Good God! And this man is a PhD!

[Tom Reedy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/william-shakespeare-authorship-birthday

"One reason is the publication in paperback of Shakespeare's
Unorthodox Biography by American scholar, Diana Price, in which she
analyses every piece of evidence in existence concerning
Shakespeare ..."

"Dismisses every piece of evidence ..." is more accurate.

"For example, one record attributes Romeo and Juliet to Samuel Daniel,
a contemporary of Shakespeare ..."

So Parnassus isn't a record when it says that Shakespeare was a
writer, but somehow gets promoted when it comes to an anti-Shakespeare
reading.

Is this guy even aware of the ridiculousness of his essay?

TR

[Tom Reedy]

On Apr 23, 3:47 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/william-shakespea...

>
> "One reason is the publication in paperback of Shakespeare's
> Unorthodox Biography by American scholar, Diana Price, in which she
> analyses every piece of evidence in existence concerning
> Shakespeare ..."
>
> "Dismisses every piece of evidence ..." is more accurate.
>
> "For example, one record attributes Romeo and Juliet to Samuel Daniel,
> a contemporary of Shakespeare ..."
>
> So Parnassus isn't a record when it says that Shakespeare was a
> writer, but somehow gets promoted when it comes to an anti-Shakespeare
> reading.
>
> Is this guy even aware of the ridiculousness of his essay?
>
> TR

It gets worse: "The author(s) had broad knowledge, could use five
languages and had a vocabulary six or seven times that of an ordinary
individual. Does this not suggest six or seven educated writers?"

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

TR

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "The author(s) had broad knowledge, could use five languages
> and had a vocabulary six or seven times that of an ordinary
> individual. Does this not suggest six or seven educated writers?"

It VERy well might.

Art Neuendorffer

[Robin G.]

On Apr 23, 1:47 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/william-shakespea...
>

> "One reason is the publication in paperback of Shakespeare's
> Unorthodox Biography by American scholar, Diana Price, in which she
> analyses every piece of evidence in existence concerning
> Shakespeare ..."

Calling Diana Price a scholar is an insult to real scholars. Checking
any of her
sources shows she doesn't understand what is being said and she leaves
out parts
of the quote that doesn't support her claim. Also, she creates her own
methodology
to support her claims. Her knowledge of the period in terms of
theatrical practice and
publishing is nil.

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "One reason is the publication in paperback of Shakespeare's
>> Unorthodox Biography by American scholar, Diana Price, in which
>> she analyses every piece of evidence in existence concerning
>> Shakespeare ..."

"Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> Calling Diana Price a scholar is an insult to real scholars.

Do you know any? (Oh...you mean....)

"Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> Checking any of her sources shows she doesn't
> understand what is being said and she leaves out
> parts of the quote that doesn't support her claim.

They doesn't?

"Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> Also, she creates her own methodology to support her claims.

"Methodism is respected around the world for its emphasis on helping
the poor and the average person, its unlimited salvation aspect, and
its very systematic approach."

"Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> Her knowledge of the period in terms of
> theatrical practice and publishing is nil.

Oh...the HORROR!!!

Art Neuendorffer

[laraine]

On Apr 23, 3:47 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/william-shakespea...
>

> "One reason is the publication in paperback of Shakespeare's
> Unorthodox Biography by American scholar, Diana Price, in which she
> analyses every piece of evidence in existence concerning
> Shakespeare ..."
>
> "Dismisses every piece of evidence ..." is more accurate.
>
> "For example, one record attributes Romeo and Juliet to Samuel Daniel,
> a contemporary of Shakespeare ..."
>
> So Parnassus isn't a record when it says that Shakespeare was a
> writer, but somehow gets promoted when it comes to an anti-Shakespeare
> reading.

But he does say he thinks that Shakespeare
was one of the writers of these plays. He
just doesn't mention the specifics of how
much and which ones.

C.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

laraine <lara...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8100881a-cebe-4315...@m4g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

Nevertheless, it's hard to take statements like "Hamlet was being
performed on stage 10 years before Shakespeare is supposed to have
written it" seriously. I wonder if Professor Leahy has heard of /The
True Chronicle History of King Leir/ or /The Troublesome Raigne of John
King of England/?
--
S.O.P.

[Paul Crowley]

On 24/04/2013 01:56, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:

> Nevertheless, it's hard to take statements like "Hamlet was being
> performed on stage 10 years before Shakespeare is supposed to have
> written it" seriously.

The standard date for Hamlet's composition is 1601,
Yet Nashe remarked in 1589 on " whole Hamlets . . .
. . . of tragical speeches".

