Did Shakespeare wite his Shakespeare
Dave
Did he really write is these.
You know of any information on this?
Tks
Dave
John W. Kennedy
> Did he really write is these.
Yes. Those who claim otherwise are psychotics, liars, con-men, and/or
ignorant suckers.
> You know of any information on this?
http://www.shakespeareauthorship.com
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction
together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the
works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together
as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Chess Anyone?
> Dave wrote:
> > Did he really write is these.
>
> Yes. Those who claim otherwise are psychotics, liars, con-men, and/or
> ignorant suckers.
>
> > You know of any information on this?
>
> http://www.shakespeareauthorship.com<<
Absolutely!
The very existence of Ben Jonson alone, serves as the irrefutable
evidence that there is no one; I mean nobody wrote the works of
Shakespeare but Shakespeare himself!
Dave
Give me some of your reasons why you say he did and why do others say he
didn't
Did he go even go to school? Were the original manuscripts ever found?
Who ever saw him? May be Sir Walter Raleigh wrote shakespeare? He did
lose his head.. Did a Woman write it..
I need some more information.... Take me to some good sites on this if
you know of any..
Thanks
Dave
KQKnave
>Then why do I have to write a paper on it.
>Give me some of your reasons why you say he did
Here are some of the reasons that Shakespeare of Stratford
is believed to have written the works under his name:
Shakespeare's name on over forty title pages; his monument in
Stratford, which quite clearly states that he is a writer, and compares
his art to Virgil:
IVDICIO PYLIVM, GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEM,
TERRA TEGIT, POPVLVS MAERET, OLYMPVS HABET.
("In judgement a Nestor, in wit a Socrates, in
art a Virgil; the earth buries him, the people
mourn him, Olympus possesses him")
STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST,
READ IF THOV GANST, WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST
WITH IN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE: WITH WHOME,
QVICK NATVRE DIDE WHOSE NAME, DOTH DECK YS TOMBE,
FAR MORE, THEN COST: SIEH ALL, YT HE HATH WRITT,
LEAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE, TO SERVE HIS WITT.
("SIEH" is a typo for "Sith")
Robert Greene's attack on Shakespeare in Greene's Groatsworth
of Wit (1592), where he paraphrases a play by Shakespeare while
referring to "Shake-scene", a clear pun on his name; the
Parnassus plays (1598-1601), where Shakespeare is mentioned by name
and Venus and Adonis and Romeo & Juliet are parodied, and
where Shakespeare is said to have "put them [university playwrights]
all down, aye, and Ben Jonson too"; Gabriel Harvey (nlt 1603), who said
"The younger sort takes much delight in Shakespeares Venus, &
Adonis: but his Lucrece, & his tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of
Denmarke, have it in them, to please the wiser sort," and who
called Shakespeare "one of our florishing metricians;" and
Francis Meres (1598), who said "...so the English tongue is mightily
enriched, and gorgeously invested in rare ornaments and
resplendent abiliments by sir Philip Sidney, Spencer, Daniel,
Drayton, Warner, Shakespeare, Marlow and Chapman...."
[notice that he distinguishes between Marlowe and Shakespeare
and mentions Oxenforde separately in another section as well]
and who also said that Shakespeare was one of England's
"best Lyrick Poets" and "our best for tragedie" and among the
"best Poets for Comedy" and "the most passionate among us
to bewaile and bemoane the perplexities of Love;" and
Francis Beaumont (1608), who said "...here I would let slippe/
(If I had any in mee) schollershippe,/ And from all Learning keepe
these lines as cleere/ as Shakespeare's best are, which our
heires shall heare/ Preachers apte to their auditors to showe/
how farre sometimes a mortall man may goe/ by the dimme
light of Nature...;"
In 1604 appeared Antony Scolloker's "Diaphantus; or, the
Passions of Love." In his preface, telling us what an epistle
to the reader should be, Scolloker writes: "It should be like
the Never-too-well read Arcadia, where the Prose and verce
(Matters and Words) are like his Mistresses eyes, one still
excelling another and without Co-rivall: or to come home to
the vulgars Element, like Friendly Shakespeare's Tragedies,
where the Commedian rides, when the Tragedian stands on
tip-toe: Faith it should please all, like Prince Hamlet.
It's difficult to see how Scolloker could refer to Shakespeare as
"friendly" unless he knew him personally.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/price.html:
"a letter survives in the hand of Leonard Digges, who in 1613
compared the sonnets of Lope de Vega to those of "our Will Shakespeare"
- notice the use of the familiar "Will" by a close neighbor of Shakespeare's
in both Aldermarston and in London....Leonard Digges was the step-son
(from 1603) of Thomas Russell, a man who was not only a neighbor of
Shakespeare's both in London and in Stratford, but whom Shakespeare
remembered in his will, and indeed appointed one of the two overseers of
his will."
In addition:
That Jonson was acquainted with Shakespeare
personally is indisputable: Shakespeare's name
appears on the list of players who acted in
"Every Man in His Humour", and Jonson's
extended comments upon Shakespeare in his
"Timber" (see below) are proof of that: he
says that Shakespeare was "(indeed) honest,
and of an open, and free nature:" and that
he "loved the man". Jonson, moreover, was
familiar with many of the nobility and gentleman
of his time due to his close associations with
the court of King James, and would certainly
have heard any rumours involving the Earl
of Oxenforde if there had been any related
to playwrighting.
Jonson's comments on his contemporaries were
typically a mix of praise and censure. Here
are some examples from "Conversations with
William Drummond":
"Samuel Daniel was a good honest man, had no
children: but no poet."
"That Michael Drayton's Poly-Olbion (if he had
performed what he promised to write, the deeds
of all the worthies) had been excellent: his
long verses pleased him not."
"He esteemeth John Donne the first poet in the
world, in some things: his verses of the lost
chain he hath by heart; and that passage of
'The Calm', that dust and feathers do not stir,
all was so quiet. Affirmeth Donne to have written
all his best pieces ere he was twenty-five
years old."
And many more. His comment on Shakespeare in
these conversations is quite typical:
"Shakespeare, in a play, brought in a number of men
saying they had suffered shipwreck in Bohemia, where there
is no sea near by some 100 miles."
In "Timber: or Discoveries", Jonson again mixes
criticism with praise:
"De Shakespeare Nostrat
I remember, the players have often
mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that
in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never
blotted out line. My answer hath been, would
he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought
a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity
this, but for their ignorance, who choose that
circumstance to commend their friend by,
wherein he most faulted. And to justify mine
own candour (for I loved the man, and do honour
his memory - on this side idolatry - as
much as any). He was (indeed) honest, and of
an open, and free nature: had an excellent
fancy; brave notions, and gentle expressions:
wherein he flowed with that facility, that
sometime it was necessary he should be
stopped: sufflaminandus erat; as Augustus said
of Haterius. His wit was in his own power;
would the rule of it had been so too. Many
times he fell into those things, could not escape
laughter: as when he said in the person of
Caesar, one speaking to him; "Caesar, thou
dost me wrong'. He replied: 'Caesar did never
wrong, but with just cause': and such like;
which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his
vices, with his virtues. There was ever more in
him to be praised, than to be pardoned."
Jonson clearly doesn't feel that the portrait
in the Folio does Shakespeare any justice
as far as portraying his wit, as his little poem
shows:
"This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut,
Wherein the Graver had a strife
with Nature, to out-doo the life :
O, could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
His face ; the Print would then surpasse
All, that was ever writ in brasse.
But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke."
And finally, Jonson's masterful eulogy
for Shakespeare, where he seems to be
quite convinced that the man who acted in
his plays was a better playwright than
Marlowe, and worthy of Euripides and
Sophocles. Notice that he calls Shakespeare
the "sweet swan of Avon", not the "tempestuous
tin-miner of tuxbury" or some such:
"TO THE MEMORY OF MY BELOVED THE AUTHOR,
MR. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, AND WHAT HE
HATH LEFT US.
To draw no envy, Shakespeare, on thy name,
Am I thus ample to thy book and fame;
While I confess thy writings to be such
As neither man nor muse can praise too much;
'Tis true, and all men's suffrage. But these ways
Were not the paths I meant unto thy praise;
For seeliest ignorance on these may light,
Which, when it sounds at best, but echoes right;
Or blind affection, which doth ne'er advance
The truth, but gropes, and urgeth all by chance;
Or crafty malice might pretend this praise,
And think to ruin, where it seem'd to raise.
These are, as some infamous bawd or whore
Should praise a matron; what could hurt her more?
But thou art proof against them, and indeed,
Above th' ill fortune of them, or the need.
I therefore will begin. Soul of the age!
The applause, delight, the wonder of our stage!
My Shakespeare, rise! I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie
A little further, to make thee a room:
Thou art a monument without a tomb,
And art alive still while thy book doth live
And we have wits to read and praise to give.
That I not mix thee so, my brain excuses,
I mean with great, but disproportion'd Muses,
For if I thought my judgment were of years,
I should commit thee surely with thy peers,
And tell how far thou didst our Lyly outshine,
Or sporting Kyd, or Marlowe's mighty line.
And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek,
From thence to honour thee, I would not seek
For names; but call forth thund'ring Aeschylus,
Euripides and Sophocles to us;
Pacuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead,
To life again, to hear thy buskin tread,
And shake a stage; or, when thy socks were on,
Leave thee alone for the comparison
Of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome
Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come.
Triumph, my Britain, thou hast one to show
To whom all scenes of Europe homage owe.
He was not of an age but for all time!
And all the Muses still were in their prime,
When, like Apollo, he came forth to warm
Our ears, or like a Mercury to charm!
Nature herself was proud of his designs
And joy'd to wear the dressing of his lines,
Which were so richly spun, and woven so fit,
As, since, she will vouchsafe no other wit.
The merry Greek, tart Aristophanes,
Neat Terence, witty Plautus, now not please,
But antiquated and deserted lie,
As they were not of Nature's family.
Yet must I not give Nature all: thy art,
My gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part.
For though the poet's matter nature be,
His art doth give the fashion; and, that he
Who casts to write a living line, must sweat,
(Such as thine are) and strike the second heat
Upon the Muses' anvil; turn the same
(And himself with it) that he thinks to frame,
Or, for the laurel, he may gain a scorn;
For a good poet's made, as well as born;
And such wert thou. Look how the father's face
Lives in his issue, even so the race
Of Shakespeare's mind and manners brightly shines
In his well-turned, and true-filed lines;
In each of which he seems to shake a lance,
As brandish'd at the eyes of ignorance.
Sweet Swan of Avon! what a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appear,
And make those flights upon the banks of Thames,
That so did take Eliza and our James!
But stay, I see thee in the hemisphere
Advanc'd, and made a constellation there!
Shine forth, thou star of poets, and with rage
Or influence, chide or cheer the drooping stage;
Which, since thy flight from hence, hath mourn'd like night,
And despairs day, but for thy volume's light."
On the other hand, here is how the Earl of Oxenforde
sounded (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson):
Oxford to Burghley; [30 October 1584] (W247-8;F320-1,332).
(In hand of amanuensis)
It is not vnknowne to your Lordship that I haue entred into a
greate nomber of bondes to suche, as haue purchasyd landes
of me, to discharge them of all Incombraunces: And bycause
I stande indebtid vnto her Maiestie (as your Lordship knowythe)
many of ye said purchasers do greatly feare somme troble likely
to fall vppon them, by reason of her Maiestyes said debt, &
espesially if the Bondes of ye Lord Darcy and Sir William Walgraue
should be extendyd for the same, who haue two seuerall statutes
of great sommes for their discharge Wheruppon [diu] many of ye
said purchasers haue ben suters vnto me to procuer the discharginge
of her Maiestyes said Debt, and do seme very willinge to beare the
burden therof, yf by my meanes the same might be stalled paiable
at some convenyent dayes / I haue therfore thought good to
acquaynte your Lordship with this their suyte, requierynge moste
earnestly your Lordships furtheraunce in this behalfe, wherby I
shalbe vnburdened of a greate care, which I haue for the savynge
of my honor, And shall by this meanes also vnburden my wyves
Ioincture of yat charge which might happen herafter to be ymposyd
vppon ye same, yf god should call your Lordship and me away before her. /
(Oxford's hand takes over)
Yowre Lordships
(signed) Edward Oxenford (sec. f; 4+7)
Doesn't sound much like Shakespeare, does he? In fact he seems
to be the very business man that Oxfordians like to claim William
Shakespeare must have been, which I find to be...well, ironic. Are
there any letters in Shakespeare's hand showing him to be
as interested in money and tin mining as Oxenforde's letters show?
No. In fact, the only document in Shakespeare's hand is part of
a play, ("Sir Thomas More") in his style, typical of his concerns
and in every way consistent with what we know about William
Shakespeare's writing.
As for Shakespeare not having the proper background to be
the author, he was the son of a wealthy middle class homeowner,
like most great writers. For example, here are most of the records
related to John Shakespeare, William's father. Even at the end of
his life, his estate was valued at 500 pounds, an enormous sum
at a time when 40 pounds could purchase a house with land.
1556 - purchased an estate with garden and croft in
Greenhill street
1556 - purchased a house with garden in Henley street.
1556 - chosen as one of two "ale-tasters" (inspector of
bread and beer makers)
1558 - sworn in as constable
1559 - witnessing the minutes of the Leet as an afeeror,
and appointed one of the town's 14 burgesses.
~1560-62 Inherited his father's property and either gave
or sold it to his brother-in-law.
1565 - Elected alderman
1568 - Elected bailiff*
1571 - Elected chief alderman and deputy to the new bailiff
1572 - Along with the bailiff, rode to London together on
borough business, with permission from the aldermen
and burgesses to proceed 'according to their discretions'.
1572 - awarded 50 pounds by a court for money owed to him
1575 - Bought two houses with garden and orchard for 40 pounds
1578 - raised 40 pounds by mortgaging a house and 56 acres in
Wilmcote that he owned. (He was unable to pay the
mortgage on time and lost the land).
~1580 - Paid the bail of Michael Price (10 pounds)
~1580 - Forfeited a bond of 10 pounds on behalf of a debt
incurred by his brother Henry. Escaped jail because
a friend (Alderman Hill) paid his bail.
1582 - Petitioned for sureties of the peace against 4 men,
one of whom was the bailiff, for 'fear of death
and mutilation of his limbs'. This may or may not
have had something to do with his financial troubles.
Before 1590 - sold the house on Greenhill street.
1592 - Twice called on to assist in making inventories of
deceased neighbors.
1596 - The grant of his coat-of-arms notes that he has
"land and tenements of good wealth and substance"
worth 500 pounds.
1597 - sold small plot of land (one-half yard by 28 yards)
at the Henley street property for 50 shillings
(equal to about 100 days pay for an artisan).
At about the same time he also sold a 17 by 17
foot piece of land on Henley street.
1601 - Richard Quiney rode to London to plead the borough's
cause, listing on a document the names of John
Shakespeare and other town worthies to the effect
that he (Quiney) was able to speak on behalf of
the borough.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Lynne
> > Did he really write is these.
>
> Yes. Those who claim otherwise are psychotics, liars, con-men, and/or
> ignorant suckers.
I see you're as well-mannered and graceful as ever, John. Thank you.
>
> > You know of any information on this?
>
> http://www.shakespeareauthorship.com
For the other side of the argument, Dave, please visit www.shakespearefellowship.org
Best wishes,
Lynne
Spam Scone
I see someone has taken up lowercase dave's invitation to post here.
Fortunately, there's more than just Ben Jonson. The monument in
Stratford, the First Folio, the title pages and dedications, all
support Shakespeare's authorship.
While you are here, check out the postings of Elizabeth Weir and Paul
Crowley. For sheer lunacy, they take the proverbial cake.
Chess Anyone?
The First Folio serves as the final nail to the coffin of the
impostors!
How else can anybody deny this overwhelming evidence? The First Folio
of 1623 came from the plays written by the man from Stratford. This
piece of work is comprised by the 36 plays of William, recording and
publishing them for the first time. Its co-writer, John Hemminges was
also a part owner of the Globe, which belonged to the same acting
company (The Lord Chamberlain's Men later named The King's men) as did
Shakespeare and so would have been privy to the true author.
"His mind and hand went together and what he thought, he uttered with
that easiness that we have scarce received from him a blot in his
papers." was the remark of John Hemminges and Henry Condell.
Lance Smith
Liam Too
> Then why do I have to write a paper on it.
> Give me some of your reasons why you say he did and why do others say he
> didn't
> Did he go even go to school? Were the original manuscripts ever found?
> Who ever saw him? May be Sir Walter Raleigh wrote shakespeare? He did
> lose his head.. Did a Woman write it..
>
> I need some more information.... Take me to some good sites on this if
> you know of any..
> Thanks Dave<<
William and Ben went to Grammar Schools, The Kings School and
Westminster School respectively. If you are asking about a formal
University education, nope, they did not pursue such higher education.
Incidentally, Mozart and Bobby Fischer at age 10 didn't go to any
university either and yet their ingenuity was already manifested, in
their own avocation, at that tender age.
William and Ben are just natural geniuses just like hundreds of others
in their respective endeavors. They hung out together; in fact,
William acted in one of Ben's plays.
Ben even wrote a poem in honor of William and called him the "Sweet
Swan of Avon", a significant fact that only the man from Stratford
could be William Shakespeare.
Lance Smith
Roundtable
> Then why do I have to write a paper on it.
Because for about 150 years some people who find it hard to believe
that a non-aristocratic and/or non-university man could write such
brilliant plays.
There are other playwrights from that era, who have similar backgrounds
and education, but they are not so great and famous, and therefore
nobody would even bother to ask whether they actually wrote their
plays or not.
As soon as someone sticks out, certain envious, petty little minds
start to doubt this persons achievements.
> Give me some of your reasons why you say he did and why do others say he
> didn't.
Check Google archives of this newsgroup, and your library.
> Did he go even go to school?
Yes, in Stratford.
>Were the original manuscripts ever found?
Not yet. But then, they tore down the Globe Theatre in London and
Shakespeare's own house New Place in Stratford, so what d'ya expect?
> Who ever saw him?
Lots of people in Stratford and London and in between.
>May be Sir Walter Raleigh wrote shakespeare?
But did Shakespeare write back, that is the question?
>He did lose his head.
Oh, lots of men have lost their heads. And women too.
> Did a Woman write it...
Some say so.
At any rate, a woman wrote this here post.
Good luck with your paper!
Roundtable,
female, able to read, write and sign her name - like Susannah.
Liam Too
Dave,
Did we answer your question? We haven't heard any feedback.
The formal education baloney in a University setting is not needed in
a genius or a gifted prodigy in his field. I've given the examples of
Mozart and Fischer, who at age the 10 couldn't have been to a
university to excel extraordinarily in their respective endeavors.
However, via erudition, Mozart and Fischer have accomplished what
Jonson and Shakespeare did during their time. Books, books, and books.
Well, tutorship was a very important factor as well.
Imagine 3 days before the age of five, Mozart already made a
composition. Before the of 10, he was already a well-known genius in
his field. Can any child do it? Sure, with the gift of genius anybody
can, perhaps 1 in a million child.
Fischer learned his craft at the age of six from his sister (Mozart
from his father). The he bought lotsa books and read, read, and read.
He also became a living legend. Only 1 in 1 hundred thousand avid
child prodigies have followed in his footsteps.
What I am saying is that a formal University education is not a
pre-requisite to excel.
I ain't a writer, but that was my 2 cents.
Lance Smith
Lynne
> Dave <ra...@usit.net> wrote in message news:<3F9C761E...@usit.net>...
> > Then why do I have to write a paper on it.
> > Give me some of your reasons why you say he did and why do others say he
> > didn't
> > Did he go even go to school? Were the original manuscripts ever found?
> > Who ever saw him? May be Sir Walter Raleigh wrote shakespeare? He did
> > lose his head.. Did a Woman write it..
> >
> > I need some more information.... Take me to some good sites on this if
> > you know of any..
> > Thanks Dave<<
>
> William and Ben went to Grammar Schools, The Kings School and
> Westminster School respectively. If you are asking about a formal
> University education, nope, they did not pursue such higher education.
Proof that William went to school at all, even Petty School?
>
> Incidentally, Mozart and Bobby Fischer at age 10 didn't go to any
> university either and yet their ingenuity was already manifested, in
> their own avocation, at that tender age.
Mozart's father was a well-known musician of his time and a hard
taskmaster. It's important to add this to the notion of genius. It
seems to me that
genius+excellent education=accomplishment
I suspect that something similar was afoot in Fischer's family.
Where is there any proof of Shakespeare's (superior)education? His
father could certainly not have tutored him, as was the case with
Mozart, because John Shakespeare was illiterate.
>
> William and Ben are just natural geniuses just like hundreds of others
> in their respective endeavors. They hung out together; in fact,
> William acted in one of Ben's plays.
You can't equate William with Ben (must be nice to be on first-name
terms). We know Jonson went to school. He also wrote very differently
from the real Shakespeare, whoever he was, who wrote from an
aristocratic point of view.
>
> Ben even wrote a poem in honor of William and called him the "Sweet
> Swan of Avon", a significant fact that only the man from Stratford
> could be William Shakespeare.
Dear Lance,
There was an Avon River near where Oxford lived. There was also a
Stratford in London. There is also the possibility that Jonson was
being ironic...and on...and on...and on...
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
> Lance Smith
Lynne
> > I looking for information for a paper.
> > Did he really write is these.
> > You know of any information on this?
> > Tks Dave<<
>
> Dave,
>
> Did we answer your question? We haven't heard any feedback.
>
> The formal education baloney in a University setting is not needed in
> a genius or a gifted prodigy in his field. I've given the examples of
> Mozart and Fischer, who at age the 10 couldn't have been to a
> university to excel extraordinarily in their respective endeavors.
>
> However, via erudition, Mozart and Fischer have accomplished what
> Jonson and Shakespeare did during their time. Books, books, and books.
> Well, tutorship was a very important factor as well.
Books, books, and books? Books were rare and expensive in Tudor times.
Where did Shakespeare of Stratford acquire them? Certainly not at
home, because no one could read there. Contrast this with the list
(extant) of books in Burghley's library. Eddi Jolly, an English
college teacher, found almost 50% of the sources for Hamlet when
taking a cursory look through the Burghley list one day.
>
> Imagine 3 days before the age of five, Mozart already made a
> composition. Before the of 10, he was already a well-known genius in
> his field. Can any child do it? Sure, with the gift of genius anybody
> can, perhaps 1 in a million child.
Yes. That's true. His composition was pretty dreadful, but he did it.
And he had a lot of help from his father. Where is your evidence that
Shakespeare even wrote so much as a shopping list, never mind when he
was five, but in his entire life, if you exclude the premise that he
wrote the canon?
>
> Fischer learned his craft at the age of six from his sister (Mozart
> from his father). The he bought lotsa books and read, read, and read.
> He also became a living legend. Only 1 in 1 hundred thousand avid
> child prodigies have followed in his footsteps.
Ah, I suspected that Fischer probably found help at home. Thank you.
How does this help make the case for Shakespeare of Stratford?
>
> What I am saying is that a formal University education is not a
> pre-requisite to excel.
Damn straight. But one does need some kind of superior education to
excel in the way the author of the canon did. I'm not saying
Shakespeare didn't have it, I'm saying: where is your proof?
>
> I ain't a writer, but that was my 2 cents.
>
> Lance Smith
Well, from what you've said, I can't conclude that Shakespeare of
Stratford was a writer either.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Liam Too
>
>>Proof that William went to school at all, even Petty School?<<
For heaven's sake, the Stratford Grammar School is only a stone's
throw away from William's house on Henley Street. The school is still
standing after all those years and is now in the care of the
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. In 1553 the school became known as the
King's New School of Stratford-upon-Avon.
>>genius+excellent education=accomplishment<<
This definition of accomplishment is for all people. The definition of
genius of course is different. It means Mozart, Beethoven, Fischer,
Alexhine, Shakespeare, Monet to name just a few.
> Where is there any proof of Shakespeare's (superior)education? His
> father could certainly not have tutored him, as was the case with
> Mozart, because John Shakespeare was illiterate.<<
If your father was illiterate, does it mean Lynne that you are also
illiterate?
> You can't equate William with Ben (must be nice to be on first-name
> terms). We know Jonson went to school. He also wrote very differently
> from the real Shakespeare, whoever he was, who wrote from an
> aristocratic point of view.<<
Nope, we cannot equate William with Ben because William was better.
>>Dear Lance
> There was an Avon River near where Oxford lived. There was also a
> Stratford in London. There is also the possibility that Jonson was
> being ironic...and on...and on...and on...
>
> Best wishes, Lynne<<
Dear Lynne,
If you don't know where Stratford-upon-Avon is, then I must tell you
that you are a very lost lady.
