Signatures of literates before 1900

[Paul Crowley]

The British Postal Museum & Archive <http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/>

There's a nice collection of letters at:
http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/category/peoples-post/

This is an attractive and informative site in its own right.

However, my interest at the moment is in handwriting
and signatures before 1900. Every day new websites
come on line, or are extended, to show more and more
old and ancient manuscript.

But has any Strat yet found a _worse_ signature than
that of Gulielmus Shagsper, i.e. one written by someone
of the rank of gentleman or above, or by a person known
to be literate?


Paul.

[Tom Reedy]

http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres/ehoc/msimages2/gc30-51r.jpg

TR

[Paul Crowley]

> http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres/ehoc/msimages2/gc30-51r.jpg

The operative word is 'signature'. Early Modern writers often
scrawled the bulk of their text, when they were in a hurry, but
they invariably took care to present an elegant well-executed
signature.

Not that any part of your example text is worse than the
Stratman's signature.


Paul.

[sasheargold]

Been having a lend of the Tardis again, have we, Crowley? They could
manage it even when afflicted by arthritis or a stroke?

>
> Not that any part of your example text is worse than the
> Stratman's signature.

So they picked someone as a frontman who had, by sheer coincidence,
the worst signature of all time? Or was it by design - as part of the
joke they surveyed every piece of handwriting in England to identify
the most atrocious? But then, according to you, he couldn't put pen
to paper anyhow........confusing, innit?

However, there is evidence that the printers didn't always understand
what they were printing but some people would comprehend. Not you,
obviously.


SB.


>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Paul Crowley]

On 13/12/2011 11:57, sasheargold wrote:

>> The operative word is 'signature'. Early Modern writers often
>> scrawled the bulk of their text, when they were in a hurry, but
>> they invariably took care to present an elegant well-executed
>> signature.

> So they picked someone as a frontman who had, by sheer coincidence,
> the worst signature of all time?

Nope. You can get signatures as bad -- from those who
never learned to write, but pretend to write their signatures,
instead of recognising their limitations and making an
honest ' X '.


Paul.

[Peter Groves]

I'm all in favour of people who never learned to think (but pretend to
argue on usenet) recognising their limitations, and making an honest
admission of their obsessive idiocies, but (sadly) the first rather
precludes the second.

Peter G.

[book...@yahoo.com]

Found a site that discusses matters with a fresh angle at

http://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/to-be-or-not-to-be-shakespeare/why-not-william/the-authorship-question-2/how-he-spelled-his-name/six-signatures/

Stange anomalies about Shakespeare and literacy.

1. The Shakespeare signatures in the will (three) are each spelled
differently.

2. That a supposedly illiterate Susanne married a very literate and
published author, physician Dr. John Hall. How often do affluent
university men marry illiterate women?

3. If the grammar school in Stratford was available to him, and as
son of an alderman he attended for several years, how could he not
have learned reading and writing?

4. No one seems to have remarked on Stratman's illiteracy at the time.
Quite the opposite, including Robert Green who, in Groatsworth of Wit,
asks scholarly dramatists not to deal with him, because "he is as well
able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and, being an
absolute Johannes Factotum, is, in his own conceit, the only
Shakescene in the country."

5. Isn't it recorded that as a youth Stratman wrote derogatory poems
about Sir Thomas Lucy, who had him thrashed and jailed for poaching on
his land?

6. How did an actor like Stratman perform without reading and
learning the lines, or make changes to them without writing?

[ignoto]

On 14/12/11 1:40 PM, book...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:53:55 +0000, Paul Crowley
> <dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
>

>> The British Postal Museum& Archive<http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/>

>>
>> There's a nice collection of letters at:
>> http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/category/peoples-post/
>>
>> This is an attractive and informative site in its own right.
>>
>> However, my interest at the moment is in handwriting
>> and signatures before 1900. Every day new websites
>> come on line, or are extended, to show more and more
>> old and ancient manuscript.
>>
>> But has any Strat yet found a _worse_ signature than
>> that of Gulielmus Shagsper, i.e. one written by someone
>> of the rank of gentleman or above, or by a person known
>> to be literate?
>>
>>
>> Paul.
>
> Found a site that discusses matters with a fresh angle at
>
> http://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/to-be-or-not-to-be-shakespeare/why-not-william/the-authorship-question-2/how-he-spelled-his-name/six-signatures/
>
> Stange anomalies about Shakespeare and literacy.
>
> 1. The Shakespeare signatures in the will (three) are each spelled
> differently.

Uh, the conspirators made him learn to draw it in three different ways
so that people would *think* he could spell. Obviously!

Ign.

[hj]

On Dec 13, 9:40 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Stange anomalies about Shakespeare and literacy.

> 2.  That a supposedly illiterate Susanne married a very literate and
> published author, physician Dr. John Hall.  How often do affluent
> university men marry illiterate women?

==> Susanna Shakespeare Hall's "illiteracy" is only supposed, mainly
by people who for other reasons want to argue that her father was
illiterate. She definitely could write her name, where she used the
long form of 's' from the secretary hand.

==> No examples of a written signature exist for sister Judith
Shakespeare Quiney (or Quinney), and she is known to have signed
documents with what has been called a "pig tail" mark.

> 3.  If the grammar school in Stratford was available to him, and as
> son of an alderman he attended for several years, how could he not
> have learned reading and writing?

==> Along with this is the fact that Will's younger brother Gilbert
showed his ability to write by signing his name in an excellent
Italian hand. One would have to ask why the oldest son (almost always
the favored one) would have missed out on education.

> 4. No one seems to have remarked on Stratman's illiteracy at the time.
> Quite the opposite, including Robert Green who, in Groatsworth of Wit,
> asks scholarly dramatists not to deal with him, because "he is as well
> able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and, being an
> absolute Johannes Factotum, is, in his own conceit, the only
> Shakescene in the country."

==> Exactly! Though the sentence actually says he "supposes" to be
able to do that. Generally this is interpreted via the common meaning
of "supposes": "believes."

==> Though anti-Strats like to use a rare meaning of the word,
"pretends," to make a case that Will plagiarized others and only
"pretended" to bombast out that blank verse."
That is a tortured interpretation of Greene's full statement.

> 5.  Isn't it recorded that as a youth Stratman wrote derogatory poems
> about Sir Thomas Lucy, who had him thrashed and jailed for poaching on
> his land?

==> This legend comes up long after Will's death.

Hank

[John W Kennedy]

On 2011-12-14 02:40:31 +0000, book...@yahoo.com said:
> 3. If the grammar school in Stratford was available to him, and as
> son of an alderman he attended for several years, how could he not
> have learned reading and writing?

Actually, he couldn't have gotten /into/ the grammar school without
being able to read and write. An English "grammar school" is roughly
equivalent to a US "prep school".

--
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"

[book...@yahoo.com]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:56:11 -0500, John W Kennedy
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2011-12-14 02:40:31 +0000, book...@yahoo.com said:
>> 3. If the grammar school in Stratford was available to him, and as
>> son of an alderman he attended for several years, how could he not
>> have learned reading and writing?
>
>Actually, he couldn't have gotten /into/ the grammar school without
>being able to read and write. An English "grammar school" is roughly
>equivalent to a US "prep school".

http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-biography-childhood-and-education.htm

. . . Nicholas Rowe (first editor of Shakespeare's Works, after the
Folio editions, and his first biographer in 1709) reported that
"...the want of his assistance at Home, forc'd his Father to withdraw
him from thence" . (snip) We therefore make the assumption that
William Shakespeare at least attended King Edward IV Grammar School
and received an education in Stratford from the age of 7 in 1571 and
left school and formal education when he was fourteen in 1578.

(snip)

ELIZABETHAN EDUCATION AND CHILDHOOD AT THE PETTY SCHOOL
(snip) These Petty schools were usually run, for a small fee, by a
local, well educated housewife, the were also referred to as ' Dame
Schools '. At the ' Petty School ' or ' Dame School ' children's
education would consist of being taught to read and write English,
learn the catechism and also learn lessons in behaviour. (snip)

[hj]

On Dec 15, 3:03 am, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:

> ELIZABETHAN EDUCATION AND CHILDHOOD AT THE PETTY SCHOOL
> (snip)  These Petty schools were usually run, for a small fee, by a
> local, well educated housewife, the were also referred to as ' Dame
> Schools '. At the ' Petty School ' or ' Dame School ' children's
> education would consist of being taught to read and write English,
> learn the catechism and also learn lessons in behaviour.  (snip)

==> That account of the "petty schools" may be accurate (I'm not
expert on them), but the grammar schools were quite a different
matter. The Stratford grammar school was run by university-educated
men. Headmasters before, during, and after Shakespeare's student days
are known. (on a slightly different topic, at least three were
apparently Catholic sympathizers, a couple of them pretty important).
John Brownsword, headmaster when Shakespeare was four and a friend of
the Shakespeares, was a Latin poet and according to David Kathman was
by listed Francis Meres in /Palladis Tamia/ on the same page as
Shakespeare.

==> Shakespeare would have reading from the following in grammar
school: (copying and pasting here, so there may be overlap, etec.)
"Sententise Pueriles" "Lily's Grammar," Cato's "Maxims," "Pueriles
Confabulatiunculae," "Colloquies of Corderius", Aesop's Fables, the
Dialogues of Castelio, the Eclogues of Mantuanus, and the Colloquies
of Helvicus the "Elements of Rhetoric," Terence, "The Selected
Epistles of Cicero," Ovid's "De Tristibus," and "Metamorphoses," and
Buchanan's Psalms, Livy's Orations, Justin, Caesar, Florus, the
Colloquies of Erasmus, and Virgil, Horace, Juvenal, Persius, Lucan,
Plautus, Martial, Cicero's Orations, and Seneca's Tragedies.

Hank

[Karin Vermooten]

On Dec 14 2011, 3:40 am, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:53:55 +0000, Paul Crowley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> >The British Postal Museum & Archive <http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/>
>
> >There's a nice collection of letters at:
> >http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/category/peoples-post/
>
> >This is an attractive and informative site in its own right.
>
> >However, my interest at the moment is in handwriting
> >and signatures before 1900.  Every day new websites
> >come on line, or are extended, to show more and more
> >old and ancient manuscript.
>
> >But has any Strat yet found a _worse_ signature than
> >that of Gulielmus Shagsper, i.e. one written by someone
> >of the rank of gentleman or above, or by a person known
> >to be literate?
>
> >Paul.
>
> Found a site that discusses matters with a fresh angle at
>

> http://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/to-be-or-not-to-be-shakespe...

>
> Stange anomalies about Shakespeare and literacy.
>
> 1.  The Shakespeare signatures in the will (three) are each spelled
> differently.

Well, spelling was not standard, even Oxford didn't spell his name or
title the same during his life. And my signature is not the same each
time I sign something, even in bathes it is different... with some
letters larger than others or missing almost.
And the signatures were in a different script and pen than people
usually wrote in (imagine having to sign in calligraphy with a quill,
and no paper to practice on on a regular basis),

> 2.  That a supposedly illiterate Susanne married a very literate and
> published author, physician Dr. John Hall.  How often do affluent
> university men marry illiterate women?

In a time when women were not routinely send to school? A great many
Is suppose

> 3.  If the grammar school in Stratford was available to him, and as
> son of an alderman he attended for several years, how could he not
> have learned reading and writing?

He did, but for the anti-Strats that is a nail in the coffin of their
ideas, so they sweep that under the rug.
He had bad penmanship, so what.... it could also be that he suffered
from a sort of RSI from writing all he did in his life....

> 4. No one seems to have remarked on Stratman's illiteracy at the time.
> Quite the opposite, including Robert Green who, in Groatsworth of Wit,
> asks scholarly dramatists not to deal with him, because "he is as well
> able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and, being an
> absolute Johannes Factotum, is, in his own conceit, the only
> Shakescene in the country."

That sentence does not say anything of illiteracy, it mentions that
the writer was using others work and rewrote it (in a time before
copyright laws, when the adage "better to copy properly than to invent
poorly" was king

> 5.  Isn't it recorded that as a youth Stratman wrote derogatory poems
> about Sir Thomas Lucy, who had him thrashed and jailed for poaching on
> his land?

Not untill you can provide evidence for that will I believe it.....

> 6.  How did an actor like Stratman perform without reading and
> learning the lines, or make changes to them without writing?

He could read and write, he did read and write. He took plots from
others and made the plays/stories live...