Of course, when you're a Strat you can ignore
evidence, or claim that these words better fit
some unknown author. And that's 'scholarship'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Hamlet

> I wonder if Professor Leahy has heard of /The
> True Chronicle History of King Leir/ or /The Troublesome Raigne of John
> King of England/?

What are you on about? They were probably written
by "Shake-speare" when he was a child -- in the
1560s would be my guess.


Paul.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 2:29:45 PM UTC-7, Robin G. wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:47 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/william-shakespea...
>
> >
>
> > "One reason is the publication in paperback of Shakespeare's
>
> > Unorthodox Biography by American scholar, Diana Price, in which she
>
> > analyses every piece of evidence in existence concerning
>
> > Shakespeare ..."
>

> I thought Price wrote with a collaborator . . .

[TomFoster]

On Apr 23, 9:47 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/william-shakespea...
>

> "One reason is the publication in paperback of Shakespeare's
> Unorthodox Biography by American scholar, Diana Price, in which she
> analyses every piece of evidence in existence concerning
> Shakespeare ..."
>

> Is this guy even aware of the ridiculousness of his essay?
>
> TR

I notice that Diana Price herself has joined in with a below-the-line
comment. And then her husband Pat Dooley, as 'Pat262', pops up to say:

"I'm waiting for Stanley Wells to agree to a one on one debate with
Diana Price. I don't thinks he's game."

Tom

[laraine]

On Apr 23, 7:56 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I don't believe that someone with a degree
in Shakespeare studies would not have heard
of those.

If one goes by documentation, though, I believe
there is only a mention of "Hamlet", not
Ur-Hamlet or something else. So one does have
to make guesses. Not sure exactly what could be
questioned, though, with respect to authorship.

C.

[John W Kennedy]

But the one thing that we know about the early "Hamlet" is that it is
/not/ the "Hamlet" that we know. Dates have nothing to do with it one
way or the other; it is clearly a different text.

--
John W Kennedy
"'Your art then,' said Vertue, 'seems to teach men that the best way of
being happy is to enjoy unbroken good fortune in every respect. They
would not all find the advice helpful.'"
-- C. S. Lewis. "The Pilgrim's Regress"

[Paul Crowley]

On 24/04/2013 22:21, John W Kennedy wrote:

>> On Apr 23, 7:56 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>

>>> Nevertheless, it's hard to take statements like "Hamlet was being
>>> performed on stage 10 years before Shakespeare is supposed to have
>>> written it" seriously.

Some Strats somehow still retain a tinge of honesty
(i.e. the vital element of any 'scholarship'):

" . . . Other scholars believe that the play is an early version of
Shakespeare's own play, and point to the fact that Shakespeare's
version survives in three quite different early texts, Q1 (1603), Q2
(1604) and F (1623), suggesting the possibility that it was revised
by the author over a period of many years. While the exact
relationship of the short and apparently primitive text of Q1 to the
later published texts is not resolved, Hardin Craig among others
has suggested that it may represent an earlier draft of the play and
hence would confirm that the "Ur-Hamlet" is in fact merely an
earlier draft of Shakespeare's play. The mainstream view is that Q1
is simply a garbled unauthorised version of the text, which would
explain the quick publication of the corrected version, Q2.

This view is held in some form or another by Harold Bloom,[4] Peter
Alexander,[5] and Andrew Cairncross, who stated that "It may be
assumed, until a new case can be shown to the contrary, that
Shakespeare's Hamlet and no other is the play mentioned by
Nashe in 1589 and Henslowe in 1594."[6 . . . "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Hamlet

> But the one thing that we know about the early "Hamlet" is that it
> is /not/ the "Hamlet" that we know. Dates have nothing to do with
> it one way or the other; it is clearly a different text.

How do you imagine you know that?


Paul.

[jaelsheargold]

Of course one has to bear in mind that you believe the Earl of Oxford,
Shakespeare, Greene, Nashe, and Kyd were all the same person and that
Eddie de Vere dined alone at the 'fatal banquet'.

It must get very confusing for you, since from time to time you seem
to forget your "many heads under one hat" theory and treat the above
as separate entities.


SB.

[John W Kennedy]

And, of course, "Creepy" has forgotten the oyster-wife.

--
John W Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich
have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"

[Paul Crowley]

No answer, of course.

Merely the usual silly attempt by Janice to
change the subject.

>> Of course one has to bear in mind that you believe the Earl of Oxford,
>> Shakespeare, Greene, Nashe, and Kyd were all the same person and that
>> Eddie de Vere dined alone at the 'fatal banquet'.

