employed no fools. I showed
that she did, and you changed your claim. You said that, while she
may have employed some fools, she certainly took no pleasure in them.
I showed that she did, and you changed your theory to say that she
"HAD" no fools. I supplied evidence to the contrary and you went into
denial mode. During that entire exchange, you never once supplied any
evidence. You suggested that there were some "recorded exchanges" in
Southworth's book that would support your conjecture that Elizabeth
took no pleasure in fools, but you were not to be bothered in
providing them here. Yawn. You've now reached a new position, while
failing to acknowledge that you have not even attempted to prove the
assumptions upon which it is based.
> >> Written in the late 1570s there was only
> >> one woman who could have been indicated.
>
> > Well, if you ever supply some evidence tending to
> > prove that it was written in the 1570's, we can
> > consider that evidence. Unbtil then, this is mere
> > speculation on your part.
>
> Endless circularity.
Correct. That is your method exactly...."endless circularity" fits
your mode of analysis perfectly.
You make an assumption without benefit of any facts, You put another
zero-evidence assumption on top of it. Pretty soon, you have a whole
tower of babel, comprised of conjecture and unsupported
conclusions...and you are the only one who understands your babble.
>I have provided
> thousands of items
I'm glad to see that you identified your thousands of notion as
"items" -- they certainly are not facts. Could it be that you are
finally coming to see that your speculations are not facts?
>to show that many of
> the works were written in and around the
> 1570s.
Items don't show anything...they only show the assumptions that you
make. They do not prove anything.
>You dismiss every one because of
> your quasi-religious belief.
This is ironic. I dismiss your speculations because they are not
facts. They are your subjective conclusions, conjectures and
assumptions. I don't have any quasi-religious beliefs about
Shakespeare. I follow the real evidence, documentary and otherwise,
wherever it goes.
>No evidence
> (let alone proof) is acceptable to you
> (or any Strat)
Incredibly ironic. You are the one, Polyphemus, who blinds himself to
actual evidence, as you have shown in this very post. Legal records
must be fabrications, according to you. Why? Because they contradict
your quasi-religious belief in Oxenforde. Do you have any actual
evidence that calls the documents into question? Well, no, but your
speculation is that such records were part of a cover-up or were crazy
jokes. Is there any evidence that there was a cover-up. None at
all. All you have is your assumptions and conjectures, without and
documentary evidence whatsoever, so we end up with this bizarre hybrid
of pseudo-psychology, cheap smear, and conspiracy theory.
>to show an early date.
What is your evidence for an early date...not your opinions or
conjectures, but your evidence?
> >> The dating of the play to the 1570s with
> >> the identification of Malvolio as Hatton
> >> has been routine in Oxfordian circles for
> >> many decades.
>
> > That doesn't do much to prove your claim.
>
> Of course not. I was merely showing the
> error of your point that I was the first
> to date this play to the 1570s.
I don't believe I ever made any such point, but then your penchant for
sonstructing strawmen is well-recognized.
> > One character in a work might be loosely based on
> > a real person
>
> Or closely based on a real person.
Or not based on any real person.
>There
> can be no doubt about most of the characters
> in Twelfth Night.
Sure there can be doubt. You have failed to show that Raleigh is
Viola or that Olivia is Queen Elizabeth.
>Nor has anyone here tried
> to set out real differences between the
> characters in the play and their real-life
> counterparts.
Are you crazy. We've spent weeks now highlighting differences between
the characters and the real-life personages you say they are modelled
on (Raleigh is not a woman, had no twin, Elizabeth "HAD" court fools,
etc.). Your Olivia-Elizabeth conjecture doesn't provide a match,
although you keep claiming it does. Elizabeth was pressured
politically to marry in
order to have an heir to avoid a succession crisis. Olivia is advised
that one of the reasons she should considering marrying is that it
would be wrong not to pass on her beauty (a literary theme that Ignoto
is showing to have been somewhat common in that time).
Your ability to deny reality is on display once again. In fact, in
response to the many arguments about the differences between the
play's characters and the real-life people, you have been insistent
that such differences do not have any effect on your theory that the
Elizabethan court personages are models for the characters in the
play.
> > but that doesn't mean that everyone in the work
> > is also based on real individuals.
No answer.
> For instance,
> > the character of Willy Stark in 'All the King's
> > Men' is generally considered to be inspired by
> > Huey Long. However, there are no real-life
> > counterparts for the other characters. In fact,
> > Robert Penn Warren denied that Stark was even
> > based on Huey Long:
>
> Denials of this nature are quite common,
> even when the characters are very close.
Really? Can you name some more of these very common denials?
> But they are rarely believed -- in this
> case as much as any.
Please explain why you think this denial should not be believed.
> >> My major contribution here is the
> >> identification of Viola as Raleigh.
I wouldn't claim that stinker if I were you.
> > Run that by any Oxenfordian and see if they
> > reject that interpretation.
>
> Oxfordians are not barred from this forum.
> The quasi-fascist PT brigade (e.g. Lynne)
> prefer their private groups from which
> they can exclude any 'heretical' Oxfordian
> ideas, which might tend to undermine
> their own sick ones.
"Sick"? You mean like shitting contests and the queen pissing in
Oxenforde's face? Do any Oxenfordians agree with your "ideas"?
> [..]
>
> >> Can you quote ANY roughly similar plea
> >> made to ANY roughly similar female in
> >> ANY literature at ANY time in ANY
> >> culture?
>
> > Daphne has been suggested as just one in literature.
>
> So the Nymph Daphne is 'roughly similar'
> to the Lady Olivia?
>
Sure, roughly. I don't know if you've noticed, but Ignoto has found
other examples from the literature of the day.
(Currently in post # 67 above).
Sidney, Arcadia, III (1590):
Lyly, Euphues (1579).
Robert Greene, Mamillia (1583):
And someone supplied a reference to The Duchess of Malfi the other
day.
Please admit that you were wrong on this point.
> >> Can you refer to ANY roughly similar plea
> >> made to ANY roughly similar female in ANY
> >> recorded history at ANY time in ANY
> >> culture?
See Ignoto's post.
> > There you go again...back to that stupid argument
> > which has already been addressed.
>
> 'Addressed' but never answered. And, as
> always, you give no reasons for your
> incapacity to answer.
See Ignoto's post.
I, and others, have answered it. The problem here is that you make
yourself the judge of what is or is not an answer to your silly
questions. You have simply failed to show that the one throw-away
line in Twelfth Night has to do with the succession issue in
Elizabeth's court. You have not shown that the line about marrying
and passing on beauty in the play, that otherwise has nothing to do
with the political questions of the day, shows that Olivia is modelled
on Elizabeth. If the author truly meant to address the pressure on
Elizabeth to marry and produce an heir, he surely would have, and
could have, seen fit to at least make more of the argument (without
making it explicitly about succession). The pleas are not at all the
same, and one plea cannot be transformed into general or multiple
pleas as you would wish to have it.
> <endless tedious repetition snipped>
In the Crowleyian universe, "endless and tedious repetition" means
long passages that Polyphemus Crowley, in his blindness, is too
inarticulate to answer. He retreats to his cave once again, crying,
"'Nobody' did this to me!!"
Dom
ignoto
Plato, Symposium, 206C (Loeb trans):
"[Diotima:] 'All men,' she said 'are pregnant, Socrates, both in body
and soul: on reaching a certain age our nature yearns to beget. This it
cannot do upon an ugly person, but only on the beautiful: the
conjunction of man and woman is a begetting for both. It is a divine
affair, this engendering and bringing to birth, an immortal element in
the creature that is mortal; and it cannot occur in the discordant. The
ugly is discordant with whatever is divine, whereas the beautiful is
accordant."
Peter Green, Juvenal's 16 Satires, Notes to Satire VI, Penguin ed at 153
"The 'Julian Law' (Lex Iulia) for regulating marital affairs was
promulgated by Augustus in 18 BC. This is the law to which Juvenal
specifically refers... But this was both amended and extended by the Lex
Papia Poppaea of AD 9, which gave special privileges to those with three
or more children, and restricted the rights of bachelors, spinsters or
childless couples to inherit property."
Paul Crowley
>>> cROWLEY:
>>> "There is nothing like this [request for Olivia
>>> to marry and have children] in the Bible, nor
>>> in Greek mythology, nor anywhere."
OK, this may have been a slight over-
statement.
>> Sidney, Arcadia, III (1590):
>>
>> "Philoclea looked vpon her, & cast downe her
>> eie again. Aunt (said she) I would I could be
>> so much a mistres of my owne mind, as to yeelde
>> to my cousins vertuous request: for so I
>> construe of it. But my hart is already set (and
>> staying a while on that word, she brought
>> foorth afterwards) to lead a virgins life
[..]
Sidney wrote this work many years earlier;
Try to guess:
a) Who was the reigning monarch at the time;
b) Was this monarch remarkable for certain
characteristics and behaviour?
c) Did Sidney (and his generation) take a
view on their monarch's behaviour?
>> Lyly, Euphues (1579).