[Peter Groves]

On Dec 14 2011, 1:40 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:53:55 +0000, Paul Crowley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> >The British Postal Museum & Archive <http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/>
>
> >There's a nice collection of letters at:
> >http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/category/peoples-post/
>
> >This is an attractive and informative site in its own right.
>
> >However, my interest at the moment is in handwriting
> >and signatures before 1900.  Every day new websites
> >come on line, or are extended, to show more and more
> >old and ancient manuscript.
>
> >But has any Strat yet found a _worse_ signature than
> >that of Gulielmus Shagsper, i.e. one written by someone
> >of the rank of gentleman or above, or by a person known
> >to be literate?
>
> >Paul.
>
> Found a site that discusses matters with a fresh angle at
>

> http://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/to-be-or-not-to-be-shakespe...

>
> Stange anomalies about Shakespeare and literacy.
>
> 1.  The Shakespeare signatures in the will (three) are each spelled
> differently.
>
> 2.  That a supposedly illiterate Susanne married a very literate and
> published author, physician Dr. John Hall.  How often do affluent
> university men marry illiterate women?
>
> 3.  If the grammar school in Stratford was available to him, and as
> son of an alderman he attended for several years, how could he not
> have learned reading and writing?
>
> 4. No one seems to have remarked on Stratman's illiteracy at the time.
> Quite the opposite, including Robert Green who, in Groatsworth of Wit,
> asks scholarly dramatists not to deal with him, because "he is as well
> able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and, being an
> absolute Johannes Factotum, is, in his own conceit, the only
> Shakescene in the country."
>
> 5.  Isn't it recorded that as a youth Stratman wrote derogatory poems
> about Sir Thomas Lucy, who had him thrashed and jailed for poaching on
> his land?
>
> 6.  How did an actor like Stratman perform without reading and
> learning the lines, or make changes to them without writing?

Ah, but you're forgetting that his illiteracy is essential, because it
makes him all the more plausible as a beard for an anonymous writer
(at least I *think* I got that right, but I have to admit I flunked
Crowleyism 101 -- I found quantum physics a more straightforward
alternative.

Peter G.

[Paul Crowley]

On 02/01/2012 21:58, Peter Groves wrote:

> Ah, but you're forgetting that his illiteracy is essential, because it
> makes him all the more plausible as a beard for an anonymous writer
> (at least I *think* I got that right, but I have to admit I flunked
> Crowleyism 101 -- I found quantum physics a more straightforward
> alternative.

You've got it wrong -- of course.

The Stratman's illiteracy was important (and
close to 'essential') because no one wanted
a remotely plausible candidate. Otherwise we
might be stuck with him to the end of time.

The cover-up involving the Stratman was
intended only to take in the quite uneducated
and the utterly foolish -- those who had not the
faintest grasp of Elizabethan literature, nor of
its fondness for punning, especially on names.

They formed the great bulk of Elizabethan and
Jacobean society, and would believe almost
anything they were told by their betters.

Little has changed since.

The more literate members of society around
1600 were strongly puritanical, often with anti-
clerical, anti-episcopal and anti-monarchical
attitudes. Had they known of the true authorship,
they would have understood it better (if failing
to grasp most of its meaning) but they would
have reviled the whole canon and its associated
literature, as well as castigating the monarchy
and the aristocracy for providing the context
in which, and for which, it was written.

(Don't worry -- you'll never be able to grasp any
of this. It's too complicated.)


Paul.

[Peter Groves]

On Jan 3, 10:14 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 02/01/2012 21:58, Peter Groves wrote:
>
> > Ah, but you're forgetting that his illiteracy is essential, because it
> > makes him all the more plausible as a beard for an anonymous writer
> > (at least I *think* I got that right, but I have to admit I flunked
> > Crowleyism 101 -- I found quantum physics a more straightforward
> > alternative.
>
> You've got it wrong -- of course.
>

.[desunt nonnulli]

>
> (Don't worry -- you'll never be able to grasp any
> of this.  It's too complicated.)
>

You're so right --- I should have taken a degree in Abnormal
Psychology. All I have to my name is a Cambridge Ph.D and four books,
whereas Crowley is widely recognised for his intellect and erudition,
by ... well, I'm sure there's an Irish peasant somewhere. My poor
brain is still puzzled, however, by the way in which a Joke
Conspiracy, meant to be seen though by all but turd-munching lowlifes,
managed to fool just about everybody (with the exception of
penetrating intellects like Art, Crowley, Streitz, Emmerich <et hoc
genus omne>) till now. As I said, I flunked Crowleyism 101.

Peter G.

[book...@yahoo.com]

You seem to be describing middle-class members who might have
unriddled the satire in the canon if they knew its true author. Must
be the dedications to VA and RL are another disdainful use of
Stratman, with Oxford and Wriothesley in on the joke. S's use of
ribald bawdy must have riled the Puritains, although this would be
explained if Oxford was a Catholic conspirator catering to lower class
appetites. bookburn

[Bob Grumman]

Paul's schizpiracy theory is intentionally so insane as to be almost
impossible to refute, because anyone trying to do that will be too
overwhelmed by its absurdities to know where to begin. I have figured
out one argument against it, though: if somebody has to be fooled into
believing Shakespeare The True Author in order to preserve the
government of England, why would anyone at the same time make it
impossible for anyone of average intelligence or more to believe in
that since there would HAVE to be people of average or better
intelligence around who opposed the government of England and would
reveal the hoax involved in order to topple that government. At the
very least, they would reject the illiterate front, and say so in some
document that we would have gotten or heard about.

--Bob

[book...@yahoo.com]

Could be the PC argument is cleverly duplicitous, in that the puzzle
requires a special sort of intelligence at once cynical and perverse,
which assumes lower classes would laugh at it, middle class would be
taken in by its sheer presumption, and only those with the right
initiation would catch on eventually. It's laughing at the ones who
laugh, laughing at those who don't catch on for reasons of
self-delusion, and self-satisfied grins between co-conspirators.

Now I bet Crowley is amused that, after dangling the truth before us
pseudo-intellects, we still don't get it. bookburn

[Paul Crowley]

On 03/01/2012 20:04, Bob Grumman wrote:

> Paul's schizpiracy theory is intentionally so insane
> as to be almost impossible to refute, because
> anyone trying to do that will be too overwhelmed by
> its absurdities to know where to begin.

You could show that a belief in the Stratford
man as author was reasonable. That would
be a good start. For example, you could
show that yeomen were often literate, or
that authors commonly grew up in illiterate
households, or that good writers (as well as
great ones) often had illiterate children, or
that actors who are also authors tend to be
reclusive, or that actor/playwrights can walk
the streets of London at the height of their
fame for 20 years without anyone noticing
. . . . and so on and on and on . . .

> I have figured out one argument against it, though:
> if somebody has to be fooled into believing
> Shakespeare The True Author in order to preserve
> the government of England, why would anyone at
> the same time make it impossible for anyone of
> average intelligence

What does 'average intelligence' have to do
with it? Most of them could not read; nearly
all those who could read were ready to believe
in almost anything. As you can see, Peter
Groves would have fitted in perfectly -- as he
does today.

> to believe in that since there would HAVE to be
> people of average or better intelligence around who
> opposed the government of England

"Intelligence" (whatever THAT is) had little to
do with it. The great bulk did not understand
Elizabethan literature, nor appreciate punning,
nor perceive it in the plays they rarely, if ever,
read and rarely, if ever, saw.

> and would reveal the hoax involved in order to
> topple that government.

How would they know? How would you know
whether or not the well-known author (i.e.
known only from his work) called "Joey Barton"
works under a pseudonym or not?

> At the very least, they would reject the illiterate
> front, and say so in some document that we would
> have gotten or heard about.

How would they know?


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Jan 3, 6:17 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 20:04, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > Paul's schizpiracy theory is intentionally so insane
> > as to be almost impossible to refute, because
> > anyone trying to do that will be too overwhelmed by
> > its absurdities to know where to begin.
>
> You could show that a belief in the Stratford
> man as author was reasonable.  That would
> be a good start.  For example, you could
> show that yeomen were often literate, or
> that authors commonly grew up in illiterate
> households, or that good writers (as well as
> great ones) often had illiterate children, or
> that actors who are also authors tend to be
> reclusive, or that actor/playwrights can walk
> the streets of London at the height of their
> fame for 20 years without anyone noticing
>  . . . . and so on and on and on . . .

Guess what, Paul? The subject is YOUR theory, not mine.

> > I have figured out one argument against it, though:
> > if somebody has to be fooled into believing
> > Shakespeare The True Author in order to preserve
> > the government of England, why would anyone at
> > the same time make it impossible for anyone of
> > average intelligence
>
> What does 'average intelligence' have to do
> with it?  Most of them could not read;  nearly
> all those who could read were ready to believe
> in almost anything.  As you can see, Peter
> Groves would have fitted in perfectly -- as he
> does today.

Do you have to be literate to be able to find the idea of an
illiterate's being a writer ridiculous?

> > to believe in that since there would HAVE to be
> > people of average or better intelligence around who
> > opposed the government of England
>
> "Intelligence" (whatever THAT is) had little to
> do with it.  The great bulk did not understand
> Elizabethan literature, nor appreciate punning,
> nor perceive it in the plays they rarely, if ever,
> read and rarely, if ever, saw.

Intelligence in this case would be the ability to recognize an
imposter.

> > and would reveal the hoax involved in order to
> > topple that government.
>
> How would they know?  How would you know
> whether or not the well-known author (i.e.
> known only from his work) called "Joey Barton"
> works under a pseudonym or not?

Okay, the hoaxsters pick a man who could not possibly have written the
Oeuvre, then somehow manage (with only a few persons involved) to
conceal him from anybody who would use the Truth against the
government. Meanwhile, certain people mention this unseen front in
print. All of them must be part of the conspiracy--all of them, that
is, that mention him as an actual man, as an actor, for instance. So
they don't say anything. But what about the people who would be able
to see that Polonius is Burghley, and hate the English government?
How is the hoax protected from them? Why wouldn't they try to find
out what was going on, and find the invisibility of the alleged author
strange? What would keep some of them from sneaking into Stratford
and getting by Greene and learning The Truth? To mention just one
insane element of your schizpiracy. Another involved ordinary
intelligent people who like plays and wonder about a man called
Shakespeare and said to be an actor in the King's Men but no one has
ever seen on stage. How would they know that it would be impolite to
say anything about it?

Another huge problem is that it would be so much easier just to hire
an genuine literate actor to pretend to be a front--and figure out a
way for the truth to come out later--ten years after the True Author
died should work for any sane hoaxster; but SOMEtime after he died.
You wouldn't leave up to shaky signatures and a funny engraving to do
the trick--you'd leave documents explaining everything, and signed by
reputable people. A simple method would be to leave ten Shakespeare
manuscripts penned and signed by the True Author with each of three
trusted hoaxsters who are young and will either live until the time
they can make the manuscripts public, or will have children who will
(and what's three such compared to the many Greenes your wacky theory
requires?)

> > At the very least, they would reject the illiterate
> > front, and say so in some document that we would
> > have gotten or heard about.
>
> How would they know?
>

By going to the man with the name. Or his daughter, after going to
the monument spoken of in the First Folio.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 04/01/2012 01:25, Bob Grumman wrote:

>>> Paul's schizpiracy theory is intentionally so insane
>>> as to be almost impossible to refute, because
>>> anyone trying to do that will be too overwhelmed by
>>> its absurdities to know where to begin.
>>
>> You could show that a belief in the Stratford
>> man as author was reasonable. That would
>> be a good start. For example, you could
>> show that yeomen were often literate, or
>> that authors commonly grew up in illiterate
>> households, or that good writers (as well as
>> great ones) often had illiterate children, or
>> that actors who are also authors tend to be
>> reclusive, or that actor/playwrights can walk
>> the streets of London at the height of their
>> fame for 20 years without anyone noticing
>> . . . . and so on and on and on . . .
>
> Guess what, Paul? The subject is YOUR theory, not mine.

Guess what, Bob? You asked (rhetorically?)
how my (insane) theory could be refuted.
I merely pointed out how.
[..]

>> "Intelligence" (whatever THAT is) had little to
>> do with it. The great bulk did not understand
>> Elizabethan literature, nor appreciate punning,
>> nor perceive it in the plays they rarely, if ever,
>> read and rarely, if ever, saw.
>
> Intelligence in this case would be the ability to recognize an
> imposter.