All the best, Lance
Liam Too
> Where did Shakespeare of Stratford acquire them? Certainly not at
> home, because no one could read there. Contrast this with the list
> (extant) of books in Burghley's library. Eddi Jolly, an English
> college teacher, found almost 50% of the sources for Hamlet when
> taking a cursory look through the Burghley list one day.<<
Dear Lynne,
Jonson said in his poem that William knows Latin and Greek. Where do
you think he learned Latin and Greek?
Here's a quote about books:
"Shakespeare learned his reading and writing skills from an ABC, or
horn-book. Robert Speaight in his book, Shakespeare: The Man and His
Achievement, describes this book as a primer framed in wood and
covered with a thin plate of transparent horn. It included the
alphabet in small letters and in capitals, with combinations of the
five vowels with b, c, and d, and the Lord's Prayer in English. The
first of these alphabets, which ended with the abbreviation for 'and',
began with the mark of the cross. Hence the alphabet was known as
'Christ cross row' -- the cross-row of Richard III, I, i, 55. A short
catechism was often included in the ABC book (the 'absey book' of King
John, I, i, 196). (10)" -- Mabillard, Amanda. "Shakespeare of
Stratford." Shakespeare Online. 2000.
http://www.shakespeare-online.com
>>What I am saying is that a formal University education is not a
pre-requisite to excel.<<--Lance Smith
>Damn straight.<--Lynne
At least we agreed on something.
>>But one does need some kind of superior education to
excel in the way the author of the canon did. I'm not saying
Shakespeare didn't have it, I'm saying: where is your proof?<<
Ben Jonson and other writers during that era said so!
I wonder if you read Jonson's poem? He even said that William was
better than Marlowe and that William's works were "not of an age, but
for all time".
All the best, Lance
Greg Reynolds
> liamt...@yahoo.com (Liam Too) wrote in message news:<37a58e25.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > Dave <ra...@usit.net> wrote in message news:<3F9C761E...@usit.net>...
> > > Then why do I have to write a paper on it.
> > > Give me some of your reasons why you say he did and why do others say he
> > > didn't
> > > Did he go even go to school? Were the original manuscripts ever found?
> > > Who ever saw him? May be Sir Walter Raleigh wrote shakespeare? He did
> > > lose his head.. Did a Woman write it..
> > >
> > > I need some more information.... Take me to some good sites on this if
> > > you know of any..
> > > Thanks Dave<<
> >
> > William and Ben went to Grammar Schools, The Kings School and
> > Westminster School respectively. If you are asking about a formal
> > University education, nope, they did not pursue such higher education.
>
> Proof that William went to school at all, even Petty School?
Moot. No school taught Shakespeare. Or his classmates would
have been capable of doing it, too.
> > Incidentally, Mozart and Bobby Fischer at age 10 didn't go to any
> > university either and yet their ingenuity was already manifested, in
> > their own avocation, at that tender age.
>
> Mozart's father was a well-known musician of his time and a hard
> taskmaster. It's important to add this to the notion of genius. It
> seems to me that
>
> genius+excellent education=accomplishment
>
> I suspect that something similar was afoot in Fischer's family.
Grounds for this suspicion beyond your wishfulness?
> Where is there any proof of Shakespeare's (superior)education? His
> father could certainly not have tutored him,
This you are surmising, of course.
> as was the case with
> Mozart, because John Shakespeare was illiterate.
This you are surmising, of course.
> > William and Ben are just natural geniuses just like hundreds of others
> > in their respective endeavors. They hung out together; in fact,
> > William acted in one of Ben's plays.
>
> You can't equate William with Ben (must be nice to be on first-name
> terms). We know Jonson went to school. He also wrote very differently
> from the real Shakespeare, whoever he was, who wrote from an
> aristocratic point of view.
The real Shakespeare? The one with ALL the evidence and accreditation
and eyewitness accounts?
What aristocratic point of view? He lambasted nobles left and right, made
mockery of the court life, and convincingly wrote in character for dozens
of peasants, shepherds, householders, women, middle class, and blue collar
workers. He was a writer, so he didn't use his own diary. Lynne, if you
understood what writing is, you're know of the inventiveness that super-
cedes the writer's own life. Your thinking that he must be an aristocrat
because you detect his point of view as being aristocratic is simply an
undeveloped and indefensible notion. In fact, Shakespeare hides his own
traceable self better than any other writer of any era--and THAT is the
one reason he is so universally and timelessly acceptable. THAT is what
makes the world love him differently than all other authors.
parodies
Oxford's letters--now there is an aristocratic pov.
> > Ben even wrote a poem in honor of William and called him the "Sweet
> > Swan of Avon", a significant fact that only the man from Stratford
> > could be William Shakespeare.
>
> Dear Lance,
>
> There was an Avon River near where Oxford lived. There was also a
> Stratford in London. There is also the possibility that Jonson was
> being ironic...and on...and on...and on...
Anything but the obvious for Lynne, as usual.
Maybe there were several Condell/Heminges, too.
Maybe "...and on...and on...and on..."
Lynne sounds like Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran getting
OJ Simpson's alibi straight but all of a sudden coming up with too
many: he was asleep, he was at McDonald's, he was chipping
golfballs on his lawn when Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson
were killed.
If Lynne had one simple explanation, I'd listen. But she explains
the one simple historical explanation away with some cacophony of
loose ends. She could learn from Art who parodies the Oxfordian
stance with his hilarious absurdities and antics (unless Art is not the
real Neuendorffer).
Categorizing Jonson as a liar or prankster is worthless anyway without
linking Oxford to the works, so Lynne is way too busy doing only
a speck of the work needed to present the viable version for her
favorite child molester/murderer who was not connected with
writing plays in any other context. His lost masque and/or comedy
is lost for a good reason, I believe.
The First Folio is the greatest piece of evidence in Shakespeare's behalf,
and sadly for Lynne, it provides not one shadow of a clue on behalf
of her cowardly ne'er-do-well.
I don't know how often Lynne will try to tempt anyone with this rotten,
stinking fare, but it has never quite looked that appetizing.
Greg Reynolds
Phil Innes
> > > university either and yet their ingenuity was already manifested, in
> > > their own avocation, at that tender age.
> >
> > Mozart's father was a well-known musician of his time and a hard
> > taskmaster. It's important to add this to the notion of genius. It
> > seems to me that
> >
> > genius+excellent education=accomplishment
> >
> > I suspect that something similar was afoot in Fischer's family.
>
> Grounds for this suspicion beyond your wishfulness?
[Fischer had no father available to his household.]
The premise: genius+excellent education = accomplishment, is a tautological
reduction. What is defined by it that is not commonplace? hint--> other
factors also = accomplishment.
What is mysterious about the Author is resolved by placing genius to one
side of the equation. i.e. "Genius = X" Given that Alternate Authors had
provably 'better education' what other factor needs to be included to define
Genius?
The argument for Alternate Authors is a relative one, isn't it? It relies
much on 'better education' in an academic sense, and also a social one. This
alone is an evidently insufficient factor.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Lynne
> >
> >>Proof that William went to school at all, even Petty School?<<
>
> For heaven's sake, the Stratford Grammar School is only a stone's
> throw away from William's house on Henley Street. The school is still
> standing after all those years and is now in the care of the
> Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. In 1553 the school became known as the
> King's New School of Stratford-upon-Avon.
I live four doors away from a church. Does that mean that of necessity
I go there?
>
> >>genius+excellent education=accomplishment<<
>
> This definition of accomplishment is for all people. The definition of
> genius of course is different. It means Mozart, Beethoven, Fischer,
> Alexhine, Shakespeare, Monet to name just a few.
No, I'm afraid it's for genius also. Even genius needs tutoring. And
the definition of genius is not a list of people whom others might or
might not agree are geniuses.
>
> > Where is there any proof of Shakespeare's (superior)education? His
> > father could certainly not have tutored him, as was the case with
> > Mozart, because John Shakespeare was illiterate.<<
>
> If your father was illiterate, does it mean Lynne that you are also
> illiterate?
My father was not illiterate, but even if he were, we now live in a
society where everyone must go to school as a matter of law and so it
would be unlikely I would be illiterate (although some Stratfordians
might argue the point). This was not the case in the sixteenth
century.
>
> > You can't equate William with Ben (must be nice to be on first-name
> > terms). We know Jonson went to school. He also wrote very differently
> > from the real Shakespeare, whoever he was, who wrote from an
> > aristocratic point of view.<<
>
> Nope, we cannot equate William with Ben because William was better.
That is a debatable. Better how? In any case, you are not answering my
point.
>
> >>Dear Lance
> > There was an Avon River near where Oxford lived. There was also a
> > Stratford in London. There is also the possibility that Jonson was
> > being ironic...and on...and on...and on...
> >
> > Best wishes, Lynne<<
>
> Dear Lynne,
>
> If you don't know where Stratford-upon-Avon is, then I must tell you
> that you are a very lost lady.
>
> All the best, Lance
I lived reasonably near there. I believe I know where it is. Again,
you are not answering my point.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Lynne
> >
> > Books, books, and books? Books were rare and expensive in Tudor times.
> > Where did Shakespeare of Stratford acquire them? Certainly not at
> > home, because no one could read there. Contrast this with the list
> > (extant) of books in Burghley's library. Eddi Jolly, an English
> > college teacher, found almost 50% of the sources for Hamlet when
> > taking a cursory look through the Burghley list one day.<<
>
> Dear Lynne,
>
> Jonson said in his poem that William knows Latin and Greek. Where do
> you think he learned Latin and Greek?
He actually said, "Small Latin and less Greek." There are many
interpretations of what this means.
>
> Here's a quote about books:
>
> "Shakespeare learned his reading and writing skills from an ABC, or
> horn-book.
There is absolutely no proof of this as even some Stratfordians will
be honest enough to tell you that we have no direct evidence that
Shakespeare went to school.
>Robert Speaight in his book, Shakespeare: The Man and His
> Achievement, describes this book as a primer framed in wood and
> covered with a thin plate of transparent horn. It included the
> alphabet in small letters and in capitals, with combinations of the
> five vowels with b, c, and d, and the Lord's Prayer in English. The
> first of these alphabets, which ended with the abbreviation for 'and',
> began with the mark of the cross. Hence the alphabet was known as
> 'Christ cross row' -- the cross-row of Richard III, I, i, 55. A short
> catechism was often included in the ABC book (the 'absey book' of King
> John, I, i, 196). (10)" -- Mabillard, Amanda. "Shakespeare of
> Stratford." Shakespeare Online. 2000.
> http://www.shakespeare-online.com
The description of the horn book is correct, but cannot be linked to
Shakespeare of Stratford in any definitive way.
>
> >>What I am saying is that a formal University education is not a
> pre-requisite to excel.<<--Lance Smith
>
> >Damn straight.<--Lynne
>
> At least we agreed on something.
>
> >>But one does need some kind of superior education to
> excel in the way the author of the canon did. I'm not saying
> Shakespeare didn't have it, I'm saying: where is your proof?<<
>
> Ben Jonson and other writers during that era said so!
There are several problems here. First, I don't remember anyone
contemporary to the time saying that Shakespeare of Stratford had a
superior education. Could you give examples? But even if they did,
it's possible that they were speaking of some other, pseudonymouse
Shake-speare. This has never been investigated to my satisfaction.
>
> I wonder if you read Jonson's poem? He even said that William was
> better than Marlowe and that William's works were "not of an age, but
> for all time".
I think I must have read the "poem" sometime or other, Lance. ;) I
agree. Shakespeare's works, as we're quite plainly seeing, are "for
all time." But as to who Shakespeare was, well...
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
> All the best, Lance
Lynne
> Lynne wrote:
>
> > liamt...@yahoo.com (Liam Too) wrote in message news:<37a58e25.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Dave <ra...@usit.net> wrote in message news:<3F9C761E...@usit.net>...
> > > > Then why do I have to write a paper on it.
> > > > Give me some of your reasons why you say he did and why do others say he
> > > > didn't
> > > > Did he go even go to school? Were the original manuscripts ever found?
> > > > Who ever saw him? May be Sir Walter Raleigh wrote shakespeare? He did
> > > > lose his head.. Did a Woman write it..
> > > >
> > > > I need some more information.... Take me to some good sites on this if
> > > > you know of any..
> > > > Thanks Dave<<
> > >
> > > William and Ben went to Grammar Schools, The Kings School and
> > > Westminster School respectively. If you are asking about a formal
> > > University education, nope, they did not pursue such higher education.
> >
> > Proof that William went to school at all, even Petty School?
>
> Moot. No school taught Shakespeare. Or his classmates would
> have been capable of doing it, too.
No school ever taught Shakespeare? Well said.
>
> > > Incidentally, Mozart and Bobby Fischer at age 10 didn't go to any
> > > university either and yet their ingenuity was already manifested, in
> > > their own avocation, at that tender age.
> >
> > Mozart's father was a well-known musician of his time and a hard
> > taskmaster. It's important to add this to the notion of genius. It
> > seems to me that
> >
> > genius+excellent education=accomplishment
> >
> > I suspect that something similar was afoot in Fischer's family.
>
> Grounds for this suspicion beyond your wishfulness?
Liam Too actually confirms this in a second post.
>
> > Where is there any proof of Shakespeare's (superior)education? His
> > father could certainly not have tutored him,
>
> This you are surmising, of course.
Nope, his father was illiterate. Most Shakespeareans of whatever
stripe agree that this was the case. He could only sign with a mark.
>
> > as was the case with
> > Mozart, because John Shakespeare was illiterate.
>
> This you are surmising, of course.
Nope, see my answer above.
>
> > > William and Ben are just natural geniuses just like hundreds of others
> > > in their respective endeavors. They hung out together; in fact,
> > > William acted in one of Ben's plays.
> >
> > You can't equate William with Ben (must be nice to be on first-name
> > terms). We know Jonson went to school. He also wrote very differently
> > from the real Shakespeare, whoever he was, who wrote from an
> > aristocratic point of view.
>
> The real Shakespeare? The one with ALL the evidence and accreditation
> and eyewitness accounts?
And there are hundreds of them, right, Greg? And they all say
Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the canon, because, as we know, there
was at least one other Shakespeare in London at the time besides (and
I mean "as well as" here, folks) a possible pseudonymous Shakespeare.
>
> What aristocratic point of view? He lambasted nobles left and right, made
> mockery of the court life,
Are you telling me a commoner could have done this with impunity in
Elizabeth's police state? Bad argument, Greg.
>and convincingly wrote in character for dozens
> of peasants, shepherds, householders, women, middle class, and blue collar
> workers.
You might like to look again at the plays and you might then notice
that many of the lower class in Shakespeare's plays are held to
ridicule. They can't speak properly, they can't follow an argument,
they get words mixed up, etc. Sly, in Shrew, is particularly
ridiculous and speaks in a--you guessed it--Warwickshire dialect.
(Thanks to Roger Stritmatter for this). There's a big difference
between "lambasting" (to use your own word) the upper classes and
ridiculing the lower.
>He was a writer, so he didn't use his own diary.
Wot on earth has that to do with the price of fish? And how do you
know?
Lynne, if you
> understood what writing is, you're know of the inventiveness that super-
> cedes the writer's own life.
I am a writer, Greg, a multi-award winning one, and I have no idea
what you're talking about. I might direct you again to that quote of
Schoenbaum's: "Perhaps we should despair of ever bridging the
vertiginous expanse between the sublimity of the subject and the
mundane inconsequence of the documentary evidence." Schoenbaum, as of
course you know, was not an Oxfordian.
Your thinking that he must be an aristocrat
> because you detect his point of view as being aristocratic is simply an
> undeveloped and indefensible notion.
It's not quite all the way there, Greg. I believe I said earlier that
no one has all the pieces of the puzzle, whatever kind of "-ordian"
one may be.
In fact, Shakespeare hides his own
> traceable self better than any other writer of any era--and THAT is the
> one reason he is so universally and timelessly acceptable.
This is a poor argument. We can't find him in his work, therefore he
must be the universally and timelessly acceptable author." It kind of
gives points to the other side, don't you see? Hundreds of people have
spent hundreds of years trying to find Shakespeare of Stratford in the
works, so at least there'd be a plausible reason for him to be the
author.
>THAT is what
> makes the world love him differently than all other authors.
> parodies
> Oxford's letters--now there is an aristocratic pov.
Don't quite understand the first part of the sentence. Perhaps you
missed a word or the message is mixed up on the response page, or I
need a cup of coffee. But thank you, yes, Oxford's letters are from an
aristocratic pov, as is the canon (at least from where I'm
standing--not lying, I might add). You haven't said one thing to
refute that yet. And I suggest if you wish to learn more, you read
Fowler's book, *Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford's Letters.*
>
> > > Ben even wrote a poem in honor of William and called him the "Sweet
> > > Swan of Avon", a significant fact that only the man from Stratford
> > > could be William Shakespeare.
> >
> > Dear Lance,
> >
> > There was an Avon River near where Oxford lived. There was also a
> > Stratford in London. There is also the possibility that Jonson was
> > being ironic...and on...and on...and on...
>
> Anything but the obvious for Lynne, as usual.
> Maybe there were several Condell/Heminges, too.
> Maybe "...and on...and on...and on..."
The Tudors and Stuarts weren't obvious, Greg. That's the whole point.
They were living in a kind of police state where any misstep could
mean the loss of one's hand or head, so they had to use ciphers and
allusion and satire, etc. rather than giving the straight goods.
>
> Lynne sounds like Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran getting
> OJ Simpson's alibi straight but all of a sudden coming up with too
> many: he was asleep, he was at McDonald's, he was chipping
> golfballs on his lawn when Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson
> were killed.
I am insulted by that disgusting parallel, and I'd be pleased if you'd
withdraw it.
>
> If Lynne had one simple explanation, I'd listen. But she explains
> the one simple historical explanation away with some cacophony of
> loose ends. She could learn from Art who parodies the Oxfordian
> stance with his hilarious absurdities and antics (unless Art is not the
> real Neuendorffer).
We all have loose ends, Greg. We're all attempting to tie them up. And
I'm not sure Art is parodying the Oxfordian stance as much as you
clearly think he is. My guess--and it's only a guess--is that Art is
an anti-Stratfordian who would possibly attribute at least part of the
works to Oxford.
>
> Categorizing Jonson as a liar or prankster is worthless anyway without
> linking Oxford to the works, so Lynne is way too busy doing only
> a speck of the work needed
I've never claimed to be a scholar, Greg. I've said that several times
on hlas, just on the dim and fleeting chance that anyone might mistake
me for one. I'm a writer of imaginative works. I wrote a kiddy novel
about the authorship question, as you well know. I hope you won't
pillory me for that too if you read it.
> favorite child molester/murderer who was not connected with
> writing plays in any other context.
I'm not buying that he was a child molester for the moment. He may
have been, but the evidence also might have been tainted. He was a
murderer (in a sense. As Art has pointed out, the injury was to the
thigh of the undercook, but it festered), but then, so was Jonson, or
had you forgotten that? Vilifying Oxford doesn't remove him as prime
suspect of the author of the canon. You might take a look at *Titus
Andronicus* or even *Macbeth* again if you think that the real
Shakespeare had a gentle and unsullied mind.
>His lost masque and/or comedy
> is lost for a good reason, I believe.
Evidence?
>
> The First Folio is the greatest piece of evidence in Shakespeare's behalf,
> and sadly for Lynne, it provides not one shadow of a clue on behalf
> of her cowardly ne'er-do-well.
That's debatable. In fact scholars of both stripes have been debating
it for years.
>
> I don't know how often Lynne will try to tempt anyone with this rotten,
> stinking fare, but it has never quite looked that appetizing.
You seem to have contradicted yourself here, Greg, unless I'm missing
something. You might like to look at that sentence again.
I said I wouldn't respond to you again, but I'm happy to respond if
you argue the case with me and don't make dreadful slurs like the one
about O.J. above. I cannot bear to be grouped with those sleazeballs
Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran and it is unfair of you to make
that statement. Besides, I'm sure you must realise that there was a
great deal of circumstantial evidence in that case, just as there is
in Oxford's, but unfortunately there, as perhaps here, there was jury
nullification.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
> Greg Reynolds
Liam Too
> liamt...@yahoo.com (Liam Too) wrote in message news:<37a58e25.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote in message news:<cc19a094.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > >>Proof that William went to school at all, even Petty School?<<
> >
> > For heaven's sake, the Stratford Grammar School is only a stone's
> > throw away from William's house on Henley Street. The school is still
> > standing after all those years and is now in the care of the
> > Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. In 1553 the school became known as the
> > King's New School of Stratford-upon-Avon.
>
> I live four doors away from a church. Does that mean that of necessity
> I go there?<<
Nope, I am a firm believer of the "Bill of Rights", which encompasses
the "Freedom of Religion." As Greg Reynolds said, this grammar school
issue is moot.
> >
> > >>genius+excellent education=accomplishment<<
> >
> > This definition of accomplishment is for all people. The definition of
> > genius of course is different. It means Mozart, Beethoven, Fischer,
> > Alexhine, Shakespeare, Monet to name just a few.
>
> No, I'm afraid it's for genius also. Even genius needs tutoring. And
> the definition of genius is not a list of people whom others might or
> might not agree are geniuses.>>
This is an argument that I would vigorously oppose. Anybody can
achieve a great accomplishment without being a genius.
> > > Where is there any proof of Shakespeare's (superior)education? His
> > > father could certainly not have tutored him, as was the case with
> > > Mozart, because John Shakespeare was illiterate.<<
> >
> > If your father was illiterate, does it mean Lynne that you are also
> > illiterate?
>
> My father was not illiterate, but even if he were, we now live in a
> society where everyone must go to school as a matter of law and so it
> would be unlikely I would be illiterate (although some Stratfordians
> might argue the point). This was not the case in the sixteenth
> century.<<
But of course, you dad was not the issue here but the question of
William's illiteracy due to his father's illiteracy. We can equate the
sixteenth century with today.
> > > You can't equate William with Ben (must be nice to be on first-name
> > > terms). We know Jonson went to school. He also wrote very differently
> > > from the real Shakespeare, whoever he was, who wrote from an
> > > aristocratic point of view.<<
> >
> > Nope, we cannot equate William with Ben because William was better.
>
> That is a debatable. Better how? In any case, you are not answering my
> point.<<
I already agreed with your point and I posted earlier that Jonson went
to Westminster School. However, de did not pursue his studies in a
formal University setting much the same as William.
>
> >
> > >>Dear Lance
> > > There was an Avon River near where Oxford lived. There was also a
> > > Stratford in London. There is also the possibility that Jonson was
> > > being ironic...and on...and on...and on...
> > >
> > > Best wishes, Lynne<<
> >
> > Dear Lynne,
> >
> > If you don't know where Stratford-upon-Avon is, then I must tell you
> > that you are a very lost lady.
> >
> > All the best, Lance
>
> I lived reasonably near there. I believe I know where it is. Again,
> you are not answering my point.<<
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
I'm glad that you finally conceded where Stratford-upon-Avon is. With
the word "possibility" in your sentence, I'd say that anything in life
is possible.
If I say that someone who was deaf made some great musical
compositions, would you believe it? This is music and music is meant
to be heard!
All the best, Lance
LynnE
Liam Too
> liamt...@yahoo.com (Liam Too) wrote in message news:<37a58e25.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote in message news:<cc19a094.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > Books, books, and books? Books were rare and expensive in Tudor times.
> > > Where did Shakespeare of Stratford acquire them? Certainly not at
> > > home, because no one could read there. Contrast this with the list
> > > (extant) of books in Burghley's library. Eddi Jolly, an English
> > > college teacher, found almost 50% of the sources for Hamlet when
> > > taking a cursory look through the Burghley list one day.<<
> >
> > Dear Lynne,
> >
> > Jonson said in his poem that William knows Latin and Greek. Where do
> > you think he learned Latin and Greek?
>
> He actually said, "Small Latin and less Greek." There are many
> interpretations of what this means.<<
I totally agree, those were Jonson's exact words, which means that
William was a learned person.
> > Here's a quote about books:
> >
> > "Shakespeare learned his reading and writing skills from an ABC, or
> > horn-book.
>
> There is absolutely no proof of this as even some Stratfordians will
> be honest enough to tell you that we have no direct evidence that
> Shakespeare went to school.<<
We are not talking about school this time, it's now about books.
> >Robert Speaight in his book, Shakespeare: The Man and His
> > Achievement, describes this book as a primer framed in wood and
> > covered with a thin plate of transparent horn. It included the
> > alphabet in small letters and in capitals, with combinations of the
> > five vowels with b, c, and d, and the Lord's Prayer in English. The
> > first of these alphabets, which ended with the abbreviation for 'and',
> > began with the mark of the cross. Hence the alphabet was known as
> > 'Christ cross row' -- the cross-row of Richard III, I, i, 55. A short
> > catechism was often included in the ABC book (the 'absey book' of King
> > John, I, i, 196). (10)" -- Mabillard, Amanda. "Shakespeare of
> > Stratford." Shakespeare Online. 2000. http://www.shakespeare-online.com
>
> The description of the horn book is correct, but cannot be linked to
> Shakespeare of Stratford in any definitive way.<<
Can you give us your proof? Amanda Mabillard listed her sources in her
website.