>> "[Ferado to his daughter Lucilla:]But this
>> grieveth me most, that thou art almost vowed to
>> the vain order of the vestal virgins, despising
>> - or at least not desiring - the sacred bands
>> of Juno her bed.
[..]
Lyly (or much more likely his employer)
probably wrote this work years earlier;
Try to guess:
a) Who was the reigning monarch at the time;
b) Was this monarch remarkable for certain
characteristics and behaviour?
c) Did Lyly (and his generation) take a
view on their monarch's behaviour?
>> Robert Greene, Mamillia (1583):
>>
>> "[Madam Castilla:] And I myself, Mamillia,
>> which once a wife and now a widow, do speak by
>> experience, that though virginity is pleasant,
>> yet marriage is more delightful.
[..]
'Greene' was a pseudonym and he may
have written this work years earlier;
Try to guess:
a) Who was the reigning monarch at the time;
b) Was this monarch remarkable for certain
characteristics and behaviour?
c) Did 'Greene' (and his generation) take a
view on their monarch's behaviour?
> Plato, Symposium, 206C (Loeb trans):
>
> "[Diotima:] 'All men,' she said 'are pregnant,
> Socrates, both in body and soul: on reaching a
> certain age our nature yearns to beget. This it
> cannot do upon an ugly person, but only on the
> beautiful:
So what?
> Peter Green, Juvenal's 16 Satires, Notes to Satire VI, Penguin ed at 153
>
> "The 'Julian Law' (Lex Iulia) for regulating
> marital affairs was promulgated by Augustus in
> 18 BC. This is the law to which Juvenal
> specifically refers... But this was both
> amended and extended by the Lex Papia Poppaea
> of AD 9, which gave special privileges to those
> with three or more children, and restricted the
> rights of bachelors, spinsters or childless
> couples to inherit property."
So what?
Paul.
ignoto
> ignoto wrote:
>
>>>> cROWLEY:
>>>> "There is nothing like this [request for Olivia
>>>> to marry and have children] in the Bible, nor
>>>> in Greek mythology, nor anywhere."
>
> OK, this may have been a slight over-
> statement.
>
>>> Sidney, Arcadia, III (1590):
>>>
>>> "Philoclea looked vpon her, & cast downe her
>>> eie again. Aunt (said she) I would I could be
>>> so much a mistres of my owne mind, as to yeelde
>>> to my cousins vertuous request: for so I
>>> construe of it. But my hart is already set (and
>>> staying a while on that word, she brought
>>> foorth afterwards) to lead a virgins life
> [..]
> Sidney wrote this work many years earlier;
> Try to guess:
> a) Who was the reigning monarch at the time;
> b) Was this monarch remarkable for certain
> characteristics and behaviour?
> c) Did Sidney (and his generation) take a
> view on their monarch's behaviour?
And the sun is golden. Are we to take then, that every reference to
'gold' alludes to the sun?
Of course we also have the passage from Webster's DM, as quoted by Dr G:
"ANTONIO. When wilt thou marry, Cariola?
CARIOLA. Never, my lord.
ANTONIO. O, fie upon this single life! forgo it.
We read how Daphne, for her peevish flight,
Became a fruitless bay-tree; Syrinx turn'd
To the pale empty reed; Anaxarete
Was frozen into marble: whereas those
Which married, or prov'd kind unto their friends,
Were by a gracious influence transhap'd
Into the olive, pomegranate, mulberry,
Became flowers, precious stones, or eminent stars."
The source of this is Whetstone's Heptameron (1582), but DM is
*Jacobean*, not *Elizabethan*.
"Who was the reigning monarch at the time;"
King James
>
>>> Lyly, Euphues (1579).
>>> "[Ferado to his daughter Lucilla:]But this
>>> grieveth me most, that thou art almost vowed to
>>> the vain order of the vestal virgins, despising
>>> - or at least not desiring - the sacred bands
>>> of Juno her bed.
> [..]
> Lyly (or much more likely his employer)
> probably wrote this work years earlier;
> Try to guess:
> a) Who was the reigning monarch at the time;
> b) Was this monarch remarkable for certain
> characteristics and behaviour?
> c) Did Lyly (and his generation) take a
> view on their monarch's behaviour?
I see. So Lyly when he says that an unmarried woman is "worswe than a
carrion" and doomed to "lead apes in hell" he is making a direct and
undeniable attack on the character of QE? How many other bestsellers in
the reign of QE contained direct and undeniable personal attacks on QE?
How many people who made such direct and undeniable attacks on the
monarch were never reprimanded or censored, suffered no ill consequence
and went on to present comedies at the court before the queen?
>
>
>>> Robert Greene, Mamillia (1583):
>>>
>>> "[Madam Castilla:] And I myself, Mamillia,
>>> which once a wife and now a widow, do speak by
>>> experience, that though virginity is pleasant,
>>> yet marriage is more delightful.
> [..]
>
> 'Greene' was a pseudonym and he may
> have written this work years earlier;
> Try to guess:
> a) Who was the reigning monarch at the time;
> b) Was this monarch remarkable for certain
> characteristics and behaviour?
> c) Did 'Greene' (and his generation) take a
> view on their monarch's behaviour?
>
>> Plato, Symposium, 206C (Loeb trans):
>>
>> "[Diotima:] 'All men,' she said 'are pregnant,
>> Socrates, both in body and soul: on reaching a
>> certain age our nature yearns to beget. This it
>> cannot do upon an ugly person, but only on the
>> beautiful:
>
> So what?
This is the 'first cause'.
>
>> Peter Green, Juvenal's 16 Satires, Notes to Satire VI, Penguin ed at 153
>>
>> "The 'Julian Law' (Lex Iulia) for regulating
>> marital affairs was promulgated by Augustus in
>> 18 BC. This is the law to which Juvenal
>> specifically refers... But this was both
>> amended and extended by the Lex Papia Poppaea
>> of AD 9, which gave special privileges to those
>> with three or more children, and restricted the
>> rights of bachelors, spinsters or childless
>> couples to inherit property."
>
> So what?
This is a law encouraging (inter alia) women to marry and have children.
Ign.
>
> Paul.
sasheargold
> Dominic Hughes wrote:
> >>>> I can't think of any evidence (indicating
> >>>> that the Stratman was in London) that was
> >>>> forged by a conspiracy.
> > I'm talking about the following (and we have
> > discussed this in the past):
> > Dave Kathman: "I think Crowley must be referring
> > here to the 1619 Court of Requests lawsuit Witter
> > v. Heminges and Condell, which discusses the
> > history of the shares in the Globe and
> > Blackfriars playhouses. Actually, the 1615
> > lawsuit Ostler v. Heminges (in which "Heminges"
> > is John Heminges and "Ostler" is his daughter
> > Thomasina, the widow of William Ostler) discusses
> > the history of the Globe and Blackfriars shares
> > in much more detail, and it's all in Latin in the
> > middle of a huge roll of parchment sheets
> > stitched together, so it would have been very
> > difficult to forge.
>
> The cover-up was definitely under way by
> 1597 when the Stratman was paid a huge
> amount of money.
There was no cover-up, no conspiracy, nothing. I've been reading
British history since I was virtually out of the cradle and I can
assure everone that you are talking bollocks.
> From at least that time steps would have been taken to convey
> the impression that "William Shakespeare"
> was some kind of functionary within the
> Lord Chamberlain's company, who wrote
> plays while living in some remote country
> retreat.
Fresh-sprung from your over-fevered imagination. If they'd wanted a
remote country location they'd have shoved him on a hill in
Northumberland minding the sheep.
> From 1598 this name began to appear on published quartos. Precautions
> would have been taken (by Thomas Greene
> or someone like him) to ensure that this
> name appeared in legal documents that
> might come up in court -- although never
> in a context where legal obligations were
> created that could have required the
> appearance of this "Will Shake-speare" in
> court.
So you know all this yet cannot come up with precise names - just
"someone like him".
>
> Heminges and Condell were certainly
> parties to the cover-up. Of course, it
> would be nice to see exactly what they
> did say, but the absence of any detail
> from Stratfordian 'biographers' suggests
> that it was not much.
So those 'common players' are in on it now, are they? Not so long ago
you were saying that only a few of the 'elite' knew the 'secret'. Did
their wives know, their wives'
tennis partners. their servants. their servants' tennis partners,
their pet tortoises?
Again you know all this and yet cannot supply names. You remind me of
what the great Peter Jensen (educator and Stratfordian) said about
Oxfordians. He said that whenever he asked an Oxfordian a pointed
question, they would just blink at him like his students did when he
asked them why they hadn't done their homework.
> They are simply no more than names in documents,
> which seem to imply no personal legal
> obligation. Regrettably no one ever
> records meeting the playwright -- which
> is quite absurd.
That is correct. Not one person ever said: "Saw the Earl of Oxford the
other day, you know, the geezer wot writes them Shakespeare plays."
The Earl is well-documented and yet not a dickie-bird.
>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/bro...
>
> >> I can't see any forgery.
Because there is none to see.
>
> > That's pretty funny, considering you see them
> > everywhere.
>
> I see some deception:
You need to change your optician.