How does the use of a pseudonym make you
an imposter? How do you know whether or
not the well-known author, Joey Barton, is 'an
imposter' or not?

>> How would they know? How would you know
>> whether or not the well-known author (i.e.
>> known only from his work) called "Joey Barton"
>> works under a pseudonym or not?
>
> Okay, the hoaxsters pick a man who could not possibly
> have written the Oeuvre, then somehow manage (with
> only a few persons involved) to conceal him from anybody
> who would use the Truth against the government.

Not hard. They just tell him to keep his head
down, and make sure he does. Not that anyone
would ever believe he had anything to do with
works -- if he were to make the claim.

> Meanwhile, certain people mention this unseen front in
> print.

No one mentions this illiterate person. A fair
number remark upon the work of the poet,

> All of them must be part of the conspiracy--

So, if you say you like Joey Barton's latest
book, you are part of a conspiracy?

> all of them, that is, that mention him as an actual man,
> as an actor, for instance.

WHO mentions him as an actor? Write out
the full list.

> But what about the people who would be able to see that
> Polonius is Burghley,

You have to see the play performed. How many
recorded performances do you think there were?

OR you'd have to read the play -- with a clear
head and a lot of intelligence. Since you'd KNOW
that no one would have dared to criticise the
fairly-recently-dead much-respected counsellor
to the Great Queen Bess, you would not begin
to see this reading. Look at the difficulties so-
called 'intelligent' modern Strats (and most anti-
Strats, such as Marlites) have with the idea.
And they have seen numerous highly-skilled
performances and read the play many times,
in a context where there is effectively a whole
industry devoted to its interpretation.

> and hate the English government?
> How is the hoax protected from them? Why wouldn't
> they try to find out what was going on, and find the
> invisibility of the alleged author strange?

Take a look around you, and remember that then
there were next-to-no performances, and only a
few very expensive printed copies. Imagine a
David Webb or a Peter Groves in such a society.
They're as thick as two short planks in this one.
Then they'd have difficulty finding employment as
shit-shovellers in a stable.

> What would keep some of them from sneaking into
> Stratford and getting by Greene and learning The Truth?

Plain ordinary stupidity (vide Groves or Webb)
plus the time, trouble, expense, and willingness
to believe in something no one around them did
-- i.e. all quite unthinkable. They'd have to take
a couple of weeks off from their occupations as
shit-shovellers to get to Stratford and back. There
is no way that they could have afforded it.

> Another involved ordinary intelligent people who like plays
> and wonder about a man called Shakespeare and said to
> be an actor in the King's Men

Who ever said he was an actor in the King's Men?

> but no one has ever seen on stage. How would they
> know that it would be impolite to say anything about it?

One of your problems is that you imagine most
of the Stratfordian mythos is a reflection of true
historical fact.

> Another huge problem is that it would be so much easier
> just to hire an genuine literate actor to pretend to be a
> front

Crazy. Think of some modern actor (e.g. Tom Cruise
or Brad Pitt), and imagine him claiming to be a great
poet and playwright -- and being able to put on a
front in the presence of those who knew him well.

> --and figure out a way for the truth to come out later--
> ten years after the True Author died should work for any
> sane hoaxster; but SOMEtime after he died.

Ten years would not do. The threat was to the
monarchy and aristocracy, especially by those
of a Puritan disposition. Catholics were also a
problem. James would have squashed the whole
thing if it threatened his power and influence or
that of his sons and grandsons.

[..]

>> How would they know?
>>
> By going to the man with the name. Or his daughter,
> after going to the monument spoken of in the First Folio.

They'd go to Stratford (where the 2012 Olympics
are to be held) and ask to see the monument.
Having met puzzlement there, they might try
Stony-Stratford on Watling Street (another few
days of travelling). After failing there, they'd
likely have run out of time, money and energy.


Paul.

[Peter Groves]

On Jan 4, 11:41 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 04/01/2012 01:25, Bob Grumman wrote:
>

{...]

>
> > all of them, that is, that mention him as an actual man,
> > as an actor, for instance.
>
> WHO mentions him as an actor?  Write out
> the full list.

Poor old Crowley -- it must be the onset of senile dementia. How many
times must the old duffer have read such a list on HLAS (let alone in
easily-obtained reference books), yet however often he reads it he
just cannot retain the information.

Peter G.

[Bob Grumman]

> >>> Paul's schizpiracy theory is intentionally so insane
> >>> as to be almost impossible to refute, because
> >>> anyone trying to do that will be too overwhelmed by
> >>> its absurdities to know where to begin.
>
> >> You could show that a belief in the Stratford
> >> man as author was reasonable.  That would
> >> be a good start.  For example, you could
> >> show that yeomen were often literate, or
> >> that authors commonly grew up in illiterate
> >> households, or that good writers (as well as
> >> great ones) often had illiterate children, or
> >> that actors who are also authors tend to be
> >> reclusive, or that actor/playwrights can walk
> >> the streets of London at the height of their
> >> fame for 20 years without anyone noticing
> >>  . . . . and so on and on and on . . .
>
> > Guess what, Paul?  The subject is YOUR theory, not mine.
>
> Guess what, Bob?  You asked (rhetorically?)
> how my (insane) theory could be refuted.
> I merely pointed out how.

I said your theory was insane. You replied by showing how I could
show that MY theory was not insane. You did not show how your theory
was sane.

>
> >> "Intelligence" (whatever THAT is) had little to
> >> do with it.  The great bulk did not understand
> >> Elizabethan literature, nor appreciate punning,
> >> nor perceive it in the plays they rarely, if ever,
> >> read and rarely, if ever, saw.
>
> > Intelligence in this case would be the ability to recognize an
> > imposter.
>
> How does the use of a pseudonym make you
> an imposter?  How do you know whether or
> not the well-known author, Joey Barton, is 'an
> imposter' or not?

Evasion. By "imposter" I mean whatever Shakespeare the illiterate
was. Intelligence would be the ability to realize that he could not
have been the author he was said to have been on title pages and in
many other documents.

> >> How would they know?  How would you know
> >> whether or not the well-known author (i.e.
> >> known only from his work) called "Joey Barton"
> >> works under a pseudonym or not?
>
> > Okay, the hoaxsters pick a man who could not possibly
> > have written the Oeuvre, then somehow manage (with
> > only a few persons involved) to conceal him from anybody
> > who would use the Truth against the government.
>
> Not hard.  They just tell him to keep his head
> down, and make sure he does.  Not that anyone
> would ever believe he had anything to do with
> works -- if he were to make the claim.

Others DID make just that claim. My point, which you seem to be
avoiding, is that when they did make that claim, there would have to
have been anti-government people who would have heard it, realized it
were a lie, and revealed . . . The Truth.

> > Meanwhile, certain people mention this unseen front in
> > print.
>
> No one mentions this illiterate person.  A fair
> number remark upon the work of the poet,

They mention a man named Shakespeare, the man whose monument people
went to see within fifteen years of his death, and which was mention
in print seven years after his death. Names are meaningful, Paul.
And the deed to New Place indicates that Shakespeare was one of the
names the Stratford man was known as.

> > All of them must be part of the conspiracy--
>
> So, if you say you like Joey Barton's latest
> book, you are part of a conspiracy?

Irrelevant. I'm talking about people who stated in print that a man
named William Shakespeare was an author. They were either dupes or
conspirators. Certainly the ones who called him an actor were
conspirators, because, according to you, he was never on stage. You
make it hard to believe anyone could have been duped, since there WAS
a William Shakespeare whom people knew--from his millions of
appearances in court if for no other reason, and, according to you, he
was a drooling moron who wouldnot have been able to convince anyone he
was a writer.

Now, are you going to tell me the documents indicated he sued people
were forgeries, and he was not a money lender, after all?

> > all of them, that is, that mention him as an actual man,
> > as an actor, for instance.
>
> WHO mentions him as an actor?  Write out
> the full list.

I've done that several times, but here, from my book, it is again:

(1) A record of 15 March 1595 indicates that the Treasurer of the
Queen’s Chamber paid “William Kempe William Shakespeare & Richarde
Burbage servants to the Lord Chamberleyne” for performances at court
in Greenwich on 26 and 27 December (St. Stephen’s Day & Innocent’s
Day) of the previous year. This is not the strongest evidence that a
William Shakespeare was an actor, but puts him prominently with the
right organization at the right time to have been one—in the company
of two known actors.

(2) Next, we have an indenture that was drawn up 21 February 1599 for
the Southwark property on which the Globe playhouse was erected.
Though the land was owned by Sir Thomas Brend, his son Nicholas was
the agent in the transaction that resulted in seven of the Lord
Chamberlain’s Men’s becoming share-holders in the playhouse itself.
The indenture states that half of the shares were divided among
William Shakespeare, William Kempe, John Heminges, Augustine Phillips
and Thomas Pope, while the other half went to the brothers Richard and
Cuthbert Burbage. Only one share-holder was known not to be an actor,
Cuthbert Burbage, and there are extant records verifying his being a
theatrical entrepreneur of a kind none of the others was known to have
been. Ergo: a strong if not explicit record for a William
Shakespeare’s having been an actor.

(3) When Sir Thomas Brend died not long afterward, the post-mortem
inventory of his property made on 16 May 1599 included his Bankside
plot on which was “Una domo de novo edificata . . . in occupacione
Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum” (“a house [actually the Globe
Theatre] newly built . . . in the occupation of William Shakespeare
and others.”) Interesting that Shakespeare is the only one named on
this document as occupying the new home of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men—
which, if it doesn’t make him an actor, certainly makes him an
important theatrical personage.

(4) The first piece of direct evidence that a William Shakespeare was
an actor (rather than someone associated with a company of actors but
not necessarily an actor himself) is the record previously mentioned
from the heralds’ office (which exists only in a copy made before
1700). It consists of a sketch of the Shakespeare coat of arms with
the notation, “Shakespear ye Player/ by Garter,” the latter reference
being to the Garter King of Arms, William Dethick, who granted the
Shakespeares their coat of arms. At the time, Brooke was attacking
Dethick for awarding coats of arms to undeserving families—such as a
fishmonger’s and—in this case—one with an actor in it. Whatever we
make of this document, it does establish that the Herald, Ralph
Brooke, who was almost certainly responsible for the original (in 1601
or 1602), considered somebody named Shakespeare an actor. I will
return to this record in much greater detail in a later chapter, one
whose purpose is to show that the actor/poet William Shakespeare was
the William Shakespeare born in Stratford, which this record helps
confirm.

(5) The fifth piece of pertinent evidence is weaker: it is an entry of
circa 1602 in John Manningham’s diary. Manningham has heard that
during a performance of Richard III, “Shakespeare” had found out about
a female admirer of Richard Burbage whom Burbage had invited to meet
with him later; Shakespeare got there first and when Burbage showed
up, knocked at the door and had a servant announce him as “Richard
III,” Shakespeare sent back word that “William the Conquerer was
before Richard III.” This indicates that some William Shakespeare
was, in the public eye, intimately associated with Richard Burbage.

(6) Next is a Royal Warrant for a Patent and the Patent itself (19 May
1603) licensing the company of actors, “Laurence Fletcher, William
Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillipes, John Hemmings,
Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowly and the rest
of their associates” as the King’s Servants. Like most of the records
so far, this one does not prove that the Shakespeare named was an
actor (he could have been merely a prop man or something), but
strongly suggests it, particularly as (a) all the others on the list
were known to have been actors, and (b) he was listed in the second
spot on the list, which meant he was considered the second most
important person on it, such lists generally being hierarchical back
then. (The man first on the list, Lawrence Fletcher, had acted for
King James in Scotland, according to one record; apparently he joined
the troupe upon James’s ascension, and was given high status for being
a favorite of James’s.)

(7) Closely connected to the preceding record is the account of Sir
George Home, Master of the Great Wardrobe, listing the names of
“Players” who were given four yards of red cloth apiece for the
investiture of King James in London on 15 March 1604. Here a William
Shakespeare is named first among the same members of the company as
before—making the document the strongest explicit record stating that
a William Shakespeare was an actor.