> >
> > >>What I am saying is that a formal University education is not a
> > pre-requisite to excel.<<--Lance Smith
> >
> > >Damn straight.<--Lynne
> >
> > At least we agreed on something.
> >
> > >>But one does need some kind of superior education to
> > excel in the way the author of the canon did. I'm not saying
> > Shakespeare didn't have it, I'm saying: where is your proof?<<
> >
> > Ben Jonson and other writers during that era said so!
>
> There are several problems here. First, I don't remember anyone
> contemporary to the time saying that Shakespeare of Stratford had a
> superior education. Could you give examples? But even if they did,
> it's possible that they were speaking of some other, pseudonymouse
> Shake-speare. This has never been investigated to my satisfaction.<<
> >
> > I wonder if you read Jonson's poem? He even said that William was
> > better than Marlowe and that William's works were "not of an age, but
> > for all time".
>
> I think I must have read the "poem" sometime or other, Lance. ;) I
> agree. Shakespeare's works, as we're quite plainly seeing, are "for
> all time." But as to who Shakespeare was, well...
>
> Best wishes, Lynne<<
Jonson and William were buddies, they hung out together, therefore
Jonson knows who Shakespeare was. In fact, William acted in one of
Jonson's plays.
The following poem was his form of eulogy to William, therefore,
Jonson was talking about his friend, William Shakespeare and nobody
else.
"TO THE MEMORY OF MY BELOVED
MASTER WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE,
AND WHAT HE HATH LEFT US
by Ben Jonson
To draw no envy, SHAKSPEARE, on thy name,
Am I thus ample to thy book and fame ;
While I confess thy writings to be such,
As neither Man nor Muse can praise too much.
'Tis true, and all men's suffrage. But these ways
Were not the paths I meant unto thy praise ;
For seeliest ignorance on these may light,
Which, when it sounds at best, but echoes right ;
Or blind affection, which doth ne'er advance
The truth, but gropes, and urgeth all by chance ;
Or crafty malice might pretend this praise,
And think to ruin where it seemed to raise.
These are, as some infamous bawd or whore
Should praise a matron ; what could hurt her more ?
But thou art proof against them, and, indeed,
Above the ill fortune of them, or the need.
I therefore will begin: Soul of the age!
The applause ! delight ! the wonder of our stage!
My SHAKSPEARE rise ! I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie
A little further, to make thee a room :
Thou art a monument without a tomb,
And art alive still while thy book doth live
And we have wits to read, and praise to give.
That I not mix thee so my brain excuses,
I mean with great, but disproportioned Muses :
For if I thought my judgment were of years,
I should commit thee surely with thy peers,
And tell how far thou didst our Lyly outshine,
Or sporting Kyd, or Marlowe's mighty line.
And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek,
From thence to honour thee, I would not seek
For names : but call forth thund'ring Aeschylus,
Euripides, and Sophocles to us,
Pacuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead,
To life again, to hear thy buskin tread
And shake a stage : or when thy socks were on,
Leave thee alone for the comparison
Of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome
Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come.
Triumph, my Britain, thou hast one to show
To whom all Scenes of Europe homage owe.
He was not of an age, but for all time !
And all the Muses still were in their prime,
When, like Apollo, he came forth to warm
Our ears, or like a Mercury to charm !
Nature herself was proud of his designs,
And joyed to wear the dressing of his lines !
Which were so richly spun, and woven so fit,
As, since, she will vouchsafe no other wit.
The merry Greek, tart Aristophanes,
Neat Terence, witty Plautus, now not please ;
But antiquated and deserted lie,
As they were not of Nature's family.
Yet must I not give Nature all ; thy art,
My gentle Shakspeare, must enjoy a part.
For though the poet's matter nature be,
His art doth give the fashion : and, that he
Who casts to write a living line, must sweat,
(Such as thine are) and strike the second heat
Upon the Muses' anvil ; turn the same,
And himself with it, that he thinks to frame ;
Or for the laurel he may gain a scorn ;
For a good poet's made, as well as born.
And such wert thou ! Look how the father's face
Lives in his issue, even so the race
Of Shakspeare's mind and manners brightly shines
In his well torned and true filed lines;
In each of which he seems to shake a lance,
As brandisht at the eyes of ignorance.
Sweet Swan of Avon ! what a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appear,
And make those flights upon the banks of Thames,
That so did take Eliza, and our James !
But stay, I see thee in the hemisphere
Advanced, and made a constellation there !
Shine forth, thou Star of Poets, and with rage
Or influence, chide or cheer the drooping stage,
Which, since thy flight from hence, hath mourned like night,
And despairs day, but for thy volume's light."
All the best, Lance
Liam Too
> liamt...@yahoo.com (Liam Too) wrote in message news:<37a58e25.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote in message news:<cc19a094.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > Books, books, and books? Books were rare and expensive in Tudor times.
> > > Where did Shakespeare of Stratford acquire them? Certainly not at
> > > home, because no one could read there. Contrast this with the list
> > > (extant) of books in Burghley's library. Eddi Jolly, an English
> > > college teacher, found almost 50% of the sources for Hamlet when
> > > taking a cursory look through the Burghley list one day.<<
> >
> > Dear Lynne,
> >
> > Jonson said in his poem that William knows Latin and Greek. Where do
> > you think he learned Latin and Greek?
>
> He actually said, "Small Latin and less Greek." There are many
> interpretations of what this means.<<
I totally agree, those were Jonson's exact words, which means that
William was a learned person.
> > Here's a quote about books:
> >
> > "Shakespeare learned his reading and writing skills from an ABC, or
> > horn-book.
>
> There is absolutely no proof of this as even some Stratfordians will
> be honest enough to tell you that we have no direct evidence that
> Shakespeare went to school.<<
We are not talking about school this time, it's now about books.
> >Robert Speaight in his book, Shakespeare: The Man and His
> > Achievement, describes this book as a primer framed in wood and
> > covered with a thin plate of transparent horn. It included the
> > alphabet in small letters and in capitals, with combinations of the
> > five vowels with b, c, and d, and the Lord's Prayer in English. The
> > first of these alphabets, which ended with the abbreviation for 'and',
> > began with the mark of the cross. Hence the alphabet was known as
> > 'Christ cross row' -- the cross-row of Richard III, I, i, 55. A short
> > catechism was often included in the ABC book (the 'absey book' of King
> > John, I, i, 196). (10)" -- Mabillard, Amanda. "Shakespeare of
> > Stratford." Shakespeare Online. 2000. http://www.shakespeare-online.com
>
> The description of the horn book is correct, but cannot be linked to
> Shakespeare of Stratford in any definitive way.<<
Can you give us your proof? Amanda Mabillard listed her sources in her
website.
> >
> > >>What I am saying is that a formal University education is not a
> > pre-requisite to excel.<<--Lance Smith
> >
> > >Damn straight.<--Lynne
> >
> > At least we agreed on something.
> >
> > >>But one does need some kind of superior education to
> > excel in the way the author of the canon did. I'm not saying
> > Shakespeare didn't have it, I'm saying: where is your proof?<<
> >
> > Ben Jonson and other writers during that era said so!
>
> There are several problems here. First, I don't remember anyone
> contemporary to the time saying that Shakespeare of Stratford had a
> superior education. Could you give examples? But even if they did,
> it's possible that they were speaking of some other, pseudonymouse
> Shake-speare. This has never been investigated to my satisfaction.<<
> >
> > I wonder if you read Jonson's poem? He even said that William was
> > better than Marlowe and that William's works were "not of an age, but
> > for all time".
>
> I think I must have read the "poem" sometime or other, Lance. ;) I
> agree. Shakespeare's works, as we're quite plainly seeing, are "for
> all time." But as to who Shakespeare was, well...
>
> Best wishes, Lynne<<
Jonson and William were buddies, they hung out together, therefore
LynnE
news:<cc19a094.03103...@posting.google.com>...
> > liamt...@yahoo.com (Liam Too) wrote in message
news:<37a58e25.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote in message
news:<cc19a094.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > >>Proof that William went to school at all, even Petty School?<<
> > >
> > > For heaven's sake, the Stratford Grammar School is only a stone's
> > > throw away from William's house on Henley Street. The school is still
> > > standing after all those years and is now in the care of the
> > > Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. In 1553 the school became known as the
> > > King's New School of Stratford-upon-Avon.
> >
> > I live four doors away from a church. Does that mean that of necessity
> > I go there?<<
>
> Nope, I am a firm believer of the "Bill of Rights", which encompasses
> the "Freedom of Religion." As Greg Reynolds said, this grammar school
> issue is moot.
It can't be moot in your case. You said that he went to the school because
he lived
a stone's throw away. That's what we're arguing about.
> > >
> > > >>genius+excellent education=accomplishment<<
> > >
> > > This definition of accomplishment is for all people. The definition of
> > > genius of course is different. It means Mozart, Beethoven, Fischer,
> > > Alexhine, Shakespeare, Monet to name just a few.
> >
> > No, I'm afraid it's for genius also. Even genius needs tutoring. And
> > the definition of genius is not a list of people whom others might or
> > might not agree are geniuses.>>
>
> This is an argument that I would vigorously oppose. Anybody can
> achieve a great accomplishment without being a genius.
Some may become accomplished without genius if they are well tutored.
However, even a genius needs some kind of tutoring to become accomplished.
>
> > > > Where is there any proof of Shakespeare's (superior)education? His
> > > > father could certainly not have tutored him, as was the case with
> > > > Mozart, because John Shakespeare was illiterate.<<
> > >
> > > If your father was illiterate, does it mean Lynne that you are also
> > > illiterate?
> >
> > My father was not illiterate, but even if he were, we now live in a
> > society where everyone must go to school as a matter of law and so it
> > would be unlikely I would be illiterate (although some Stratfordians
> > might argue the point). This was not the case in the sixteenth
> > century.<<
>
> But of course, you dad was not the issue here but the question of
> William's illiteracy due to his father's illiteracy. We can equate the
> sixteenth century with today.
Liam, could you please get your head together? *You* asked me about my
father.
It was I who hinted that my father's literacy or lack of it had nothing to
do
with the question at hand. We CANNOT equate the sixteenth century
with either England, Canada, or the US today in terms of whether one's
father's illiteracy has a bearing on one's own schooling.
>
> > > > You can't equate William with Ben (must be nice to be on first-name
> > > > terms). We know Jonson went to school. He also wrote very
differently
> > > > from the real Shakespeare, whoever he was, who wrote from an
> > > > aristocratic point of view.<<
> > >
> > > Nope, we cannot equate William with Ben because William was better.
> >
> > That is a debatable. Better how? In any case, you are not answering my
> > point.<<
>
> I already agreed with your point and I posted earlier that Jonson went
> to Westminster School. However, de did not pursue his studies in a
> formal University setting much the same as William.
You posted that both Jonson and Shakespeare went to school. I'm beginning to
doubt
we're speaking the same language, but I'll let your statement pass
unchallenged because
at this point you've muddled me too much for me to offer a response.
> >
> > >
> > > >>Dear Lance
> > > > There was an Avon River near where Oxford lived. There was also a
> > > > Stratford in London. There is also the possibility that Jonson was
> > > > being ironic...and on...and on...and on...
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes, Lynne<<
> > >
> > > Dear Lynne,
> > >
> > > If you don't know where Stratford-upon-Avon is, then I must tell you
> > > that you are a very lost lady.
> > >
> > > All the best, Lance
> >
> > I lived reasonably near there. I believe I know where it is. Again,
> > you are not answering my point.<<
>
> > Best wishes,
> > Lynne
>
> I'm glad that you finally conceded where Stratford-upon-Avon is. With
> the word "possibility" in your sentence, I'd say that anything in life
> is possible.
The fact that I know where Stratford on Avon is doesn't in any sense
guarantee that Shakespeare of that town wrote the canon.
>
> If I say that someone who was deaf made some great musical
> compositions, would you believe it? This is music and music is meant
> to be heard!
Yes, I believe you're talking about Beethoven, who by the way
had a perfectly good education and could hear for most of his life.
If he were both deaf from birth and untutored in the composition of
music, it is very unlikely he could have composed the ninth symphony,
although I imagine with some surprise that must be what you're arguing.
Best wishes,
Lynne
P.S. I think I may have sent an empty post. I'm trying to work out how to
send
from Outlook Express. Sorry.
>
> All the best, Lance
LynnE
news:<cc19a094.03103...@posting.google.com>...
> > liamt...@yahoo.com (Liam Too) wrote in message
news:<37a58e25.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote in message
news:<cc19a094.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > > Books, books, and books? Books were rare and expensive in Tudor
times.
> > > > Where did Shakespeare of Stratford acquire them? Certainly not at
> > > > home, because no one could read there. Contrast this with the list
> > > > (extant) of books in Burghley's library. Eddi Jolly, an English
> > > > college teacher, found almost 50% of the sources for Hamlet when
> > > > taking a cursory look through the Burghley list one day.<<
> > >
> > > Dear Lynne,
> > >
> > > Jonson said in his poem that William knows Latin and Greek. Where do
> > > you think he learned Latin and Greek?
> >
> > He actually said, "Small Latin and less Greek." There are many
> > interpretations of what this means.<<
>
> I totally agree, those were Jonson's exact words, which means that
> William was a learned person.
If we take what Jonson says literally, it means that William was not a
learned person.
Did you notice the words "small" and "less" in that quote?
>
> > > Here's a quote about books:
> > >
> > > "Shakespeare learned his reading and writing skills from an ABC, or
> > > horn-book.
> >
> > There is absolutely no proof of this as even some Stratfordians will
> > be honest enough to tell you that we have no direct evidence that
> > Shakespeare went to school.<<
>
> We are not talking about school this time, it's now about books.
A hornbook is an artifact that was usually used in school. As Shakespeare's
parents weren't literate, they couldn't help him decipher a hornbook, so
the only place he likely would have seen one would have been in school.
>
>
> > >Robert Speaight in his book, Shakespeare: The Man and His
> > > Achievement, describes this book as a primer framed in wood and
> > > covered with a thin plate of transparent horn. It included the
> > > alphabet in small letters and in capitals, with combinations of the
> > > five vowels with b, c, and d, and the Lord's Prayer in English. The
> > > first of these alphabets, which ended with the abbreviation for 'and',
> > > began with the mark of the cross. Hence the alphabet was known as
> > > 'Christ cross row' -- the cross-row of Richard III, I, i, 55. A short
> > > catechism was often included in the ABC book (the 'absey book' of King
> > > John, I, i, 196). (10)" -- Mabillard, Amanda. "Shakespeare of
> > > Stratford." Shakespeare Online. 2000.
http://www.shakespeare-online.com
> >
> > The description of the horn book is correct, but cannot be linked to
> > Shakespeare of Stratford in any definitive way.<<
>
> Can you give us your proof? Amanda Mabillard listed her sources in her
> website.
Have you actually read any material on the authorship question? Or, for that
matter, the usual texts on Shakespeare of Stratford's early life?
I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no evidence that links
Shakespeare of Stratford with a hornbook. If Amanda Mabillard has found
something new, let her tell us all about it because it will shed new light
on the authorship and on Shakespeare of Stratford's education. It will also
make headlines all around the world.
Not proven. There are several very interesting lines in the poem
such as "Thou art a monument without a tomb." I'm sure you know
that in early modern times "monument" or "moniment" meant body
of work as well as what it means today. And it is a rather enigmatic
statement, don't you think? Shakespeare of Stratford appears to have
had a tomb. "Star of poets" is another interesting
phrase, as Oxford died in 1604. There was a supernova that
year. I could go on, but most people here will have seen and argued
the same points over and over.
Why not read up on both sides of the authorship
question and then come back and argue your case?
Best wishes,
Lynne
www.shakespearefellowship.org
www.lynnekositsky.com
Spam Scone
> lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote in message news:<cc19a094.03103...@posting.google.com>...
> > liamt...@yahoo.com (Liam Too) wrote in message news:<37a58e25.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Jonson said in his poem that William knows Latin and Greek. Where do
> > > you think he learned Latin and Greek?
> >
> > He actually said, "Small Latin and less Greek." There are many
> > interpretations of what this means.<<
>
> I totally agree, those were Jonson's exact words, which means that
> William was a learned person.
It means that Shakespeare had limited learning in both languages.
Think of "chess Russian" or "opera-libretto Italian"; knowing how to
read "Black is better" in Russian or "I am dying!" in Italian isn't
what many people would call "learned".
Aside from this, Lance, you are doing fine. Please carry on. Nothing
upsets authorship folks more than quoting the facts.
Liam Too
Thanks Neil!
Liam Too
> > > Books, books, and books? Books were rare and expensive in Tudor
> > > times. Where did Shakespeare of Stratford acquire them? Certainly not at
> > > home, because no one could read there. Contrast this with the list
> > > (extant) of books in Burghley's library. Eddi Jolly, an English
> > > college teacher, found almost 50% of the sources for Hamlet when
> > > taking a cursory look through the Burghley list one day.<<
> > > >
> > > > Dear Lynne,
> > > >
> > > > Jonson said in his poem that William knows Latin and Greek. Where do
> > > > you think he learned Latin and Greek?
> > >
> > > He actually said, "Small Latin and less Greek." There are many
> > > interpretations of what this means.<<
> >
> > I totally agree, those were Jonson's exact words, which means that
> > William was a learned person.
>
> If we take what Jonson says literally, it means that William was not a
> learned person. Did you notice the words "small" and "less" in that quote?<<
Dear Lynne,
Mr. Neil Brennen gave me an insight already on the above. However,
there was nothing wrong with my previuos statement of "William knows
Latin and Greek." Whether small or less, he knew Latin and Greek, as
read from Jonson's poem.
> >
> > Here's a quote about books:
> >
> > "Shakespeare learned his reading and writing skills from an ABC, or
> > horn-book."
> > >
> > > There is absolutely no proof of this as even some Stratfordians will
> > > be honest enough to tell you that we have no direct evidence that
> > > Shakespeare went to school.<<
> >
> > We are not talking about school this time, it's now about books.
>
> A hornbook is an artifact that was usually used in school. As Shakespeare's
> parents weren't literate, they couldn't help him decipher a hornbook, so
> the only place he likely would have seen one would have been in school.
Yes in the Stratford Grammar School or the King's School.
"Stratford enjoyed a grammar school of good quality, and the education
there was free, the schoolmaster's salary being paid by the borough.
No lists of the pupils who were at the school in the 16th century have
survived, but it would be absurd to suppose the bailiff of the town
(John Shakespeare) did not send his son (William Shakespeare) there.
The boy's education would consist mostly of Latin studies--learning to
read, write, and speak the language fairly well and studying some of
the classical historians, moralists, and poets. Shakespeare did not go
on to the university, and indeed it is unlikely that the tedious round
of logic, rhetoric, and other studies then followed there would have
interested him."
--Encyclopaedia Britannica 2nd Classic Edition and 15th Edition
Are you saying Lynne that every child in the town of Stratford in the
16th century were illiterates because the record of them learning
there did not survive the vicissitudes of time?
Let's talk more about books, books, and books.
There was a very interesting and strong connection between Shakespeare
and the book trade.
There is a record of apprenticeship of THE Richard Field, who
published Shakespeare's two poems Venus and Adonis and Lucrece,
describing him as the "son of Henry Field of Stratford-upon-Avon in
the County of Warwick, a tanner.
When Henry Field the tanner died in 1592, John Shakespeare the glover
was one of the three appointed people to appraise his goods and
chattels. Field's son, bound apprentice in 1579, was the same age as
William. From 1587 he steadily established himself as a printer of
serious literature--notably of Sir Thomas North's translation of
Plutarch (1595, reprinted in 1603 and 1610).
Clearly, a considerable number of literary contacts were available to
William, and many books were accessible.
I'll respond to your other posts separately as this thread is getting
cluttered.
All the best, Lance
Lynne
Nothing upsets authorship folks more than someone who has read very
little of the available material, doesn't know even the Stratfordian
"facts," and can't stick to the points that he himself introduced.
I wouldn't presume to argue about chess. I can play the game, but am
not very good at it. In the same way, if Lance wants to argue the
authorship question, he should become better acquainted with at least
some of the material. I suggest he reads some books, visits Terry and
Dave's site at
and then visits ours for some counter arguments.
Best wishes,
Lynne
www.shakespearefellowship.org
LynnE
If Jonson's words are to be taken literally, they are a slur. And indeed,
Shakespeare
of Stratford, even if he had attended school, would have had little Latin
and probably
no Greek at all. There is evidence elsewhere, however, that the true author
of the
canon did understand Greek (see my other posts),
and one should look to Jonson's words which precede
"small Latin and less Greek." They are:
"And though thou hadst..." This *may* be interpreted as
"And even if you had small Latin and less Greek..." and
can either mean the author had none or much. Clever fellow, that Jonson.
> > >
> > > Here's a quote about books:
> > >
> > > "Shakespeare learned his reading and writing skills from an ABC, or
> > > horn-book."
> > > >
> > > > There is absolutely no proof of this as even some Stratfordians will
> > > > be honest enough to tell you that we have no direct evidence that
> > > > Shakespeare went to school.<<
> > >
> > > We are not talking about school this time, it's now about books.
> >
> > A hornbook is an artifact that was usually used in school. As
Shakespeare's
> > parents weren't literate, they couldn't help him decipher a hornbook, so
> > the only place he likely would have seen one would have been in school.
>
> Yes in the Stratford Grammar School or the King's School.
Oh dear. Can we step back a bit. Where is the evidence that Shakespeare
had a hornbook or went to school?
>
> "Stratford enjoyed a grammar school of good quality, and the education
> there was free, the schoolmaster's salary being paid by the borough.
> No lists of the pupils who were at the school in the 16th century have
> survived, but it would be absurd to suppose the bailiff of the town
> (John Shakespeare) did not send his son (William Shakespeare) there.
This is one of those dreadful pieces of writing which cannot establish
anything,
and so resorts to writing material such as "it would be absurd to
suppose..." Everything
after that phrase is supposition. You're not getting it at all, Lance. All
I'm
arguing is that we have no PROOF that Shakespeare of Stratford went
to school or was literate. I'm taking no position on it either way. That's
because
I feel that the author of the works needed more than a grammar school
education--legal training, for example. See my other posts for more
information on this.
> The boy's education would consist mostly of Latin studies--learning to
> read, write, and speak the language fairly well and studying some of
> the classical historians, moralists, and poets. Shakespeare did not go
> on to the university, and indeed it is unlikely that the tedious round
> of logic, rhetoric, and other studies then followed there would have
> interested him."
>
> --Encyclopaedia Britannica 2nd Classic Edition and 15th Edition
"Would have?" That's quite a jump from supposing. I particularly
like "indeed it is unlikely that the tedious round
of logic, rhetoric, and other studies then followed there would have
interested him." Now the author is presuming to know not only that
Shakespeare went to school, but which studies he disliked. There is
absolutely NO EVIDENCE for this statement. This seems
more in keeping with the author's likes and dislikes than Shakespeare
of Stratford's (about whom we know almost nothing before he went
to London). And in fact, by this statement, that author is more or less
precluding
him as the author of the canon. Anyone who reads the plays knows that the
author
must have been excited by logic and rhetoric and a great many other
subjects besides.
>
> Are you saying Lynne that every child in the town of Stratford in the
> 16th century were illiterates because the record of them learning
> there did not survive the vicissitudes of time?
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that we don't know which
children attended. Where have I said that William of Stratford
was illiterate? I say he may have been, though I doubt it.
>
> Let's talk more about books, books, and books.
>
> There was a very interesting and strong connection between Shakespeare
> and the book trade.
>
> There is a record of apprenticeship of THE Richard Field, who
> published Shakespeare's two poems Venus and Adonis and Lucrece,
> describing him as the "son of Henry Field of Stratford-upon-Avon in
> the County of Warwick, a tanner.
>
> When Henry Field the tanner died in 1592, John Shakespeare the glover
> was one of the three appointed people to appraise his goods and
> chattels. Field's son, bound apprentice in 1579, was the same age as
> William. From 1587 he steadily established himself as a printer of
> serious literature--notably of Sir Thomas North's translation of
> Plutarch (1595, reprinted in 1603 and 1610).
>
> Clearly, a considerable number of literary contacts were available to
> William, and many books were accessible.
I don't know how you get from the statement about Field to the
statement "many books were accessible" while ignoring my
statement earlier that on a quick search it was revealed that Oxford
clearly had access to at least 50% of the sources in *Hamlet* through
Burghley's library. Here I *will* give you some personal experience.