> the scribes were given information which the informants
> (at some point) knew to be false. But
> this is hardly forgery -- in any usual
> definition of the word.
>
> >> Nor can I
> >> see any evidence that the Stratman
> >> was in London.
>
> > You don't see anything, but that isn't funny at
> > all,
>
> There is NOTHING in the above
> documents that links the Stratman to
> them. The scribes (and some of their
> informants) may have correctly understood
> that someone using the pseudonym "Will
> Shakespeare" had a strong connection to
> the company (which was entirely true).
More make-believe.
>
> [..]
>
> >> If you met a man who you discovered
> >> had illiterate parents, an illiterate
> >> wife and illiterate children, would
> >> you expect him to be literate himself?
>
> > Why would you bring modern cultural expectations
> > into a discussion of a completely different time
> > and culture?
>
> Sure, dey woz differen den.
You even make up your own.....er, whatever that is supposed to be.
> Illiteracy then was not the same as now (some
> illiterates could read to some extent).
How do you know? You keep telling us you weren't there. Some people
today who would generally be classed as 'illiterate' can read and
write a little, so how different is that to the 16th century?
Good observation. Many very intelligent people have shite handwriting.
Throw in a potential disability or two as the signatures were done
towards the end of his life and Bob's your uncle.
>
> > I notice you dodged the evidence about him being an actor in the
> > Chamberlain's/King's men.
>
> I noticed that you dodged the evidence
> of the Stratman's inability to write --
> from the evidence of his own hand.
As above. You are determining from a signature that someone was
illiterate? Profound logic. If only he'd signed with a cross.......
>
> The evidence of his being an actor is
> (a) crazy -- he's shown at the top of
> lists (by Ben Jonson) which can only
> be some kind of joke;
I don't hear anybody laughing. Only at you, and not with you.
> (b) contradictory: why did he (or any
> of his relations) never mention that he
> had been a servant of the Royal House-
> hold for the best part of two decades?
When one of your friends or relatives mentions you, do they always
qualify it by adding something like ''you know, the one who was a used-
car salesman?"
>
> > Your subjective opinion of Shakespeare's
> > signature as being "bad"
>
> Typical lawyer trick. NO ONE (including
> the clown Dominic) claims that they are
> other than bad.
Already dealt with that. So what?
>
> > does not prove that he was illiterate.
>
> It does -- in the context of the day.
> Literate people took care over their
> signatures and penmanship. You will
> not be able to find a badly written
> Elizabethan signature -- other than
> the Stratman's.
So, you have seen every Elizabethan signature that ever was?
>
> > If, in fact, he did sign his name, that is a fact
> > which would tend to prove that he was literate.
> > I know a lawyer in the building next door whose
> > signature on official documents is so "bad" that
> > it is indecipherable..he is not illiterate.
>
> The fly on the wall has a better sense
> of history than you.
I imagine that the fly has a better one than you, because you have
none at all.
SB.
> in TwelfthNight. Nor has anyone here tried
ignoto
Sidney's Arcadia is informed by the so called 'Greek novel'and the
representation of his female characters derives from this literary model:
"The structure of the ideal [Greek] novels, with their heterosexual
couples, focuses on the ultimate attainment of matrimonial bliss, which
makes the portrait of the female character especially important... the
heroine is a high-minded, chaste woman of noble birth whose love for her
future husband is sincerely and deeply felt... They are chaste to the
point of obsession... because the novels finally result in marriage and
thus ultimately in the continuation of the family. Adultery and
unfaithfulness by the heroine is a priori unthinkable in a story centred
around marriage and (ultimately) the begetting of lawful children."
Chaste Artemis and Lusty Aprhodite by Regine May in Satiric advice on
women and marriage By Warren S. Smith at 130
[What next? I suppose the Greek Novelists were consulting the entrails
of humming birds in order to foretell the coming of QE]
Ign.
Paul Crowley
>> a) Who was the reigning monarch at the time;
>> b) Was this monarch remarkable for certain
>> characteristics and behaviour?
>> c) Did Lyly (and his generation) take a
>> view on their monarch's behaviour?
>
> I see. So Lyly when he says that an unmarried woman
> is "worswe than a carrion" and doomed to "lead apes
> in hell" he is making a direct and undeniable attack
> on the character of QE?
He would appear to be making an indirect
and (barely) deniable attack on the
character of QE.
> How many other bestsellers in the reign of QE
> contained direct and undeniable personal attacks on
> QE?
It is very hard to know how this passage
was read. There was no public press
likely to draw attention to it, or seek to
raise steam. It is probable that some
courtiers nudged each other's elbows
and had a bit of a snigger, but that kind
of thing was hardly common outside the
court. Further, the publication came
only when the issue was ceasing to have
relevance. The Queen (and her ministers)
would probably have suppressed the
book if they had seen it as the source of
serious trouble. But to do that would
also be to draw attention to it.
> How many people who made such direct and
> undeniable attacks on the monarch were never
> reprimanded or censored, suffered no ill
> consequence and went on to present comedies at
> the court before the queen?
Lyly was almost certainly a front for
Oxford -- who was protected.
[..]
>>> "The 'Julian Law' (Lex Iulia) for regulating
>>> marital affairs was promulgated by Augustus in
>>> 18 BC. This is the law to which Juvenal
>>> specifically refers... But this was both
>>> amended and extended by the Lex Papia Poppaea
>>> of AD 9, which gave special privileges to those
>>> with three or more children, and restricted the
>>> rights of bachelors, spinsters or childless
>>> couples to inherit property."
>>
>> So what?
>
> This is a law encouraging (inter alia) women to
> marry and have children.
Something very strange was taking place
at this time. Noble families in Rome
had a remarkably low birthrate, causing
much worry to emperors like Augustus.
No one understood it at the time, nor
since. Some think that the cause was
the use of lead in plumbing or in cooking
vessels; or there may have been some
other source.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > The cover-up was definitely under way by
> > 1597 when the Stratman was paid a huge
> > amount of money.
What is your evidence that he was paid a huge amount of money?
What is your evidence to the money, if paid to him, was to hire
him as a front? Why am I bothering to argue these points with
you yet again?
> > > There's the inventory post mortem of Thomas
> > > Brend, dated May 21, 1599, which lists among
> > > Brend's property "vna Domo de novo edificata...
> > > in occupatione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum"
> > > ("a house newly built... occupied by William
> > > Shakespeare and others").
>
> > Did the person drawing up this inventory
> > know people in occupation? Or the role
> > of "Willielmi Shakespeare" in the set-up?
> > Or was he essentially referring to the play
> > bills that were around?
What evidence do you have to suggest that the person
drawing up the inventory did not do what just about
every person drawing up a legal document does:
honestly put down the facts as he knows them.
> > > Thomas Brend's son
> > > Nicholas inherited his property, and on October
> > > 7, 1601, Nicholas Brend signed the deed of trust
> > > to which Dominic is presumably referring; it
> > > lists among his properties a "playhowse" occupied
> > > by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare,
> > > gent.". Three days later, another document
> > > similar lists Burbage and Shakespeare as the
> > > tenants of the "playhowse". Nicholas Brend died
> > > on October 12, and the properties including the
> > > Globe passed to his infant son Matthew, with John
> > > Bodley, John Collet, and Sir Matthew Browne
> > > controlling them in trust. A deed of 1608, by
> > > which John Collet sold John Bodley his interest
> > > in the trust, lists property including a
> > > "playhouse" with tenants "Richard Burbage and
> > > William Shakespeare, gentlemen". Later documents
> > > of 1622, 1624, and 1633 copy the description in
> > > the original 1601 deed of trust, as was
> > > customarily done in legal documents.
>
> > What is there to say about such things?
> > The scribes wrote what they were told to
> > write -- by whom we do not know.
Right. No evidence for William Shakespeare counts.
> > They are simply no more than names in documents,
> > which seem to imply no personal legal
> > obligation. Regrettably no one ever
> > records meeting the playwright -- which
> > is quite absurd.
Yes, considering the tons of personal letters, diaries and the like we
have from the commoners of the times.
> > There is NOTHING in the above
> > documents that links the Stratman to
> > them. The scribes (and some of their
> > informants) may have correctly understood
> > that someone using the pseudonym "Will
> > Shakespeare" had a strong connection to
> > the company (which was entirely true).
Right, the name "William Shakespeare" does NOTHING
to link "the Stratman" ("Shakspeare," on his monument)
to the documents.
> > >> If you met a man who you discovered
> > >> had illiterate parents, an illiterate
> > >> wife and illiterate children, would
> > >> you expect him to be literate himself?
>
> > > Why would you bring modern cultural expectations
> > > into a discussion of a completely different time
> > > and culture?
>
> > Sure, dey woz differen den.
>
> You even make up your own.....er, whatever that is supposed to be.
The level of literacy was much lower then, Paul. Literacy is now
close to mandatory; then it was not, especially for women. How is
it that John Hall was literate although his wife wasn't--according to
you?
>
> > Of course, it is. Go to any country,
> > and you'll find the same expectations
> > -- whatever the local rates of literacy.