(8) A little later, Augustine Phillips of the King’s Men died. In his
will, executed 5 May 1605, proved 16 May 1605, he bequeathed “to my
Fellowe William Shakespeare a thirty shillings peece in gould, To my
Fellowe Henry Condell one other thirty shillinge peece in gould . . .
To my Fellowe Lawrence Fletcher twenty shillings in gould, To my
Fellowe Robert Armyne twenty shillings in gould . . . .” All of those
besides Shakespeare whom Phillips characterizes as his “fellows” were
actors in the King’s Men.

(9) That same year John Davies of Hereford’s The Civil Warres of Death
and Fortune was published. Among its lines were the following:

Some followed her by acting all mens parts Stage Players
These on a Stage she rais’d (in scorne) to fall:
And made them Mirrors, by their acting Arts,
Wherin men saw their faults, though ne’r so small:
Yet soome she guerdond not, to their desarts; W.S. R.B.
But, othersome, were but ill-actioned all:
Who while they acted ill, ill staid behinde,
(By custome of their maners) in their minde.

So: a poem by Davies concerning an actor W.S. whom he associated with
an “R.B.” Later we’ll see that in another of Davies’s poems he refers
to a W.S. and an R.B. who act—this time mentioning W.S.’s poetry.
That a W.S. is mentioned but not a William Shakespeare makes this
inarguably a weak piece of evidence, by itself, that some William
Shakespeare was an actor, but it is evidence of that nonetheless.
However, the fact that Davies twice uses W.S. and R.S. together in
poems and, the second time he does so, makes it plain that Shakespeare
and Burbage are meant, makes this first W.S./R.B set almost certainly
a reference to Shakespeare and Burbage--as actors.

(10) A 1613 record (“Item, 31 Martii 1613 to Mr. Shakespeare in gold
about my Lord’s impresa xlivs. To Richard Burbage for painting and
making it, in gold xlivs.”) is further evidence that some William
Shakespeare was an actor, albeit only circumstantial since the
“Shakspeare” here not only is not identified as an actor but may have
been some other Shakespeare, such as John Shakespeare, the royal
bitmaker Charlotte Stopes turned up in her researches. But Burbage
and Shakespeare were associated together too many times for it to be
likely that here Burbage was for the first and apparently only time
associated with some other Shakespeare, who happened to be
constructing some kind of clever/arty picture/motto combination of
just the kind that Shakespeare the writer imaged so often in his plays
and that Burbage would have had the talent to paint. So I count the
association of the two fair evidence for a William Shakespeare’s
having been an actor.

Rob Zigler agrees. In an HLAS post to someone arguing the contrary,
he says, “To put it bluntly, the idea that the payee was not William
Shakespeare is ridiculous. The fee was exactly split between Richard
Burbage and Mr. Shakespeare, so we’re looking for people who are
likely to have been partners. I’m sure that you’ve noticed that
William Shakespeare appears in a number of documents as a partner with
Richard Burbage. I’m also fairly sure that you’ve also noticed that
John Shakespeare, the royal bitmaker doesn’t show up anywhere else
partnered with Richard Burbage. It’s been quite a while since I’ve
read what Stopes had to say, but my recollection is that John
Shakespeare makes pretty frequent appearances in the accounts of the
King and assorted nobles and I see that E.K. Chambers says that he
doesn’t start appearing in those accounts until 1617. . . . Here’s yet
another reason why Stopes idea doesn’t make any sense. Impresa
shields were small and made out of pasteboard, so why would the
construction process call for a man who made bits and spurs? What
could he have done that would have been worth the relatively grand sum
of 44 shillings?

“Actually, we know perfectly well what Mr. Shakespeare was being paid
for. The task of creating an impresa shield can be logically divided
into two parts; the design and the construction. The Rutland account
tells us that Richard Burbage made and painted the shield, so the
construction of the shield is entirely accounted for. That leaves
only the design. Needless to say, designing a tournament impresa is
something we know that poets sometimes did. (Jonson wrote an epigram
in which he complained that he had not yet been paid for ‘a gulling
imprese for you at tilt’.)

“If we knew nothing at all about Mr. Shakespeare outside of this
document, we’d assume that he was probably some sort of poet. . . .
Therefore, the Rutland document should count as part of a ‘personal
literary paper trail’ connecting Will Shakespeare to the profession of
writing,.”

(11) Ironically, the next piece of evidence was discovered by an anti-
Stratfordian researcher, Paul Altrocchi. It’s a Latin annotation in a
copy of the 1590 edition of Camden’s Remains: “et Guglielmo Shakespear
Roscio plane nostro.” Whoever wrote it was commenting on something
Camden wrote about how Stratford is known entirely because of John of
Stratford, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Hugh Clopton, the
magistrate of London, its two “foster sons,” as Camden termed then in
the Latin of his book. The aim of the annotation, which Alan Nelson
translates as “and to William Shakespeare, our very own Roscius,” is
clearly to credit Shakespeare with being a third eminent foster son of
Stratford, for the word for “foster sons“ (“alumnis”) in Camden is
underlined. Since Roscius was a famous Roman actor, the annotation is
direct testimony that Shakespeare was an actor. Nelson believes (but
isn’t positive) that the handwriting is that of the man who wrote his
name in the book as its owner, Richard Hunt, who was vicar of
Itchington from around 1620 until (probably) whenever he died; hence
the annotation probably dates from between 1620-1650. This is late
evidence but from a man born in 1596, give or take a year (according
to his college record), so was a contemporary of Shakespeare’s. It
thus should count as strong direct evidence for Shakespeare’s having
been an actor.

(12) Then there are the records of a 1615 suit by Heminges’s daughter
against her father which includes a William Shakespeare with other
members of her father’s company as a shareholder in both the
Blackfriars’ and Globe playhouses.

(13) Two further pieces of direct evidence for the existence of the
actor, William Shakespeare, are in the 1616 Folio of Ben Jonson’s
Works, which contains cast lists for his plays. The cast list for
Every Man in His Humor, performed in 1598, includes “Will Shakespeare,
Aug. Philips, Hen. Condel, Will. Slye, Will. Kempe, Ric. Burbadge,
Ioh. Hemings, Tho. Pope, Chr. Beeston, and Ioh. Duke.” Once again,
incidentally, Shakespeare is listed first among his fellows. The cast
list for Sejanus, performed in 1603, includes “Ric. Burbadge, Aug.
Philips, Will. Sly, Ioh. Lowin, Will. Shake-Speare, Ioh. Hemings, Hen.
Condel, and Alex. Cooke.”

(14) In 1623, a William Shakespeare was listed as an actor in the
First Folio collection of plays by “William Shakespeare.”

(15) Finally, there is the (direct) evidence of Cuthbert Burbage’s
answer in 1635 to a petition in which he declares that he and his
brother Richard purchased the lease of the Blackfriars theatre in
1608, in partnership with “men Players, which were Heminges, Condell,
Shakspeare, etc.” (Note the spelling of this Shakespeare, by the
way.) No question here but that this Shakespeare was an actor.

(16) Hardly worth adding except to be as complete as possible is the
fact that various records indicate that a William Shakespeare lived in
or near the theatre district for many years. This is the weakest of
corroborating evidence for his having been an actor—but still
corroborating evidence. It includes notes in the London municipal tax-
collectors’ records and the Langley Writ, which details a quarrel in
or around the theatre districts of London that Shakespeare got
entangled in. At least one of the others named in the writ was
involved in the theatre business, I might add.

> > But what about the people who would be able to see that
> > Polonius is Burghley,
>
> You have to see the play performed.  How many
> recorded performances do you think there were?

Your idea that every performance would have been recorded is insane.
We don't have records, as far as I know, of ANY play's being performed
more than a few times. The play has been famous as long as we have
responses on paper to it. It is absurd to believe an acting company
would not have performed it many times.

>
> OR you'd have to read the play -- with a clear
> head and a lot of intelligence.  Since you'd KNOW
> that no one would have dared to criticise the
> fairly-recently-dead much-respected counsellor
> to the Great Queen Bess, you would not begin
> to see this reading.

There would be morons just like you who'd see it, Paul, and some of
them would be hostile to the government, so would reveal it. If, on
the other hand, you had to be very intelligent to see from the printed
text that Polonius was a satire on Burghley, why couldn't the play be
performed without giving that away? Do you think it would be hard for
an actor to avoid making Polonius look bad--to show him just as the
printed text shows him?

> Look at the difficulties so-
> called 'intelligent' modern Strats (and most anti-
> Strats, such as Marlites) have with the idea.
> And they have seen numerous highly-skilled
> performances and read the play many times,
> in a context where there is effectively a whole
> industry devoted to its interpretation.

You are saying it was OBVIOUS that Polonius was Burghley. Now you're
saying it would not have been noticed even by intelligent people.

> > and hate the English government?
> > How is the hoax protected from them?  Why wouldn't
> > they try to find out what was going on, and find the
> > invisibility of the alleged author strange?
>
> Take a look around you, and remember that then
> there were next-to-no performances, and only a
> few very expensive printed copies.  Imagine a
> David Webb or a Peter Groves in such a society.
> They're as thick as two short planks in this one.
> Then they'd have difficulty finding employment as
> shit-shovellers in a stable.

The facts are against you. The quartos were not that expensive, and
you have no evidence that there were few performances of the
Shakespeare plays, and no reply to the fact that title-pages claimed
they were performed at the Globe or other theatres were lies.

> > What would keep some of them from sneaking into
> > Stratford and getting by Greene and learning The Truth?
>
> Plain ordinary stupidity (vide Groves or Webb)
> plus the time, trouble, expense, and willingness
> to believe in something no one around them did
> -- i.e. all quite unthinkable.  They'd have to take
> a couple of weeks off from their occupations as
> shit-shovellers to get to Stratford and back. There
> is no way that they could have afforded it.

Nonsense. Londoners went to Stratford for other reasons. Why would
they not look up Shakespeare on the side? Also, there were known
Catholic plotters in Stratford. How could they not known about
Shakespeare and figured out what was going on, and revealed in in one
or more of their pamphlets? Also, there were Stratfordians in
London. How would they never be asked about Shakespeare, and why
wouold no one make anything of their answers?

> > Another involved ordinary intelligent people who like plays
> > and wonder about a man called Shakespeare and said to
> > be an actor in the King's Men
>
> Who ever said he was an actor in the King's Men?

Who ever said Oxford was literate? Who wasn't lying to keep the
masses fromknowing such a high-ranking noble could be a moron?

> > but no one has ever seen on stage.  How would they
> > know that it would be impolite to say anything about it?
>
> One of your problems is that you imagine most
> of the Stratfordian mythos is a reflection of true
> historical fact.

No, I KNOW that most of the belief in Shakespeare is based on
documents not shown to have been invalid by experts in that kind of
thing. Your assertions that they are invalid, although confirmed by
you yourself, don't count with me.

> > Another huge problem is that it would be so much easier
> > just to hire an genuine literate actor to pretend to be a
> > front
>
> Crazy. Think of some modern actor (e.g. Tom Cruise
> or Brad Pitt), and imagine him claiming to be a great
> poet and playwright -- and being able to put on a
> front in the presence of those who knew him well.

Right. No actor could pull it off. Because the most air-headed
actors you can think of might not have been able to. I think Dustin
Hoffman would have had no trouble doing it. He could have studied
Oxford, or some other actual writer. All he'd had to do is be shy
about talking about his writing, but occasionally do something
writerlike the way all good actors get into character.

> > --and figure out a way for the truth to come out later--
> > ten years after the True Author died should work for any
> > sane hoaxster; but SOMEtime after he died.
>
> Ten years would not do. The threat was to the
> monarchy and aristocracy, especially by those
> of a Puritan disposition.  Catholics were also a
> problem.  James would have squashed the whole
> thing if it threatened his power and influence or
> that of his sons and grandsons.

So you say. But what you consider obvious allusions to the court of
Elizabeth would be soon forgotten.

> >> How would they know?
>
> > By going to the man with the name.  Or his daughter,
> > after going to the monument spoken of in the First Folio.
>
> They'd go to Stratford (where the 2012 Olympics
> are to be held) and ask to see the monument.
> Having met puzzlement there, they might try
> Stony-Stratford on Watling Street (another few
> days of travelling).  After failing there, they'd
> likely have run out of time, money and energy.
>

> Paul.- Hide quoted text -

Puzzlement? If they asked to see the monument to Shakespeare? You're
crazy. We have documentary evidence that people went to Stratford and
were taken to the monument by a curate (or something). The curate
even told stories about Shakespeare. And, remember, his NAME was on
it. And almost everyone in the town went weekly to the church the
monument was in.