At present I am working as an author with three different Canadian
publishers, the largest publishers in Canada. Do you know how
many books I've received from them, excluding my own? One,
and that was because the publisher felt sorry for me because I was sick.
Even today, books are expensive. In the sixteenth century they were
somewhere out in the stratosphere.
L.
Liam Too
> little of the available material, doesn't know even the Stratfordian
> "facts," and can't stick to the points that he himself introduced.
>
> I wouldn't presume to argue about chess. I can play the game, but am
> not very good at it. In the same way, if Lance wants to argue the
> authorship question, he should become better acquainted with at least
> some of the material. I suggest he reads some books, visits Terry and
> Dave's site at
>
> www.shakespeareauthorship.com
>
> and then visits ours for some counter arguments.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
> www.shakespearefellowship.org<<
Believe me Lynne, I've read the websites that you cited and lots of
books, books, and books. Shakespeare is more learned than I am and I'm
trying to prove that here. To underestimate me would be a gross
blunder on your part.
I am not a proponent to any known group here nor against them. I'm
just here to take up on a challenge and compare my knowledge on
Shakespeare to the ones who already post here, although I made an
indication in another newsgroup that I share the belief of Neil, as he
tersely defined it, on the authorship issue.
Now it's your move to respond to the "School and Books" issue on the
thread below.
All the best, Lance
Tom Reedy
So if I say you have small Russian and little Chinese, that means you have
none?
And indeed,
> Shakespeare
> of Stratford, even if he had attended school, would have had little Latin
> and probably
> no Greek at all. There is evidence elsewhere, however, that the true
author
> of the
> canon did understand Greek (see my other posts),
Are you claiming that your posts are evidence? Because so far that's all
you've come up with.
> and one should look to Jonson's words which precede
> "small Latin and less Greek." They are:
> "And though thou hadst..." This *may* be interpreted as
> "And even if you had small Latin and less Greek..."
Don't you mean, "And even if you had had small Latin and less Greek..."?
Becuase your example says essentially the same thing Jonson says.
and
> can either mean the author had none or much. Clever fellow, that Jonson.
Yes, he was. It's a shame you're not. Then you'd be able to understnad what
Jonson is saying.
Again, are you saying your posts are evidence? Because most of them are full
of old arguments that have been refuted countless times and airy second-hand
logic.
> > The boy's education would consist mostly of Latin studies--learning to
> > read, write, and speak the language fairly well and studying some of
> > the classical historians, moralists, and poets. Shakespeare did not go
> > on to the university, and indeed it is unlikely that the tedious round
> > of logic, rhetoric, and other studies then followed there would have
> > interested him."
> >
> > --Encyclopaedia Britannica 2nd Classic Edition and 15th Edition
>
> "Would have?" That's quite a jump from supposing.
The curriculum of late 17th-century grammar schools is well known.
I particularly
> like "indeed it is unlikely that the tedious round
> of logic, rhetoric, and other studies then followed there would have
> interested him." Now the author is presuming to know not only that
> Shakespeare went to school, but which studies he disliked. There is
> absolutely NO EVIDENCE for this statement. This seems
> more in keeping with the author's likes and dislikes than Shakespeare
> of Stratford's (about whom we know almost nothing before he went
> to London). And in fact, by this statement, that author is more or less
> precluding
> him as the author of the canon.
So the writer of the piece is doesn't know anything about Shakespeare but
you do, right?
> Anyone who reads the plays knows that the
> author
> must have been excited by logic and rhetoric and a great many other
> subjects besides.
This is rich! Why don't you give us some examples of this elevated logic?
Liam Too
> > > >
> > > > Proof that William went to school at all, even Petty School?<<
> > > >
> > > > For heaven's sake, the Stratford Grammar School is only a stone's
> > > > throw away from William's house on Henley Street. The school is still
> > > > standing after all those years and is now in the care of the
> > > > Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. In 1553 the school became known as the
> > > > King's New School of Stratford-upon-Avon.
> > >
> > > I live four doors away from a church. Does that mean that of necessity
> > > I go there?<<
> >
> > Nope, I am a firm believer of the "Bill of Rights", which encompasses
> > the "Freedom of Religion." As Greg Reynolds said, this grammar school
> > issue is moot.
>
> It can't be moot in your case. You said that he went to the school because
> he lived a stone's throw away. That's what we're arguing about.<<
We will continue to argue that and my response is covered under my
post in another thread below.
> > > >
> > > > >>genius+excellent education=accomplishment<<
> > > >
> > > > This definition of accomplishment is for all people. The definition of
> > > > genius of course is different. It means Mozart, Beethoven, Fischer,
> > > > Alexhine, Shakespeare, Monet to name just a few.
> > >
> > > No, I'm afraid it's for genius also. Even genius needs tutoring. And
> > > the definition of genius is not a list of people whom others might or
> > > might not agree are geniuses.>>
> >
> > This is an argument that I would vigorously oppose. Anybody can
> > achieve a great accomplishment without being a genius.
>
> Some may become accomplished without genius if they are well tutored.
> However, even a genius needs some kind of tutoring to become accomplished.
Now you're talking!
> >
> > > > > Where is there any proof of Shakespeare's (superior)education? His
> > > > > father could certainly not have tutored him, as was the case with
> > > > > Mozart, because John Shakespeare was illiterate.<<
> > > >
> > > > If your father was illiterate, does it mean Lynne that you are also
> > > > illiterate?
> > >
> > > My father was not illiterate, but even if he were, we now live in a
> > > society where everyone must go to school as a matter of law and so it
> > > would be unlikely I would be illiterate (although some Stratfordians
> > > might argue the point). This was not the case in the sixteenth
> > > century.<<
> >
> > But of course, you dad was not the issue here but the question of
> > William's illiteracy due to his father's illiteracy. We can equate the
> > sixteenth century with today.
>
>>Liam, could you please get your head together? *You* asked me about
my
father. It was I who hinted that my father's literacy or lack of it
had nothing to do with the question at hand. We CANNOT equate the
sixteenth century
with either England, Canada, or the US today in terms of whether one's
father's illiteracy has a bearing on one's own schooling.<<
Okay, let's leave your father's education alone in this conversation.
You brought up John Shakespeare though, I did not. You said that he
was illiterate.
This should have been my better response:
If John Shakespeare was illiterate, it doesn't mean that William was
also illiterate.
> >
> > > > > You can't equate William with Ben (must be nice to be on first-name
> > > > > terms). We know Jonson went to school. He also wrote very
> differently
> > > > > from the real Shakespeare, whoever he was, who wrote from an
> > > > > aristocratic point of view.<<
> > > >
> > > > Nope, we cannot equate William with Ben because William was better.
> > >
> > > That is a debatable. Better how? In any case, you are not answering my
> > > point.<<
> >
> > I already agreed with your point and I posted earlier that Jonson went
> > to Westminster School. However, de did not pursue his studies in a
> > formal University setting much the same as William.
>You posted that both Jonson and Shakespeare went to school. I'm
beginning to
doubt we're speaking the same language, but I'll let your statement
pass
unchallenged because at this point you've muddled me too much for me
to offer a response.<
Not the same school and we are now discussing that in another thread.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>Dear Lance
> > > > > There was an Avon River near where Oxford lived. There was also a
> > > > > Stratford in London. There is also the possibility that Jonson was
> > > > > being ironic...and on...and on...and on...
> > > > >
> > > > > Best wishes, Lynne<<
> > > >
> > > > Dear Lynne,
> > > >
> > > > If you don't know where Stratford-upon-Avon is, then I must tell you
> > > > that you are a very lost lady.
> > > >
> > > > All the best, Lance
> > >
> > > I lived reasonably near there. I believe I know where it is. Again,
> > > you are not answering my point.<<
>
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Lynne
> >
> > I'm glad that you finally conceded where Stratford-upon-Avon is. With
> > the word "possibility" in your sentence, I'd say that anything in life
> > is possible.
>
> The fact that I know where Stratford on Avon is doesn't in any sense
> guarantee that Shakespeare of that town wrote the canon.<<
Yes, and I said that he did.
> >
> > If I say that someone who was deaf made some great musical
> > compositions, would you believe it? This is music and music is meant
> > to be heard!
>
> Yes, I believe you're talking about Beethoven, who by the way
> had a perfectly good education and could hear for most of his life.
> If he were both deaf from birth and untutored in the composition of
> music, it is very unlikely he could have composed the ninth symphony,
> although I imagine with some surprise that must be what you're arguing.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
>
> P.S. I think I may have sent an empty post. I'm trying to work out how to
> send from Outlook Express. Sorry.<<
Yes, but if he was not a natural genius, he could not have done what
he did.
Would you believe it if I tell you that a chessplayer was able to play
and beat 20, yes twenty opponents ranging from the strenght of "very
strong" to "masters", simultaneously and blindfolded (meaning he can't
see his opponents nor the chess boards)?
All the best, Lance
John W. Kennedy
> If Jonson's words are to be taken literally, they are a slur. And indeed,
> Shakespeare
> of Stratford, even if he had attended school, would have had little Latin
> and probably
> no Greek at all. There is evidence elsewhere, however, that the true author
> of the
> canon did understand Greek (see my other posts),
> and one should look to Jonson's words which precede
> "small Latin and less Greek." They are:
> "And though thou hadst..." This *may* be interpreted as
> "And even if you had small Latin and less Greek..."
No, they can't. Not sensibly and in context.
> Oh dear. Can we step back a bit. Where is the evidence that Shakespeare
> had a hornbook or went to school?
The established fact that he wrote over forty plays and several volumes
of poetry.
>>"Stratford enjoyed a grammar school of good quality, and the education
>>there was free, the schoolmaster's salary being paid by the borough.
>>No lists of the pupils who were at the school in the 16th century have
>>survived, but it would be absurd to suppose the bailiff of the town
>>(John Shakespeare) did not send his son (William Shakespeare) there.
>
>
> This is one of those dreadful pieces of writing which cannot establish
> anything,
And now you're reduced to outright lying.
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction
together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the
works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together
as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
LynnE
> > Nothing upsets authorship folks more than someone who has read very
> > little of the available material, doesn't know even the Stratfordian
> > "facts," and can't stick to the points that he himself introduced.
> >
> > I wouldn't presume to argue about chess. I can play the game, but am
> > not very good at it. In the same way, if Lance wants to argue the
> > authorship question, he should become better acquainted with at least
> > some of the material. I suggest he reads some books, visits Terry and
> > Dave's site at
> >
> > www.shakespeareauthorship.com
> >
> > and then visits ours for some counter arguments.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Lynne
> > www.shakespearefellowship.org<<
>
> Believe me Lynne, I've read the websites that you cited and lots of
> books, books, and books. Shakespeare is more learned than I am and I'm
> trying to prove that here. To underestimate me would be a gross
> blunder on your part.
You are quite correct. Shakespeare was more learned and intelligent than
you (and I put together). That is why there is an authorship question. The
material that's available on Shakespeare of Stratford doesn't, in the
opinion
of many, fit the man. Since this argument about authorship has been going
on for some time, and there are many intelligent people involved in it who
are
doing a fair amount of research, it is reasonable to suppose that there is
some
basis for it.
If you don't want me to "underestimate" you, Lance, read the discussion
carefully and answer the points carefully. Then stick to the points, in
subsequent
posts, that you've made earlier, rather than attributing them to the person
you're
speaking to or ignoring them altogether and going blithely on your way. Also
be careful
to note where a writer or one of us says "perhaps," "maybe," "could have,"
"might have,"
etc., because then you're getting into the realm of conjecture and you can't
count
that as a fact, either when you're arguing or opposing an argument. It is
fine
to theorise, as in the Enclyclopedia article you cited, but when someone has
done so,
you cannot then use his or her theory as the factual basis for an argument.
You'll notice above, for example, that I've conjectured there is a
reasonable basis for the
authorship question. I have not stated that as a fact. You'll also notice,
if you read accounts of Shakespeare of Stratford's early life, that MOST of
it, if the author is honest, is conjecture, precisely because there are so
few facts that we know.
These are they:
The date of his baptism
His banns and wedding to Anne Hathaway
(and banns concerning Anne Whately. A mistake?)
The birth of the twins
The birth of another daughter.
I may have missed one item. Please, someone, feel free to add it. My mind is
mush today.
Everything else about Shakespeare of Stratford is conjecture until he
arrives in London
and becomes an actor and sharer with the Lord Chamberlain's men. The people
who
deny this haven't read the material closely enough to understand that most
biography
for the early years is not based on fact, but on some kind of theory which
usually accords
with a person who *may* have written the canon.
>
> I am not a proponent to any known group here nor against them. I'm
> just here to take up on a challenge and compare my knowledge on
> Shakespeare to the ones who already post here, although I made an
> indication in another newsgroup that I share the belief of Neil, as he
> tersely defined it, on the authorship issue.
Well, though Neil is a lovely person, I'd like to suggest he's holding
the wrong end of the spade. The only way to find out for yourself
is to keep digging and checking what's conjecture and what's fact
and what could hold a plethora of meanings until you find an answer
that you're truly satisfied with. And even then, be sufficiently detached
from your answer to go on looking and learning in case your answer
is wrong.
>
> Now it's your move to respond to the "School and Books" issue on the
> thread below.
I believe I have done that.
Best,
LynnE
>
> All the best, Lance
Phil Innes
"Spam Scone" <tartak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76ba5964.0310...@posting.google.com...
> liamt...@yahoo.com (Liam Too) wrote in message
news:<37a58e25.03103...@posting.google.com>...
> > lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote in message
news:<cc19a094.03103...@posting.google.com>...
> > > liamt...@yahoo.com (Liam Too) wrote in message
news:<37a58e25.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Dear Lynne,
> > > > Jonson said in his poem that William knows Latin and Greek. Where do
> > > > you think he learned Latin and Greek?
> > >
> > > He actually said, "Small Latin and less Greek." There are many
> > > interpretations of what this means.<<
> >
> > I totally agree, those were Jonson's exact words, which means that
> > William was a learned person.
>
> It means that Shakespeare had limited learning in both languages.
> Think of "chess Russian" or "opera-libretto Italian"; knowing how to
> read "Black is better" in Russian or "I am dying!" in Italian isn't
> what many people would call "learned".
I agree Neil that your sense of small Latin... is the normative use of the
phrase, and it ssurprising these days that anyone could argue otherwise,
however...
I don't agree with your conclusion that WS 'had' little Latin or Greek!
I think it means that he _used_ little Latin or Greek in his expressions -
in his writing.
A man who has read Ovid, Terence, Plautus, Seneca, none of which were in
translation does not have 'small Latin' in that sense; Jonson's phrase is
slippery!
We have to wait a few years until 1611 before less duplicitous phrasing can
emerge in English, when every reading man would have possessed the same
book, and used its phrasing to indicate particular context, unless of course
there was need to continue the grand allusion ;)
Cordially, Phil Innes
LynnE
Thank God.
>
> You brought up John Shakespeare though, I did not. You said that he
> was illiterate.
>
> This should have been my better response:
>
> If John Shakespeare was illiterate, it doesn't mean that William was
> also illiterate.
Absolutely. Read more carefully. I have never, to my knowledge,
said that William Shakespeare of S was illiterate. This is what I actually
said in response to a comment from you about Mozart:
"Where is there any proof of Shakespeare's (superior) education? His
father could certainly not have tutored him, as was the case with
Mozart, because John Shakespeare was illiterate."
>
> > >
But I'm still waiting for some facts to support that. So far you've brought
Mozart and Fischer, Jonson's poem, which I've suggested may contain
a multitude of meanings, and a couple of very dubious articles, both of
them conjecture, about his schooling. You've also said that Jonson
and Shakespeare were good pals. Where is your evidence, and which
Shakespeare are you talking about? We're not sure, just as in the
Davies' poem we're not sure. Since Jonson was also more intelligent than you
and I
put together, and the Stuart age was a time of ciphers, codes, and
hidden meanings, it's quite possible (red light: conjecture!) that he was
playing
intricate games when he wrote the material in the folio.
>
> > >
> > > If I say that someone who was deaf made some great musical
> > > compositions, would you believe it? This is music and music is meant
> > > to be heard!
> >
> > Yes, I believe you're talking about Beethoven, who by the way
> > had a perfectly good education and could hear for most of his life.
> > If he were both deaf from birth and untutored in the composition of
> > music, it is very unlikely he could have composed the ninth symphony,
> > although I imagine with some surprise that must be what you're arguing.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Lynne
> >
>
> Yes, but if he was not a natural genius, he could not have done what
> he did.
Absolutely, but if he didn't have an adequate education, which included
Latin and Greek and French and legal training and knowledge (probably,
judging by MOV) of Hebrew, he could not have done what you say he did.
>
> Would you believe it if I tell you that a chessplayer was able to play
> and beat 20, yes twenty opponents ranging from the strenght of "very
> strong" to "masters", simultaneously and blindfolded (meaning he can't
> see his opponents nor the chess boards)?
Would you believe it if I said that this chessplayer, brilliant though he
is, could not do that without
a) a very good memory, likely eidetic
and
b) an ability to play chess which must have been taught him at some point.
We have a little girl in my husband's school who plays all the other
players from another school simultaneously, and beats them all, even
though some of them are much older than she is. I'm not sure
whether she's blindfolded. Needless to say, when
she was very little, she was taught the basic moves.
Your tales of staggering prowess on the part of certain brilliant
men have little to do with the subject at hand because every single
one of them has been tutored adequately for the task he performs,
so I'm not sure why you keep producing them like rabbits out of a hat.
I'm especially not sure why you keep asking me if I'd believe something
such as your chessplayer's brilliance or the cleverness of someone who
could compose while deaf when these are well known phemomena.
Greg Reynolds
> "Liam Too" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:37a58e25.03103...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Believe me Lynne, I've read the websites that you cited and lots of
> > books, books, and books. Shakespeare is more learned than I am and I'm
> > trying to prove that here. To underestimate me would be a gross
> > blunder on your part.
>
> You are quite correct. Shakespeare was more learned and intelligent than
> you (and I put together). That is why there is an authorship question. The
> material that's available on Shakespeare of Stratford doesn't, in the
> opinion
> of many, fit the man.
150 people out of 5,000,000,000 is really not that many. About the
same number of people as who die of rectal-cranio engorgement every
year. (Same symptoms, by the way.)
> Since this argument about authorship has been going
> on for some time,
It was orchestrated by an insane woman 150 years
after the man died. It would have been laughed out
of London in 1595, 1600, 1605, 1610, 1615, 1620, and 1625
No one had any such hateful notions regarding Shakespeare
and anyone remembering the earl of Oxford was thinking
"good riddance.".
> and there are many intelligent people involved in it who
> are
> doing a fair amount of research,
Desearch.
You are trying to explain away history.
Just like Shapiro and Cochran needed lots of
excuses and unrelated explanations to deny
the obvious.
> it is reasonable to suppose that there is
> some
> basis for it.
Suppose away. You got nuthin'.
> If you don't want me to "underestimate" you, Lance, read the discussion
> carefully and answer the points carefully. Then stick to the points, in
> subsequent posts, that you've made earlier, rather than attributing them
> to the person you're speaking to or ignoring them altogether and going
> blithely on your way. Alsobe careful to note where a writer or one of us
> says "perhaps," "maybe," "could have," "might have," etc., because then
> you're getting into the realm of conjecture and you can't count
> that as a fact, either when you're arguing or opposing an argument.
Lynne, you suppose without merit that John Shakespeare was illiterate.
So learn from yourself and start qualifying that as your guess, not your
knowledge.
> It is fine to theorise, as in the Enclyclopedia article you cited,
> but when someone has done so, you cannot then use
> his or her theory as the factual basis for an argument.
So start honestly stating that *you surmise* JS was illiterate.
You cannot demonstrate it, and you seem to think that saying
other people believe it suffices to make it so. You're not talking
to a bunch of intoxicated snobs at the Karmel Komedy Klub here,
we are seriously interested in Shakespeare.
> You'll notice above, for example, that I've conjectured there is a
> reasonable basis for the
> authorship question. I have not stated that as a fact. You'll also notice,
> if you read accounts of Shakespeare of Stratford's early life, that MOST of
> it, if the author is honest, is conjecture, precisely because there are so
> few facts that we know.
This is hooey. I only use documented facts in speaking of the man.
Your very phrase "accounts of Shakespeare of Stratford's early life"
MEANS fact, not conjecture. Accounting for something means
substantiating it.
> These are they:
>
> The date of his baptism
> His banns and wedding to Anne Hathaway
> (and banns concerning Anne Whately. A mistake?)
> The birth of the twins
> The birth of another daughter.
>
> I may have missed one item. Please, someone, feel free to add it.
You already *added* to it when you called his father illiterate; THAT
is not a known fact and you need to obey yourself and stop pretending.
> My mind is
> mush today.
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.
> Everything else about Shakespeare of Stratford is conjecture until he
> arrives in London and becomes an actor and sharer with the Lord
> Chamberlain's men. The people who deny this
NOTE: Lynne also exercises her special privilege to NOT BELIEVE
written accounts by Jonson and Condel and Heminge which makes
her absolute belief in baptismal records and marriage banns a
hypocritical monstrosity of unexplainable worthlessness.
> haven't read the material
> closely enough to understand that most biography for the early years is
> not based on fact, but on some kind of theory which usually accords
> with a person who *may* have written the canon.
And your calling Shakespeare or his father illiterate is conjecture.
Read this note of yours back to yourself and learn, baby, learn.
Hope to soon attack your audacious-but-false teachings in the
"The 'fair youth' theory v. Crowley" thread, soon, Lynne.
God, you blew it.
Greg Reynolds
LynnE
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:oryob.29130$vX.35...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> LynnE wrote:
> > If Jonson's words are to be taken literally, they are a slur. And
indeed,
> > Shakespeare
> > of Stratford, even if he had attended school, would have had little
Latin
> > and probably
> > no Greek at all. There is evidence elsewhere, however, that the true
author
> > of the
> > canon did understand Greek (see my other posts),
> > and one should look to Jonson's words which precede
> > "small Latin and less Greek." They are:
> > "And though thou hadst..." This *may* be interpreted as
> > "And even if you had small Latin and less Greek..."
>
> No, they can't. Not sensibly and in context.
I think Tom was agreeing with me earlier on this, more or less, but I'm not
sure. Besides, it works perfectly well in context.
And it can actually make quite a good case for the Stratfordians, if you'd
only use your brain, rather than your
normal kill-the-anti-strats-or-abuse-them-to-death reflexes for a moment.
Though I must say, this is a polite response.
Thank you.
>
> > Oh dear. Can we step back a bit. Where is the evidence that Shakespeare
> > had a hornbook or went to school?
>
> The established fact that he wrote over forty plays and several volumes
> of poetry.
See, this is the kind of argument that gets no one anywhere. Perhaps Lance
will understand that better than you do.
>
> >>"Stratford enjoyed a grammar school of good quality, and the education
> >>there was free, the schoolmaster's salary being paid by the borough.
> >>No lists of the pupils who were at the school in the 16th century have
> >>survived, but it would be absurd to suppose the bailiff of the town
> >>(John Shakespeare) did not send his son (William Shakespeare) there.
> >
> >
> > This is one of those dreadful pieces of writing which cannot establish
> > anything,
>
> And now you're reduced to outright lying.
I knew I'd spoken too soon with regard to your politeness. Give me the proof
that Shakespeare of Stratford went to school, John, and that he used a
hornbook, and that he disliked logic and rhetoric. One proof other than "We
know he did because he wrote the canon." It makes me wonder if you've ever
read any material on Shakespeare of Stratford or whether this is your only
argument besides the one that all anti-Strats are lying or psychotic or
deluded or all of the above. Neither argument substantially strengthens your
case, I might add. You could try taking a leaf out of Terry's book. He's
unfailingly polite, and at least he knows what he's talking about--most of
the time. ;)
Lynne, who is now being ganged up on by the big boys.
Liam Too
>
> Well, though Neil is a lovely person, I'd like to suggest he's holding
> the wrong end of the spade. The only way to find out for yourself
> is to keep digging and checking what's conjecture and what's fact
> and what could hold a plethora of meanings until you find an answer
> that you're truly satisfied with. And even then, be sufficiently detached
> from your answer to go on looking and learning in case your answer
> is wrong.
>
Thanks Lynne, rest assured that I will continue learning the facts.
I'll read the other thread and continue my conversation with you there.