Paulgram is arguing that no man with illiterate parents, wife
and children can be literate. This is insane.
> > The evidence of his being an actor is
> > (a) crazy -- he's shown at the top of
> > lists (by Ben Jonson) which can only
> > be some kind of joke;
Right. Because any record indicating WIlliam Shakespeare
was the Bard must be a lie or joke or mistake. Because.
> I don't hear anybody laughing. Only at you, and not with you.
>
> > (b) contradictory: why did he (or any
> > of his relations) never mention that he
> > had been a servant of the Royal House-
> > hold for the best part of two decades?
The Paulgram believes titles are important, so everyone else
must believe that, too. But it is known that many people
of the time looked down upon actors.
> > > Your subjective opinion of Shakespeare's
> > > signature as being "bad"
>
> > Typical lawyer trick. NO ONE (including
> > the clown Dominic) claims that they are
> > other than bad.
I claim that they are not bad, and that one or two are quite
sophisticated.
Furthermore, some scholars claim they are not his but were
written by PROFESSIONAL SCRIBES! How could they seem
to have been written by professional scribes if they were bad?
> > It does -- in the context of the day.
> > Literate people took care over their
> > signatures and penmanship. You will
> > not be able to find a badly written
> > Elizabethan signature -- other than
> > the Stratman's.
>
> So, you have seen every Elizabethan signature that ever was?
I don't have to investigate this because I know, unlike the rigidnikal
Paulgram, that people vary. Some back then HAD to have had
sloppy signatures, and not cared because some people are
sloppy at whatever it is they do and don't care. Not that I consider
Shakespeare's signatures sloppy.
As for the Paulgram's baloney about Elizabeth being the
only woman asked to pass on her genes by getting
married and having children, it was wholly destroyed
a week or so ago, mainly by Ignoto, then the case against
it was improved. I'm not getting into it again.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>>> The cover-up was definitely under way by
>>> 1597 when the Stratman was paid a huge
>>> amount of money.
>
> What is your evidence that he was paid a huge
> amount of money?
He bought New Place in February 1597.
It's reasonable to suppose that he had the
money for some time before, so the start
of the cover-up can be dated to 1596 or
earlier. This was btw after a particularly
lean period for the theatre, being closed as
the result of plague for several years.
> What is your evidence to the money, if paid to
> him, was to hire him as a front?
What else could it be for?
>>>> There's the inventory post mortem of Thomas
>>>> Brend, dated May 21, 1599, which lists among
>>>> Brend's property "vna Domo de novo edificata...
>>>> in occupatione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum"
>>>> ("a house newly built... occupied by William
>>>> Shakespeare and others").
>>>
>>> Did the person drawing up this inventory
>>> know people in occupation? Or the role
>>> of "Willielmi Shakespeare" in the set-up?
>>> Or was he essentially referring to the play
>>> bills that were around?
>
> What evidence do you have to suggest that the
> person drawing up the inventory did not do what
> just about every person drawing up a legal
> document does: honestly put down the facts as he
> knows them.
I did not suggest otherwise. Btw, as
a 'legal document' an inventory does
not amount to much. A bus ticket is
also a legal document.
>>>> Thomas Brend's son
>>>> Nicholas inherited his property, and on October
>>>> 7, 1601, Nicholas Brend signed the deed of trust
>>>> to which Dominic is presumably referring; it
>>>> lists among his properties a "playhowse" occupied
>>>> by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare,
>>>> gent.".
>>> [..]
>>> What is there to say about such things?
>>> The scribes wrote what they were told to
>>> write -- by whom we do not know.
>
> Right. No evidence for William Shakespeare counts.
It's the lack of anything personal that
is telling. The one or two 'anecdotes'
are manifestly false.
>>> They are simply no more than names in documents,
>>> which seem to imply no personal legal
>>> obligation. Regrettably no one ever
>>> records meeting the playwright -- which
>>> is quite absurd.
>
> Yes, considering the tons of personal letters,
> diaries and the like we have from the commoners
> of the times.
There is much 'of the like' from the
times. There are huge amounts on Ben
Jonson. The most impressive records
about the Stratman are of those about
the 'Sogliardo' character.
>>> There is NOTHING in the above
>>> documents that links the Stratman to
>>> them. The scribes (and some of their
>>> informants) may have correctly understood
>>> that someone using the pseudonym "Will
>>> Shakespeare" had a strong connection to
>>> the company (which was entirely true).
>
> Right, the name "William Shakespeare" does
> NOTHING to link "the Stratman" ("Shakspeare," on
> his monument) to the documents.
There was a cover-up, so I suppose
that you could say there was a link.
>>>>> If you met a man who you discovered
>>>>> had illiterate parents, an illiterate
>>>>> wife and illiterate children, would
>>>>> you expect him to be literate himself?
>>>> Why would you bring modern cultural expectations
>>>> into a discussion of a completely different time
>>>> and culture?
>>>
>>> Sure, dey woz differen den.
>
> The level of literacy was much lower then,
True as regards the UK. But you can
find roughly parallel conditions today
in (say) Angola. You won't find many
literate Angolans with illiterate children.
> Literacy is now close to mandatory; then it was
> not, especially for women. How is it that John
> Hall was literate although his wife wasn't--
> according to you?
It's all transparently explicable. Dr
John Hall was brought to Stratford
as part of the cover-up -- to be a kind
of 'minder'. He lived in the Stratman's
house (as did the other minder, the
lawyer Greene) and he married the
daughter, who would inherit substantial
property.
>>> Of course, it is. Go to any country,
>>> and you'll find the same expectations
>>> -- whatever the local rates of literacy.
>
> Paulgram is arguing that no man with illiterate
> parents, wife and children can be literate.
> This is insane.
It's an insane (and rigidnikal) reading.
The PROBABILITY of finding a literate
man with illiterate parents, an illiterate
wife and illiterate children in the
Western world at any time between ~1300
and 2000 is exceedingly remote. A theory
that proposes such a scenario should not
be taken seriously.
>>> The evidence of his being an actor is
>>> (a) crazy -- he's shown at the top of
>>> lists (by Ben Jonson) which can only
>>> be some kind of joke;
>
> Right. Because any record indicating WIlliam
> Shakespeare was the Bard must be a lie or joke
> or mistake. Because.
Yes. There are too many other facts to
doubt it.
>>> (b) contradictory: why did he (or any
>>> of his relations) never mention that he
>>> had been a servant of the Royal House-
>>> hold for the best part of two decades?
>
> The Paulgram believes titles are important, so
> everyone else must believe that, too. But it is
> known that many people of the time looked down
> upon actors.
It depended from where you were looking.
Being a member of the Royal Household
WAS a big deal to most.
>>>> Your subjective opinion of Shakespeare's
>>>> signature as being "bad"
>>>
>>> Typical lawyer trick. NO ONE (including
>>> the clown Dominic) claims that they are
>>> other than bad.
>
> I claim that they are not bad
Not a credible witness.
> and that one or two are quite sophisticated.
Which one or two?
> Furthermore, some scholars claim they are not
> his but were written by PROFESSIONAL
> SCRIBES! How could they seem to have been
> written by professional scribes if they were
> bad?
The argument AFAIR was that they
were written by clerks (essentially
filing clerks) on tabs. It was a theory
that sank without trace.
>>> It does -- in the context of the day.
>>> Literate people took care over their
>>> signatures and penmanship. You will
>>> not be able to find a badly written
>>> Elizabethan signature -- other than
>>> the Stratman's.
>>
>> So, you have seen every Elizabethan signature that ever was?
>
> I don't have to investigate this because I know,
> unlike the rigidnikal Paulgram, that people
> vary. Some back then HAD to have had sloppy
> signatures
Sure. Some people then went around bare-
headed -- and some went around entirely
naked. There are no such things as social
conventions, universally adopted.
> and not cared because some people are sloppy at
> whatever it is they do and don't care.
That's why there was 'the naked party'
-- represented in Parliament, as it still
is (and in Congress too, I believe).
> Not that I consider Shakespeare's
> signatures sloppy.
>
>
> As for the Paulgram's baloney about Elizabeth
> being the only woman asked to pass on her genes
> by getting married and having children, it was
> wholly destroyed a week or so ago, mainly by
> Ignoto, then the case against it was improved.
Sure -- Nymphs always make a good case
(even if both classical and fictitious).
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>> The cover-up was definitely under way by
> >>> 1597 when the Stratman was paid a huge
> >>> amount of money.
>
> > What is your evidence that he was paid a huge
> > amount of money?
>
> He bought New Place in February 1597.
> It's reasonable to suppose that he had the
> money for some time before, so the start
> of the cover-up can be dated to 1596 or
> earlier. This was btw after a particularly
> lean period for the theatre, being closed as
> the result of plague for several years.
How much did he pay for New Place? How do you
know he didn't make a bundle from the whorehouses
Elizabeth says he ran? How do you know the man
the monument to was the buyer of New Place and
not some other Stratford townsman with a similar name?
How do you know the documents involved were not
forgeries by some later scholar trying to show that
the Bard had sound middle-class home-buying values?