The evidence that Hamlet was written -- and published
-- by 1589 is overwhelming. Nashe was not going to
write as follows unless printed copies were readily
available to his own readership:

" . . . English Seneca read by candle-light yields many
good sentences, as Blood is a begger, and so forth; and
if you entreat him fair in a frosty morning, he will afford
you whole Hamlets, I should say handfuls of tragical
speeches. . . "

Who else was going to be called "English Seneca"?
The notion that some other playwright had written a
version of Hamlet, which the Stratman copied, is so
ludicrous, that it could be expressed only by a bunch
of Stratfordian 'scholars'.


Paul.

[jaelsheargold]

It isn't changing the subject. You're the one proposing the question,
so we need to look at where you're coming from. You believe that
Oxford wrote Menaphon posing as Greene, then he pretended to be Nashe
to write the introduction, then he dropped a hint that he was Kyd and
had written Hamlet.

Explain that - if you can. You can't, so you''ll bottle it as usual.

>
> >> Of course one has to bear in mind that you believe the Earl of Oxford,
> >> Shakespeare, Greene, Nashe, and Kyd were all the same person and that
> >> Eddie de Vere dined alone at the 'fatal banquet'.
>
> The evidence that Hamlet was written -- and published
> -- by 1589 is overwhelming.  Nashe was not going to
> write as follows unless printed copies were readily
> available to his own readership:
>
> " . . . English Seneca read by candle-light yields many
> good sentences, as Blood is a begger, and so forth; and
> if you entreat him fair in a frosty morning, he will afford
> you whole Hamlets, I should say handfuls of tragical
> speeches. . . "
>
> Who else was going to be called "English Seneca"?

It was probably a book - God, you're so ignorant.

> The notion that some other playwright had written a
> version of Hamlet, which the Stratman copied, is so
> ludicrous, that it could be expressed only by a bunch
> of Stratfordian 'scholars'.

Cobblers. Plenty of authors treat the same subject as others have
before them. Why don't you get your cat to write your posts? He can't
do any worse than you do.


SB.



>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -





>
> - Show quoted text -

[John W Kennedy]

The locus classicus, I suppose, would be how Aeschylus, Sophocles, and
Euripides all did versions of the Electra story (which rather strongly
resembles the Hamlet story, if it comes to that). And, as has already
been said, there had been a version of "Lear" before Shakespeare. Dumas
based "The Three Musketeers" on an older novel, though he rather
disingenuously allowed readers to suppose that the older novel was
itself a work of nonfiction. And let us not forget that Giradoux titled
his version of the birth of Hercules "Amphitryon 38" because he
estimated that it had been done 37 times before him.

There are at least two operas based on "La Vie de Bohème", not to
mention Kálmán's rather more jolly operetta. There are at least two
operas based on "Manon Lescaut". There are at least two operas based on
Goethe's "Faust", not to mention other operas based on other Fausts.
There were even two Broadway musicals based on "Peter Pan" in the 50s.

But, of course, none of this will mean anything to Creepy, who will
simply reply that rules don't apply to "Hamlet".

--
John W Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"

[Sneaky O. Possum]

laraine <lara...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7a2d6dc0-35d8-49da...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 23, 7:56 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> laraine <larai...@gmail.com> wrote

>> innews:8100881a-cebe-4315-81a4-135ba48
> f0...@m4g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

>> > On Apr 23, 3:47 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/william-shakespe
>> >>a...

[snip]

>> > But he does say he thinks that Shakespeare was one of the writers
>> > of these plays. He just doesn't mention the specifics of how much
>> > and which ones.
>>
>> Nevertheless, it's hard to take statements like "Hamlet was being
>> performed on stage 10 years before Shakespeare is supposed to have
>> written it" seriously. I wonder if Professor Leahy has heard of /The
>> True Chronicle History of King Leir/ or /The Troublesome Raigne of
>> John King of England/?
>

> I don't believe that someone with a degree in Shakespeare studies
> would not have heard of those.

That would depend on where they got the degree from, wouldn't it?

> If one goes by documentation, though, I believe there is only a
> mention of "Hamlet", not Ur-Hamlet or something else. So one does have
> to make guesses.

When those guesses lead one to conclude that the version of /Hamlet/
published in the First Folio wasn't written by Shakespeare, one has gone
a great deal too far. Here's the quote in context:

A number of plays that appeared in the first collected works (the
First Folio, printed in 1623, seven years after Shakespeare's death)
have been shown to be works of more than one writer. I would argue
that many more than this are collaborations and that some of the
plays in that collection were not written by Shakespeare. For

example, one record attributes Romeo and Juliet to Samuel Daniel, a

contemporary of Shakespeare; Hamlet was being performed on stage 10
years before Shakespeare is supposed to have written it. These are
just two of many such examples.

It is unclear whether Professor Lacey is being colossally ignorant or
intentionally misleading here, but citing dialogue from a spoof written
by college students as a "record [that] attributes Romeo and Juliet to
Samuel Daniel" is ridiculous. One could more reasonably conclude that
the play was written by Arthur Brooke. And what about Q2 of /Hamlet/,
published during Shakespeare's lifetime, with "by William Shakespeare"
printed on the title page?