--Bob

[TomFoster]

I'm sure he can retain it all right. It's just that he believes it's
all fakes, forgeries, jokes – part of the conspiracy.

Remember the conspiracy? It was necessary to hide the identity of the
true author because if people cottoned on to the real meaning of the
plays, they would bring down the government. At the same time, the
conspirators decided to use a stupid mud-shovelling illiterate as a
frontman, because it was such a hilarious joke.

I can't quite get my head around the idea of risking the downfall of
the state for a joke. Even a joke as comprehensively hilarious on so
many levels as that one. But then I am just a stupid Strat.

Tom

[sasheargold]

If it was an history of Loftus Road you may well think it was him
although you might suspect he'd had a bit of help off someone.

Should it be a book on say, quantum mechanics, most would get a bit
wary and probably do some investigation. But who knows? Perhaps Mr.
Barton has hidden talents.

As usual your example misfires, but I suppose you had some reason for
choosing him.


SB.

> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>

[Tom Reedy]

On Jan 4, 6:41 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> > Okay, the hoaxsters pick a man who could not possibly
> > have written the Oeuvre, then somehow manage (with
> > only a few persons involved) to conceal him from anybody
> > who would use the Truth against the government.
>
> Not hard.  They just tell him to keep his head
> down, and make sure he does.  Not that anyone
> would ever believe he had anything to do with
> works -- if he were to make the claim.

Apparently John Davies of Hereford believed it.

To Our English Terence, Mr Will. Shake-speare

Some say (good Will), which I, in sport, do sing,
Hadst thou not played some Kingly parts in sport,
Thou hadst been a companion for a King;
And been a King among the meaner sort.
Some others rail; but, rail as they think fit,
Thou hast no railing, but, a reigning Wit:
And honesty thou sowst, which they do reap;
So, to increase their stock which they do keep.

Yeah, it looks like he kept his head down, all right.

>
> > Meanwhile, certain people mention this unseen front in
> > print.
>
> No one mentions this illiterate person.  A fair
> number remark upon the work of the poet,

Apparently John Davies of Hereford mentioned him.

To Our English Terence, Mr Will. Shake-speare

Some say (good Will), which I, in sport, do sing,
Hadst thou not played some Kingly parts in sport,
Thou hadst been a companion for a King;
And been a King among the meaner sort.
Some others rail; but, rail as they think fit,
Thou hast no railing, but, a reigning Wit:
And honesty thou sowst, which they do reap;
So, to increase their stock which they do keep.

This seems to be to a person to me.

> > all of them, that is, that mention him as an actual man,
> > as an actor, for instance.
>
> WHO mentions him as an actor?  Write out
> the full list.

I'll start: John Davies of Hereford

To Our English Terence, Mr Will. Shake-speare

Some say (good Will), which I, in sport, do sing,
Hadst thou not played some Kingly parts in sport,
Thou hadst been a companion for a King;
And been a King among the meaner sort.
Some others rail; but, rail as they think fit,
Thou hast no railing, but, a reigning Wit:
And honesty thou sowst, which they do reap;
So, to increase their stock which they do keep.

<snip>

> > Another involved ordinary intelligent people who like plays
> > and wonder about a man called Shakespeare and said to
> > be an actor in the King's Men
>
> Who ever said he was an actor in the King's Men?

John Davies of Hereford

To Our English Terence, Mr Will. Shake-speare

Some say (good Will), which I, in sport, do sing,
Hadst thou not played some Kingly parts in sport,
Thou hadst been a companion for a King;
And been a King among the meaner sort.
Some others rail; but, rail as they think fit,
Thou hast no railing, but, a reigning Wit:
And honesty thou sowst, which they do reap;
So, to increase their stock which they do keep.

TR

[Bob Grumman]

Weird, I left out Shakespeare's will as evidence that Shakespeare was
an actor. I also mentioned only one of Davies's poems indicating he
was an actor.

--Bob

[Peter Groves]

On Jan 5, 11:53 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 6:41 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
>
> > > Okay, the hoaxsters pick a man who could not possibly
> > > have written the Oeuvre, then somehow manage (with
> > > only a few persons involved) to conceal him from anybody
> > > who would use the Truth against the government.
>
> > Not hard.  They just tell him to keep his head
> > down, and make sure he does.  Not that anyone
> > would ever believe he had anything to do with
> > works -- if he were to make the claim.
>
> Apparently John Davies of Hereford believed it.
>
> To Our English Terence, Mr Will. Shake-speare
>
> Some say (good Will), which I, in sport, do sing,
> Hadst thou not played some Kingly parts in sport,
> Thou hadst been a companion for a King;
> And been a King among the meaner sort.
> Some others rail; but, rail as they think fit,
> Thou hast no railing, but, a reigning Wit:
> And honesty thou sowst, which they do reap;
> So, to increase their stock which they do keep.
>
> Yeah, it looks like he kept his head down, all right.
>

Hoax! Conspiracy! Fraud! Nonsense! Flapdoodle!

(I thought I'd save Crowley the effort; the poor old chap appears to
be undergoing the onset of senile dementia, or -- more precisely --
what DSM-IV calls Poteen-Related Cognitive Disorder, and we mustn't
ask too much of him).

Peter G.

[book...@yahoo.com]

"Polly wants a cracker?" I'll contribute to this list without being
too repetitious by naming the greatest expert witness of all things
Shakespeare, who knew Shakespeare intimately for years, was a fellow
theatre businessman, the only Elizabethan playwright who was more
popular than Shakespeare and wrote as many successful plays, and was
the Poet Laureate of England at the time.

He not only wrote about Shakespeare in familiar terms, often
criticizing him as he did others like John Dunne, but reports actual
words Shakespeare uttered in a witty conversation about Julius Caesar,
also a play by Shakespeare. In listing his own plays he includes
Shakespeare among the performing actors. As an important part of the
dedication to Shakespeare's First Folio, he alludes to Shakespeare as
the author coming to London from Stratford upon Avon.

So he names Shakespeare, shares details of their conversations, and
helps collect his works under his name. He is the greatest expert on
Shakespeare of his time, and in using his name in the FF makes it a
legal document that must obtain in any court, except of course before
one or two doddling fuddy-duddies of the US Supreme Court. bookburn

[TomFoster]

Ah, but you're forgetting the two most important points:

1) All this happened *after* Shagsber's death, so it simply doesn't
count. And
2) Everything Jonson wrote was *ambiguous*, so, erm… it simply doesn't
count.

Tom

[Paul Crowley]

On 05/01/2012 01:18, Bob Grumman wrote:

>>>>> Paul's schizpiracy theory is intentionally so insane
>>>>> as to be almost impossible to refute, because
>>>>> anyone trying to do that will be too overwhelmed by
>>>>> its absurdities to know where to begin.
>>
>>>> You could show that a belief in the Stratford
>>>> man as author was reasonable. That would
>>>> be a good start. For example, you could
>>>> show that yeomen were often literate, or
>>>> that authors commonly grew up in illiterate
>>>> households, or that good writers (as well as
>>>> great ones) often had illiterate children, or
>>>> that actors who are also authors tend to be
>>>> reclusive, or that actor/playwrights can walk
>>>> the streets of London at the height of their
>>>> fame for 20 years without anyone noticing
>>>> . . . . and so on and on and on . . .
>>
>>> Guess what, Paul? The subject is YOUR theory, not mine.
>>
>> Guess what, Bob? You asked (rhetorically?)
>> how my (insane) theory could be refuted.
>> I merely pointed out how.
>
> I said your theory was insane. You replied by showing
> how I could show that MY theory was not insane. You
> did not show how your theory was sane.

When you have two competing theories, it helps
if you can show that the one you claiming to
defend is reasonably sane. If you can't do that
(and no Strat can) then you have lost your case
before you start saying anything about the
opposing theory.

>>>> "Intelligence" (whatever THAT is) had little to
>>>> do with it. The great bulk did not understand
>>>> Elizabethan literature, nor appreciate punning,
>>>> nor perceive it in the plays they rarely, if ever,
>>>> read and rarely, if ever, saw.
>>
>>> Intelligence in this case would be the ability to recognize an
>>> imposter.
>>
>> How does the use of a pseudonym make you
>> an imposter? How do you know whether or
>> not the well-known author, Joey Barton, is 'an
>> imposter' or not?
>
> Evasion.

Certainly not. Virtually all who saw or heard the
name "William Shakespeare" around 1600 and
for the next 10, 20, 100 and 400 years, did not
attach it to any recognisable living person.

> By "imposter" I mean whatever Shakespeare
> the illiterate was.

'Shake-speare' was the poet, in much the same
way as 'Mark Twain' or 'George Orwell' were the
novelists. In the latter cases, some of the better
informed knew that those names were
pseudonyms. In the first case, only the very
well-informed were aware that the name was a
pseudonym. The didn't know one way or the
other, and most of them did not care.

> Intelligence would be the ability to
> realize that he could not have been the author he was
> said to have been on title pages and in many other
> documents.

Sure -- but you are expecting the likes of Peter
Groves to possess intelligence. Worse than that,
you fail to recognise that he is just one sheep
among an enormous flock, and he can only
articulate his 'baa , ,s' in the same tone as all
the rest.

>> Not hard. They just tell him to keep his head
>> down, and make sure he does. Not that anyone
>> would ever believe he had anything to do with
>> works -- if he were to make the claim.
>
> Others DID make just that claim.

Nonsense. I agree that there were hints, and that
the sheep were mislead. But the shepherds were
always careful never to say anything clear or
explicit. They saw which way the foolish sheep
wanted to go, and merely opened a few gates to
allow them rush headlong through.

> My point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that when
> they did make that claim, there would have to have been
> anti-government people who would have heard it, realized
> it were a lie, and revealed . . . The Truth.

I doubt if there were any. Certainly there weren't
many. I've never been able to see Fulke Greville
as being happy with the cover-up. Yet he was a
loyal member of the Privy Council and dedicated
to serving his monarch, so he dutifully carried out
his instructions. But, even if he (or others in the
know) had wanted to wreck it, what were they
to do?

>>> All of them must be part of the conspiracy--
>>
>> So, if you say you like Joey Barton's latest
>> book, you are part of a conspiracy?
>
> Irrelevant. I'm talking about people who stated in print that
> a man named William Shakespeare was an author.

William Shake-speare WAS the author. But he
had little or nothing to do with the Stratford man.

> They were either dupes or conspirators.

Call them 'dupes' if you wish. Mostly they were
no different from those who talk about Mark
Twain or George Orwell -- not knowing, or not
thinking, about the identity of the true name of
the author.

> Certainly the ones who called him an actor were
> conspirators, because, according to you, he was never on
> stage.

That does not follow. Ralph Brooke, the herald
who disapproved of the grant of his coat-of-arms,
described him as 'a player'. But he does not
seem to have been a theatre-goer, and probably
knew no better -- merely repeating something he'd
been told.

> You make it hard to believe anyone could have
> been duped, since there WAS a William Shakespeare
> whom people knew--from his millions of appearances in
> court if for no other reason,

That's ridiculous. They were nearly all in the local
Stratford court, where no one would have known
anything of the plays.

> and, according to you, he was
> a drooling moron who wouldnot have been able to
> convince anyone he was a writer.

Sure. If a 'George Orwell' had lived next door to
you in 1949, would you have thought he was the
writer?

>> WHO mentions him as an actor? Write out
>> the full list.
>
> I've done that several times, but here, from my book, it is again:
>
> (1) A record of 15 March 1595 indicates that the Treasurer
> of the Queen's Chamber paid "William Kempe William
> Shakespeare & Richarde Burbage servants to the Lord
> Chamberleyne" for performances at court in Greenwich on
> 26 and 27 December (St. Stephen's Day & Innocent's
> Day) of the previous year. This is not the strongest
> evidence that a William Shakespeare was an actor, but
> puts him prominently with the right organization at the

> right time to have been one-in the company of two known
> actors.

IF this record is genuine (and I have no particular
reason to doubt it -- beyond the ever-present one
of being necessarily and thoroughly sceptical
whenever you see a bit of paper with that name
on it) -- IF this record is genuine, then it suggests
that the cover-up was beginning around that time.
The name was well-know once V&A was on the
streets, and some people were using, and abusing,
it for all manner of purposes -- in the same way as
'Mickey Mouse' since the 1930s, or as 'Kilroy was
here' from the 1940s.