All the best, Lance
Art Neuendorffer
> If Lynne had one simple explanation, I'd listen. But she explains
> the one simple historical explanation away with some cacophony of
> loose ends. She could learn from Art who parodies the Oxfordian
> stance with his hilarious absurdities and antics
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,
That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
That you know aught of me: this not to do,
So grace and mercy at your most need help you, SWEAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Construction" by Justice Stevens
<<When Edward de Vere was twelve years old, his father died and he
became a royal ward in Sir William Cecil's household. Cecil, also known
as Lord Burghley, was the Queen's principal adviser and a master of
intrigue who controlled an elaborate network of spies. In Hamlet, the
character Polonius is unquestionably a caricature of Burghley. His
position as advisor to the King, his physical appearance, his crafty
use of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to try to ascertain the cause of
Hamlet's ANTIC disposition, and his employment of Reynaldo
to spy on his own son, Laertes, while away at school,
are all characteristic of Burghley.>>
-------------------------------------------------
Romeo and Juliet Act 2, Scene 4
MERCUTIO The POX of such antic, lisping, affecting
fantasticoes; these new tuners of accents!
'By Jesu, a VERy good blade!
a VERy tall man!
a VERy good whore!'
Why, is not this a lamentable thing,
grandsire, that we should be thus afflicted with
these strange flies, these fashion-mongers, these
perdona-mi's, who stand so much on the new form,
that they cannot at ease on the old bench?
O, their bones, their bones!
---------------------------------------------------------------
"MArTiN (d)rOeSHOUT"
"SOUTHAM(p)TON rire"
---------------------------------------------------------------
«La nature avait été prodigue de ses bienfaits envers Gwynplaine. Elle
lui avait donné une bouche s'ouvrant jusqu'aux oreilles, des oreilles
se repliant jusque sur les yeux, un nez informe fait pour l'oscillation
des lunettes de grimacier, et un visage qu'on ne pouvait regarder
sans RIRE» (II, 1). -_L'Homme Qui Rit_ (1869) by Victor Hugo
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<"The Man Who Laughs is Victor Hugo's best novel. (Curiously
enough it was the one least understood by his contemporaries.)
The Man Who Laughs: actor
"Conrad Veidt"
"Antic, odd Ver"
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Jonson Entertains a Man from Stratford
by Edwin Arlington Robinson
And our great friend is not so large in either:
One disaffects him, and the other fails him;
Whatso he drinks that has an antic in it,
He's wondering what's to pay in his insides;
And while his eyes are on the Cyprian
He's fribbling all the time with that damned House.
We laugh here at his thrift, but after all
It may be thrift that saves him from the devil;
--------------------------------------------------------------
KING RICHARD II No matter where; of comfort no man speak:
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth,
Let's choose executors and talk of wills:
And yet not so, for what can we bequeath
Save our deposed bodies to the ground?
Our lands, OUR LIVES and all are BOLINGBROKE's,
And nothing can we call our own but death
And that small model of the barren earth
Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.
For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings;
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd;
All murder'd: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be fear'd and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit,
As if this flesh which walls about our life,
Were brass impregnable, and humour'd thus
Comes at the last and with a little pin
---------------------------------------------------
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> The First Folio is the greatest piece of evidence in Shakespeare's behalf,
> and sadly for Lynne, it provides not one shadow of a clue on behalf
> of her cowardly ne'er-do-well.
----------------------------------------------------
_The Imp Of The PerVERsE_
by Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)
<<I had left no shadow of a clue by which it would be possible to convict,
or even to suspect me of the crime.>>
---------------------------------------------
East London Observer
Saturday, 21 February 1891.
THE MURDER.
Frances Coles lies at the Whitechapel mortuary to-day, the latest victim of
a murderous ferocity that seems, for some reason or another, to have been
directed of late years among the women who ply the most degraded of trades
in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel. Her apparently mysterious death is the
sensation of the hour. The manner in which her destroyer has disappeared,
silently and mysteriously, without leaving the shadow of a clue behind, is
spoken of with awe bordering almost on the superstitious.
---------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
LynnE
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Lkyob.9791$RQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Nope, I don't believe I said anything of the sort except when I said "none
or much"
as a contrast when talking about alternative meanings: you can't equate your
saying
what you said about me (I can order two teas in Russian by the way, and
shrimp
dumplings in Chinese) with Jonson's saying that Shakespeare had small Latin
and less
Greek. Because Jonson knew excellent Latin himself. And so, if the
passage is to be taken literally (which it must be in at least *one* of its
senses)
he's saying: "I know the classics and you didn't. Ha."
>
> And indeed,
> > Shakespeare
> > of Stratford, even if he had attended school, would have had little
Latin
> > and probably
> > no Greek at all. There is evidence elsewhere, however, that the true
> author
> > of the
> > canon did understand Greek (see my other posts),
>
> Are you claiming that your posts are evidence? Because so far that's all
> you've come up with.
No, I've given you the title of a paper by Andrew Werth and I've put
out a call on some listservs to try to get some examples or to get a copy
for you.
So far I'm still waiting but will hopefully get one sooner or later. I hope
in return
that you will read it with an open mind.
Other people on this listserv will tell you that if I say I'll do something
I'll try my best.
I managed to complete four book contracts and contined to act as Vice Pres
of the
Shakespeare Fellowship while undergoing life-threatening medical treatment,
which is a sign that I take most things I say I'll do seriously.
>
> > and one should look to Jonson's words which precede
> > "small Latin and less Greek." They are:
> > "And though thou hadst..." This *may* be interpreted as
> > "And even if you had small Latin and less Greek..."
>
> Don't you mean, "And even if you had had small Latin and less Greek..."?
> Becuase your example says essentially the same thing Jonson says.
Yes sorry. I'm working in a small window and keep missing words.
But I believe Jonson could be saying also "But even if you had had *only*
small Latin
and less Greek" which would mean Shakespeare had more than that. In this way
the line can be interpreted to mean either that he had very little (close to
none)
or a tremendous amount. I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. This messing
with
words is the kind of thing poets do. I've been following some of the
argument
on Shakespeare's use of the word besides on another thread and wondering
if he could possibly have meant "except" and "as well as" at the same time.
>
> and
> > can either mean the author had none or much. Clever fellow, that Jonson.
>
> Yes, he was. It's a shame you're not. Then you'd be able to understnad
what
> Jonson is saying.
That's gratuitous. And anyway, David Webb thinks I have a functioning
intellect. ;)
As a poet, I'm simply trying to clarify that many lines of poetry *may*
carry many
different levels of meaning.
But that's what I expect you to say, Tom, just as I might say that about
your
arguments, if I hear any. It also seems to me that people have been asking
me
to prove, prove, prove, but offering little in return. I've been very honest
when
I can't prove. I've been very honest when I've speculated. And I'm still
waiting for
a response from David Webb. He asked me a multitude of questions about
my candidate. I answered but at the same time mirrored his questions back
at him. These are difficult questions for any of us to answer about our
candidates,
and I thought it only fair that if I tried for Oxford, he should try for
Shakespeare
of Stratford. Or any of you could answer, for that matter. So far the only
response
I've seen from a lot (but by no means all) of you is: "We know this or that
or the
other because Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the canon." Try to think
outside
the box. This is what I've been trying to say to Lance too.
>
> > > The boy's education would consist mostly of Latin studies--learning to
> > > read, write, and speak the language fairly well and studying some of
> > > the classical historians, moralists, and poets. Shakespeare did not go
> > > on to the university, and indeed it is unlikely that the tedious round
> > > of logic, rhetoric, and other studies then followed there would have
> > > interested him."
> > >
> > > --Encyclopaedia Britannica 2nd Classic Edition and 15th Edition
> >
> > "Would have?" That's quite a jump from supposing.
>
> The curriculum of late 17th-century grammar schools is well known.
I believe you mean the mid to late 16th century. And we're not discussing
whether the syllabus was well known (which is somewhat arguable in its
own right) but rather whether it can be proven that Shakespeare of Stratford
went to school, without resorting to John's argument that he must have gone
to
one and he must have had a hornbook because he wrote the canon.
>
> I particularly
> > like "indeed it is unlikely that the tedious round
> > of logic, rhetoric, and other studies then followed there would have
> > interested him." Now the author is presuming to know not only that
> > Shakespeare went to school, but which studies he disliked. There is
> > absolutely NO EVIDENCE for this statement. This seems
> > more in keeping with the author's likes and dislikes than Shakespeare
> > of Stratford's (about whom we know almost nothing before he went
> > to London). And in fact, by this statement, that author is more or less
> > precluding
> > him as the author of the canon.
>
> So the writer of the piece is doesn't know anything about Shakespeare but
> you do, right?
I'm aware that the writer of this piece is using conjecture about
Shakespeare of
Stratford's likes or dislikes, just as s/he is conjecturing that he went to
school
in the first place (although I'm not saying he didn't). You also know this
is conjecture,
if you'll just think about it for a moment. There's no point in supporting
something
that may be just plain wrong because it comes from someone who is on your
side of the fence.
The argument that Shakespeare of Stratford would have found logic and
rhetoric dull had he gone to university is to my mind (I'm being speculative
here) put there because we know that Shakespeare didn't go and to quash
the authorship argument that it was likely necessary for the person
who wrote the canon to have attended. Otherwise, I can see no reason
for such a silly sentence.
>
> > Anyone who reads the plays knows that the
> > author
> > must have been excited by logic and rhetoric and a great many other
> > subjects besides.
>
> This is rich! Why don't you give us some examples of this elevated logic?
Shakespeare was clearly a genius who learned a tremendous
amount and was was excited by much.What generally separates a genius
from the rest of us is his or her ability to learn and accomplish a great
many
things simultaneously. If you want to know whether Shakespeare had an
interest in logic, I suggest that you read the court scene in MOV.
Greg Reynolds
> Because Jonson knew excellent Latin himself. And so, if the
> passage is to be taken literally (which it must be in at least *one* of its
> senses) he's saying: "I know the classics and you didn't. Ha."
SO THEN was Shakespeare less educated, such as no formal schooling?
- OR -
DID YOUR made-up Shakespeare (Oxford) not know latin?
More and more you sound like Johnnie Cochran
> Other people on this listserv will tell you that if I say I'll do something
> I'll try my best.
You said you would bring the Oxfordian Frequently Unanswered Questions
to Carmel and get some responses if possible. can you answer them?
Your disregard is what is keeping them so damned UNANSWERED!
(Paul's bouncing off of them notwithstanding--he can't even read them.)
SO DO YOUR BEST as you claim you do.
> I managed to complete four book contracts and contined to act as Vice Pres
> of the
> Shakespeare Fellowship while undergoing life-threatening medical treatment,
> which is a sign that I take most things I say I'll do seriously.
Keep reminding us that you're a writer and Shakespeare isn't.
(And it is obnoxious of you to call yourselves fellowes, as his fellowes
claimed he wrote his works and you call those fellowes liars.)
Greg Reynolds
Tom Reedy
>
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:oryob.29130$vX.35...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > LynnE wrote:
> > > If Jonson's words are to be taken literally, they are a slur. And
> indeed,
> > > Shakespeare
> > > of Stratford, even if he had attended school, would have had little
> Latin
> > > and probably
> > > no Greek at all. There is evidence elsewhere, however, that the true
> author
> > > of the
> > > canon did understand Greek (see my other posts),
> > > and one should look to Jonson's words which precede
> > > "small Latin and less Greek." They are:
> > > "And though thou hadst..." This *may* be interpreted as
> > > "And even if you had small Latin and less Greek..."
> >
> > No, they can't. Not sensibly and in context.
>
> I think Tom was agreeing with me earlier on this, more or less, but I'm
not
> sure.
No, I was not. I was correcting your misstatement of your position.
> Besides, it works perfectly well in context.
No, it doesn't. Your interpretation is unnecessary and dense, and there is
no good reason for Jonson to express such an idea.
TR
LynnE
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
news:3FA2F3DF...@core.com...
> LynnE wrote:
>
> > Because Jonson knew excellent Latin himself. And so, if the
> > passage is to be taken literally (which it must be in at least *one* of
its
> > senses) he's saying: "I know the classics and you didn't. Ha."
>
> SO THEN was Shakespeare less educated, such as no formal schooling?
> - OR -
> DID YOUR made-up Shakespeare (Oxford) not know latin?
> More and more you sound like Johnnie Cochran
I've already asked you to retract that. It's disgusting and reflects badly
on you. I'm not dealing with any authorship question at present, just trying
to show that in poetry, the words may have a whole raft of meanings.
>
> > Other people on this listserv will tell you that if I say I'll do
something
> > I'll try my best.
>
> You said you would bring the Oxfordian Frequently Unanswered Questions
> to Carmel and get some responses if possible. can you answer them?
> Your disregard is what is keeping them so damned UNANSWERED!
I told you I didn't have time in Carmel as a) I was co-chairing the
conference and b) we ran out of time, but that I'd asked your questions on
our forum, had gotten some replies and would be glad to send you the answers
privately.
> (Paul's bouncing off of them notwithstanding--he can't even read them.)
>
> SO DO YOUR BEST as you claim you do.
See above. You also asked me for a copy of one of my books and I've sent it
to you as a gift. I've done my best in that regard even though I realise you
likely only want it so you can badmouth me further.
>
> > I managed to complete four book contracts and contined to act as Vice
Pres
> > of the
> > Shakespeare Fellowship while undergoing life-threatening medical
treatment,
> > which is a sign that I take most things I say I'll do seriously.
>
> Keep reminding us that you're a writer and Shakespeare isn't.
Wow, that's the lowest blow I've ever taken on hlas. Does the obligatory
cancer joke follow? Do you ever realise when you've gone beyond the pale,
Greg?
>
> (And it is obnoxious of you to call yourselves fellowes, as his fellowes
> claimed he wrote his works and you call those fellowes liars.)
I don't call anyone here a liar, Greg. Nor do I call Shakespeare or his
fellows liars. It is a policy of mine. I hope Lance is watching and learning
that it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who are obnoxious, to use your
word, just as it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who believe insult a good
substitute for argument.
Best wishes,
LynnE
>
>
> Greg Reynolds
>
LynnE
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:ysAob.5961$Nm6.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:oryob.29130$vX.35...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > > LynnE wrote:
> > > > If Jonson's words are to be taken literally, they are a slur. And
> > indeed,
> > > > Shakespeare
> > > > of Stratford, even if he had attended school, would have had little
> > Latin
> > > > and probably
> > > > no Greek at all. There is evidence elsewhere, however, that the true
> > author
> > > > of the
> > > > canon did understand Greek (see my other posts),
> > > > and one should look to Jonson's words which precede
> > > > "small Latin and less Greek." They are:
> > > > "And though thou hadst..." This *may* be interpreted as
> > > > "And even if you had small Latin and less Greek..."
> > >
> > > No, they can't. Not sensibly and in context.
> >
> > I think Tom was agreeing with me earlier on this, more or less, but I'm
> not
> > sure.
>
> No, I was not. I was correcting your misstatement of your position.
I didn't misstate. I possibly left out a word.
>
>
> > Besides, it works perfectly well in context.
>
> No, it doesn't. Your interpretation is unnecessary and dense, and there is
> no good reason for Jonson to express such an idea.
Good poetry is dense--in its better sense--it manages to cram a brilliant
kaleidoscope of meaning into few words, and neither you not I can say
absolutely what Jonson had in mind. But I'll look at it again.
L.
>
> TR
>
LynnE
> LynnE wrote:
>
> > "Liam Too" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:37a58e25.03103...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Believe me Lynne, I've read the websites that you cited and lots of
> > > books, books, and books. Shakespeare is more learned than I am and I'm
> > > trying to prove that here. To underestimate me would be a gross
> > > blunder on your part.
> >
> > You are quite correct. Shakespeare was more learned and intelligent than
> > you (and I put together). That is why there is an authorship question.
The
> > material that's available on Shakespeare of Stratford doesn't, in the
> > opinion
> > of many, fit the man.
I did say I wasn't going to answer you any more unless you spoke civilly and
sensibly, Greg. I should have stuck to that. I will from now on.
If you'd like to speak to me and get a response, please speak politely and
use reasonable argument. Otherwise, feel free to shoot your mouth off at
every opportunity. It doesn't advance your case, nor does it make you look
particularly erudite. But my guess is that you don't care about anything
except insulting those whom you wrongly see as your enemies.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Greg Reynolds
> "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
> news:3FA2F3DF...@core.com...
> > LynnE wrote:
> >
> > > Because Jonson knew excellent Latin himself. And so, if the
> > > passage is to be taken literally (which it must be in at least *one* of
> its
> > > senses) he's saying: "I know the classics and you didn't. Ha."
> >
> > SO THEN was Shakespeare less educated, such as no formal schooling?
> > - OR -
> > DID YOUR made-up Shakespeare (Oxford) not know latin?
> > More and more you sound like Johnnie Cochran
>
> I've already asked you to retract that.
I thought you meant repeat it.
> It's disgusting and reflects badly
> on you.
I am observing the likeness of turning an obvious event
into a series of unrelated, non-involved, unconnectable
events in order to manufacture an alternate scenario.
Such as, claiming that your man who disgraced himself to the
queen, who sought tin, wool, fruit, and oil contracts at the height
of Shakespeare actually wrote the works and time-released them
after his death. That is a dream-team whopper.
You will not be decreeing what anyone thinks of you and
when your desperate defense tactics remind me of the
best in the business, I'll freely say so.
> I'm not dealing with any authorship question at present, just trying
> to show that in poetry, the words may have a whole raft of meanings.
You are an executive of an association formed to demean Shakespeare
and credit a pederast with his works and you have NO demonstrable
reason for it. You bring it to a devoted newsgroup and feed the flames
of your negligent case in order to elicit response.
I love Shakespeare and history, so I'd need more than you and
your fellow detractors have provided.
> > > Other people on this listserv will tell you that if I say I'll do
> something
> > > I'll try my best.
> >
> > You said you would bring the Oxfordian Frequently Unanswered Questions
> > to Carmel and get some responses if possible. can you answer them?
> > Your disregard is what is keeping them so damned UNANSWERED!
>
> I told you I didn't have time in Carmel as a) I was co-chairing the
> conference and b) we ran out of time, but that I'd asked your questions on
> our forum, had gotten some replies and would be glad to send you the answers
> privately.
No thanks. We'll leave them unanswered as the acronym is so much fun.
If you truly could provide sensible answers that did not disqualify Oxford
as the author, you and any Oxfordian would be flaunting your response.
Until an Oxfordian can truthfully answer, OR refute the Kathman/Ross website,
we are all just watching a shadow-boxing match. You can't make sense of
your Oxfordianism any more than I can.
> > (Paul's bouncing off of them notwithstanding--he can't even read them.)
> >
> > SO DO YOUR BEST as you claim you do.
>
> See above. You also asked me for a copy of one of my books and I've sent it
> to you as a gift.
You offered the book publicly (not to Tom or you wouldn't have
began the note "Tom Reedy wrote") and when I accepted I offered
a book in return or the value of the book plus postage. I thank you
for sending it. My local stores do not carry it.
> I've done my best in that regard even though I realise you
> likely only want it so you can badmouth me further.
I think I will be unhappy if I see you bringing unsubstantiated
distortions to the unsuspecting minds of children who are not
free to argue facts with you. (You already semi-apologized for
some of its content and admitted you'd write it differently today,
so what's stopping you?)
> > > I managed to complete four book contracts and contined to act as Vice
> Pres
> > > of the
> > > Shakespeare Fellowship while undergoing life-threatening medical
> treatment,
> > > which is a sign that I take most things I say I'll do seriously.
> >
> > Keep reminding us that you're a writer and Shakespeare isn't.
>
> Wow, that's the lowest blow I've ever taken on hlas.
Shakespeare has taken lower blows from your so-called "society."
> Does the obligatory
> cancer joke follow?
I don't understand this remark. I'm a sagittarius.
> Do you ever realise when you've gone beyond the pale,
> Greg?
That is an Irish phrase and we Irish-blooded are very sensitive to it.
Are you making fun of my heritage?
> > (And it is obnoxious of you to call yourselves fellowes, as his fellowes
> > claimed he wrote his works and you call those fellowes liars.)
>
> I don't call anyone here a liar, Greg. Nor do I call Shakespeare or his
> fellows liars. It is a policy of mine. I hope Lance is watching and learning
> that it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who are obnoxious, to use your
> word, just as it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who believe insult a good
> substitute for argument.
Forming a club to defame a man without just cause is unethical and
disgusting (to use your word).
To thine own self be true (I know I will),
Greg Reynolds
Greg Reynolds
> "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
> news:3FA2D33F...@core.com...
> > LynnE wrote:
> >
> > > "Liam Too" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:37a58e25.03103...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > Believe me Lynne, I've read the websites that you cited and lots of
> > > > books, books, and books. Shakespeare is more learned than I am and I'm
> > > > trying to prove that here. To underestimate me would be a gross
> > > > blunder on your part.
> > >
> > > You are quite correct. Shakespeare was more learned and intelligent than
> > > you (and I put together). That is why there is an authorship question.
> The
> > > material that's available on Shakespeare of Stratford doesn't, in the
> > > opinion
> > > of many, fit the man.
>
> I did say I wasn't going to answer you any more unless you spoke civilly and
> sensibly, Greg. I should have stuck to that. I will from now on.
"He also serves who only stands and waits."
-Milton
A whole lot of Oxfordians stopped posting here when their inability
to conduct a sensible conversation enlightened them. If you had
a viable argument, you'd get a lot of positive attention, but your
mean-spirited, irresponsible, and hackneyed dismissals of Shakespeare
are not respectful.
You claim they are a difference of opinion, but you have to FORCE
yourself to attack the complete historical record and replace it with
patchwork fibs, silly meanderings, distrust of anyone presenting
an eyewitness account, and general predictable mayhem.
You see, Lynne, Oxfordianism lives only by countering the known
facts. If you had a free-standing foundation, you'd have something
of a case, but you are spending 100% of your "debating" just trying
to explain away what is known worldwide for 400 years. You are silly
to bully Shakespeare and then weep that someone is bullying you.
We are humoring you to refute your nonsense for the nth time here.
You got nuthin'. And you are the one glued to your keyboard 24/7.
Pick up, pick up a good book, now.
> If you'd like to speak to me and get a response, please speak politely and
> use reasonable argument.
That didn't get me a response to why Oxford sought patronage from
Southhampton. Oxfordianism is unexplainable and better manners
on my part won't be changing that.
> Otherwise, feel free to shoot your mouth off at
> every opportunity. It doesn't advance your case, nor does it make you look
> particularly erudite. But my guess is that you don't care about anything
> except insulting those whom you wrongly see as your enemies.
When I form a society to defame you, you will see how
wrong your actions are today. It is not civil to praise
your murdering bumblaster and then refuse to justify
your motives.
Greg Reynolds
LynnE
I've gone back and looked at it. It seems to make sense to me whether it is
read as Shakespeare having a great knowledge of Latin and Greek (Even if you
only did have small Latin--implied: which is not true) or his having very
little knowledge of either (although you only had small Latin). Both seem to
work in context.
>
> L.
>
> >
> > TR
> >
>
>
Art Neuendorffer
Lynne's under a lot of misconceptions but perhaps the worst is that since
Terry can cook decent Chinese food that all Strats can be tamed & civilized.
She doesn't appreciate the fact that you guys are nothing but a bunch of
hired goons. Lynne might as well be discussing authorship with Roy Horn's
tigers. Cut her some slack.
Art
Liam Too
>
>>Lynne, who is now being ganged up on by the big boys.<<
At least I know now some of big guns here in this forum!
All the best, Lance
Liam Too
>
> I'm especially not sure why you keep asking me if I'd believe something
> such as your chessplayer's brilliance or the cleverness of someone who
> could compose while deaf when these are well known phemomena.
>
> Best wishes, Lynne<<
To prove the point that someone like William Shakespeare of Stratford
can also write the Shakespeare canon!
All the best, Lance
LynnE
> LynnE wrote:
>
> > "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
> > news:3FA2F3DF...@core.com...
> > > LynnE wrote:
> > >
> > > > Because Jonson knew excellent Latin himself. And so, if the
> > > > passage is to be taken literally (which it must be in at least *one*
of
> > its
> > > > senses) he's saying: "I know the classics and you didn't. Ha."
> > >
> > > SO THEN was Shakespeare less educated, such as no formal schooling?
> > > - OR -
> > > DID YOUR made-up Shakespeare (Oxford) not know latin?
> > > More and more you sound like Johnnie Cochran
> >
> > I've already asked you to retract that.
>
> I thought you meant repeat it.
"Retract" or "rescind" means (please) take it back. I notice
that below you've used it again.
>
> > It's disgusting and reflects badly
> > on you.
>
> I am observing the likeness of turning an obvious event
> into a series of unrelated, non-involved, unconnectable
> events in order to manufacture an alternate scenario.
>
> Such as, claiming that your man who disgraced himself to the
> queen, who sought tin, wool, fruit, and oil contracts at the height
> of Shakespeare actually wrote the works and time-released them
> after his death. That is a dream-team whopper.
First, I would like you to please retract any statements that imply a
similarity
between me and the team that defended O. J. Simpson. I would really
appreciate that and I've now said it on several occasions.
Second, it's amazing to me that you feel that good behaviour equates
authorship.