Couple the fact that Shakespeare's /Hamlet/ was published under his name
during his lifetime with the documentary evidence that some of
Shakespeare's plays derive from earlier plays with very similar titles
(another example is the anonymous /Famous Victories of Henry the
Fifth/), and the fact that a great many of the plays mentioned
by Shakespeare's contemporaries are now lost, and the most reasonable
guess is that the play is a now-lost adaptation of Belleforest's French
prose version that was written by an earlier playwright.

> Not sure exactly what could be questioned, though, with respect to
> authorship.

Indeed. The fact that Shakey plundered other people's works for stories
and turns of phrase is not exactly news. If one wanted to argue that
Shakespeare is in some sense an amalgam of all the writers whose works
he plagiarised - Arthur Brooke, Thomas Lodge, Thomas North, Robert
Greene, et al. - and all the authors whose works /they/ plagiarised - I,
for one, would find it difficult to disagree. But that's quite a long
ways from arguing that he had no hand at all in some of the works in the
First Folio.
--
S.O.P.

[Paul Crowley]

On 26/04/2013 00:41, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:

> When those guesses lead one to conclude that the version of /Hamlet/
> published in the First Folio wasn't written by Shakespeare, one has gone
> a great deal too far. Here's the quote in context:
>
> A number of plays that appeared in the first collected works (the
> First Folio, printed in 1623, seven years after Shakespeare's death)
> have been shown to be works of more than one writer. I would argue
> that many more than this are collaborations and that some of the
> plays in that collection were not written by Shakespeare. For
> example, one record attributes Romeo and Juliet to Samuel Daniel, a
> contemporary of Shakespeare; Hamlet was being performed on stage 10
> years before Shakespeare is supposed to have written it. These are
> just two of many such examples.
>
> It is unclear whether Professor Lacey is being colossally ignorant or
> intentionally misleading here,

Intentionally misleading IMHO -- pointing out the absurdities
conventional 'scholarship' entail.

> And what about Q2 of /Hamlet/,
> published during Shakespeare's lifetime, with "by William Shakespeare"
> printed on the title page?

Interestingly Q1 (1603) was show as by "William Shake-speare",
whereas Q2 is by "William Shakespeare". (Note the initial
hyphen followed by its removal).

> Couple the fact that Shakespeare's /Hamlet/ was published under his name
> during his lifetime

Until you become capable of seeing that "Will Shake-speare"
is a (beautifully-) contrived pseudonym, there is no hope you
will ever make any sense of anything in this field.

> with the documentary evidence that some of
> Shakespeare's plays derive from earlier plays with very similar titles
> (another example is the anonymous /Famous Victories of Henry the
> Fifth/), and the fact that a great many of the plays mentioned
> by Shakespeare's contemporaries are now lost, and the most reasonable
> guess is that the play is a now-lost adaptation of Belleforest's French
> prose version that was written by an earlier playwright.

Yeah, yeah. Great authors rarely have ideas of their
own, and routinely copy the phraseology of their minor
contemporaries.

> Indeed. The fact that Shakey plundered other people's works for stories
> and turns of phrase is not exactly news.

Although, given "the facts" (as necessarily perceived by
those taken in by the cover-up) the explanation makes as
much sense as Noah's Great Flood. (How else account
for all those sea-shells on the tops of mountains?)

> If one wanted to argue that
> Shakespeare is in some sense an amalgam of all the writers whose works
> he plagiarised - Arthur Brooke, Thomas Lodge, Thomas North, Robert
> Greene, et al. - and all the authors whose works /they/ plagiarised - I,
> for one, would find it difficult to disagree.

God help us.

> But that's quite a long
> ways from arguing that he had no hand at all in some of the works in the
> First Folio.

I dunno. Surely if you accept Noah's Great Flood, it
would be inconsistent to deny any part of Genesis?


Paul.

[laraine]

On Apr 25, 6:41 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> laraine <larai...@gmail.com> wrote innews:7a2d6dc0-35d8-49da...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 7:56 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> laraine <larai...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:8100881a-cebe-4315-81a4-135ba48
> > f0...@m4g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> >> > On Apr 23, 3:47 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/william-shakespe
> >> >>a...
> [snip]
> >> > But he does say he thinks that Shakespeare was one of the writers
> >> > of these plays. He just doesn't mention the specifics of how much
> >> > and which ones.
>
> >> Nevertheless, it's hard to take statements like "Hamlet was being
> >> performed on stage 10 years before Shakespeare is supposed to have
> >> written it" seriously. I wonder if Professor Leahy has heard of /The
> >> True Chronicle History of King Leir/ or /The Troublesome Raigne of
> >> John King of England/?
>
> > I don't believe that someone with a degree in Shakespeare studies
> > would not have heard of those.
>
> That would depend on where they got the degree from, wouldn't it?