> (2) Next, we have an indenture that was drawn up 21
> February 1599 for the Southwark property on which the
> Globe playhouse was erected. Though the land was
> owned by Sir Thomas Brend, his son Nicholas was the
> agent in the transaction that resulted in seven of the Lord
> Chamberlain's Men's becoming share-holders in the
> playhouse itself. The indenture states that half of the
> shares were divided among William Shakespeare, William
> Kempe, John Heminges, Augustine Phillips and Thomas
> Pope, while the other half went to the brothers Richard
> and Cuthbert Burbage. Only one share-holder was known
> not to be an actor, Cuthbert Burbage, and there are extant
> records verifying his being a theatrical entrepreneur of a
> kind none of the others was known to have been. Ergo: a
> strong if not explicit record for a William Shakespeare's
> having been an actor.

As before, I have no clear idea whether or not
this entry is genuine, and almost no interest in
investigating it further. The cover-up was under
way after the Stratman was paid -- enough for
him to buy New Place -- early in 1597. This
record (if genuine) may have been part of that.
The Stratman now had his coat-of-arms, and
was ready to act as a kind of stooge should
the need arise (obviously he'd have to be kept
away from personal contact with any enquirer).
If genuine, these kinds of records may have
been thought desirable in that context.

<Rest of tedious crap deleted>

> (16) Hardly worth adding except to be as complete as
> possible is the fact that various records indicate that a
> William Shakespeare lived in or near the theatre district
> for many years. This is the weakest of corroborating

> evidence for his having been an actor-but still

> corroborating evidence. It includes notes in the London

> municipal tax-collectors' records and the Langley Writ,

> which details a quarrel in or around the theatre districts of
> London that Shakespeare got entangled in. At least one
> of the others named in the writ was involved in the theatre
> business, I might add.

I'm sure that the taxman is doing his best to hunt
down the millions of dollars owed to him by
Mickey Mouse, as he left a trail of unpaid debts,
and invoices across numerous states for all
manner of work over the decades. Obviously
the idea that anyone could be so dishonest and
so unpatriotic would never have occurred to
those who wrote up the 'historical records'
concerning 'William Shake-speare'.

>>> But what about the people who would be able to see that
>>> Polonius is Burghley,
>>
>> You have to see the play performed. How many
>> recorded performances do you think there were?
>
> Your idea that every performance would have been
> recorded is insane.

Where do I mention 'every performance'?

> We don't have records, as far as I
> know, of ANY play's being performed more than a few
> times.

For nearly all of them we have no record of
any public performance.

> The play has been famous as long as we have
> responses on paper to it. It is absurd to believe an acting
> company would not have performed it many times.

Why is it absurd? Why would a largely illiterate
population want to see a Shake-speare play?
Especially given that most of the literates in it
are of a puritanical bent?

Your 'thinking' derives entirely from your Stratfordian
assumptions. If the plays were written for such an
audience (an hysterically amusing idea) then the
theatre company would perform the plays for it as
often as it could manage.

>> OR you'd have to read the play -- with a clear
>> head and a lot of intelligence. Since you'd KNOW
>> that no one would have dared to criticise the
>> fairly-recently-dead much-respected counsellor
>> to the Great Queen Bess, you would not begin
>> to see this reading.
>
> There would be morons just like you who'd see it, Paul,

I can't imagine why you say this. There was no
'Shakespeare Industry' at the time. The facilities
for studying the plays, and the detailed history
of Stratford-upon-Avon (or anywhere else) are a
million times better today than they were then --
unless you happened to be in one of the highly
privileged few who understood them and their
context.

> and some of them would be hostile to the government, so
> would reveal it. If, on the other hand, you had to be very
> intelligent to see from the printed text that Polonius was a
> satire on Burghley, why couldn't the play be performed
> without giving that away?

How could the play hide the fact that the character in
the play was the aged counsellor to the monarch?
And that he had a favourite daughter who was most
unhappy in her love life?

> Do you think it would be hard for an actor to avoid making
> Polonius look bad--to show him just as the printed text
> shows him?

The play could be re-written to be something else.

>> Look at the difficulties so-
>> called 'intelligent' modern Strats (and most anti-
>> Strats, such as Marlites) have with the idea.
>> And they have seen numerous highly-skilled
>> performances and read the play many times,
>> in a context where there is effectively a whole
>> industry devoted to its interpretation.
>
> You are saying it was OBVIOUS that Polonius was
> Burghley. Now you're saying it would not have been
> noticed even by intelligent people.

Note that I said "so-called 'intelligent' modern
Strats". Ask Groves if he thinks he is intelligent.
Then ask him if he thinks there's any connection
between Polonius and Burghley?

>> Take a look around you, and remember that then
>> there were next-to-no performances, and only a
>> few very expensive printed copies. Imagine a
>> David Webb or a Peter Groves in such a society.
>> They're as thick as two short planks in this one.
>> Then they'd have difficulty finding employment as
>> shit-shovellers in a stable.
>
> The facts are against you. The quartos were not that
> expensive,

Eh? The disposable income of the great bulk of
the population did not extend to buying printed
matter of any sort -- except, maybe, the very
occasional prayer-book or ballad sheet.

> and you have no evidence that there were few
> performances of the Shakespeare plays,

What would you accept as evidence that there
were few performances of the canonical plays?

> and no reply to the fact that title-pages claimed they were
> performed at the Globe or other theatres were lies.

The Globe is not often mentioned on title pages.
And I did not say that such mentions were lies --
more likely deliberately misleading statements.
What other plays of the day informed the public
that the play had been publicly performed?
Why do you think it was thought desirable to put
such a peculiar statement on the canonical plays ?

>> Plain ordinary stupidity (vide Groves or Webb)
>> plus the time, trouble, expense, and willingness
>> to believe in something no one around them did
>> -- i.e. all quite unthinkable. They'd have to take
>> a couple of weeks off from their occupations as
>> shit-shovellers to get to Stratford and back. There
>> is no way that they could have afforded it.
>
> Nonsense. Londoners went to Stratford for other reasons.

Such as?

> Why would they not look up Shakespeare on the side?

They did not realise he was there. Note the almost
complete absence of any record of anyone doing
so. Dr James Cooke -- a fairly local man -- who
acquired the medical records of Dr John Hall from
his widow -- the daughter of the Stratman, plain
'forgot' to mention that she was the daughter of the
great poet.

> Also, there were known Catholic plotters in Stratford.

A tiny number had connections with a country
house a few miles away.

> How could they not known about Shakespeare and figured
> out what was going on,

Likewise, they had no reason to believe that the
great poet had any connection with that rural dump.

> and revealed in in one or more of their pamphlets?

Did they produce pamphlets? I don't recall any.
Catholics were more secretive and operated by
personal contact and letter. They were not
popular with the newly-literate common herd in
London. Around 1600, Puritans put out a few
pamphlets but not, I think, Catholics.

> Also, there were Stratfordians in London. How would they
> never be asked about Shakespeare, and why wouold no
> one make anything of their answers?

No one, especially people from Stratford, had the
faintest idea that the poet had some connection
with Stratford.

>> Crazy. Think of some modern actor (e.g. Tom Cruise
>> or Brad Pitt), and imagine him claiming to be a great
>> poet and playwright -- and being able to put on a
>> front in the presence of those who knew him well.
>
> Right. No actor could pull it off. Because the most air-
> headed actors you can think of might not have been able
> to. I think Dustin Hoffman would have had no trouble doing
> it. He could have studied Oxford, or some other actual
> writer.

The difficulty in using someone who is not an air-head
(maybe someone like Stephen Fry) is that you could
well be stuck with him 'as author' to the end of time.
There would be questions about how he knew all that
he is seen (in the canon) to know, but if the basic
line is reasonably plausible, any slight doubts can
be glossed over. They HAD to use someone who
was ridiculously unfitting.

>>>> How would they know?
>>
>>> By going to the man with the name. Or his daughter,
>>> after going to the monument spoken of in the First Folio.
>>
>> They'd go to Stratford (where the 2012 Olympics
>> are to be held) and ask to see the monument.
>> Having met puzzlement there, they might try
>> Stony-Stratford on Watling Street (another few
>> days of travelling). After failing there, they'd
>> likely have run out of time, money and energy.
>

> Puzzlement? If they asked to see the monument to Shakespeare?

Maybe you don't realise, but the 2012 Olympics
will be held in Stratford, East LONDON. Ask any
Londoner (now or then) where 'Stratford' is, and
you'll be directed to the area of the Olympic site.

> You're crazy. We have documentary evidence that people
> went to Stratford and were taken to the monument

Who?

> And, remember, his NAME was on it.

His father's name was on it.

> And almost everyone in the town went weekly to the
> church the monument was in.

Small writing, high on the wall in a dark corner,
in Latin. Most of them were illiterate in any case,
and far from knowing Latin.


Paul.

[Paul Crowley]

On 05/01/2012 12:53, Tom Reedy wrote:

>>> Okay, the hoaxsters pick a man who could not possibly
>>> have written the Oeuvre, then somehow manage (with
>>> only a few persons involved) to conceal him from anybody
>>> who would use the Truth against the government.
>>
>> Not hard. They just tell him to keep his head
>> down, and make sure he does. Not that anyone
>> would ever believe he had anything to do with
>> works -- if he were to make the claim.
>
> Apparently John Davies of Hereford believed it.

Ree-dy, you just can't read. Can't you see the
hyphen? Or you don't think it makes a dif-ference?

> To Our English Terence, Mr Will. Shake-speare
>
> Some say (good Will), which I, in sport, do sing,
> Hadst thou not played some Kingly parts in sport,

So professional actors 'play Kingly parts in sport'?

Try telling that to Kenneth Brannagh, Keanu Reeves
Leonardo DiCaprio or any other luvvie. But stand
well back.

> Thou hadst been a companion for a King;

Yeah, the Stratman was a companion to a King.
That must be why he was so keen to boast about
his membership of the Royal Household to two
monarchs over three decades.

> And been a King among the meaner sort.

And the Stratman was a King among the meaner
sort? He WAS the meaner sort himself. And
his being a King in Stratford-upon-Avon didn't
actually allow him to invite 'his own company'
to play there. Nor was his 'stature' recognised
after he produced his great plays. His coat-of-
arms came close to the start of his 'career'. In
fact, since his father was alive, it was his to
claim. The Stratman got not one whit of public
recognition in his day. I guess the monarch and
his advisers could not spot the quality of his work,
even if they had personal copies of his work and
he was 'a companion for a King'.

> Some others rail; but, rail as they think fit,
> Thou hast no railing, but, a reigning Wit:
> And honesty thou sowst, which they do reap;
> So, to increase their stock which they do keep.

So others were somehow stealing the Stratman's
thunder? He's not able to write entertaining plays
any more, because the competition has got too
hot?

What theatre historian of the day has ever suggested
anything like that?

> Yeah, it looks like he kept his head down, all right.

That must be why we hear so much about him at
court, in the inns, and in the streets of London.
There's not one competent (i.e. honest) historian
of those times who does not express puzzlement
at the blank nature of "Shake-speare's'" record of
activity -- in public or in private.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Dec 12 2011, 4:53 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> The British Postal Museum & Archive <http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/>
>
> There's a nice collection of letters at:http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/category/peoples-post/
>
> This is an attractive and informative site in its own right.
>
> However, my interest at the moment is in handwriting
> and signatures before 1900.  Every day new websites
> come on line, or are extended, to show more and more
> old and ancient manuscript.
>
> But has any Strat yet found a _worse_ signature than
> that of Gulielmus Shagsper, i.e. one written by someone
> of the rank of gentleman or above, or by a person known
> to be literate?
>
> Paul.

I haven't yet found one better, have you?

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

> <Rest of tedious crap deleted>

Tedious, yes, but also EVIDENCE that Shakespeare was an actor
REGARDLESS of how poor you consider it.

It really is a shame that you will never write a book concerning the
non-crap you believe in. I'm sure it would last as long as there are
people who find insanity funny.

This really is choice:

"When you have two competing theories, it helps
if you can show that the one you claiming to
defend is reasonably sane. If you can't do that
(and no Strat can) then you have lost your case
before you start saying anything about the
opposing theory."

Again the suggestion that we are not defending a theory, only claiming
to. And the idea not that we can't defend it well, but that we can't
defend it, at all! Even if there were only a dozen people in the
world considered reasonably intelligent by everyone but you who have
tried to instead of hundreds. All according to just one person, the
supreme judge in all matters Shakespearean, Paul Crowley.