You might, by the way, look at how many times John Shakespeare
broke the law, or at the fact that Ben Jonson murdered someone, or
that William of Stratford was bound over to keep the peace for
donnybrooking,
to more or less use David Webb's word.
>
> You will not be decreeing what anyone thinks of you and
> when your desperate defense tactics remind me of the
> best in the business, I'll freely say so.
>
> > I'm not dealing with any authorship question at present, just trying
> > to show that in poetry, the words may have a whole raft of meanings.
>
> You are an executive of an association formed to demean Shakespeare
> and credit a pederast with his works and you have NO demonstrable
No, Greg, we simply believe another man was Shakespeare and think
his name has been ignored. And you're not responding to my statement
which was that poetry has multiple layers.
> reason for it. You bring it to a devoted newsgroup and feed the flames
> of your negligent case in order to elicit response.
>
> I love Shakespeare and history, so I'd need more than you and
> your fellow detractors have provided.
You can't have more if you won't listen and merely use insult to make
your case. I've been told off several times tonight for saying that
John Shakespeare was illiterate. He could only make a mark. He
couldn't sign his name. Do you know where I first read that? On
Terry and Dave's site.
I also love the works of Shakespeare by the way, and love history
so much that I spend my life writing novels about it. I got into
trouble in school for reading my history text during math lessons.
>
> > > > Other people on this listserv will tell you that if I say I'll do
> > something
> > > > I'll try my best.
> > >
> > > You said you would bring the Oxfordian Frequently Unanswered Questions
> > > to Carmel and get some responses if possible. can you answer them?
> > > Your disregard is what is keeping them so damned UNANSWERED!
> >
> > I told you I didn't have time in Carmel as a) I was co-chairing the
> > conference and b) we ran out of time, but that I'd asked your questions
on
> > our forum, had gotten some replies and would be glad to send you the
answers
> > privately.
>
> No thanks. We'll leave them unanswered as the acronym is so much fun.
> If you truly could provide sensible answers that did not disqualify Oxford
> as the author, you and any Oxfordian would be flaunting your response.
You see, you aren't really asking for answers, even though you appear to be
requesting
them. I've now offered you answers twice. Others have answered you
on hlas.
>
> Until an Oxfordian can truthfully answer, OR refute the Kathman/Ross
website,
> we are all just watching a shadow-boxing match. You can't make sense of
> your Oxfordianism any more than I can.
I can make sense of my Oxfordianism. It might not be quite the same as any
one else's Oxfordianism. Just as your Stratfordianism may not be the same
as that of others. There are many shades of belief in all the different
Shakespearean
groups.
>
> > > (Paul's bouncing off of them notwithstanding--he can't even read
them.)
> > >
> > > SO DO YOUR BEST as you claim you do.
> >
> > See above. You also asked me for a copy of one of my books and I've sent
it
> > to you as a gift.
>
> You offered the book publicly (not to Tom or you wouldn't have
> began the note "Tom Reedy wrote") and when I accepted I offered
> a book in return or the value of the book plus postage. I thank you
> for sending it. My local stores do not carry it.
I offered the book to Tom, as I was responding to him. You privately
asked for a copy and I said I would gladly send you one and you
should consider it a gift. Your local stores don't carry it because it's
a Canadian book. I was concerned about sending it because I knew
it would only give you more fuel with which to insult me (and I was also
actually
afraid that as you seem so angry it might give you a stroke), but did it
anyway,
as it is my cherished belief that we should try to help one another as much
as we can
and be polite to one another or even become friends. I've said many
times and in many venues that we are more alike than we are different,
although I imagine you don't believe that. But I do have friends who are
Stratfordians, and I'm grateful for their friendship.
> > I've done my best in that regard even though I realise you
> > likely only want it so you can badmouth me further.
>
> I think I will be unhappy if I see you bringing unsubstantiated
> distortions to the unsuspecting minds of children who are not
> free to argue facts with you. (You already semi-apologized for
> some of its content and admitted you'd write it differently today,
> so what's stopping you?)
I *would* write it differently today. I said to you I wouldn't make
it so black and white and that's true. I don't like the way
I portrayed Shakespeare of Stratford, as I wrote it five years
ago and I've changed. You cannot know much about the book
trade if you think I could recall the copies and change them. If
the book gets republished by another publisher, I will make
some changes.
I could also say in reply to your comment that I was merely redressing
the balance of all the Stratfordian children's novels out there and mirror
your own arguments back at you: that Stratfordian novels are bringing
unsubstantiated distortions to the unsuspecting minds of children. In any
case
for twenty five years I taught young adults that William of Stratford
was the author of the canon and so I wanted to redress my own balance.
Children are always free to argue with me. I make a point of keeping
my email address on my website, and I also often go onto the Our Canadian
Girl website and talk to the children there. I am the only author of
the series that does so.
And I do suggest to children at the end of Will that they go off
and research the question for themselves before deciding. You
may not have noticed, but I suggested to Lance that he should go to
BOTH Terry and Dave's site and ours to do his research, and even
when he's made up his mind about who wrote the canon, he should
keep questioning it. That's what education and knowledge are about,
as far as I'm concerned.
> > > > I managed to complete four book contracts and contined to act as
Vice
> > Pres
> > > > of the
> > > > Shakespeare Fellowship while undergoing life-threatening medical
> > treatment,
> > > > which is a sign that I take most things I say I'll do seriously.
> > >
> > > Keep reminding us that you're a writer and Shakespeare isn't.
> >
> > Wow, that's the lowest blow I've ever taken on hlas.
>
> Shakespeare has taken lower blows from your so-called "society."
I don't know why you feel this overwhelming need to protect someone
who's been dead for over four hundred years to the point of insulting
people who honestly believe something different from you. Shakespeare hasn't
taken lower blows. Whoever he is, he's dead and can't feel anything. Those
you are insulting with such vigour are still alive.
>
> > Does the obligatory
> > cancer joke follow?
>
> I don't understand this remark. I'm a sagittarius.
That's a very poor attempt at humour. Those of us struggling with
cancer don't find it a particularly funny subject.
>
> > Do you ever realise when you've gone beyond the pale,
> > Greg?
>
> That is an Irish phrase and we Irish-blooded are very sensitive to it.
> Are you making fun of my heritage?
If you are concerned I am making fun of your heritage, read
my novel *Rebecca's Flame.*
>
> > > (And it is obnoxious of you to call yourselves fellowes, as his
fellowes
> > > claimed he wrote his works and you call those fellowes liars.)
> >
> > I don't call anyone here a liar, Greg. Nor do I call Shakespeare or his
> > fellows liars. It is a policy of mine. I hope Lance is watching and
learning
> > that it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who are obnoxious, to use your
> > word, just as it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who believe insult a
good
> > substitute for argument.
>
> Forming a club to defame a man without just cause is unethical and
> disgusting (to use your word).
We're not defaming anyone, and we genuinely believe that someone
else wrote the canon. In that way we're in exactly the same position
as you. We all believe that our own guy is being overlooked.
Thank you for speaking to me (almost) as if I'm a human being.
LynnE
LynnE
I see what you're getting at now. OK, my answer to that would be that I
believe there are certain things within the canon that show us the kind of
person wrote them. That person was brilliant, very exceptionally educated,
spoke a variety of languages (we know this because some of the source
material wasn't in English), had legal training, etc. etc. That person also
held very specific philosophical beliefs.
The problem with William of Stratford, from my viewpoint--and of course I
can't speak for anyone else--is that William couldn't have had the education
necessary to write the works, he very likely didn't have access to the
source materials (as books were horribly expensive) and what we do know of
him seems to disagree with the beliefs of the author of the canon. William
seemed only interested in making money, for example, and was an astute
businessman. He hoarded grain, I believe, during a famine. That doesn't
accord, in my mind, with the true author, particularly the author of the
sonnets.
You will see lots of people insult me here. Many of them don't even try to
demolish my arguments, merely saying I'm stupid or mad or incorrect. If I
say, for example, that John Shakespeare was illiterate because he could only
sign with a mark, they'll call me crazy, but they know it to be true and
every Stratfordian expert will agree because it's part of the record. But
some people on this listserv will argue anything any non-Stratfordian says,
and will do so in a nasty and belligerent way to attempt to stop him or her
from posting. I think you've seen enough examples of that now to know it is
so and for that reason I won't respond to those people any longer on this
thread but will be glad to keep up my dialogue with you for as long as you
want to keep going.
There are very intelligent people in both camps. They have done lots of
research and have interesting things to say. They understand that insulting
and badmouthing others gets them nowhere. You can choose any path that you
wish, but I was concerned at first because I saw you taking as evidence
things that have not been proven. There are some facts about Shakespeare of
Stratford. There are a lot more facts about the Earl of Oxford because he
was a nobleman and so tended to have his actions recorded more. There are
also many suppositions on both sides. It's up to you, if you're interested,
to begin to learn to sort out the supposition from the fact and make up your
own mind.
It was hard for me to change my mind. I had taught Shakespeare for 25 years
and didn't want to listen to any argument that someone else might have
written the plays. But in the end, after lots of reading, my conscience
helped me to change. You may never make that change. You may read everything
there is to read (with a discerning eye) and decide you like the way the
land looks from where you're standing. Or you might change. I might change
back if I ever see anything that persuades me. That's part of what makes
life so exciting.
Best wishes,
Lynne
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "Liam Too" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:37a58e25.03103...@posting.google.com...
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:<3xzob.5943$Nm6.3...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > >
> > > I'm especially not sure why you keep asking me if I'd believe something
> > > such as your chessplayer's brilliance or the cleverness of someone who
> > > could compose while deaf when these are well known phemomena.
> > >
> > > Best wishes, Lynne<<
> > To prove the point that someone like William Shakespeare of Stratford
> > can also write the Shakespeare canon!
> >
> > All the best, Lance
> I see what you're getting at now. OK, my answer to that would be that I
> believe there are certain things within the canon that show us the kind of
> person wrote them. That person was brilliant, very exceptionally educated,
The supposed evidence of exceptional education certainly isn't very
evident.
> spoke a variety of languages (we know this because some of the source
> material wasn't in English),
Once again, an ability to read source materials in another tongue
does not mean that one need SPEAK the tongue. I can read source
materials that I or my friends and colleagues need in at least a
half-dozen languages that I don't speak and in which I have no formal
training whatever.
> had legal training,
...had FAMILIARITY with the law, which is a different matter.
> etc. etc. That person also
> held very specific philosophical beliefs.
That isn't so clear. The trouble with trying to assign beliefs to an
author of fiction is that one cannot know with any certainty which (if
any) of the beliefs with which the author endows his or her characters
are the author's own beliefs. Some people believe that Nabokov was
cruel, that he had pedophile tendencies, and all manner of other
nonsense.
> The problem with William of Stratford, from my viewpoint--and of course I
> can't speak for anyone else--is that William couldn't have had the education
> necessary to write the works, he very likely didn't have access to the
> source materials (as books were horribly expensive) and what we do know of
> him seems to disagree with the beliefs of the author of the canon. William
> seemed only interested in making money, for example, and was an astute
> businessman. He hoarded grain, I believe, during a famine. That doesn't
> accord, in my mind, with the true author, particularly the author of the
> sonnets.
Richard Wagner was one of history's most notorious, most vitriolic,
and most outspoken anti-Semites, and in "Das Judenthum in der Musik" he
gave voice to some of the most poisonous hatred imaginable. Martin van
Amerongen's description of the pamphlet is especially vivid:
"According to Martin Gregor-Dellin, these are 'twenty pages of the
most chilling prose, like the poison which is sweated out after an
illness.' This is an odd way of formulating it, in as much as
Wanger -- contrary to Gregor-Dellin's suggestion, was certainly
not cured of his illness following the publication of the treatise.
On the contrary, right up until his death, he did not write a
single essay...in which there was not at least one tirade of abuse
directed against the Jews."
There is no ambiguity about the matter, as there is in a work like _The
Merchant of Venice_. That doesn't accord, in my mind, with the true
author of timeless works glorifying the redemptive power of love.
Nevertheless, there is not the slightest doubt that Wagner was in fact
the author of the works attributed to him. Why is Shakespeare any
different? That the vanishingly small insight into his personality that
can be very speculatively obtained from fragmentary and equivocal data
doesn't accord, in your mind, with the true author merely limns starkly
how hopelessly subjective and error-prone such intuitive appraisals can
be.
[...]
Tom Reedy
A word that changed the meaning.
What do you call that up in Canada?
We call that making a misstating.
> >
> >
> > > Besides, it works perfectly well in context.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. Your interpretation is unnecessary and dense, and there
is
> > no good reason for Jonson to express such an idea.
>
> Good poetry is dense--in its better sense--it manages to cram a brilliant
> kaleidoscope of meaning into few words, and neither you not I can say
> absolutely what Jonson had in mind. But I'll look at it again.
I see no earthly reason why anyone, much less a poet, would say, "Even if
you had [insert some attribute the subject does not have], then . . . ."
That would be nonsensical, and unless you're Lewis Carroll or certain other
more modern poets, poetry makes sense. Some poetry, such as some of the
sonnets, may not appear to make sense on first reading, but with study the
convolutions are straightened and the mind stretches enough to be able to
hold a complicated thought.
It also helps to put the phrase in context.
For, if I thought my judgement were of yeeres,
I should commit thee surely with thy peeres,
And tell, how farre thou dist our Lily out-shine,
Or sporting Kid or Marlowes mighty line.
And though thou hadst small Latine, and lesse Greeke,
From thence to honour thee, I would not seeke
For names; but call forth thund'ring Æschilus,
Euripides, and Sophocles to us,
Paccuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead,
To life againe, to heare thy Buskin tread,
And shake a stage : Or, when thy sockes were on,
Leave thee alone, for the comparison
Of all, that insolent Greece, or haughtie Rome
Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come.
Jonson is saying that even though Shakespeare has little Latin and less
Greek, if he could he would bring back to life the great Latin and Greek
playwrights to appreciate his plays. He is comparing him to them rather than
to his contemporaries.
TR
Tom Reedy
Well then how about explaining it? Here's the context:
For, if I thought my judgement were of yeeres,
I should commit thee surely with thy peeres,
And tell, how farre thou dist our Lily out-shine,
Or sporting Kid or Marlowes mighty line.
And though thou hadst small Latine, and lesse Greeke,
From thence to honour thee, I would not seeke
For names; but call forth thund'ring Ćschilus,
Euripides, and Sophocles to us,
Paccuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead,
To life againe, to heare thy Buskin tread,
And shake a stage : Or, when thy sockes were on,
Leave thee alone, for the comparison
Of all, that insolent Greece, or haughtie Rome
Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come.
> >
> > L.
> >
> > >
> > > TR
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
LynnE
Possibly, but I don't think so. It just changed the tense to reflect that
Shakespeare was dead.
>
> What do you call that up in Canada?
>
> We call that making a misstating.
I call it chemo brain. I keep on doing it but the instances are getting
less.
He can also be saying that because Shakespeare has a lot of Latin and
Greek....(the rest of what you say goes here, although I think there could
also be other interpretations).
As I said that's what's so fascinating about poetry. One can sometimes
assert two diametrically opposed povs at the same time.
L.
>
> TR
>
>
LynnE
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:david.l.webb-B7FE...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> In article <VYFob.11304$Tf.12...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Liam Too" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:37a58e25.03103...@posting.google.com...
> > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:<3xzob.5943$Nm6.3...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > > >
> > > > I'm especially not sure why you keep asking me if I'd believe
something
> > > > such as your chessplayer's brilliance or the cleverness of someone
who
> > > > could compose while deaf when these are well known phemomena.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes, Lynne<<
>
> > > To prove the point that someone like William Shakespeare of Stratford
> > > can also write the Shakespeare canon!
> > >
> > > All the best, Lance
>
> > I see what you're getting at now. OK, my answer to that would be that I
> > believe there are certain things within the canon that show us the kind
of
> > person wrote them. That person was brilliant, very exceptionally
educated,
>
> The supposed evidence of exceptional education certainly isn't very
> evident.
Still waiting on your full response to this, David, when I shot all your
questions back at you. But thank you for answering here. You're logical and
intelligent and can give Lance an idea of what the two different sides are
saying. I believe, from the material I've read or seen presented over the
past two years, that there is evidence in the plays themselves that the
author had to be exceptionally educated. He was reading Greek from the
original sources, for example. My problem is, as you know, that some of the
papers referring to this kind of material are not published yet and I'm
trying to find a way to give you access to them.
>
> > spoke a variety of languages (we know this because some of the source
> > material wasn't in English),
>
> Once again, an ability to read source materials in another tongue
> does not mean that one need SPEAK the tongue. I can read source
> materials that I or my friends and colleagues need in at least a
> half-dozen languages that I don't speak and in which I have no formal
> training whatever.
But they have to be root-tied to one of the languages you already know, such
as Latin. I'm talking about Greek or possibly Hebrew. I'm sure you can read
Romanian if you have some knowledge of Romance languages, but I defy you,
for example, to make sense of Hungarian, unless you have a way into it which
is another of your *root-languages.*
>
> > had legal training,
>
> ...had FAMILIARITY with the law, which is a different matter.
Had legal training, as I said. Read the Regnier article and then say that.
Some of the dialogues in the plays, such as the gravediggers dialogue in
*Hamlet*, seem to show extensive knowledge of legal cases that were only
available to read in the original legal French. Lance might like to go to
the fellowship site, click on *virtual classroom*, which is in the body of
the main page text, and then look for *Shakespeare and the law.* You or
Lance might also like to look at an article by a Stratfordian, about the
Hales versus Petit case, and jointure as it applies to *Hamlet*:
J. Anthony Burton "An Unrecognized Theme in Hamlet: Lost Inheritance
and Claudius's Marriage to Gertrude" The Shakespeare Newsletter
I was lucky enough to be present when Burton presented this paper. The case,
if I remember correctly, was before the Stratford man's time but I'm happy
to stand corrected
As I believe I've said in other threads, please hold your criticism of my
assertion that the real author needed legal training until you have read the
Regnier article (and now the one I've given above).
>
> > etc. etc. That person also
> > held very specific philosophical beliefs.
>
> That isn't so clear. The trouble with trying to assign beliefs to an
> author of fiction is that one cannot know with any certainty which (if
> any) of the beliefs with which the author endows his or her characters
> are the author's own beliefs. Some people believe that Nabokov was
> cruel, that he had pedophile tendencies, and all manner of other
> nonsense.
From Lolita? But here we're dealing with an entire body of work, which is
different, and the same threads keep running through them. Lance might like
to read the parts of Dr. Stritmatter's dissertation that deal with this.
Some of it is posted on our site.
Yes, Wagner was a horrible anti-semite, but then look at his operas, which
are basically a retelling of the Fatherland myths designed to give the
Germans a sense of pride in their heritage. The work in a sense fits the
man. I have terrible trouble with this. I really love some of Wagner's
music.
>
> There is no ambiguity about the matter, as there is in a work like _The
> Merchant of Venice_. That doesn't accord, in my mind, with the true
> author of timeless works glorifying the redemptive power of love.
> Nevertheless, there is not the slightest doubt that Wagner was in fact
> the author of the works attributed to him. Why is Shakespeare any
> different? That the vanishingly small insight into his personality that
> can be very speculatively obtained from fragmentary and equivocal data
> doesn't accord, in your mind, with the true author merely limns starkly
> how hopelessly subjective and error-prone such intuitive appraisals can
> be.
>
I've put above why I think Wagner actually adds to our evidence that the
work in some way fits the man (it's actually a bit more ambiguous with
music).
I find MOV a very fascinating play and we can discuss it some time if you
like. Shylock is treated ambiguously, but so is *every other character in
the play.* That's why I was so surprised at what someone--I believe it was
Bob Grumman--said about Portia on another thread. That she was a kind of
goddess. I think Goddard, a Stratfordian writer, is possibly the best source
for MOV. By the way, neither merchant (Antonio or Shylock) comes off
particularly well, and Shakespeare of Stratford was, you guessed it, a money
lender and a kind of merchant. If you doubt this, look at the primary
sources that Wood has turned up.
I've heard at least two Stratfordian experts in the last few weeks talk
about the supposed "Anne Hathaway" pun in one of the sonnets. But they
completely ignore, for example. "Ever the same...and every word doth almost
tell my name;" or the fact that Oxford was lame (thanks to Nelson, a
Stratfordian, for discovering a letter of De Vere's that says this), and the
author of the sonnets says he's lame; or "I am that I am" which is present
in both the sonnets and a letter of De Vere's, used with the same tone and
of HIMSELF. To my knowledge, although other writers of the time used the
phrase, they did not use it when referring to themselves, but when referring
to God. Only Oxford and Shakespeare had the arrogance to use something God
said of himself with reference to themselves. Until Popeye and I came along,
of course. And what about "My name be buried where my body is and live no
more to shame nor me nor you..."? This doesn't sound a bit like the
Stratford man, who was in the ascendant.
But there is much more in the sonnets and the plays that does not accord
with Shakespeare of Stratford's life but accords with Oxford's. The writer
of the plays does not seem fond of the kind of person Shakespeare of
Stratford is. The writer of the sonnets keeps saying he is ruined at a time
when Oxford is ruined but Shakespeare of S is making a fortune. It is these
kinds of problems that have frustrated some Stratfordian experts to the
point that they have resorted to saying that the sonnets are not about
anything that accords with the life experience of the author. They simply
cannot pin the emotions and messages within the verse to Shakespeare of
Stratford and so suggest that the sonnets are a kind of literary
construction.
Thanks for your input, David. I'm sure it's a pleasant change for Lance to
see a Stratfordian on this thread who doesn't insult and badmouth
non-Stratfordians, but gives reasoned arguments to make his case.
Best wishes, as always,
Lynne
> [...]
Tom Reedy
And I call that "making a misstating" also!
TR
Tom Reedy
And that's the reason he used the words "little" and "less," to mean "a
lot." Yes, I see it now. How could I have ever been so blind?
> ....(the rest of what you say goes here, although I think there could
> also be other interpretations).
>
> As I said that's what's so fascinating about poetry. One can sometimes
> assert two diametrically opposed povs at the same time.
Anybody can assert anything about anything. Where you're short is in coming
up with the support for your assertion.
TR
>
> L.
> >
> > TR
> >
> >
>
>
Phil Innes
> > cancer joke follow?
>
> I don't understand this remark. I'm a sagittarius.
My God! A Joke!
I was beginning to think
that that was all there was
(thinking)
here-abouts
as a bone fide crab
or turtle
as we sometimes style ourselves
& nevermind your Saghilarious
flings and arrows
lets have a bit of that
vaunted higher mind
beyond ego and all that
It strikes me
that the reduction you speak of
in the traducing of authorship
is a real thing
and the wonder of the author
is not better explained
by an alternate cove
it is not explained by any cove!
no matter who wrote the damned works
there is no precedent or antecedent for them
and an unfortunate aspect
of concentrating overmuch - exclusively (?)
whether in assertion or response
to who is "Author"
fails
signally to acknowledge that whoever
he/she was, whoever
wrote any of this material
which first grabbed out attention
dramatically
not 'intellectually'
'sif we were all librarians!
or barbarians
or bean-counters
is a greater deceit
a lack of wonder
an impudence
and as a turtle-person
i further suspect its
psychological motive
as if, by substitution
of person
we substantiate
some claim on Inspiration
and sans, (and sod!)
everything else.
> > Do you ever realise when you've gone beyond the pale,
> > Greg?
>
> That is an Irish phrase and we Irish-blooded are very sensitive to it.
> Are you making fun of my heritage?
It would indeed have been better
if you were a poet
rather than a politician
to be beyond the pale
otherwise you could
wake up one morning
and find your head
on the castle wall
> > > (And it is obnoxious of you to call yourselves fellowes, as his
fellowes
> > > claimed he wrote his works and you call those fellowes liars.)
> >
> > I don't call anyone here a liar, Greg. Nor do I call Shakespeare or his
> > fellows liars. It is a policy of mine. I hope Lance is watching and
learning
> > that it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who are obnoxious, to use your
> > word, just as it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who believe insult a
good
> > substitute for argument.
>
> Forming a club to defame a man without just cause is unethical and
> disgusting (to use your word).
I do not think 'just cause' is absent
but just meaning like 'only'
like 'mean'
'lowly'
There is a great mystery about the Author
and while some investigate
in some awe
this protean mind
others change that mind
for another, as if that answered
For 30 years this argument
has not crossed the threshold
stated here
and even we lowly turtles
advance beyond by only
looking to ourSelf
in passing
Good Regards, to thee and Lynne too.
Cordially, Phil
Phil Innes
> I've gone back and looked at it. It seems to make sense to me whether it
is
> read as Shakespeare having a great knowledge of Latin and Greek (Even if
you
> only did have small Latin--implied: which is not true) or his having very
> little knowledge of either (although you only had small Latin). Both seem
to
> work in context.