I'd say it's more fair to judge someone
on the quality of their publications, and
he does have a few of those that could be
read.

>
> > If one goes by documentation, though, I believe there is only a
> > mention of "Hamlet", not Ur-Hamlet or something else. So one does have
> > to make guesses.
>
> When those guesses lead one to conclude that the version of /Hamlet/
> published in the First Folio wasn't written by Shakespeare, one has gone
> a great deal too far.

But I don't think he really argues
that, unless he thinks that Oxford
wrote 90% of it.

>Here's the quote in context:
>
>         A number of plays that appeared in the first collected works (the
>     First Folio, printed in 1623, seven years after Shakespeare's death)
>     have been shown to be works of more than one writer. I would argue
>     that many more than this are collaborations and that some of the
>     plays in that collection were not written by Shakespeare. For
>     example, one record attributes Romeo and Juliet to Samuel Daniel, a
>     contemporary of Shakespeare; Hamlet was being performed on stage 10
>     years before Shakespeare is supposed to have written it. These are
>     just two of many such examples.
>
> It is unclear whether Professor Lacey is being colossally ignorant or
> intentionally misleading here, but citing dialogue from a spoof written
> by college students as a "record [that] attributes Romeo and Juliet to
> Samuel Daniel" is ridiculous.

Here are the Parnassus plays, I assume
at least partly:

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_pilgrimage_to_Parnassus.html?id=CA5aAAAAMAAJ

and a description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pilgrimage_to_Parnassus

and what non-Strats (T.W.White) have said
about them:
http://books.google.com/books?id=erUtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Romeo+and+Juliet+Samuel+Daniel&source=bl&ots=7_CMnrimaL&sig=iaKKhZ0ST3Nh3hHPchdghmlZIB4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i-B6UeLWNImvrQGFi4GwCA&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Romeo%20and%20Juliet%20Samuel%20Daniel&f=false

Seems to be a serious line, anyway, though
one would have to know the context, and
these plays also praise Shakespeare as a
poet, which people certainly take seriously.

>One could more reasonably conclude that
> the play was written by Arthur Brooke.

Well, why not investigate any idea
you have-- I believe in thinking outside
the box. Perhaps Mr. Brooke's style
seems quite different from that of S
on the surface.

>And what about Q2 of /Hamlet/,
> published during Shakespeare's lifetime, with "by William Shakespeare"
> printed on the title page?

So that's evidence in S's favor,.

>
> Couple the fact that Shakespeare's /Hamlet/ was published under his name
> during his lifetime with the documentary evidence that some of
> Shakespeare's plays derive from earlier plays with very similar titles
> (another example is the anonymous /Famous Victories of Henry the
> Fifth/), and the fact that a great many of the plays mentioned
> by Shakespeare's contemporaries are now lost, and the most reasonable
> guess is that the play is a now-lost adaptation of Belleforest's French
> prose version that was written by an earlier playwright.

I read just a few back-posts, and
I guess what most think is that Kyd did
try his hand at translating from French
and Italian, and his translations were
criticized by Nashe in preface to Menaphon:

http://www.bartleby.com/359/16.html.
(search on Hamlet)

But because Nashe writes in a rather
indirect way, some find the passage
inconclusive.

http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/d34beb5ab0077e1c?dmode=source

Here is a link to the German play that
is thought to possibly be a translation
of the earlier (possibly Kyd) version:

http://phoenixandturtle.net/excerptmill/brudermord.htm

>
> > Not sure exactly what could be questioned, though, with respect to
> > authorship.
>
> Indeed. The fact that Shakey plundered other people's works for stories
> and turns of phrase is not exactly news.

Plunder is a strong word. That sort of
thing, I assume was more acceptable
then than it is now.

>If one wanted to argue that
> Shakespeare is in some sense an amalgam of all the writers whose works
> he plagiarised - Arthur Brooke, Thomas Lodge, Thomas North, Robert
> Greene, et al. - and all the authors whose works /they/ plagiarised - I,
> for one, would find it difficult to disagree.

Don't know about that. Doesn't S add his
own kind of sophistication in language and
characterization anyway...