--Bob

[Tom Reedy]

And just remember, Bob: Crowley is not on the fringe of Oxfordian
thought; he's right there in the mainstream. See
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/chrono1.htm

TR

[David L. Webb]

In article
<0f133934-6d0c-45b0...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Thanks for posting this link, Tom; I was not aware of Mr. Crowley's
contribution. It's quite amusing -- I thought that the powers that be
at the Fellowship were striving to cultivate at least *some* semblance
of scholarly respectability and sanity, but perhaps they have just given
up the struggle and surrendered to their (numerically substantial)
lunatic fringe. What next?! Will they publish Art's contributions in
their "Virtual Classroom"?

> TR

[Bob Grumman]

On Jan 7, 1:57 pm, "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <0f133934-6d0c-45b0-bc8a-4de370fb1...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> > TR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Ha, since he's persona non grata at the Fellowship, they ought to
publish YOUR responses to Art, David.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

> TR- Hide quoted text -
>

Heck. I never made it into the Virtual Classroom.

I am amused to see that one of Fellowship threads at its "authorship"
forum is one I began:

Quote:
As most Oxfordians claim that the majority
of Shakespeare's plays had been written by
1598, what explanation would you give for Meres
including in his list, published that year,
only those with the lowest frequency of open
lines and feminine endings? --Peter Farey

When Paul Crowley claimed at HLAS that the above
question was on the public boards here at the
Fellowship for a while during which time no
Oxfordian had answered it, I came here to
see what was going on, assuming that at least
a few answers had been made, though I was sure
no good answer had been made. But Crowley was
right: no answer had been made. And the thread
concerning it had been withdrawn from public scrutiny.

So, is there no Oxfordian answer? Aside from the
plausible one I gave, which was ignored.

--Bob G.

And still no one has answered it.


--Bob

[David L. Webb]

In article
<e8c403d9-363d-40f5...@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

[...]

> > > And just remember, Bob: Crowley is not on the fringe of Oxfordian
> > > thought; he's right there in the mainstream. See
> > >http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/chrono1.htm

> >    Thanks for posting this link, Tom; I was not aware of Mr. Crowley's
> > contribution.  It's quite amusing -- I thought that the powers that be
> > at the Fellowship were striving to cultivate at least *some* semblance
> > of scholarly respectability and sanity, but perhaps they have just given
> > up the struggle and surrendered to their (numerically substantial)
> > lunatic fringe.  What next?!  Will they publish Art's contributions in
> > their "Virtual Classroom"?
> >
> >
> >
> > > TR

> Ha, since he's persona non grata at the Fellowship, they ought to
> publish YOUR responses to Art, David.

But how on earth did Art manage to make himself a pariah at the
Fellowship, where nutters are welcomed with open arms? You don't mean
to tell me that the Fellowship members actually *recognized* that Art is
a troll parodying Oxfordian insanity, do you, Bob? I thought that only
a few of us at h.l.a.s. had caught onto Art; there are very few at the
Fellowship whom I would have thought were perceptive enough to notice.

> --Bob

[Bob Grumman]

On Jan 7, 10:19 pm, "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu>
wrote:
> In article
> <e8c403d9-363d-40f5-ac8d-87c6244fe...@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

> > --Bob-

I think the sheer quantity of his word-games, and their length, and
the amount of off-topic matter he also posted, got him put in his own
forum. Later his criticisms of the Tudor Prince nuts did him in. I
believe he defended me, too, which didn't help him. Meanwhile,
someone calling himself Truepenny has been addledly pushing some grid
that can be used to reveal infinite numbers of "e ver." For weeks he
was just about the only one posting at the Fellowship, but then
Anonymous came along. Noe there's lots of babble about Roe's
breakthrough tome.

--Bob

[TomFoster]

I think he alleged some plagriarism on the part of Stritmatter and/or
Kositsky, then wouldn't apologise or retract when challenged by them.
Can't remember the details.

Tom

[neufer]

>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> But how on earth did Art manage to make himself a pariah at the
>>> Fellowship, where nutters are welcomed with open arms? You don't mean
>>> to tell me that the Fellowship members actually *recognized* that Art is
>>> a troll parodying Oxfordian insanity, do you, Bob? I thought that only
>>> a few of us at h.l.a.s. had caught onto Art; there are very few at the
>>> Fellowship whom I would have thought were perceptive enough to notice.

This is sort of like the Boston Globe endorsing Jon Huntsman.

> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>> I think the sheer quantity of his word-games, and their length, and
>> the amount of off-topic matter he also posted, got him put in his
>> own forum.

There was an understanding that I was allowed to post to "Art's
Corner" but not to the general/public Forums. That agreement seems to
have broken down around the time that Bob was banned.

I notice that they have let you login to post again, Bob.

How exactly did that come about?

(Are you still a dues paying member to the Fellowship and was that a
factor?)

> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>> Later his criticisms of the Tudor Prince nuts did him in.

I doubt that. PTers are a small (though vocal minority) and being a
small (though vocal minority) myself I am on good terms with a number
of them.

> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>>
>> I believe he defended me, too, which didn't help him.

Actually, I warned them from the beginning that they would live to
regret letting you join and/or post.

> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>>
>> Meanwhile, someone calling
>> himself Truepenny has been addledly pushing some grid
>> that can be used to reveal infinite numbers of "e ver." For weeks he
>> was just about the only one posting at the Fellowship, but then
>> Anonymous came along.

Truepenny (i.e., Richard Clement), unfortunately, seems to have given
up on True ciphers. However, my good friend 17DaneOx (i.e., Jim
Ferris) is still hanging in there fighting the good fight.

TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think he alleged some plagriarism on the part of Stritmatter and/or
> Kositsky, then wouldn't apologise or retract when challenged by them.
> Can't remember the details.

After attending last October's SOS/Fellowship meeting in Washington I
am more confused than ever about all the politics that going on behind
the scenes vs-a-vi myself. I much am less sure now about who, if
anybody, belongs on my Oxfordian friends or enemies lists. It is
definitely not a black/white situation.

Art Neuendorffer

[David L. Webb]

In article
<f903cce1-2f00-4485...@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

neufer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> But how on earth did Art manage to make himself a pariah at the
> >>> Fellowship, where nutters are welcomed with open arms? You don't mean
> >>> to tell me that the Fellowship members actually *recognized* that Art is
> >>> a troll parodying Oxfordian insanity, do you, Bob? I thought that only
> >>> a few of us at h.l.a.s. had caught onto Art; there are very few at the
> >>> Fellowship whom I would have thought were perceptive enough to notice.

> This is sort of like the Boston Globe endorsing Jon Huntsman.

Whom would *you* endorse, Art? Huntsman is the only quasi-sane one
in the whole freak show.

> > Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I think the sheer quantity of his word-games, and their length, and
> >> the amount of off-topic matter he also posted,

Is *anything* off-topic at the Fellowship?

> >> got him put in his
> >> own forum.

> There was an understanding that I was allowed to post to "Art's
> Corner" but not to the general/public Forums.

But why was such an "understanding" necessary in the first place,
Art? What had you done to secure your own "corner"?

> That agreement seems to
> have broken down around the time that Bob was banned.
>
> I notice that they have let you login to post again, Bob.
>
> How exactly did that come about?

Membership has its privileges, Art.

> (Are you still a dues paying member to the Fellowship and was that a
> factor?)

Membership in the Fellowship has nothing to do with it, Art; there
are organizations *much* more powerful than the Fellowship!

> > Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Later his criticisms of the Tudor Prince nuts did him in.

> I doubt that. PTers are a small (though vocal minority) and being a
> small (though vocal minority) myself I am on good terms with a number
> of them.

Which ones, Art? Mr. Streitz?

> > Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I believe he defended me, too, which didn't help him.

> Actually, I warned them from the beginning that they would live to
> regret letting you join and/or post.

> > Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, someone calling
> >> himself Truepenny has been addledly pushing some grid
> >> that can be used to reveal infinite numbers of "e ver." For weeks he
> >> was just about the only one posting at the Fellowship, but then
> >> Anonymous came along.

> Truepenny (i.e., Richard Clement), unfortunately, seems to have given
> up on True ciphers. However, my good friend 17DaneOx (i.e., Jim
> Ferris) is still hanging in there fighting the good fight.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl_r-TTObKc>

<http://tinyurl.com/85vbub4>

> TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think he alleged some plagriarism on the part of Stritmatter and/or
> > Kositsky, then wouldn't apologise or retract when challenged by them.
> > Can't remember the details.

Thanks, Tom; I remember in detail that dust-up in h.l.a.s., but I did
not realize that Art had pursued the same idiotic course -- criticizing
a paper that he had not even read -- in the Fellowship as well. (The
Grand Master graciously exempts me from the task of reading the nutcases
at the Fellowship; that Bob's job. I already have enough nutcases to
contend with here.)

> After attending last October's SOS/Fellowship meeting in Washington I

> am more confused than ever about all the politics that going on [sic]

Is English your native tongue, Art?

> behind
> the scenes vs-a-vi [sic]

Is English your native tongue, Art?

> myself. I much am [sic]

You much are? Is English your native tongue, Art?

> less sure now about who, if
> anybody, belongs on my Oxfordian friends or enemies lists.

PWDBard? Marty Hyatt? Kositsky/Stritmatter?

> It is
> definitely not a black/white situation.

Of course it isn't, Art; the Templar device is *red* on white, not
black on white. But you *know* that Goon Squad members are your
friends, don't you, Art? While some of the saner (such things are of
course relative) Oxfordians wouldn't be caught dead in a ditch with you
because you make those in the "movement" look like a bunch of demented
morons, "Stratfordians" *love* your contributions! At any rate, those
with a sense of humor do.

> Art Neuendorffer

[neufer]

>>>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>> But how on earth did Art manage to make himself a pariah at the
>>>>> Fellowship, where nutters are welcomed with open arms? You don't mean
>>>>> to tell me that the Fellowship members actually *recognized* that Art is
>>>>> a troll parodying Oxfordian insanity, do you, Bob? I thought that only
>>>>> a few of us at h.l.a.s. had caught onto Art; there are very few at the
>>>>> Fellowship whom I would have thought were perceptive enough to notice.

> neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is sort of like the Boston Globe endorsing Jon Huntsman.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Whom would *you* endorse, Art?
> Huntsman is the only quasi-sane one in the whole freak show.

I would be the happiest with Huntsman as the President.

I would be the most nervous with Huntsman as the Republican nominee
because he is the most likely to beat Obama.

HowEVER... the point was that a Boston Globe endorsement would not
indear Huntsman to the Republican party.

>>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I think the sheer quantity of his word-games, and their length,
>>>> and the amount of off-topic matter he also posted,

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Is *anything* off-topic at the Fellowship?

I was apparently.

>>>> got him put in his own forum.

> neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There was an understanding that I was allowed to post to "Art's
>> Corner" but not to the general/public Forums.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> But why was such an "understanding" necessary in the first place,
> Art? What had you done to secure your own "corner"?

Bob is correct about the sheer quantity of my word-games, and their
length.
Cipher mongers are a step below PTers in the eyes of orthodOX
Oxfordians.

I thought the S.O.S. might be more ammenable but they are less.

> neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That agreement seems to
>> have broken down around the time that Bob was banned.
>
>> I notice that they have let you login to post again, Bob.
>
>> How exactly did that come about?

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Membership has its privileges, Art.

> neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (Are you still a dues paying member to the Fellowship and was that a
>> factor?)

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Membership in the Fellowship has nothing to do with it, Art; there
> are organizations *much* more powerful than the Fellowship!

I'm not THAT paranoid, Dave.

>>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Later his criticisms of the Tudor Prince nuts did him in.

> neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I doubt that. PTers are a small (though vocal minority) and being
>> a small (though vocal minority) myself I am on good terms
>> with a number of them.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Which ones, Art? Mr. Streitz?

Streitz has Emmerich as a friend so he doesn't need me anymore,

(Hank Whittemore went out of his way to say Hello, however.)

>>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I believe he defended me, too, which didn't help him.

> neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I warned them from the beginning that
>> they would live to regret letting you join and/or post.

>>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Meanwhile, someone calling himself Truepenny
>>>> has been addledly pushing some grid that can
>>>> be used to reveal infinite numbers of "e ver." For weeks
>>>> he was just about the only one posting at the Fellowship,
>>>> but then Anonymous came along.

> neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Truepenny (i.e., Richard Clement), unfortunately, seems to have
>> given up on True ciphers. However, my good friend 17DaneOx (i.e.,
>> Jim Ferris) is still hanging in there fighting the good fight.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>

> <http://tinyurl.com/85vbub4>

At least they are not fighting dirty.

>> TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I think he alleged some plagriarism on the part of Stritmatter and/or
>>> Kositsky, then wouldn't apologise or retract when challenged by them.
>>> Can't remember the details.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Tom; I remember in detail that dust-up in h.l.a.s., but
> I did not realize that Art had pursued the same idiotic course -
> - criticizing a paper that he had not even read --

I had read the hype about the paper in that it made
all Looney's ideas about _The Tempest_ obsolete.

Looney's ideas about _The Tempest_ remain
perfectly valid so far as I am concerned.

> neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> After attending last October's SOS/Fellowship meeting in Washington

>> I am more confused than ever about all the politics going on
>> behind the scenes vs-a-vi [sic] myself.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Is English your native tongue, Art?

My spell checker did not like vis-à-vis and handed me this
alternative.
(I should have been more suspicious.)

> neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am much less sure now about who, if anybody,

>> belongs on my Oxfordian friends or enemies lists.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>

> PWDBard? Marty Hyatt? Kositsky/Stritmatter?

And a number of others.

> neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is definitely not a black/white situation.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Of course it isn't, Art;
> the Templar device is *red* on white, not black on white.

The beauséant is black & white or haven't you checked lately.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> But you *know* that Goon Squad members are your friends,
> don't you, Art?

As Jon Huntsman might say: "With friends like the Boston Globe..."

Which humor did you have in mind, Dave:
blood, yellow bile, black bile, or phlegm?

Art Neuendorffer

[David L. Webb]

In article
<dd8aac06-21ee-4b54...@m4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

neufer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

> >>>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> But how on earth did Art manage to make himself a pariah at the
> >>>>> Fellowship, where nutters are welcomed with open arms? You don't mean
> >>>>> to tell me that the Fellowship members actually *recognized* that Art is
> >>>>> a troll parodying Oxfordian insanity, do you, Bob? I thought that only
> >>>>> a few of us at h.l.a.s. had caught onto Art; there are very few at the
> >>>>> Fellowship whom I would have thought were perceptive enough to notice.

> > neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is sort of like the Boston Globe endorsing Jon Huntsman.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Whom would *you* endorse, Art?
> > Huntsman is the only quasi-sane one in the whole freak show.

> I would be the happiest with Huntsman as the President.

I'd be much happier with Obama, but Huntsman is the only sane
Republican (the old Romney was somewhat sane, but the new amnesic Romney
is not).

> I would be the most nervous with Huntsman as the Republican nominee
> because he is the most likely to beat Obama.

I'm not sure -- the nutcases might stay home if Huntsman were the
nominee. A significant portion of the so-called Christian right regards
Mormonism as a heretical cult. In any case, Huntsman's characterization
of himself as more spiritual than religious will make him anathema to
that crowd.

> HowEVER... the point was that a Boston Globe endorsement would not

> indear [sic] Huntsman to the Republican party.

Is English your native tongue, Art?

> >>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> I think the sheer quantity of his word-games, and their length,
> >>>> and the amount of off-topic matter he also posted,

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Is *anything* off-topic at the Fellowship?

> I was apparently.

How?! The entire Fellowship forum is off-topic if the subject is
Shakespeare.

> >>>> got him put in his own forum.

> > neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> There was an understanding that I was allowed to post to "Art's
> >> Corner" but not to the general/public Forums.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > But why was such an "understanding" necessary in the first place,
> > Art? What had you done to secure your own "corner"?

> Bob is correct about the sheer quantity of my word-games, and their
> length.
> Cipher mongers are a step below PTers in the eyes of orthodOX
> Oxfordians.

That's because the orthodoxforians are much saner than the
unorthodoxfordians (of course, such distinctions are very much relative).

> I thought the S.O.S. might be more ammenable [sic]

Is English your native tongue, Art?

> but they are less.

Of course, Art -- don't you remember Dave Kathman's characterization
of the Fellowship? I'll refresh your memory (such as it is):

"The Fellowship is the wack-job splinter group which broke off
from the Shakespeare-Oxford Society over a variety of issues,
but mainly the Prince Tudor 'theory' -- those in the Fellowship
(including Roger Stritmatter and, I believe, Dan Wright) are
sympathetic to the Prince Tudor idea and think it deserves to
be investigated more, while those remaining in the SOS think
it's idiocy which makes Oxfordians look bad. Believe it or not,
there are some Oxfordians with standards, such as they are.
Dan Wright's Edward de Vere Studies Conference, at which Brame
and Popova are speaking (and where I'm sure they'll be warmly
welcomed) is another element of the crazy wack-job branch of
Oxfordians. Diana Price and Pat Dooley are among the saner
branch, though readers of this newsgroup will recognize from
that description that such things are very much relative.

"This same schism -- between those supporting the Tudor Rose
idea and those opposing it, and more broadly between those
willing to swallow shit spewed by anybody who says Oxford
wrote Shakespeare, vs. those who make at least rudimentary
attempts at dismissing the absolute craziest stuff -- was
the same thing that tore apart the Oxfordian movement in
the 1950s, after the publication of the Ogburns' *This Star
of England*. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."

<http://tinyurl.com/7sb9733>

> > neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> That agreement seems to
> >> have broken down around the time that Bob was banned.
> >
> >> I notice that they have let you login to post again, Bob.
> >
> >> How exactly did that come about?

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Membership has its privileges, Art.

> > neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> (Are you still a dues paying member to the Fellowship and was that a
> >> factor?)

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Membership in the Fellowship has nothing to do with it, Art; there
> > are organizations *much* more powerful than the Fellowship!

> I'm not THAT paranoid, Dave.

Don't bet on it, Art.

> >>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Later his criticisms of the Tudor Prince nuts did him in.

> > neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I doubt that. PTers are a small (though vocal minority) and being
> >> a small (though vocal minority) myself I am on good terms
> >> with a number of them.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Which ones, Art? Mr. Streitz?

> Streitz has Emmerich as a friend so he doesn't need me anymore,
>
> (Hank Whittemore went out of his way to say Hello, however.)

Judging by his sonnets nonsense, I'm not surprised that he's friendly
to you, Art.

> >>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> I believe he defended me, too, which didn't help him.

> > neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, I warned them from the beginning that
> >> they would live to regret letting you join and/or post.

Perhaps I should join.

> >>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Meanwhile, someone calling himself Truepenny
> >>>> has been addledly pushing some grid that can
> >>>> be used to reveal infinite numbers of "e ver." For weeks
> >>>> he was just about the only one posting at the Fellowship,
> >>>> but then Anonymous came along.

> > neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Truepenny (i.e., Richard Clement), unfortunately, seems to have
> >> given up on True ciphers. However, my good friend 17DaneOx (i.e.,
> >> Jim Ferris) is still hanging in there fighting the good fight.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/85vbub4>

> At least they are not fighting dirty.

Who does that, Art?

> >> TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> I think he alleged some plagriarism on the part of Stritmatter and/or
> >>> Kositsky, then wouldn't apologise or retract when challenged by them.
> >>> Can't remember the details.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Tom; I remember in detail that dust-up in h.l.a.s., but
> > I did not realize that Art had pursued the same idiotic course -
> > - criticizing a paper that he had not even read --

> I had read the hype about the paper

...which, of course, is not the same thing as having read the paper...

> in that it made
> all Looney's ideas about _The Tempest_ obsolete.
>
> Looney's ideas about _The Tempest_ remain
> perfectly valid so far as I am concerned.

Of course, Art! To paraphrase Oxford's motto, nobody is loonier than
Looney -- except you, of course.

> > neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> After attending last October's SOS/Fellowship meeting in Washington
> >> I am more confused than ever about all the politics going on
> >> behind the scenes vs-a-vi [sic] myself.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Is English your native tongue, Art?
>
> My spell checker

You use a spellchecker, Art?!?!?!?!? Did you actually pay money for
it?! If so, you've been swindled badly!

> did not like vis-à-vis and handed me this
> alternative.

Did it also hand you "indear"? Are you sure that that's an *English*
spellchecker that you're using, Art?!

> (I should have been more suspicious.)

> > neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am much less sure now about who, if anybody,
> >> belongs on my Oxfordian friends or enemies lists.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > PWDBard? Marty Hyatt? Kositsky/Stritmatter?

> And a number of others.

Who else, Art?

> > neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It is definitely not a black/white situation.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Of course it isn't, Art;
> > the Templar device is *red* on white, not black on white.

> The beauséant is black & white or haven't you checked lately.

I'm referring to the device we wear when we go into battle, Art.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > But you *know* that Goon Squad members are your friends,
> > don't you, Art?

> As Jon Huntsman might say: "With friends like the Boston Globe..."

I doubt that Huntsman was displeased by the endorsement. The _Globe_
is saying, in effect, that Huntsman is the sanest of the bunch -- not
that that fact was not already glaringly obvious.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > While some of the saner (such things are of course relative)
> > Oxfordians wouldn't be caught dead in a ditch with you because
> > you make those in the "movement" look like a bunch of demented
> > morons, "Stratfordians" *love* your contributions!
> >
> > At any rate, those with a sense of humor do.

> Which humor did you have in mind, Dave:
> blood, yellow bile, black bile, or phlegm?

<http://tinyurl.com/7tbs2e9>

Get someone to read the dictionary definition of "sense of humor" to
you, Art.

> Art Neuendorffer

[Bob Grumman]

On Jan 8, 11:27 am, neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>  But how on earth did Art manage to make himself a pariah at the
> >>> Fellowship, where nutters are welcomed with open arms?  You don't mean
> >>> to tell me that the Fellowship members actually *recognized* that Art is
> >>> a troll parodying Oxfordian insanity, do you, Bob?  I thought that only
> >>> a few of us at h.l.a.s. had caught onto Art; there are very few at the
> >>> Fellowship whom I would have thought were perceptive enough to notice.
>
> This is sort of like the Boston Globe endorsing Jon Huntsman.
>
> >  Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> >> I think the sheer quantity of his word-games, and their length, and
> >> the amount of off-topic matter he also posted, got him put in his
> >> own forum.
>
> There was an understanding that I was allowed to post to "Art's
> Corner" but not to the general/public Forums. That agreement seems to
> have broken down around the time that Bob was banned.
>
> I notice that they have let you login to post again, Bob.

Nope. I can visit using a friend's computer but not post. The thread
now visible with me listed as its creator is from 2004. Some wack--
Ken, I think--felt the need to bring it back, no doubt intending to
show how bad I was. But I think it made me look good, especially as
now replied to the challenge I made concerning line-endings in the
plays Meres mention as opposed to plays considered later that Peter
Farey had brought up.

> How exactly did that come about?

It didn't.

> (Are you still a dues paying member to the Fellowship and was that a
> factor?)

My dues ran out, but they wouldn't even let me visit while they should
still have been in effect.

> >  Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> >> Later his criticisms of the Tudor Prince nuts did him in.
>
> I doubt that. PTers are a small (though vocal minority) and being a
> small (though vocal minority) myself I am on good terms with a number
> of them.

Maybe. My impression was that you insulted them almost as
unforgivably as I did. You did make some rather styrongly negative
statements about them and their theories.

> >  Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> >> I believe he defended me, too, which didn't help him.
>
> Actually, I warned them from the beginning that they would live to
> regret letting you join and/or post.

Right. But at the end you defended my right to "contribute to
discussions." "Contribute to discussions" at the Fellowship means
"Don't make anybody cry," though, which is something I can't do with
such tender-brained morons as most of the members of the Fellowship.

[Bob Grumman]

> > Anonymous came along.  Now there's lots of babble about Roe's

> > breakthrough tome.
>
> > --Bob
>
> I think he alleged some plagriarism on the part of Stritmatter and/or
> Kositsky, then wouldn't apologise or retract when challenged by them.
> Can't remember the details.
>

> Tom- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, something like that I, too, now recall.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

>    Is *anything* off-topic at the Fellowship?

I believe a substantial number of Fellowship member believe prolonged
absolute incoherence may be.

--Bob