Etc. In other words, you have no evidence, at all.
> > What is your evidence to the money, if paid to
> > him, was to hire him as a front?
>
> What else could it be for?
Good one.
> >>>> There's the inventory post mortem of Thomas
> >>>> Brend, dated May 21, 1599, which lists among
> >>>> Brend's property "vna Domo de novo edificata...
> >>>> in occupatione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum"
> >>>> ("a house newly built... occupied by William
> >>>> Shakespeare and others").
>
> >>> Did the person drawing up this inventory
> >>> know people in occupation? Or the role
> >>> of "Willielmi Shakespeare" in the set-up?
> >>> Or was he essentially referring to the play
> >>> bills that were around?
>
> > What evidence do you have to suggest that the
> > person drawing up the inventory did not do what
> > just about every person drawing up a legal
> > document does: honestly put down the facts as he
> > knows them.
>
> I did not suggest otherwise. Btw, as
> a 'legal document' an inventory does
> not amount to much. A bus ticket is
> also a legal document.
Gad, your evidentiary expertise continues to
astound me. But don't you think maybe some
legal documents having higher legal standing
than others--like legal documents with names on
them, stored in official court archives, about
property of significant value?
> >>>> Thomas Brend's son
> >>>> Nicholas inherited his property, and on October
> >>>> 7, 1601, Nicholas Brend signed the deed of trust
> >>>> to which Dominic is presumably referring; it
> >>>> lists among his properties a "playhowse" occupied
> >>>> by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare,
> >>>> gent.".
> >>> [..]
> >>> What is there to say about such things?
> >>> The scribes wrote what they were told to
> >>> write -- by whom we do not know.
>
> > Right. No evidence for William Shakespeare counts.
>
> It's the lack of anything personal that
> is telling. The one or two 'anecdotes'
> are manifestly false.
No evidence for William Shakespeare can be counted
personal. Right.
> >>> They are simply no more than names in documents,
> >>> which seem to imply no personal legal
> >>> obligation. Regrettably no one ever
> >>> records meeting the playwright -- which
> >>> is quite absurd.
>
> > Yes, considering the tons of personal letters,
> > diaries and the like we have from the commoners
> > of the times.
>
> There is much 'of the like' from the
> times. There are huge amounts on Ben
> Jonson. The most impressive records
> about the Stratman are of those about
> the 'Sogliardo' character.
Jonson was later than Shakespeare, there are not
"huge amounts" of evidence about his properties--
no more, Isuspect than there are about Shakespeare's--
and there most certainly is not "much 'of the like'"
about theatre matters from the times. Without
Henslowe's diaries, we'd have just about nothing.
are
> >>> There is NOTHING in the above
> >>> documents that links the Stratman to
> >>> them. The scribes (and some of their
> >>> informants) may have correctly understood
> >>> that someone using the pseudonym "Will
> >>> Shakespeare" had a strong connection to
> >>> the company (which was entirely true).
>
> > Right, the name "William Shakespeare" does
> > NOTHING to link "the Stratman" ("Shakspeare," on
> > his monument) to the documents.
>
> There was a cover-up, so I suppose
> that you could say there was a link.
Actually, names are the first thing the sane
do to link a person to something.
> >>>>> If you met a man who you discovered
> >>>>> had illiterate parents, an illiterate
> >>>>> wife and illiterate children, would
> >>>>> you expect him to be literate himself?
> >>>> Why would you bring modern cultural expectations
> >>>> into a discussion of a completely different time
> >>>> and culture?
>
> >>> Sure, dey woz differen den.
>
> > The level of literacy was much lower then,
>
> True as regards the UK. But you can
> find roughly parallel conditions today
> in (say) Angola. You won't find many
> literate Angolans with illiterate children.
Ah, you believe you CAN find some? If so,
that means Shakespeare could have had
illiterate children and still been literate.
> > Literacy is now close to mandatory; then it was
> > not, especially for women. How is it that John
> > Hall was literate although his wife wasn't--
> > according to you?
>
> It's all transparently explicable. Dr
> John Hall was brought to Stratford
> as part of the cover-up -- to be a kind
> of 'minder'. He lived in the Stratman's
> house (as did the other minder, the
> lawyer Greene) and he married the
> daughter, who would inherit substantial
> property.
I knew the answer--shouldn't've asked.
> >>> Of course, it is. Go to any country,
> >>> and you'll find the same expectations
> >>> -- whatever the local rates of literacy.
>
> > Paulgram is arguing that no man with illiterate
> > parents, wife and children can be literate.
> > This is insane.
>
> It's an insane (and rigidnikal) reading.
> The PROBABILITY of finding a literate
> man with illiterate parents, an illiterate
> wife and illiterate children in the
> Western world at any time between ~1300
> and 2000 is exceedingly remote. A theory
> that proposes such a scenario should not
> be taken seriously.
You can't go by probability (assuming you
have this probability right, which I doubt).
You are arguing that Shakespeare could not
have been the author because he had a
wholly illiterate family. But if it's possible
for a literate man to have a wholly illiterate
family, then he could have been an author,
as all the unrefuted hard evidence indicates,
and no hard evidence contradicts.
> >>> The evidence of his being an actor is
> >>> (a) crazy -- he's shown at the top of
> >>> lists (by Ben Jonson) which can only
> >>> be some kind of joke;
>
> > Right. Because any record indicating WIlliam
> > Shakespeare was the Bard must be a lie or joke
> > or mistake. Because.
>
> Yes. There are too many other facts to
> doubt it.
>
> >>> (b) contradictory: why did he (or any
> >>> of his relations) never mention that he
> >>> had been a servant of the Royal House-
> >>> hold for the best part of two decades?
>
> > The Paulgram believes titles are important, so
> > everyone else must believe that, too. But it is
> > known that many people of the time looked down
> > upon actors.
>
> It depended from where you were looking.
> Being a member of the Royal Household
> WAS a big deal to most.
Maybe, but it needn't have been to Stratfordians
(wouldn't they have been too culturally deprived
to even know there WAS a Royal Househould?),
at least enough for them to make sure to let posterity
know how proud they were of Shakespeare's being
a member of the Royal household.
> >>>> Your subjective opinion of Shakespeare's
> >>>> signature as being "bad"
>
> >>> Typical lawyer trick. NO ONE (including
> >>> the clown Dominic) claims that they are
> >>> other than bad.
>
> > I claim that they are not bad
>
> Not a credible witness.
What's a credible witness, and why are you one?
> > and that one or two are quite sophisticated.
The Belott-Mountjoy one with the abbreviation of "William,"
the Blackfriars Mortgage one with similar abbreviations.
I count the dot of the i in the overhanging of the W
sophisticated, too.
> Which one or two?
>
> > Furthermore, some scholars claim they are not
> > his but were written by PROFESSIONAL
> > SCRIBES! How could they seem to have been
> > written by professional scribes if they were
> > bad?
>
> The argument AFAIR was that they
> were written by clerks (essentially
> filing clerks) on tabs. It was a theory
> that sank without trace.
It never sank although it should have. But
you're dodging. The point is that SOME
people thought they were written by
literates, and some of these people thought
a scribe had written them. How could anyone
think they were written even by lowly clerks
if they are so obviously the scrawl of an illiterate?
(Why, by the way, have we no other signatures
from the time that are as horrible, according to you?
Did no other illiterate ever scrawl a signature?
Besides Susanna?)
> >>> It does -- in the context of the day.
> >>> Literate people took care over their
> >>> signatures and penmanship. You will
> >>> not be able to find a badly written
> >>> Elizabethan signature -- other than
> >>> the Stratman's.
>
> >> So, you have seen every Elizabethan signature that ever was?
>
> > I don't have to investigate this because I know,
> > unlike the rigidnikal Paulgram, that people
> > vary. Some back then HAD to have had sloppy
> > signatures
>
> Sure. Some people then went around bare-
> headed -- and some went around entirely
> naked. There are no such things as social
> conventions, universally adopted.
Right, having a sloppy signature was just
about exactly as unthinkable as going around
naked (which I tell you SOME people of the
time did, because people vary, and no
conventions of any kind whatever are
universally followed. Sawney Beane's name
mean anything to you?)
> > and not cared because some people are sloppy at
> > whatever it is they do and don't care.
>
> That's why there was 'the naked party'
> -- represented in Parliament, as it still
> is (and in Congress too, I believe).
Right. Because there are a few customs that just
about every sane person abides by, ALL people
abide by ALL the customs of their time
ALL the time. (And you haven't even provided
evidence that having a pretty signature
was considered as extremely important
then as you say.)
Paul, again I challenge you to to prove you are
a reall person and not a computer program. No
real person could be as insane as you are.
> > Not that I consider Shakespeare's
> > signatures sloppy.
>
> > As for the Paulgram's baloney about Elizabeth
> > being the only woman asked to pass on her genes
> > by getting married and having children, it was
> > wholly destroyed a week or so ago, mainly by
> > Ignoto, then the case against it was improved.
>
> Sure -- Nymphs always make a good case
> (even if both classical and fictitious).