C.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

laraine <lara...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b3ca199c-c8f0-41a9...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 25, 6:41 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> laraine <larai...@gmail.com> wrote

>> innews:7a2d6dc0-35d8-49da-97dc-403f8db
> c0...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

[snip]
>> >> > But he does say he thinks that Shakespeare was one of the
>> >> > writers of these plays. He just doesn't mention the specifics of
>> >> > how much and which ones.
>>
>> >> Nevertheless, it's hard to take statements like "Hamlet was being
>> >> performed on stage 10 years before Shakespeare is supposed to have
>> >> written it" seriously. I wonder if Professor Leahy has heard of
>> >> /The True Chronicle History of King Leir/ or /The Troublesome
>> >> Raigne of John King of England/?
>>
>> > I don't believe that someone with a degree in Shakespeare studies
>> > would not have heard of those.
>>
>> That would depend on where they got the degree from, wouldn't it?
>
> I'd say it's more fair to judge someone on the quality of their publications, and
> he does have a few of those that could be read.

You said that you didn't believe that someone with a degree in
Shakespeare studies would be ignorant of /King Leir/ and /Troublesome
Raigne/. In my opinion, "a degree in Shakespeare studies" is not, in and
of itself, evidence of knowledge. Professor Leahy's publications /are/
evidence of knowledge, but it seems that you haven't read any of them.

>> > If one goes by documentation, though, I believe there is only a
>> > mention of "Hamlet", not Ur-Hamlet or something else. So one does
>> > have to make guesses.
>>
>> When those guesses lead one to conclude that the version of /Hamlet/
>> published in the First Folio wasn't written by Shakespeare, one has
>> gone a great deal too far.
>
> But I don't think he really argues that, unless he thinks that Oxford
> wrote 90% of it.

You think that when he expressed his opinion "that some of the
plays in that collection were not written by Shakespeare" and cited
/Hamlet/ as an example, he wasn't really arguing that /Hamlet/ was
written by someone other than Shakespeare?
--
S.O.P.

[laraine]

On Apr 27, 3:36 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> laraine <larai...@gmail.com> wrote innews:b3ca199c-c8f0-41a9...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

>
> > On Apr 25, 6:41 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> laraine <larai...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:7a2d6dc0-35d8-49da-97dc-403f8db
> > c0...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> [snip]
> >> >> > But he does say he thinks that Shakespeare was one of the
> >> >> > writers of these plays. He just doesn't mention the specifics of
> >> >> > how much and which ones.
>
> >> >> Nevertheless, it's hard to take statements like "Hamlet was being
> >> >> performed on stage 10 years before Shakespeare is supposed to have
> >> >> written it" seriously. I wonder if Professor Leahy has heard of
> >> >> /The True Chronicle History of King Leir/ or /The Troublesome
> >> >> Raigne of John King of England/?
>
> >> > I don't believe that someone with a degree in Shakespeare studies
> >> > would not have heard of those.
>
> >> That would depend on where they got the degree from, wouldn't it?
>
> > I'd say it's more fair to judge someone on the quality of their publications, and
> > he does have a few of those that could be read.
>
> You said that you didn't believe that someone with a degree in
> Shakespeare studies would be ignorant of /King Leir/ and /Troublesome
> Raigne/. In my opinion, "a degree in Shakespeare studies" is not, in and
> of itself, evidence of knowledge.

Well, Shakespeare studies is a giant area,
so it could mean lots of things, but assuming
that it required at least 4-5 courses in
Renaissance literature, how could one not
encounter the idea that writers of that time
used the kind of sources we are talking about...

Now, one might have one's head in the clouds,
or have a personal and financial life.. or miss
a few things from class.., or the teachers
might emphasize other things...I do understand
that.

But I have just now noticed that his bio page
at Brunel mentions that his "research specialises
in Shakespeare's History Plays and Elizabethan
Processions."

I haven't found anything that says that was
his Ph.D. topic, but it might have been.

>Professor Leahy's publications /are/
> evidence of knowledge, but it seems that you haven't read any of them.

Considering that I just heard of the man
last week, no, I haven't. At the moment, I'd
might instead look at these Parnassus plays,
which seem relatively straightforward to read.

(Also, I might mention that Shapiro's 1599
book has quite a lot about Essex's difficult
time in Ireland and subsequent return to
England, all of which occurred in 1599.)

>
> >> > If one goes by documentation, though, I believe there is only a
> >> > mention of "Hamlet", not Ur-Hamlet or something else. So one does
> >> > have to make guesses.
>
> >> When those guesses lead one to conclude that the version of /Hamlet/
> >> published in the First Folio wasn't written by Shakespeare, one has
> >> gone a great deal too far.
>
> > But I don't think he really argues that, unless he thinks that Oxford
> > wrote 90% of it.
>
> You think that when he expressed his opinion "that some of the
> plays in that collection were not written by Shakespeare" and cited
> /Hamlet/ as an example, he wasn't really arguing that /Hamlet/ was
> written by someone other than Shakespeare?
> --
> S.O.P.