Lynn, will you look at my response to NeilB on 'small latin' - what did
Jonson, or someone reporting Jonson, mean by that? Is the phrase to do with
use? It's ambivalent, isn't it? To seize and resolve on these things more
questionable than the things themsleves? Cordially, Phil
LynnE
No, Tom, it's nothing to do with those two words. It's to do with the word
though, which can mean "although" but can also mean "even if."
>
> > ....(the rest of what you say goes here, although I think there could
> > also be other interpretations).
> >
> > As I said that's what's so fascinating about poetry. One can sometimes
> > assert two diametrically opposed povs at the same time.
>
> Anybody can assert anything about anything. Where you're short is in
coming
> up with the support for your assertion.
I've shown you the word which has a second meaning (though). I've shown that
it makes perfect grammatical sense. I would have thought that you'd have
jumped at it. It may be saying that Shakespeare could speak good Latin and
Greek. The problem with poetry is that we can perfectly well make these
assertions if they fit, but cannot with any certitude say whether the author
intended them. In this case we're not sure if Jonson meant both, or just one
of the meanings. I've been trying to point out to Lance (who brought the
Jonson up in the first place) that one can interpret this poem in many
different ways. One can do this with many poems, including mine. I think I'm
being reasonable in what I'm saying. One can always say something is
possible in poetry if one can make a case for it.
L.
>
> TR
>
> >
> > L.
> > >
> > > TR
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
LynnE
Yes, it did diminish your argument somewhat, but I was too polite to say so.
:)
L.
LynnE
"Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote in message
news:JkUob.38$uM3....@newshog.newsread.com...
beset by cruel and unusual responses). It could possibly mean, amongst other
things, that Shakespeare *used* little Latin and Greek, which would throw no
light on how much he actually knew. I do have a little trouble with the word
"hadst" to mean "used"--could you find another contemporary example of it
somewhere to be sure? That line is so ambiguous that one wonders if Jonson
intended all the meanings that we have unearthed. Many of them are more or
less consistent with the text.
L.
LynnE
"Janice B. Miller" <jbmi...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:BBC983BA.1DD4%jbmi...@world.std.com...
> On 11/1/03 3:17 PM, in article BBC97F02.1DCE%jbmi...@world.std.com,
"Janice
> B. Miller" <jbmi...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/1/03 1:39 PM, in article
> > W5Tob.448$qh2...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tom Reedy"
> > <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>>>> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> LynnE wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> If Jonson's words are to be taken literally, they are a slur.
> >>> And
> >>>>>>> indeed,
> >>>>>>>>> Shakespeare
> >>>>>>>>> of Stratford, even if he had attended school, would have had
> >>>> little
> >>>>>>> Latin
> >>>>>>>>> and probably
> >>>>>>>>> no Greek at all. There is evidence elsewhere, however, that
> >> the
> >>>> true
> >>>>>>> author
> >>>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>> canon did understand Greek (see my other posts),
> >>>>>>>>> and one should look to Jonson's words which precede
> >>>>>>>>> "small Latin and less Greek." They are:
> >>>>>>>>> "And though thou hadst..." This *may* be interpreted as
> >>>>>>>>> "And even if you had small Latin and less Greek..."
> >>>>>>>> No, they can't. Not sensibly and in context.
> >>>>>>>
> re-read the beginning of Euripides' _Bacchae_, and that makes any
reference
> to a grown man in buskins sound like a joke. It might sound like
aspersions
> on his manhood (Dionysus in his first speech describes his long hair and
his
> effeminate appearance, which is important in the play), or it might sound
> like some pipsqueak challenging the mighty Zeus, or the old fools all
> dressing as Dionysus later in the play, etc. At best, if this is
> considered, the lines sound patronizing.
>
> -- Janice
Actually, Janice, I've never thought about this before, but now I'm
wondering if the bit of L'Allegro by Milton that we've all been discussing
doesn't harken back, in some sense, to this poem of Jonson's. Just a bit of
whimsy on my part.
Lynne
>
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonson is saying that even though Shakespeare has little Latin and
less
> >>>> Greek, if he could he would bring back to life the great Latin and
Greek
> >>>> playwrights to appreciate his plays. He is comparing him to them
rather
> >>> than
> >>>> to his contemporaries.
> >>>
> >
> > I would (today) paraphrase these lines as: "[Something not quoted which
I'm
> > now going to give the reason for, which is:] Because -- if my opinion
about
> > you were that your talent was merely of the ordinary sort -- I would be
able
> > to put you among our age's poets (Lyly, Kyd, Marlowe) -- but I can't,
> > because my opinion is that your talent is out of the ordinary (greater
than
> > can be explained by a normal progression from youth to age, and greater
than
> > is to be expected for someone writing in our time, and greater than
> > something that is only of one time and place). I honor you so much that
> > even if it turned out to be the case that you didn't know Greek or
Latin, or
> > only barely (so much as a mediocre student might), I would not put you
among
> > our age's poets, but would insist that you ought to be compared to the
great
> > poets that were also not for an age but of all time. Etc."
> >
> > Out of context, I think I would say that it sounds like an in-joke: even
if
> > you were as ignorant as it's said you were. In context, it does sound
(I
> > think this afternoon) as if perhaps Jonson didn't even know him. (We
don't
> > know much about you, but we are offering you a place, and even if it
turns
> > out this is true about you or that is untrue, that's not important to
us.)
> >
> > As biographical or historical information, I don't think I'd like to
take
> > this as data, given how easy it is for poetry to sound different from
what
> > the writer actually believes. Given that it does sound different out of
> > context, I also would not like to take the in-context reading as
evidence
> > that Jonson chose the in-context reading, as opposed to the other one.
He
> > might well have expected his readers to see the out-of-context reading,
as
> > well. The lines work perfectly well alone, are a separate quatrain,
> > basically, etc.
> >
> > I'm not saying that the other reading isn't important, in a literary
sense,
> > but it's hard to talk about without getting postmodern, or metaphysical,
or
> > "poetic" (that is, "squishy" in terms of the meanings of words), or at
best
> > very theoretical.
> >
> > My personal guess would be, going on the poems Jonson wrote about
> > Shakespeare, is that he knew something about William Shakespeare,
admired
> > him in some sense, was not a _close_ personal friend, and knew some
gossip
> > about him. Also, in some ways thought he did some things better than
> > Shakespeare did, and must have known that many people (at least) thought
> > Shakespeare did some things better than him. Without knowing more about
the
> > circles they both moved in (not just speculation based on which belonged
to
> > the right religious or social groups), I don't think that's enough
> > information. Though I would be inclined to think it tends to justify
more
> > than to refute the idea that Jonson knew William Shakespeare (you know
who I
> > mean) to be plausibly the playwright, though perhaps with some oddities
of
> > some unnamed sort that people laughed at (which it's possible Jonson
doesn't
> > describe very well).
> >
> > -- Janice
Phil Innes
> Yes, Phil, I actually "sort of" agreed at the time you posted it (but was
> beset by cruel and unusual responses). It could possibly mean, amongst
other
> things, that Shakespeare *used* little Latin and Greek, which would throw
no
> light on how much he actually knew. I do have a little trouble with the
word
> "hadst" to mean "used"--could you find another contemporary example of it
> somewhere to be sure? That line is so ambiguous that one wonders if Jonson
> intended all the meanings that we have unearthed. Many of them are more or
> less consistent with the text.
Very good Lynne,
to be open to the question is vastly superior to stating any result.
Cordially, Phil
> L.
>
>
Liam Too
>
> I don't call anyone here a liar, Greg. Nor do I call Shakespeare or his
> fellows liars. It is a policy of mine. I hope Lance is watching and learning
> that it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who are obnoxious, to use your
> word, just as it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who believe insult a good
> substitute for argument.
>
> LynnE<<
Lynne,
But of course, I'll be hear watching, learning, and participating for
a while. If you ask Neil and/or Phil, they will tell you that your
Shakespeare newsgroup is much more civil than our Chess newsgroup.
All the best, Lance
LynnE
Thank God I don't play chess then, Lance.
Could you tell us something about yourself and your interest in chess and
Shakespeare?
Lynne
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
>
> > [Lynne] could learn from Art who parodies the Oxfordian
> > stance with his hilarious absurdities and antics
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I perchance hereafter shall think meet
> To put an antic disposition on,
> That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
> With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
> Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
> As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
> Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
> Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
> That you know aught of me: this not to do,
> So grace and mercy at your most need help you, SWEAR.
That's about as candid an admission that you're merely trolling as
one could want, Art!
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> <<"The Man Who Laughs is Victor Hugo's best novel. (Curiously
> enough it was the one least understood by his contemporaries.)
>
> The Man Who Laughs: actor
>
> "Conrad Veidt"
> "Antic, odd Ver"
But Art -- the INPNC score is a mere 3/11, or roughly 27%, a pathetic
score. Besides, the solution is far from unique: it could easily be
"Add tin, O. C. -- Ver,"
an obvious wish from the Earl for the two things he desired most in life
-- tin and Orazio Cogno. A better anagram of "Conrad Veidt," with an
INPNC score of 5/11 or oVER 45%, is
"Art C. N. voided."
There was neVER much doubt concerning the ultimate origin of most of
your posts, Art, so the confirmation furnished by this anagram is
superfluous.
[...]
Tom Reedy
>
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:W5Tob.448$qh2...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip three tons of bandwidth>
> > > >
> > > > Jonson is saying that even though Shakespeare has little Latin and
> less
> > > > Greek, if he could he would bring back to life the great Latin and
> Greek
> > > > playwrights to appreciate his plays. He is comparing him to them
> rather
> > > than
> > > > to his contemporaries.
> > >
> > > He can also be saying that because Shakespeare has a lot of Latin and
> > > Greek
> >
> > And that's the reason he used the words "little" and "less," to mean "a
> > lot." Yes, I see it now. How could I have ever been so blind?
>
> No, Tom, it's nothing to do with those two words. It's to do with the word
> though, which can mean "although" but can also mean "even if."
OK, so what you're saying is that Jonson could be saying, "Although you had
little Latin and less Greek . . ." or "Even if you had little Latin and less
Greek . . . "
My objection stands. Not only is there no grammatical justification for a
subjunctive (in grammar, designating or of that mood of a verb used to
express condition, hypothesis, contingency, possibility, etc., rather than
to state an actual fact), the thought is unnecessarily unclear and
convoluted in the context of the poem. I know you think all poetry and all
times and places "cram a brilliant kaleidoscope of meaning into few words,"
but in this case it doesn't.
> >
> > > ....(the rest of what you say goes here, although I think there could
> > > also be other interpretations).
> > >
> > > As I said that's what's so fascinating about poetry. One can sometimes
> > > assert two diametrically opposed povs at the same time.
One can sometimes, but this is not one of those times.
> > Anybody can assert anything about anything. Where you're short is in
> coming
> > up with the support for your assertion.
>
> I've shown you the word which has a second meaning (though). I've shown
that
> it makes perfect grammatical sense.
It may make "perfect grammatical sense" to you, but that's more indicative
of your sloppy thinking than of Jonson's intention. It does not make
"perfect grammatical sense," unless you have a special Oxfordian dictionary
somewhere to redefine words. "Hadst" is the archaic past second singular of
HAVE. That means Jonson is saying "Even though you had little Latin and less
Greek . . ."
I realize as an Oxfordian true must become false and white must become
black, otherwise you'd have to accept the historical record. But this habit
of mind causes you to accept arrant nonsense as truth. (The Oxfordian stance
on this is that most people just aren't as sensitive to subtle meanings as
they are.)
> I would have thought that you'd have
> jumped at it. It may be saying that Shakespeare could speak good Latin and
> Greek.
It doesn't say anything about being able to speak Latin or Greek at all.
> The problem with poetry is that we can perfectly well make these
> assertions if they fit, but cannot with any certitude say whether the
author
> intended them. In this case we're not sure if Jonson meant both, or just
one
> of the meanings.
You're not sure because you have an irrational belief to defend. I can well
understand plain English, myself, and Jonson's meaning does not threaten any
beliefs of mine.
> I've been trying to point out to Lance (who brought the
> Jonson up in the first place) that one can interpret this poem in many
> different ways.
One can, but one would be wrong if one did.
> One can do this with many poems, including mine. I think I'm
> being reasonable in what I'm saying.
I wouldn't expect you to say anything different. I wouldn't put it to a
vote, though, if I were you and if I wanted to hold fast to my delusions.
> One can always say something is
> possible in poetry if one can make a case for it.
As I said above, one can say anything. That doesn't make it true.
TR
>
>
> L.
Tom Reedy
> On 11/1/03 1:39 PM, in article
> W5Tob.448$qh2...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tom Reedy"
> <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>>> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>> LynnE wrote:
> >>>>>>>> If Jonson's words are to be taken literally, they are a slur.
> >> And
> >>>>>> indeed,
> >>>>>>>> Shakespeare
> >>>>>>>> of Stratford, even if he had attended school, would have had
> >>> little
> >>>>>> Latin
> >>>>>>>> and probably
> >>>>>>>> no Greek at all. There is evidence elsewhere, however, that
> > the
> >>> true
> >>>>>> author
> >>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>> canon did understand Greek (see my other posts),
> >>>>>>>> and one should look to Jonson's words which precede
> >>>>>>>> "small Latin and less Greek." They are:
> >>>>>>>> "And though thou hadst..." This *may* be interpreted as
> >>>>>>>> "And even if you had small Latin and less Greek..."
> >>>>>>> No, they can't. Not sensibly and in context.
> >>>>>>
I'm
> now going to give the reason for, which is:] Because -- if my opinion
about
> you were that your talent was merely of the ordinary sort -- I would be
able
> to put you among our age's poets (Lyly, Kyd, Marlowe) -- but I can't,
> because my opinion is that your talent is out of the ordinary (greater
than
> can be explained by a normal progression from youth to age, and greater
than
> is to be expected for someone writing in our time, and greater than
> something that is only of one time and place). I honor you so much that
> even if it turned out to be the case that you didn't know Greek or Latin,
Except Jonson's words are unambiguous.
or
> only barely (so much as a mediocre student might), I would not put you
among
> our age's poets, but would insist that you ought to be compared to the
great
> poets that were also not for an age but of all time. Etc."
>
> Out of context, I think I would say that it sounds like an in-joke: even
if
> you were as ignorant as it's said you were. In context, it does sound (I
> think this afternoon) as if perhaps Jonson didn't even know him.
I would suggest you consult the title of the poem and read the other things
Jonson said about him.
(We don't
> know much about you, but we are offering you a place, and even if it turns
> out this is true about you or that is untrue, that's not important to us.)
>
> As biographical or historical information, I don't think I'd like to take
> this as data, given how easy it is for poetry to sound different from what
> the writer actually believes. Given that it does sound different out of
> context, I also would not like to take the in-context reading as evidence
> that Jonson chose the in-context reading, as opposed to the other one. He
> might well have expected his readers to see the out-of-context reading, as
> well. The lines work perfectly well alone, are a separate quatrain,
> basically, etc.
>
> I'm not saying that the other reading isn't important, in a literary
sense,
> but it's hard to talk about without getting postmodern, or metaphysical,
or
> "poetic" (that is, "squishy" in terms of the meanings of words), or at
best
> very theoretical.
>
> My personal guess would be, going on the poems Jonson wrote about
> Shakespeare, is that he knew something about William Shakespeare, admired
> him in some sense, was not a _close_ personal friend,
Again, I would suggest you read the title of the poem and some of the other
things Jonson wrote about him.
TR
and knew some gossip
> about him. Also, in some ways thought he did some things better than
> Shakespeare did, and must have known that many people (at least) thought
> Shakespeare did some things better than him. Without knowing more about
the
> circles they both moved in (not just speculation based on which belonged
to
> the right religious or social groups), I don't think that's enough
> information. Though I would be inclined to think it tends to justify more
> than to refute the idea that Jonson knew William Shakespeare (you know who
I
> mean) to be plausibly the playwright, though perhaps with some oddities of
> some unnamed sort that people laughed at (which it's possible Jonson
doesn't
> describe very well).
>
> -- Janice
>
Tom Reedy
> is
> > read as Shakespeare having a great knowledge of Latin and Greek (Even if
> you
> > only did have small Latin--implied: which is not true) or his having
very
> > little knowledge of either (although you only had small Latin). Both
seem
> to
> > work in context.
>
> Lynn, will you look at my response to NeilB on 'small latin' - what did
> Jonson, or someone reporting Jonson, mean by that? Is the phrase to do
with
> use? It's ambivalent, isn't it?
No, it is not. There is no justification for interpolating an "if" into
Jonson's phrase. See my post above.
TR
Tom Reedy
<snip>
> That line is so ambiguous that one wonders if Jonson
> intended all the meanings that we have unearthed. Many of them are more or
> less consistent with the text.
Do you know what the word "ambiguous" means? It doesn't mean "I can't
understand it," which is obviously the meaning you are giving it.
TR
>
> L.
>
>
Tom Reedy
What is this? The Tao of Oxfordianism?
TR
Tom Reedy
news:<xbDob.11167$Tf.12...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> >
> > I don't call anyone here a liar, Greg. Nor do I call Shakespeare or his
> > fellows liars. It is a policy of mine. I hope Lance is watching and
learning
> > that it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who are obnoxious, to use your
> > word, just as it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who believe insult a
good
> > substitute for argument.
What is a good substitute for argument for Oxfordians? Whatever it is, it
doesn't involve the use of any facts, common sense or logic.
TR
Greg Reynolds
> Jeez, Greg, lay off will ya!
But, Art, Lynne isn't responsive to simple questions (that destroy
Oxfordianism) and it is unnerving to watch her play the health card
or the coy card or the skulk off card when I was honestly pursuing
the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare card.
> Lynne's under a lot of misconceptions but perhaps the worst is that since
> Terry can cook decent Chinese food that all Strats can be tamed & civilized.
Dim lighting and Terryaki sauce (not exactly an ancient secret).
> She doesn't appreciate the fact that you guys are nothing but a bunch of
> hired goons.
I am not a Stratfordian, nor an oxygenian, nor an earthian. I don't
entertain nonarguments that purport nonsense. Lynne is rude
and dismissive (to use her wording) of Shakespeare.
> Lynne might as well be discussing authorship with Roy Horn's
> tigers.
"The description of the Horn book is correct, but
cannot be linked to Shakespeare of Stratford in
any definitive way." -Lynne Kositsky
> Cut her some slack.
They'll be ready Thursday. What size?
Bob Grumman
> > >
> > > I don't call anyone here a liar, Greg. Nor do I call Shakespeare or his
> > > fellows liars. It is a policy of mine. I hope Lance is watching and
> learning
> > > that it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who are obnoxious, to use your
> > > word, just as it's not necessarily the anti-Strats who believe insult a
> good
> > > substitute for argument.
>
> What is a good substitute for argument for Oxfordians?
That's easy to answer: charges of being subjected to impoliteness.
--Bob G.
Phil Innes
> > > somewhere to be sure? That line is so ambiguous that one wonders if
> Jonson
> > > intended all the meanings that we have unearthed. Many of them are
more
> or
> > > less consistent with the text.
> >
> > Very good Lynne,
> >
> > to be open to the question is vastly superior to stating any result.
> > Cordially, Phil
> >
> > > L.
>
> What is this? The Tao of Oxfordianism?
It means you didn't make up your mind 'til after you studied the matter.
But I ain't no Oxfordian neither... feel no compulsion to force a conclusion
to a question.
I think Lynne's line is suspect, however, isn't it just as suspect to make
an imperative statement of reaction?
Cordially, Phil
> TR
>
>
Phil Innes
> Lynne,
>
> But of course, I'll be hear watching, learning, and participating for
> a while. If you ask Neil and/or Phil, they will tell you that your
> Shakespeare newsgroup is much more civil than our Chess newsgroup.
>
> All the best, Lance
True.
Its very funny that a non-verbal game of ritual conflict can produce any
conversation at all that is inclusive of the other person's point of view,
or contains the necessary inter-personal lubrication of self-jokes.
The most civil newsgroup I've encountered is rec.food.recipes
~~~~~
A good thing, IMO, about tension between posters is that it can shift people
from a settled opinion which has relapsed into one of no curiosity. For some
people having a matter 'settled' kills any further awareness of a subject,
and banishes the open attitude necessary to engage it further.
This is not to say that outré or rentier-vox arrivistes can scandalise the
common sense of a group or belabour an abstruse subject indefinitely,
neither is there cause for rejecting novel insights out of hand.
It is rare for the settled opinion of a village to be wrong, no? Mature
opinion happens over time, and singular issues often impatient of this
maturation, pro or con.
Phil
Terry Ross
> Actually, Janice, I've never thought about this before, but now I'm
> wondering if the bit of L'Allegro by Milton that we've all been
> discussing doesn't harken back, in some sense, to this poem of Jonson's.
> Just a bit of whimsy on my part.
It may well be. Jonson says "when thy sockes were on"; Milton says, "If
Jonson's learned sock be on." Shakespeare, he of small Latin and less
Greek, wore less learned socks than Jonson.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > Jeez, Greg, lay off will ya!
>
> But, Art, Lynne isn't responsive to simple questions (that destroy
> Oxfordianism) and it is unnerving to watch her play the health card
> or the coy card or the skulk off card when I was honestly pursuing
> the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare card.
>
> > Lynne's under a lot of misconceptions but perhaps the worst is that since
> > Terry can cook decent Chinese food that all Strats can be tamed & civilized.
>
> Dim lighting and Terryaki sauce (not exactly an ancient secret).
I served Chinese, not Japanese, and the lighting was quite good, thank
you, so that my wife and I could enjoy the delightful wines that our
guests provided, and so that we could all read poems to each other if the
need arose.
Art Neuendorffer
> > There is no ambiguity about the matter, as there is in a work like _The
> > Merchant of Venice_. That doesn't accord, in my mind, with the true
> > author of timeless works glorifying the redemptive power of love.
> > Nevertheless, there is not the slightest doubt that Wagner was in fact
> > the author of the works attributed to him. Why is Shakespeare any
> > different? That the vanishingly small insight into his personality that
> > can be very speculatively obtained from fragmentary and equivocal data
> > doesn't accord, in your mind, with the true author merely limns starkly
> > how hopelessly subjective and error-prone such intuitive appraisals can
> > be.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> I've put above why I think Wagner actually adds to our evidence that the
> work in some way fits the man (it's actually a bit more ambiguous with
> music).
>
> I find MOV a very fascinating play and we can discuss it some time if you
> like. Shylock is treated ambiguously, but so is *every other character in
> the play.* That's why I was so surprised at what someone--I believe it was
> Bob Grumman--said about Portia on another thread. That she was a kind of
> goddess. I think Goddard, a Stratfordian writer, is possibly the best
source
> for MOV. By the way, neither merchant (Antonio or Shylock) comes off
> particularly well, and Shakespeare of Stratford was, you guessed it, a
money
> lender and a kind of merchant. If you doubt this, look at the primary
> sources that Wood has turned up.
>
> I've heard at least two Stratfordian experts in the last few weeks talk
> about the supposed "Anne Hathaway" pun in one of the sonnets. But they
> completely ignore, for example. "Ever the same...and every word doth
almost
> tell my name;" or the fact that Oxford was lame (thanks to Nelson, a
> Stratfordian, for discovering a letter of De Vere's that says this), and
the
> author of the sonnets says he's lame; or "I am that I am" which is present
> in both the sonnets and a letter of De Vere's, used with the same tone and
> of HIMSELF. To my knowledge, although other writers of the time used the
> phrase, they did not use it when referring to themselves, but when
referring
> to God. Only Oxford and Shakespeare had the arrogance to use something God
> said of himself with reference to themselves. Until Popeye and I came
along,
> of course. And what about "My name be buried where my body is and live no
> more to shame nor me nor you..."? This doesn't sound a bit like the
> Stratford man, who was in the ascendant.
>
> But there is much more in the sonnets and the plays that does not accord
> with Shakespeare of Stratford's life but accords with Oxford's. The writer
> of the plays does not seem fond of the kind of person Shakespeare of
> Stratford is. The writer of the sonnets keeps saying he is ruined at a
time
> when Oxford is ruined but Shakespeare of S is making a fortune. It is
these
> kinds of problems that have frustrated some Stratfordian experts to the
> point that they have resorted to saying that the sonnets are not about
> anything that accords with the life experience of the author. They simply
> cannot pin the emotions and messages within the verse to Shakespeare of
> Stratford and so suggest that the sonnets are a kind of literary
> construction.
>
> Thanks for your input, David. I'm sure it's a pleasant change for Lance to
> see a Stratfordian on this thread who doesn't insult and badmouth
> non-Stratfordians, but gives reasoned arguments to make his case.
Dave Webb is NOT a Stratfordian!
He is a self proclaimed "skeptic"
who just regularly insults & badmouths anti-Stratfordians.