You argued that no one in any literature tried to
persuade a woman to get married using Viola's
argument. Daphne, to all intents and purposes,
was a woman. But Ignoto gave you other examples.
In other words, the idea of marriage as a way of
passing on one's beauty was in the public domain
centuries before Twelfth Night, so Shakespeare
could easily have taken from there rather than from
the royal court--where it was no longer a hot item
when he wrote Twelfth Night according to all the
evidence, and common sense.
--Bob
sasheargold
but.net> wrote:
> Paulgraum printout:
>
> > > The cover-up was definitely under way by
> > > 1597 when the Stratman was paid a huge
> > > amount of money.
>
> What is your evidence that he was paid a huge amount of money?
> What is your evidence to the money, if paid to him, was to hire
> him as a front? Why am I bothering to argue these points with
> you yet again?
Well, Bob, there is that rumour (or is it?) that the Earl of
Southampton gave £1000 to Will. As to Queen Elizabeth, she was
notoriously parsimonious - wouldn't even give money to her
impoverished sailors after the Armada, IIRC, whereas King Philip of
Spain provided his seamen with pensions. Are we therefore to believe
that QE would subsidise an illiterate to act as front to the Earl of
Oxford in order to play some massive joke on her subjects? I reckon
Crowley must have gotten this theory out of the Brothers Dim Book of
Fairy Tales.
> The level of literacy was much lower then,Paul. Literacy is now
> close to mandatory; then it was not, especially for women. How is
> it that John Hall was literate although his wife wasn't--according to
> you?
>
>
>
> > > Of course, it is. Go to any country,
> > > and you'll find the same expectations
> > > -- whatever the local rates of literacy.
>
> Paulgram is arguing that no man with illiterate parents, wife
> and children can be literate. This is insane.
Of course it's insane. If a man comes from a family of alcoholics,
does that make him one also?
>
> > > The evidence of his being an actor is
> > > (a) crazy -- he's shown at the top of
> > > lists (by Ben Jonson) which can only
> > > be some kind of joke;
>
> Right. Because any record indicating WIlliam Shakespeare
> was the Bard must be a lie or joke or mistake. Because.
>
> > I don't hear anybody laughing. Only at you, and not with you.
>
> > > (b) contradictory: why did he (or any
> > > of his relations) never mention that he
> > > had been a servant of the Royal House-
> > > hold for the best part of two decades?
>
> The Paulgram believes titles are important, so everyone else
> must believe that, too. But it is known that many people
> of the time looked down upon actors.
Yes, and why would his family keep telling people what they already
knew? Did the children of Charles Dickens constantly have to remind
the world that their dad was a writer?
>
> > > > Your subjective opinion of Shakespeare's
> > > > signature as being "bad"
>
> > > Typical lawyer trick. NO ONE (including
> > > the clown Dominic) claims that they are
> > > other than bad.
>
> I claim that they are not bad, and that one or two are quite
> sophisticated.
> Furthermore, some scholars claim they are not his but were
> written by PROFESSIONAL SCRIBES! How could they seem
> to have been written by professional scribes if they were bad?
>
> > > It does -- in the context of the day.
> > > Literate people took care over their
> > > signatures and penmanship. You will
> > > not be able to find a badly written
> > > Elizabethan signature -- other than
> > > the Stratman's.
>
> > So, you have seen every Elizabethan signature that ever was?
>
> I don't have to investigate this because I know, unlike the rigidnikal
> Paulgram, that people vary. Some back then HAD to have had
> sloppy signatures, and not cared because some people are
> sloppy at whatever it is they do and don't care. Not that I consider
> Shakespeare's signatures sloppy.
Crowley says that Will had the worst signature of all Elizabeth's
subjects. She must have gone through every document in her reign just
to make the joke even greater - the most illiterate guy in all the
land gets the gig to front for the Earl of Oxford! It is true that
some illiterate people can sign their names, but I would suggest that
you would need some corroborative data to know that a person is
illiterate beside their signature. Anyway, there is other evidence
that Will may have had lousy handwriting and/or was careless in his
spelling, but I expect Paul Crowley knows all about that.
>
> As for the Paulgram's baloney about Elizabeth being the
> only woman asked to pass on her genes by getting
> married and having children, it was wholly destroyed
> a week or so ago, mainly by Ignoto, then the case against
> it was improved. I'm not getting into it again.
>
> --Bob- Hide quoted text -
Bob, Crowley had originally forgotten an integral element of Twelfth
Night - that is, Olivia falling in love with Viola dressed as a man.
How could he have overlooked that when he thinks that Elizabeth is so
obviously the model for Olivia? I had to remind him of this - and who
does he come with up with for Viola? Why, Sir Walter Raleigh, of
course, his all-purpose default character (cf. the sonnets). Earlier,
he had said that the play was written before Raleigh came on the
scene. All this goes to show that Paul Crowley makes stuff up as he
goes along.
Could there be glances at contemporary persons in Shakespeare,
including the Queen? Of course there could, but none of that makes the
Earl of Oxford the author of the plays.
SB.
sasheargold
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>> The cover-up was definitely under way by
> >>> 1597 when the Stratman was paid a huge
> >>> amount of money.
>
> > What is your evidence that he was paid a huge
> > amount of money?
>
> He bought New Place in February 1597.
> It's reasonable to suppose that he had the
> money for some time before,
That is reasonable, yes.
> so the start of the cover-up can be dated to 1596 or
> earlier.
Now you're making stuff up again. Try the Earl of Southampton re: the
money, a rumour if you like, but that is more than you have.
> This was btw after a particularly lean period for the theatre, being closed as
> the result of plague for several years.
So there wouldn't be much point in paying someone to front for an
author whose plays weren't being shown, now would there?
>
> > What is your evidence to the money, if paid to
> > him, was to hire him as a front?
>
> What else could it be for?
For services rendered.
How do you know? And what is your definition of 'personal', anyhow?
> The one or two 'anecdotes' are manifestly false.
And you know this how? Be that as it may, you don't have any anecdotes
at all.
>
> >>> They are simply no more than names in documents,
> >>> which seem to imply no personal legal
> >>> obligation. Regrettably no one ever
> >>> records meeting the playwright -- which
> >>> is quite absurd.
>
> > Yes, considering the tons of personal letters,
> > diaries and the like we have from the commoners
> > of the times.
>
> There is much 'of the like' from the
> times. There are huge amounts on Ben
> Jonson. The most impressive records
> about the Stratman are of those about
> the 'Sogliardo' character.
I pointed out at the Forest of Arden about Sogliardo and page boys and
tobacco. And we all know what Christopher Marlowe said, don't we? Have
you factored that in to your thinking? As I recall, Diana Price failed
to mention these elements, too, and yet they are right there in the
play.
>
> >>> There is NOTHING in the above
> >>> documents that links the Stratman to
> >>> them. The scribes (and some of their
> >>> informants) may have correctly understood
> >>> that someone using the pseudonym "Will
> >>> Shakespeare" had a strong connection to
> >>> the company (which was entirely true).
>
> > Right, the name "William Shakespeare" does
> > NOTHING to link "the Stratman" ("Shakspeare," on
> > his monument) to the documents.
>
> There was a cover-up, so I suppose
> that you could say there was a link.
There wasn't.
You've been watching the adventures of Arfur and Terry too much.
>
> >>> Of course, it is. Go to any country,
> >>> and you'll find the same expectations
> >>> -- whatever the local rates of literacy.
>
> > Paulgram is arguing that no man with illiterate
> > parents, wife and children can be literate.
> > This is insane.
>
> It's an insane (and rigidnikal) reading.
> The PROBABILITY of finding a literate
> man with illiterate parents, an illiterate
> wife and illiterate children in the
> Western world at any time between ~1300
> and 2000 is exceedingly remote. A theory
> that proposes such a scenario should not
> be taken seriously.
So now you are talking PROBABILITIES? That is a step-up from fairy
tales but still a long way removed from facts.
>
> >>> The evidence of his being an actor is
> >>> (a) crazy -- he's shown at the top of
> >>> lists (by Ben Jonson) which can only
> >>> be some kind of joke;
>
> > Right. Because any record indicating WIlliam
> > Shakespeare was the Bard must be a lie or joke
> > or mistake. Because.
>
> Yes. There are too many other facts to
> doubt it.
What many facts? The same number that 'prove' the Earl of Oxford
wrote works that are not ascribed to him? However, I do admit that it
is a possibility.
>
> >>> (b) contradictory: why did he (or any
> >>> of his relations) never mention that he
> >>> had been a servant of the Royal House-
> >>> hold for the best part of two decades?
>
> > The Paulgram believes titles are important, so
> > everyone else must believe that, too. But it is
> > known that many people of the time looked down
> > upon actors.
>
> It depended from where you were looking.
> Being a member of the Royal Household
> WAS a big deal to most.
You don't need to keep telling people what they already know.
>
> >>>> Your subjective opinion of Shakespeare's
> >>>> signature as being "bad"
>
> >>> Typical lawyer trick. NO ONE (including
> >>> the clown Dominic) claims that they are
> >>> other than bad.