He also mentioned collaboration as a possibility.
Again, one would have to read what he has
written about Hamlet.

Shakespeare, IIRC, I believe has been mentioned
as a possible collaborator with Kyd in other
plays, though I doubt if those studies are
considered to be in the mainstream at the moment.

I wonder if there any Oxfordians who believe S
or Kyd collaborated with Oxford, or got ideas
from Oxford's life....

C.

[laraine]

By the way, I don't think it was very nice
of him to write this article on Shakespeare's
birthday...

Give the guy one day, for goodness sake.

C.

[laraine]

At the moment, I see two books associated
with William Leahy on amazon, and both
have the "Look Inside" .capability.

One looks to be a scholarly technical
account of the Elizabethan Procession
as it related to the common man:

http://www.amazon.com/Elizabethan-Triumphal-Processions-William-Leahy/dp/0754639843/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367255901&sr=1-1&keywords=William+Leahy+Elizabethan+processions

and the other has Leahy as editor of
some rather high-level articles intermeshed
with a little critical theory about the
authorship of Shakespeare:

http://www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-His-Authors-Perspectives-Authorship/dp/0826426115/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367255882&sr=8-1&keywords=William+Leahy+Shakespeare

If the Kindle price of the latter goes
considerably down, I'd consider
reading it.

C.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:51:23 PM UTC-7, Tom Reedy wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:47 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/william-shakespea...
>
> >
>
> > "One reason is the publication in paperback of Shakespeare's
>
> > Unorthodox Biography by American scholar, Diana Price, in which she
>
> > analyses every piece of evidence in existence concerning
>
> > Shakespeare ..."
>
> >
>
> > "Dismisses every piece of evidence ..." is more accurate.
>
> >
>
> > "For example, one record attributes Romeo and Juliet to Samuel Daniel,
>
> > a contemporary of Shakespeare ..."
>
> >
>
> > So Parnassus isn't a record when it says that Shakespeare was a
>
> > writer, but somehow gets promoted when it comes to an anti-Shakespeare
>
> > reading.
>
> >
>
> > Is this guy even aware of the ridiculousness of his essay?
>

> > Well, I was just reading Edwin Reed, LLD, a few hours
>
> > ago, Reed agrees that Shappere was illiterate. The
>
> > Strats have never admitted that Shappere was illiterate,
>
> > they just keep piling on the ROMANCE, odd since
>
> > literature in the Elizabethan era was not romantic.

>
> >
> > TR
>
>
>
> It gets worse: "The author(s) had broad knowledge, could use five
>
> languages and had a vocabulary six or seven times that of an ordinary
>
> individual. Does this not suggest six or seven educated writers?"
>

> neon...@gmail.com writes:
>
> IN FACT, and I can go back and find Reed's exact quote,
>
> attests to the fact that FRANCIS BACON could speak
>
> five languages fluently.
>
>Shappere fumbled with English. We know that he wrote
>
> no plays because he didn't produce even a SLIVER of
>
> a FOLIO, where does this Strat obsession about an
>
> illiterate come from?
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> OK, I FORGOT, IT'S THE SEXY, SEXY NAME
>
> SHAKE-SPEARE.
>
> TR

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:56:36 PM UTC-7, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> laraine <lara...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> elizabeth writes (what kind of formatting is going on here?)
>
> I continue:
>
> I've read the below, positive proof that Bacon wrote Hamlet is
>
> found in a performance in which the actor is walking
>
> around on stage, reading aloud from Bacon's cousin
>
> Sir Thomas Hoby's translation of The Courtier.
>
> That very volume is still held in the BUNEL collection at the
>
> University of Cambridge in London. It contains Hoby's
>
> signature in the frontmatter.

>
> > On Apr 23, 3:47 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/william-shakespea.
>
> >> ..
>
> >>
>
> >> "One reason is the publication in paperback of Shakespeare's
>
> >> Unorthodox Biography by American scholar, Diana Price, in which she
>
> >> analyses every piece of evidence in existence concerning
>
> >> Shakespeare ..."
>
> >>
>
> >> "Dismisses every piece of evidence ..." is more accurate.
>
> >>
>
> >> "For example, one record attributes Romeo and Juliet to Samuel
>
> >> Daniel, a contemporary of Shakespeare ..."
>

> >> HUH? Daniel did not write Romeo and Juliet, that play
>
>
> > >
> > > was already printed in Bacon's First Folio.