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>> [Lynne] could learn from Art who parodies the
>>> Oxfordian stance with his hilarious absurdities and antics
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > I perchance hereafter shall think meet
> > To put an antic disposition on,
> > That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
> > With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
> > Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
> > As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
> > Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
> > Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
> > That you know aught of me: this not to do,
> > So grace and mercy at your most need help you, SWEAR.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> That's about as candid an admission that you're
> merely trolling as one could want, Art!
SWEAR #@%!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > <<"The Man Who Laughs is Victor Hugo's best novel. (Curiously
> > enough it was the one least understood by his contemporaries.)
> >
> > The Man Who Laughs: actor
> >
> > "Conrad Veidt"
> > "Antic, odd Ver"
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> But Art -- the INPNC score is a mere 3/11, or roughly 27%,
> a pathetic score. Besides, the solution is far from unique:
Well, considering that it is YOUR "brain child"!
> it could easily be
>
> "Add tin, O. C. -- Ver,"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tin Woodman of Oz by L. Frank Baum
Chapter Eighteen. The Tin Woodman Talks to Himself
The Tin Woodman had just noticed the CUPBOARDs and was curious to know
what they contained, so he went to one of them and opened the door.
There were shelves inside, and upon one of the shelves which was about
on a level with his tin chin the Emperor discovered a Head -- it looked
like a doll's head, only it was larger, and he soon saw it was the Head
of some person. It was facing the Tin Woodman and as the CUPBOARD door
swung back, the eyes of the Head slowly opened and looked at him. The
Tin Woodman was not at all surprised, for in the Land of Oz one runs
into magic at every turn.
"Dear me!" said the Tin Woodman, staring hard. "It seems as if I had
met you, somewhere, before. Good morning, sir!"
"You have the advantage of me," replied the Head. "I never saw you
before in my life."
"Still, your face is very familiar," persisted the Tin Woodman. "Pardon
me, but may I ask if you -- eh -- eh -- if you ever had a Body?"
"Yes, at one time," answered the Head, "but that is so long ago I can't
remember it. Did you think," with a pleasant smile, "that I was born
just as I am? That a Head would be created without a Body?"
"No, of course not," said the other.
"But how came you to lose your body?"
"Well, I can't recollect the details; you'll have to ask Ku-Klip about
it," returned the Head. "For, curious as it may seem to you, my memory
is not good since my separation from the rest of me. I still possess my
brains and my intellect is as good as ever, but my memory of some of the
events I formerly experienced is quite hazy."
"How long have you been in this CUPBOARD?" asked the Emperor.
"I don't know."
"Haven't you a name?"
"Oh, yes," said the Head; "I used to be called Nick Chopper,
when I was a woodman and cut down trees for a living."
"Good gracious!" cried the Tin Woodman in astonishment.
"If you are Nick Chopper's Head, then you are Me -
- or I'm You -- or -- or -- What relation are we, anyhow?"
"Don't ask me," replied the Head. "For my part, I'm not anxious to
claim relationship with any common, manufactured article, like you. You
may be all right in your class, but your class isn't my class. You're tin."
The poor Emperor felt so bewildered that for a time he could
only stare at his old Head in silence. Then he said:
"I must admit that I wasn't at all bad looking before I became tin.
You're almost handsome -- for meat. If your hair was combed,
you'd be quite attractive."
"How do you expect me to comb my hair without help?" demanded the Head,
indignantly. "I used to keep it smooth and neat, when I had arms, but
after I was removed from the rest of me, my hair got mussed, and old
Ku-Klip never has combed it for me."
"I'll speak to him about it," said the Tin Woodman. "Do you remember
loving a pretty Munchkin girl named Nimmie Amee?"
"No," answered the Head. "That is a foolish question. The heart in my
body -- when I had a body -- might have loved someone, for all I know,
but a head isn't made to love; it's made to think."
"Oh; do you think, then?"
"I used to think."
"You must have been shut up in this CUPBOARD for years and years. What
have you thought about, in all that time?"
"Nothing. That's another foolish question. A little reflection will
convince you that I have had nothing to think about, except the boards
on the inside of the CUPBOARD door, and it didn't take me long to think
of everything about those boards that could be thought of. Then, of
course, I quit thinking."
"And are you happy?"
"Happy? What's that?"
"Don't you know what happiness is?" inquired the Tin Woodman.
"I haven't the faintest idea whether it's round or square, or black or
white, or what it is. And, if you will pardon my lack of interest in it,
I will say that I don't care."
The Tin Woodman was much puzzled by these answers. His traveling
companions had grouped themselves at his back, and had fixed their eyes
on the Head and listened to the conversation with much interest, but
until now, they had not interrupted because they thought the Tin Woodman
had the best right to talk to his own head and renew acquaintance with
it.
But now the Tin Soldier remarked:
"I wonder if my old head happens to be in any of these CUPBOARDs," and
he proceeded to open all the CUPBOARD doors. But no other head was to be
found on any of the shelves.
"Oh, well; never mind," said Woot the Wanderer; "I can't imagine what
anyone wants of a cast-off head, anyhow."
"I can understand the Soldier's interest," asserted Polychrome, dancing
around the grimy workshop until her draperies formed a cloud around her
dainty form. "For sentimental reasons a man might like to see his old
head once more, just as one likes to revisit an old home."
"And then to kiss it good-bye," added the Scarecrow.
"I hope that tin thing won't try to kiss me good- bye!" exclaimed the
Tin Woodman's former head. "And I don't see what right you folks
have to disturb my peace and comfort, either."
"You belong to me," the Tin Woodman declared.
"I do not!"
"You and I are one."
"We've been parted," asserted the Head. "It would be unnatural for me
to have any interest in a man made of tin. Please close the door and
leave me alone."
"I did not think that my old Head could be so disagreeable," said the
Emperor. "I -- I'm quite ashamed of myself; meaning you."
"You ought to be glad that I've enough sense to know what my rights
are," retorted the Head. "In this CUPBOARD I am leading a simple life,
peaceful and dignified, and when a mob of people in whom I am not
interested disturb me, they are the disagreeable ones; not I."
With a sigh the Tin Woodman closed
and latched the CUPBOARD door and turned away.
"Well," said the Tin Soldier, "if my old head would have treated me as
coldly and in so unfriendly a manner as your old head has treated you,
friend Chopper, I'm glad I could not find it."
"Yes; I'm rather surprised at my head, myself," replied
the Tin Woodman, thoughtfully. "I thought I had
a more pleasant disposition when I was made of meat."
But just then old Ku-Klip the Tinsmith arrived, and he seemed surprised
to find so many visitors. Ku-Klip was a stout man and a short man. He
had his sleeves rolled above his elbows, showing muscular arms, and he
wore a leathern apron that covered all the front of him, and was so long
that Woot was surprised he didn't step on it and trip whenever he
walked. And Ku-Klip had a gray beard that was almost as long as his
apron, and his head was bald on top and his ears stuck out from his head
like two fans. Over his eyes, which were bright and twinkling, he wore
big spectacles. It was easy to see that the tinsmith was a kind hearted
man, as well as a merry and agreeable one. "Oh-ho!" he cried in a joyous
bass voice; "here are both my tin men come to visit me, and they and
their friends are welcome indeed. I'm very proud of you two characters,
I assure you, for you are so perfect that you are proof that I'm a good
workman. Sit down. Sit down, all of you -- if you can find anything to
sit on -- and tell me why you are here."
So they found seats and told him all of their adventures that they
thought he would like to know. Ku- Klip was glad to learn that Nick
Chopper, the Tin Woodman, was now Emperor of the Winkies
and a friend of Ozma of Oz, and the tinsmith was also interested
in the Scarecrow and Polychrome.
He turned the straw man around, examining him curiously, and patted him
on all sides, and then said:
"You are certainly wonderful, but I think you would be more durable and
steady on your legs if you were made of tin. Would you like me to --"
"No, indeed!" interrupted the Scarecrow hastily;
"I like myself better as I am."
But to Polychrome the tinsmith said:
"Nothing could improve you, my dear, for you are the most beautiful
maiden I have ever seen. It is pure happiness just to look at you."
"That is praise, indeed, from so skillful a workman," returned the
Rainbow's Daughter, laughing and dancing in and out the room.
"Then it must be this boy you wish me to help,"
said Ku-Klip, looking at Woot.
"No," said Woot, "we are not here to seek your skill,
but have merely come to you for information."
Then, between them, they related their search for Nimmie Amee, whom the
Tin Woodman explained he had resolved to marry, yet who had promised to
become the bride of the Tin Soldier before he unfortunately became
rusted. And when the story was told, they asked Ku-Klip
if he knew what had become of Nimmie Amee.
"Not exactly," replied the old man, "but I know that she wept bitterly
when the Tin Soldier did not come to marry her, as he had promised to
do. The old Witch was so provoked at the girl's tears that she beat
Nimmie Amee with her crooked stick and then hobbled away to gather some
magic herbs, with which she intended to transform the girl into an old
hag, so that no one would again love her or care to marry her. It was
while she was away on this errand that Dorothy's house fell on the
Wicked Witch, and she turned to dust and blew away. When I heard this
good news, I sent Nimmie Amee to find the Silver Shoes which the Witch
had worn, but Dorothy had taken them with her to the Emerald City."
"Yes, we know all about those Silver Shoes," said the Scarecrow.
"Well," continued Ku-Klip, "after that, Nimmie Amee decided to go away
from the forest and live with some people she was acquainted with who
had a house on Mount Munch. I have never seen the girl since."
"Do you know the name of the people on Mount Munch,
with whom she went to live?" asked the Tin Woodman.
"No, Nimmie Amee did not mention her friend's name, and I did not ask
her. She took with her all that she could carry of the goods that were
in the Witch's house, and she told me I could have the rest. But when I
went there I found nothing worth taking except some magic powders
that I did not know how to use, and a bottle of Magic Glue."
"What is Magic Glue?" asked Woot.
"It is a magic preparation with which to mend people when they cut
themselves. One time, long ago, I cut off one of my fingers by accident,
and I carried it to the Witch, who took down her bottle and glued it on
again for me. See!" showing them his finger, "it is as good as ever it
was. No one else that I ever heard of had this Magic Glue, and of course
when Nick Chopper cut himself to pieces with his enchanted axe and
Captain Fyter cut himself to pieces with his enchanted sword, the Witch
would not mend them, or allow me to glue them together, because she had
herself wickedly enchanted the axe and sword. Nothing remained but for
me to make them new parts out of tin; but, as you see, tin answered the
purpose very well, and I am sure their tin bodies are a great
improvement on their meat bodies." "Very true," said the Tin Soldier.
"I quite agree with you," said the Tin Woodman. "I happened to find my
old head in your CUPBOARD, a while ago, and certainly it is not as
desirable a head as the tin one I now wear."
"By the way," said the Tin Soldier,
"what ever became of my old head, Ku-Klip?"
"And of the different parts of our bodies?" added the Tin Woodman.
"Let me think a minute," replied Ku-Klip. "If I remember right, you two
boys used to bring me most of your parts, when they were cut off, and I
saved them in that barrel in the corner. You must not have brought me
all the parts, for when I made Chopfyt I had hard work finding enough
pieces to complete the job. I finally had to finish him with one arm."
"Who is Chopfyt?"inquired Woot.
"Oh, haven't I told you about Chopfyt?" exclaimed Ku- Klip. "Of course
not! And he's quite a curiosity, too. You'll be interested in hearing
about Chopfyt. This is how he happened:
"One day, after the Witch had been destroyed and Nimmie Amee had gone
to live with her friends on Mount Munch, I was looking around the shop
for something and came upon the bottle of Magic Glue which I had brought
from the old Witch's house. It occurred to me to piece together the odds
and ends of you two people, which of course were just as good as ever,
and see if I couldn't make a man out of them. If I succeeded, I would
have an assistant to help me with my work, and I thought it would be a
clever idea to put to some practical use the scraps of Nick Chopper and
Captain Fyter. There were two perfectly good heads in my CUPBOARD, and a
lot of feet and legs and parts of bodies in the barrel, so I set to work
to see what I could do.
"First, I pieced together a body, gluing it with the Witch's Magic
Glue, which worked perfectly. That was the hardest part of my job,
however, because the bodies didn't match up well and some parts were
missing. But by using a piece of Captain Fyter here and a piece of Nick
Chopper there, I finally got together a very decent body, with heart and
all the trimmings complete."
"Whose heart did you use in making asked the Tin Woodman anxiously.
the body?"
"I can't tell, for the parts had no tags on them and one heart looks
much like another. After the body was completed, I glued two fine legs
and feet onto it. One leg was Nick Chopper's and one was Captain Fyter's
and, finding one leg longer than the other, I trimmed it down to make
them match. I was much disappointed to find that I had but one arm.
There was an extra leg in the barrel, but I could find only one arm.
Having glued this onto the body, I was ready for the head, and I had
some difficulty in making up my mind which head to use. Finally I shut
my eyes and reached out my hand toward the CUPBOARD shelf, and the first
head I touched I glued upon my new man."
"It was mine!" declared the Tin Soldier, gloomily.
"No, it was mine," asserted Ku-Klip, "for I had given you another in
exchange for it -- the beautiful tin head you now wear. When the glue
had dried, my man was quite an interesting fellow. I named him Chopfyt,
using a part of Nick Chopper's name and a part of Captain Fyter's name,
because he was a mixture of both your cast-off parts. Chopfyt was
interesting, as I said, but he did not prove a very agreeable companion.
He complained bitterly because I had given him but one arm -- as if it
were my fault! -- and he grumbled because the suit of blue Munchkin
clothes, which I got for him from a neighbor, did not fit him
perfectly."
"Ah, that was because he was wearing my old head," remarked
the Tin Soldier. "I remember that head used to be very particular
about its clothes."
"As an assistant," the old tinsmith continued, "Chopfyt was not a
success. He was awkward with tools and was always hungry. He demanded
something to eat six or eight times a day, so I wondered if I had fitted
his insides properly. Indeed, Chopfyt ate so much that little food was
left for myself; so, when he proposed, one day, to go out into the world
and seek adventures, I was delighted to be rid of him. I even made him a
tin arm to take the place of the missing one, and that pleased him very
much, so that we parted good friends."
"What became of Chopfyt after that?" the Scarecrow inquired.
"I never heard. He started off toward the east, into the plains of the
Munchkin Country, and that was the last I ever saw of him."
"It seems to me," said the Tin Woodman reflectively, "that you did
wrong in making a man out of our cast-off parts. It is evident that
Chopfyt could, with justice, claim relationship with both of us."
"Don't worry about that," advised Ku-Klip cheerfully; "it is not likely
that you will ever meet the fellow. And, if you should meet him, he
doesn't know who he is made of, for I never told him the secret of his
manufacture. Indeed, you are the only ones who know of it,
and you may keep the secret to yourselves, if you wish to."
"Never mind Chopfyt," said the Scarecrow. "Our business now is to find
poor Nimmie Amee and let her choose her tin husband. To do that, it
seems, from the information Ku-Klip has given us, we must travel to
Mount Munch."
-------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> A better anagram of "Conrad Veidt," with an
> INPNC score of 5/11 or oVER 45%, is
>
> "Art C. N. voided."
Only voided in Florida & New York
Art N.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > Lynne's under a lot of misconceptions but perhaps the worst is that
since
> > > Terry can cook decent Chinese food that all Strats can be tamed &
civilized.
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> > Dim lighting and Terryaki sauce (not exactly an ancient secret).
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote
> I served Chinese, not Japanese, and the lighting was quite good, thank
> you, so that my wife and I could enjoy the delightful wines that our
> guests provided, and so that we could all read poems to each other if the
> need arose.
Terry got in troubbble!
Art Neuendorffer
>
> > Jeez, Greg, lay off will ya!
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> But, Art, Lynne isn't responsive to simple questions (that destroy
> Oxfordianism) and it is unnerving to watch her play the health card
> or the coy card or the skulk off card when I was honestly pursuing
> the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare card.
You really don't have to poke her so much!
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Lynne's under a lot of misconceptions but perhaps the worst is that
since
> > Terry can cook decent Chinese food that all Strats can be tamed &
civilized.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> Dim lighting and Terryaki sauce (not exactly an ancient secret).
Apparently THIS private encounter was a secret to Terry's wife.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > She doesn't appreciate the fact that you guys are nothing
> > but a bunch of hired goons.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> I am not a Stratfordian, nor an oxygenian, nor an earthian. I don't
> entertain nonarguments that purport nonsense. Lynne is rude
> and dismissive (to use her wording) of Shakespeare.
Not the REAL Shake-speare; just the illiterate Stratford boob.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > Lynne might as well be discussing authorship with Roy Horn's
> > tigers.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> "The description of the Horn book is correct, but
> cannot be linked to Shakespeare of Stratford in
> any definitive way." -Lynne Kositsky
>
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > Cut her some slack.
>
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> They'll be ready Thursday. What size?
"Prosaical rogue! next time I write,
I'll make both time & space PANT."'
Art Neuendorffer
Robert Stonehouse
<jbmi...@world.std.com> wrote:
...
>I might say, also, that once I read this passage shortly after having
>re-read the beginning of Euripides' _Bacchae_, and that makes any reference
>to a grown man in buskins sound like a joke. It might sound like aspersions
>on his manhood (Dionysus in his first speech describes his long hair and his
>effeminate appearance, which is important in the play), or it might sound
>like some pipsqueak challenging the mighty Zeus, or the old fools all
>dressing as Dionysus later in the play, etc. At best, if this is
>considered, the lines sound patronizing.
As a brief summary, this buskin v. sock business is from the Roman
theatre, not the Greek.
The generally accepted view these days is that the built-up tragic
costume, with high soles, lofty mask etc., belongs to the Roman
Empire, not to the time of Euripides. Perhaps it was hard for the
actors to compete without artificial aid, against the Roman type of
theatre building, with its high stage and very high back wall - 125
feet at Orange.
Greek tragedies often imply vigorous natural movement, which would be
difficult in the exaggerated costume of later days.
Pictures from Euripides' time do not support the built-up costume,
though it can be disputed exactly what the pictures mean to show. For
example, is this a picture of an actor acting a Maenad, or is it a
picture of a Maenad? Say the picture also includes a flute-player in
full theatrical dress, does that prove the picture shows an actor, or
did the painter not make that distinction?
The cothurnus was a feminine article of dress in Aristophanes' time.
In Lysistrata (line 657) the chorus-leader threatens to kick the
audience with hers if they give her any trouble. Makes it hard to
associate the cothurnus exclusively with tragedy at that date.
Oddly, the soccus is said to be a Greek kind of shoe (Lewis and
Short's Latin dictionary), but the word is not Greek (Liddell and
Scott's Greek dictionary - not there).
Art Neuendorffer
>
> > Actually, Janice, I've never thought about this before, but now I'm
> > wondering if the bit of L'Allegro by Milton that we've all been
> > discussing doesn't harken back, in some sense,
> > to this poem of Jonson's. Just a bit of whimsy on my part.
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote
> It may well be. Jonson says "when thy sockes were on";
> Milton says, "If Jonson's learned sock be on."
Actual Milton says, "If Jonsons learnàd Sock be on,"
----------------------------------------------
_Epithalamion_ by Edmund Spenser
YE learnàd sisters, which have oftentimes
Beene to me ayding, others to adorne,
Whom ye thought worthy of your gracefull rymes,
That even the greatest did not greatly scorne
To heare theyr names sung in your simple layes,
But joyàd in theyr praise;
And when ye list your owne mishaps to mourne,
Which death, or love, or fortunes wreck did rayse,
Your string could soone to sadder tenor turne,
And teach the woods and waters to lament
Your dolefull dreriment:
Now lay those sorrowfull complaints aside;
And, having all your heads with girlands crownd,
Helpe me mine owne loves prayses to resound;
Ne let the same of any be envide:
So Orpheus did for his owne bride!
So I unto my selfe alone will sing;
The woods shall to me answer, and my Eccho ring.
----------------------------------------------
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote
> Shakespeare, he of small Latin and less Greek,
>wore less learned socks than Jonson.
Soc-rates were greater then.
----------------------------------------
In Saffron robe, with Taper clear,
And pomp, and feast, and revelry,
With mask, and antique Pageantry,
Such sights as youthfull Poets dream
On Summer eeves by haunted stream.
Then to the well-trod stage anon,
If Jonsons learnàd Sock be on,
Or sweetest Shakespear fancies childe,
Warble his native Wood-notes wilde,
And ever against eating Cares,
Lap me in soft Lydian Aires,
Married to immortal verse
Such as the meeting soul may pierce
In notes, with many a winding bout
Of linckàd sweetnes long drawn out,
With wanton heed, and giddy cunning,
The melting voice through mazes running;
Untwisting all the chains that ty
The hidden soul of harmony.
--------------------------------------
Warble, v. i. 1. To be quaVERED or modulated; to be uttered melodiously.
Such strains ne'er warble in the linnet's throat. --Gay.
2. To sing in a trilling manner, or with many turns and variations. ``Birds
on the branches warbling.'' --Milton.
3. To sing with sudden changes from chest to head tones; to yodel.
--------------------------------------
Warble, v. t. [OE. werbelen, OF. werbler; of Teutonic origin; cf. G. wirbeln
to turn, to warble, D. wervelen, akin to E. whirl.] 1. To sing in a
trilling, quavering, or vibratory manner; to modulate with turns or
variations; to trill; as, certain birds are remarkable for warbling their
songs.
2. To utter musically; to modulate; to carol.
If she be right invoked in warbled song. --Milton.
Warbling sweet the nuptial lay. --Trumbull.
3. To cause to quaver or vibrate. ``And touch the warbled
string.'' --Milton.
--------------------------------------
Warble, n. A quavering modulation of the voice; a musical trill; a song.
And he, the wondrous child, Whose silver warble wild Outvalued every pulsing
sound. --Emerson.
--------------------------------------
Warble, n. [Cf. {WORMil}.] A small tumor produced by the larv[ae] of the
GADFLY in the backs of horses, cattle, etc.
--------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Liam Too
>
> Could you tell us something about yourself and your interest in chess and
Lynne,
I am just a simple chessplayer. In the 70s during the Bobby Fischer
era, the most brilliant and greatest chessplayer who ever lived in my
opinion, I took up chess. I didn't start playing in an organized
tournament though until the 90s and only started reading books, books,
and books then.
Will all the books at my disposal, bachelor's degree in a university,
and constantly training in chess, I'm sorry to tell you that I will
not be able to achieve what Bobby Fischer accomplished, for he is a
rare genius just like a few other people like Shakespeare.
I also have the complete works of Shakespeare and others in my
library. My interest in learning more about him came when on October
07, 2003; Neil posted a Shakespearean subject (his debate with David
Moore) in the chess newsgroup. I didn't get in the conversation until
October 22. Then in October 25, Phil Innes challenged me and others to
post here and the rest is history...
I live in Kansas City, USA, after globetrotting from the Philippines
and England (Europe).
I've read all about you as an award-winning writer, however, if you
have other secrets to tell, this is the place to say it all. :-)
All the best, Lance
LynnE
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
news:3FA4CB2D...@core.com...
I was an 8, but I've eaten too much Chinese lately, so perhaps a 10 would be
better.
Thanks,
Lynne
>
LynnE
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0311020811030.28183@mail...
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > Jeez, Greg, lay off will ya!
> >
> > But, Art, Lynne isn't responsive to simple questions (that destroy
> > Oxfordianism) and it is unnerving to watch her play the health card
> > or the coy card or the skulk off card when I was honestly pursuing
> > the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare card.
> >
> > > Lynne's under a lot of misconceptions but perhaps the worst is that
since
> > > Terry can cook decent Chinese food that all Strats can be tamed &
civilized.
> >
> > Dim lighting and Terryaki sauce (not exactly an ancient secret).
>
> I served Chinese, not Japanese, and the lighting was quite good, thank
> you, so that my wife and I could enjoy the delightful wines that our
> guests provided, and so that we could all read poems to each other if the
> need arose.
I don't believe we read a single poem, Terry, and that's bothering me now
because I've been thinking about what you once said about "the shepherd
caged in stone" by Sheppard, and wishing we had discussed it. Maybe next
time.
Best wishes,
Lynne
LynnE
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oaidnbbu7cT...@comcast.com...
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > Jeez, Greg, lay off will ya!
>
> "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
>
> > But, Art, Lynne isn't responsive to simple questions (that destroy
> > Oxfordianism) and it is unnerving to watch her play the health card
> > or the coy card or the skulk off card when I was honestly pursuing
> > the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare card.
>
> You really don't have to poke her so much!
I think I'd prefer not to be poked at all by Greg, Art. What a reputation I
seem to be acquiring around here!
And I don't believe I've ever skulked off, Greg. I've just said I won't
respond to you if all you offer is insults.
Best wishes,
Lynne