>
> > I claim that they are not bad
>
> Not a credible witness.
And you are?
>
> > and that one or two are quite sophisticated.
>
> Which one or two?
>
> > Furthermore, some scholars claim they are not
> > his but were written by PROFESSIONAL
> > SCRIBES! How could they seem to have been
> > written by professional scribes if they were
> > bad?
>
> The argument AFAIR was that they
> were written by clerks (essentially
> filing clerks) on tabs. It was a theory
> that sank without trace.
If you are speaking of Robert Detobel, then I would agree with you.
You see, you can talk sensibly sometimes, like when you dismiss the
Prince Tudor theory.
>
> >>> It does -- in the context of the day.
> >>> Literate people took care over their
> >>> signatures and penmanship. You will
> >>> not be able to find a badly written
> >>> Elizabethan signature -- other than
> >>> the Stratman's.
>
> >> So, you have seen every Elizabethan signature that ever was?
>
> > I don't have to investigate this because I know,
> > unlike the rigidnikal Paulgram, that people
> > vary. Some back then HAD to have had sloppy
> > signatures
>
> Sure. Some people then went around bare-
> headed -- and some went around entirely
> naked. There are no such things as social
> conventions, universally adopted.
End of you being sensible.
SB.
>
> > and not cared because some people are sloppy at
> > whatever it is they do and don't care.
>
> That's why there was 'the naked party'
> -- represented in Parliament, as it still
> is (and in Congress too, I believe).
>
> > Not that I consider Shakespeare's
> > signatures sloppy.
>
> > As for the Paulgram's baloney about Elizabeth
> > being the only woman asked to pass on her genes
> > by getting married and having children, it was
> > wholly destroyed a week or so ago, mainly by
> > Ignoto, then the case against it was improved.
>
> Sure -- Nymphs always make a good case
> (even if both classical and fictitious).
>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
Paul Crowley
>> He bought New Place in February 1597.
>> It's reasonable to suppose that he had the
>> money for some time before, so the start
>> of the cover-up can be dated to 1596 or
>> earlier. This was btw after a particularly
>> lean period for the theatre, being closed as
>> the result of plague for several years.
>
> How much did he pay for New Place? How do you
> know he didn't make a bundle from the
> whorehouses Elizabeth says he ran?
You're right. He could have found the
money in the street. Or it could have
come from an angel or a fairy. No
possibility should be excluded.
> How do you know the man the monument to was the
> buyer of New Place and not some other Stratford
> townsman with a similar name?
Since it only states the surname, that
should be considered. Remember that the
date of death (in tiny letters unreadable
without a ladder) was added later.
> How do you know the documents involved were not
> forgeries by some later scholar trying to show
> that the Bard had sound middle-class home-buying
> values? Etc. In other words, you have no
> evidence, at all.
You're right. It could have been the 9/11
conspirators going back in time.
>>> Yes, considering the tons of personal letters,
>>> diaries and the like we have from the commoners
>>> of the times.
>> There is much 'of the like' from the
>> times. There are huge amounts on Ben
>> Jonson. The most impressive records
>> about the Stratman are of those about
>> the 'Sogliardo' character.
>
> Jonson was later than Shakespeare,
There are huge amounts of detail about
Jonson while the Stratman was alive,
and (supposedly) writing his great
works for the stage, and a few minor
ones as well (Cymbeline, Pericles and
Henry 8.)
> there are not "huge amounts" of evidence about
> his properties--no more, Isuspect than there are
> about Shakespeare's--
We are talking about the absence of
anything PERSONAL. No one could
doubt that Ben Jonson wrote for the
stage. He tells us about it himself
often enough.
> and there most certainly is
> not "much 'of the like'" about theatre matters
> from the times.
Of course there are. Huge amounts.
> Without Henslowe's diaries,
> we'd have just about nothing.
There is loads. But -- as ever -- the
complete absence of the name 'Shake-
speare' from them is astonishing and
quite inexplicable within the Strat
scenario.
>>>>> Sure, dey woz differen den.
>>>
>>> The level of literacy was much lower then,
>>
>> True as regards the UK. But you can
>> find roughly parallel conditions today
>> in (say) Angola. You won't find many
>> literate Angolans with illiterate children.
>
> Ah, you believe you CAN find some? If so, that
> means Shakespeare could have had illiterate
> children and still been literate.
Hopelessly rigidnical. Your mind simply
cannot cope with the notion of probability.
Maybe -- very much maybe -- there are one
or two literates in Angola with illiterate
children. But a story about each of them
could be told -- i.e. families ravaged by
war, AIDS, or other disasters and diseases.
There is no story that can be told about
the Stratman -- when seen as the highly
successful Bard by ignorant Stratfordians.
>>> Paulgram is arguing that no man with illiterate
>>> parents, wife and children can be literate.
>>> This is insane.
>>
>> It's an insane (and rigidnikal) reading.
>> The PROBABILITY of finding a literate
>> man with illiterate parents, an illiterate
>> wife and illiterate children in the
>> Western world at any time between ~1300
>> and 2000 is exceedingly remote. A theory
>> that proposes such a scenario should not
>> be taken seriously.
>
> You can't go by probability (assuming you
> have this probability right, which I doubt).
> You are arguing that Shakespeare could not
> have been the author because he had a
> wholly illiterate family.
God help us. When I say that, on THESE
grounds, he could not be the Bard, I am
saying that the probability against it
is about a million to one. Can't you
ever get that into your head? The
conclusion is not a 'necessary' one
in strictly logical terms. It is a
CONTINGENT observation -- based on
the facts of history.
>>> known that many people of the time looked down
>>> upon actors.
>>
>> It depended from where you were looking.
>> Being a member of the Royal Household
>> WAS a big deal to most.
>
> Maybe, but it needn't have been to Stratfordians
> (wouldn't they have been too culturally deprived
> to even know there WAS a Royal Househould?),
Their most likely mistake would be to
assume that the Royal Household was
much smaller than it was in reality --
but that would only have boosted the
Stratman's reputation.
>>> and that one or two are quite sophisticated.
>
> The Belott-Mountjoy one with the abbreviation of
> "William," the Blackfriars Mortgage one with
> similar abbreviations. I count the dot of the i
> in the overhanging of the W sophisticated, too.
Note how you 'forget' to give a reference.
Here are the six 'signatures'. Only a
total and complete fool could think that
they came from the hand of someone who
ever regularly used a pen.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/6-known-signatures-of-shakspeare.jpg
> It never sank although it should have. But
> you're dodging. The point is that SOME
> people thought they were written by
> literates, and some of these people thought
> a scribe had written them.
Some people (quite a lot, in fact)
think the US government plotted 9/11.
Doctors were bleeding patients in the
1840s. There is no limit to human
foolishness.
> How could anyone think they were written even by
> lowly clerks if they are so obviously the scrawl
> of an illiterate?
There is no limit to human foolishness.
> (Why, by the way, have we no other signatures
> from the time that are as horrible, according to
> you? Did no other illiterate ever scrawl a
> signature? Besides Susanna?)
Many signatures by illiterates (e.g.
where a yeoman 'signs' a marriage
register, but where his wife only makes
a mark) will be pretty bad. They are
rarely reproduced, because no one has
much interest in them.
>>> I don't have to investigate this because I know,
>>> unlike the rigidnikal Paulgram, that people
>>> vary. Some back then HAD to have had sloppy
>>> signatures
>>
>> Sure. Some people then went around bare-
>> headed -- and some went around entirely
>> naked. There are no such things as social
>> conventions, universally adopted.
>
> Right, having a sloppy signature was just
> about exactly as unthinkable as going around
> naked (which I tell you SOME people of the
> time did, because people vary, and no
> conventions of any kind whatever are
> universally followed. Sawney Beane's name
> mean anything to you?)
It didn't, but I looked it up.
It seems to be a complete fiction.
>>> and not cared because some people are sloppy at
>>> whatever it is they do and don't care.
>>
>> That's why there was 'the naked party'
>> -- represented in Parliament, as it still
>> is (and in Congress too, I believe).
>
> Right. Because there are a few customs that just
> about every sane person abides by, ALL people
> abide by ALL the customs of their time
> ALL the time.
For a rigidnik like you, it has to be
all one way or all the other. MOST of
the main Elizabethan social conventions
were observed by nearly all Elizabethans.
Maybe there were a TINY number of literates
who scrawled their signatures as badly as
the Stratman. The issue is ALWAYS one
of PROBABILITY. The likelihood that
the Stratman was the Bard is -- on this
issue -- about 10,000 to one. Only a
complete fool would conclude that he was.
> (And you haven't even provided
> evidence that having a pretty signature
> was considered as extremely important
> then as you say.)
You want me to find the signature of
every literate Elizabethan and present
it here?
Paul.
ignoto
> Their most likely mistake would be to
> assume that the Royal Household was
> much smaller than it was in reality --
> but that would only have boosted the
> Stratman's reputation.
>
>>>> and that one or two are quite sophisticated.