>
> >> So Parnassus isn't a record when it says that Shakespeare was a
>
> >> writer, but somehow gets promoted when it comes to an
>
> >> anti-Shakespeare reading.
>

> >> Frankly, the pro-Shakespeare reading simply doesn't
>
> >> exist in this time-space because Shakespeare didn't
>
> > > have the brains to steal Bacon's plays from the
>
> > > FIRST FOLIO.
>
> > > The alternative version (which is absolutely true) is
>
> > > that Jonson, Bacon's closest friend in the world,
>
> > > so intimidated Shakespeare that he had to run
>
> > > back to Stratford to hide under his grannies skirts.

>
> > >
>
> > But he does say he thinks that Shakespeare
>
> > was one of the writers of these plays. He
>
> > just doesn't mention the specifics of how
>
> > much and which ones.
>

> > Getting through the thick skull of the Strats isn't
>
> > easy, I'm sure that four hundred years ago
>
> > Jonson himself struggled with this difficulty.

>
> >
>
> Nevertheless, it's hard to take statements like "Hamlet was being
>
> performed on stage 10 years before Shakespeare is supposed to have
>
> written it" seriously.
>

> What's your source for that?
>
> I don't know that "Hamlet" was written for the wedding of the
>
> Danish princess Anne of Denmark, but she shortly soured on
>
> her bethrothed James IV the scrofulous King of Scotland.
>
> Their honeymoon lasted ten minutes but there is more
>
> gossip ahead.
>
> When James would take the "darling boys" hunting, going
>
> from one royal lodge to another, Bacon and Anne were
>
> seated at a long table in Parliament, going through folders
>
> that held papers that required James I's signatures lest
>
> government go into a stall. One can imagine that the
>
> pretty Danish princess and the handsome Bacon locked
>
> eyes more than once.
>
> The outcome of that toiling into the night was a very
>
> beautiful infant, a Princess who inevitably married the
>
> son of a German prince, coincidently the author of
>
> the Cryptographia et Cryptomenytices, a huge book on
>
> ciphers compiled by Bacon himself.
>
> There is a fabulous joke on the C & C cover, it shows
>
> SHAKESPEARE (I'm not kidding) taking a bribe from a
>
> gentleman who looks very like Bacon (what are the odds?)
>
> the rustic then throws a spear over his shoulder and walks off
>
> to a building on a hill which looks for the world like the
>
> Globe theatre. I should add that Bacon wrote the C & C,
>
> a scholarly work on the subject of ciphers.
>
> I'll try to get out of this post and find the url for the
>
> Cryptographia et Cryptomenytices.

[marco]

[marco]

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 2:14:01 PM UTC-7, Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Art, did you read my explanation/apology (I don't know about what)
>
> > I have no control over what Google does on these pages, I didn't
>
> > create the "whatever it was" that looks something like . . . what?
>
> > did you take it down, after all that complaining?

>
> > "The author(s) had broad knowledge, could use five languages
>
> > and had a vocabulary six or seven times that of an ordinary
>
> > individual. Does this not suggest six or seven educated writers?"
>
>
>

> It VERy well might.
>
>
>
> Art Neuendorffer

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:59:37 PM UTC-7, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 24/04/2013 01:56, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>

> Elizabeth writes: Bacon took his First Folio with its thirty-eight
>
> plays (I think I now have the right number) to try them out on
>
> Wilton's indoor stage among other pleasures. Jonson shortly
>
> found his way to Wilton, Mary Sidney famously met Jonson at
>
> the front door of Wilton, saying "come in, the man Shakespeare
>
> is here." And of course Mary Sidney had never met the Stratford
>
> Broker so we can only conclude that she's referring to her first
>
> cousin Francis Bacon.

>
> > Nevertheless, it's hard to take statements like "Hamlet was being
>
> > performed on stage 10 years before Shakespeare is supposed to have
>
> > written it" seriously.
>
>
>
> The standard date for Hamlet's composition is 1601,
>
> Yet Nashe remarked in 1589 on " whole Hamlets . . .
>
> . . . of tragical speeches".
>
>
>
> Of course, when you're a Strat you can ignore
>
> evidence, or claim that these words better fit
>
> some unknown author. And that's 'scholarship'.
>

> Paul, it does seem that time is out of joint for the
>
> plays of William Shakespeare since no one has
>
> discovered a single one of his plays in all these
>
> four hundred years . . . yet the Strats go on and
>
> on as if Shappere had been able to pen a play.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Hamlet
>
>
> > I wonder if Professor Leahy has heard of /The
>
> > True Chronicle History of King Leir/ or /The Troublesome Raigne of John
>
> > King of England/?
>

> Well, I've heard of it so how could Leahy miss it?

[marco]

> Elizabeth writes:
> >Art, did you read my explanation/apology (I don't know about what)
> > > I have no control over what Google does on these pages, I didn't
> > > create the "whatever it was" that looks something like . . . what?
> > > did you take it down, after all that complaining?

eliz,

you have no control over what YOU write!

marc