>> The Belott-Mountjoy one with the abbreviation of
>> "William," the Blackfriars Mortgage one with
>> similar abbreviations. I count the dot of the i
>> in the overhanging of the W sophisticated, too.
>
> Note how you 'forget' to give a reference.
> Here are the six 'signatures'. Only a
> total and complete fool could think that
> they came from the hand of someone who
> ever regularly used a pen.
If we distill this argument down to its essence then we see that it
boils down to the assertion that good writing = literate and bad writing
= illiterate. That this assertion is painfully false is plain to anyone
who has ever tried to read a doctors handwritten prescription and
failed. There is no necessary correlation between 'good' handwriting and
literacy, the ablest mind may have a clumsy hand, just as an
illiterate's signature may be well formed by the practiced drawing of it.
Of course Shakespeare's signatures manifesting as they do a variety of
spellings (as anti-stratfordians are so fond of telling us) actually
demonstrate the literacy of the author, an ability to spell being a sure
sign of literacy.
Ign.
[snip]
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> He bought New Place in February 1597.
> >> It's reasonable to suppose that he had the
> >> money for some time before, so the start
> >> of the cover-up can be dated to 1596 or
> >> earlier. This was btw after a particularly
> >> lean period for the theatre, being closed as
> >> the result of plague for several years.
>
> > How much did he pay for New Place? How do you
> > know he didn't make a bundle from the
> > whorehouses Elizabeth says he ran?
>
> You're right. He could have found the
> money in the street. Or it could have
> come from an angel or a fairy. No
> possibility should be excluded.
Right, or it could have come from some ordinary business
he owned that did well for a few years, like the brothel business.
According to many Oxfordians, he was a wheeler-dealer;
wheeler-dealers can sometimes hit it big. Or maybe the
grain business went very well for a few years. And/or, with
his help, his father, once quite successful, became
successful again and paid for New Place. The point is,
you can't claim, with no hard evidence at all, that he
got a lot of money to act as a front (which is much
closer to a fairy's giving it to him than any of my
suggestions).
How much money are we talking about, anyway? You
never answered my question about how much New Place
set him back.
>
> > How do you know the man the monument to was the
> > buyer of New Place and not some other Stratford
> > townsman with a similar name?
>
> Since it only states the surname, that
> should be considered. Remember that the
> date of death (in tiny letters unreadable
> without a ladder) was added later.
You really ought stop stating guesses as facts. . . .
sorry, forgot that your a propaganda mechanism,
not a truth-seeker.
> > How do you know the documents involved were not
> > forgeries by some later scholar trying to show
> > that the Bard had sound middle-class home-buying
> > values? Etc. In other words, you have no
> > evidence, at all.
>
> You're right. It could have been the 9/11
> conspirators going back in time.
Just using your sort of arguments back at you. The
point is, you have to show why we should accept
the New Place documents but not the will or
the Mountjoy documents, etc.
> >>> Yes, considering the tons of personal letters,
> >>> diaries and the like we have from the commoners
> >>> of the times.
> >> There is much 'of the like' from the
> >> times. There are huge amounts on Ben
> >> Jonson. The most impressive records
> >> about the Stratman are of those about
> >> the 'Sogliardo' character.
>
> > Jonson was later than Shakespeare,
>
> There are huge amounts of detail about
> Jonson while the Stratman was alive,
> and (supposedly) writing his great
> works for the stage, and a few minor
> ones as well (Cymbeline, Pericles and
> Henry 8.)
>
> > there are not "huge amounts" of evidence about
> > his properties--no more, Isuspect than there are
> > about Shakespeare's--
>
> We are talking about the absence of
> anything PERSONAL. No one could
> doubt that Ben Jonson wrote for the
> stage. He tells us about it himself
> often enough.
No, you changed the subject. What we were talking
about was evidence concerning the purchase of
real estate.
> > and there most certainly is
> > not "much 'of the like'" about theatre matters
> > from the times.
>
> Of course there are. Huge amounts.
Name them, or some of them.
> > Without Henslowe's diaries,
> > we'd have just about nothing.
>
> There is loads.
Name them, or some of them.
> But -- as ever -- the
> complete absence of the name 'Shake-
> speare' from them is astonishing and
> quite inexplicable within the Strat
> scenario.
No, what is astonishing is your refusal to
accept that Shakespeare's name is in all sorts
or theatrical records.
Okay, I'm saying so what, since the actual hard
facts as opposed to speculative statistical
analyses make it a million to one in favor of
his being the author most take him to have been.
Thinking about your probability work, by the way,
I thought of a challenge for you. I'm sure you
will dodge it, but here it is, anyway:
What are the odds that a man whose name (or a reasonably
close approximation of his name) is on the title pages of over
forty books published in his lifetime as their author and who no
one of the times is recorded to have claimed was not an author,
was, indeed, not an author?
Okay, that's a bit unfair. Change "forty" to "one or more."
Or: name one known illiterate whose name was on a title-page
of some book of the time as its author.
> >>> known that many people of the time looked down
> >>> upon actors.
>
> >> It depended from where you were looking.
> >> Being a member of the Royal Household
> >> WAS a big deal to most.
>
> > Maybe, but it needn't have been to Stratfordians
> > (wouldn't they have been too culturally deprived
> > to even know there WAS a Royal Househould?),
>
> Their most likely mistake would be to
> assume that the Royal Household was
> much smaller than it was in reality --
> but that would only have boosted the
> Stratman's reputation.
>
> >>> and that one or two are quite sophisticated.
>
> > The Belott-Mountjoy one with the abbreviation of
> > "William," the Blackfriars Mortgage one with
> > similar abbreviations. I count the dot of the i
> > in the overhanging of the W sophisticated, too.
>
> Note how you 'forget' to give a reference.
> Here are the six 'signatures'. Only a
> total and complete fool could think that
> they came from the hand of someone who
> ever regularly used a pen.
How did I not give a reference? Oh, and only a
complete imbecile could thing they did not come
from a literate pen-user.
> > It never sank although it should have. But
> > you're dodging. The point is that SOME
> > people thought they were written by
> > literates, and some of these people thought
> > a scribe had written them.
>
> Some people (quite a lot, in fact)
> think the US government plotted 9/11.
> Doctors were bleeding patients in the
> 1840s. There is no limit to human
> foolishness.
Right. Those who didagree with you on any matter
are 9/11 conspiracy nuts.
> > How could anyone think they were written even by
> > lowly clerks if they are so obviously the scrawl
> > of an illiterate?
>
> There is no limit to human foolishness.
>
> > (Why, by the way, have we no other signatures
> > from the time that are as horrible, according to
> > you? Did no other illiterate ever scrawl a
> > signature? Besides Susanna?)
>
> Many signatures by illiterates (e.g.
> where a yeoman 'signs' a marriage
> register, but where his wife only makes
> a mark) will be pretty bad. They are
> rarely reproduced, because no one has
> much interest in them.
How do you know about them? How do you know
when a signature is by an illiterate?
> >>> I don't have to investigate this because I know,
> >>> unlike the rigidnikal Paulgram, that people
> >>> vary. Some back then HAD to have had sloppy
> >>> signatures
>
> >> Sure. Some people then went around bare-
> >> headed -- and some went around entirely
> >> naked. There are no such things as social
> >> conventions, universally adopted.
>
> > Right, having a sloppy signature was just
> > about exactly as unthinkable as going around
> > naked (which I tell you SOME people of the
> > time did, because people vary, and no
> > conventions of any kind whatever are
> > universally followed. Sawney Beane's name
> > mean anything to you?)
>
> It didn't, but I looked it up.
> It seems to be a complete fiction.
Why?
No. Find something in writing that indicate that
people thought it mandatory to have a good signature.
I hope you won't be able to draw me into wasting further time
in this thread, but I'm weak.
--Bob
ignoto
> [snip]
>
>> Their most likely mistake would be to
>> assume that the Royal Household was
>> much smaller than it was in reality --
>> but that would only have boosted the
>> Stratman's reputation.
>>
>>>>> and that one or two are quite sophisticated.
>>> The Belott-Mountjoy one with the abbreviation of
>>> "William," the Blackfriars Mortgage one with
>>> similar abbreviations. I count the dot of the i
>>> in the overhanging of the W sophisticated, too.
>>
>> Note how you 'forget' to give a reference.
>> Here are the six 'signatures'. Only a
>> total and complete fool could think that
>> they came from the hand of someone who
>> ever regularly used a pen.
>
> If we distill this argument down to its essence then we see that it
> boils down to the assertion that good writing = literate and bad writing
> = illiterate. That this assertion is painfully false is plain to anyone
> who has ever tried to read a doctors handwritten prescription and
> failed. There is no necessary correlation between 'good' handwriting and
> literacy, the ablest mind may have a clumsy hand, just as an
> illiterate's signature may be well formed by the practiced drawing of it.
In any case, no paleographer competent in secretary hand thinks that
Shakespeare's pre-1616 signatures are 'bad' or poorly formed examples.
... and here's a non-shakespeare related unstylised secretary hand
sigranture from the period:
http://www.hollyer.info/jhsig.gif
Ign.