More Werstine on Greg
Tom Reedy
interesting comparison that illustrates my comment. Compare what
Werstine says with what another scholar says about the exact same
article.
BEGIN WERSTINE QUOTE
The first support for Shakespeare as Hand D is paleographical - the
province of Thompson. His identification of the handwriting of Hand D
as identical to that in Shakespeare's authenticated signatures is too
specialised for analysis here. I can note only that by 1927,
Thompson's paleographical evidence had been exposed as grossly
overextended, and so Greg, who had, in 1923, kept silent about
Thompson's work and, for that matter, kept silent about the
identification of Hand D as Shakespeare, had to break his silence,
detail his differences with Thompson, and acknowledge that the
paleographical case was inconclusive ("Shakespeare's Hand Once More").
Yet, rather than abandon the effort to make Hand D Shakespeare, Greg
instead deployed a rhetoric of "cumulative evidence" that is
dangerously close to what he himself had ridiculed so sharply in 1903.
END WERSTINE QUOTE
Now here's what G. Harold Metz says of the exact same article (from
*Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More: essays on the play and its
Shakespeare interest* T.H. Howard Hill, editor, 14-15.)
BEGIN METZ QUOTE
Four years later Greg set forth a balanced and thoughtful survey of
the critical discussion to 1927 of the arguments for and against the
recognition of Hand D as Shakespeare's. He reviews all the evidence
and argument centring around Thompson's determination and finds that
the advocates for the negative have weakened a few of Thompson's
points, particularly in regard to specific letter formation, and that
some of his contentions are 'somewhat reduced in force, though by no
means disposed of' (p. 199). He doubts that 'the available data are
extensive enough to make complete proof possible' and concludes by
advancing 'the following propositions', the last 'of a somewhat
challenging nature':
1. The palaeographical case for the hands of S[hakespeare] and Hand D
being the same is stronger than any that can be made out for their
being different.
2. The hand of S is more nearly paralleled in D than in any other
dramatic document known to us.
3. Setting S aside, it can be shown that D was not written by any
dramatist of whose hand we have adequate knowledge.
4. On purely palaeographical grounds there is less reason to suppose
that all six signatures were written by the same hand than there is,
granting this identity, to suppose that the hand of the signatures
also wrote the addition to *More*.
END METZ QUOTE
See what I'm talking about? That's what I mean when I say Werstine is
taking on an antiStrafordian persona in this article. Anybody who has
read Diana Price's book knows she does this on every page, but she's
not as subtle about it.
BTW, since Dooley insists that adequate "CPLE" exists for most - wait
a minute, I believe he claims *all* - the first-tier Elizabethan
playwrights except for Shakespeare, surely he should be able to tell
us which one's handwriting matches the ill May Day scene, the highest
quality writing in the entire play.
TR
Roger Nyle Parisious
As I pointed out some months ago,the closest similarities to Hand D
yet found are in the handwriting of William Stanley, 6th Earl of
Derby.You can see a book load of them in "Shakespeare's
Identity;William Stanley,6th Earl of Derby" by Arthur Titherley, Dean
of Science at the University of Liverpool. As in the case of Thompson,
no second paleographer has come forward to back him up;the difference
is that the Thompson identification is one the most widely debated in
the twentieth century and the Titherley work, written only for
specialists, has probably not been read by ten specialists in the
world.This,nevertheless,remains the only evaluation of the More
materials ever made by a qualified scientist.
I ,as a layman ,can think of a number of reasons ,notably the final
loops on the "e's", to question whether this is Derby's hand despite
the obvious similarities. The point is, in answer to the question,
that the Derby match is the closest look-a-like yet found.So there
goes Greg's argument.
One last thought on the general question of handwriting.I do not
profess to be an expert on handwriting. I am,however, an expert on the
handwriting of W. B. Yeats in whose library I spent most of five years
as archivist.One day on a Dublin bookstall near the quays I found a
book "Bandits in a Landscape" bearing an unsigned inscription of
nearly two hundred words and some figures. Late Yeats had one of the
most unique handwritings in twentieth century literature.
He often wasn't able to read his own writing after ten or twelve
days."Bandits in a Landscape", a wonderful but unknown work, was a
favorite of WBY and no one else. This must be a presentation copy from
him. Only... the numerals were quite different from any thing by Yeats
I had ever seen. I took it home to Anne Yeats, the poet's daughter,
she instantaneously identified it as her father's writing. Then, after
five minutes, unprompted, she said ,"I think we had better check those
figures;I've never seen them before." And neither of us ever saw them
because their is nothing like them in the Yeats archives.
But somewhere in Ireland there may be much more literate material
by an unidentified man whose interests have certain affinities with
W.B.Yeats of the late thirties. Anne is gone now and I won't be here
forever. And sometime there could be a Yeats controversy that will
dwarf the More manuscript and it would be equally vain.
KQKnave
>yet found are in the handwriting of William Stanley, 6th Earl of
>Derby.You can see a book load of them in "Shakespeare's
>Identity;William Stanley,6th Earl of Derby" by Arthur Titherley, Dean
>of Science at the University of Liverpool.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
KQKnave
>profess to be an expert on handwriting. I am,however, an expert on the
>handwriting of W. B. Yeats in whose library I spent most of five years
>as archivist.One day on a Dublin bookstall near the quays I found a
>book "Bandits in a Landscape" bearing an unsigned inscription of
>nearly two hundred words and some figures. Late Yeats had one of the
>most unique handwritings in twentieth century literature.
>He often wasn't able to read his own writing after ten or twelve
>days."Bandits in a Landscape", a wonderful but unknown work, was a
>favorite of WBY and no one else. This must be a presentation copy from
>him. Only... the numerals were quite different from any thing by Yeats
>I had ever seen. I took it home to Anne Yeats, the poet's daughter,
>she instantaneously identified it as her father's writing. Then, after
>five minutes, unprompted, she said ,"I think we had better check those
>figures;I've never seen them before." And neither of us ever saw them
>because their is nothing like them in the Yeats archives.
>
You're a liar.
Tom Reedy
news:a3cc4070.02081...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
As in the case of Thompson,
> no second paleographer has come forward to back him up;the
difference
> is that the Thompson identification is one the most widely debated
in
> the twentieth century and the Titherley work, written only for
> specialists, has probably not been read by ten specialists in the
> world.This,nevertheless,remains the only evaluation of the More
> materials ever made by a qualified scientist.
<snip>
Giles Dawson was a pretty good palaeographer.
TR
Toby Petzold
> interesting comparison that illustrates my comment. Compare what
> Werstine says with what another scholar says about the exact same
> article.
>
> BEGIN WERSTINE QUOTE
>
> The first support for Shakespeare as Hand D is paleographical - the
> province of Thompson.
Province? Well, maybe a rotten borough.
I haven't read Greg's indian gift of "Shakespeare's Hand Once More,"
but it sounds like a full-on admission of insufficiency. Who cares
what this yutz Metz thinks about it? The "advocates for the negative"
have "weakened a few of Thompson's points"? What gibberish! If we add
together the number of "weakened points" and the "somewhat" less
forceful contentions, is there anything left of what Thompson wrote?
> He doubts that 'the available data are
> extensive enough to make complete proof possible' and concludes by
> advancing 'the following propositions', the last 'of a somewhat
> challenging nature':
>
> 1. The palaeographical case for the hands of S[hakespeare] and Hand D
> being the same is stronger than any that can be made out for their
> being different.
It's just incredible that any of this could be so easily accepted by
"real scholars." Why are the deficiencies of early Twentieth Century
scholarship being ignored? Because it serves modern partisanship's
purposes to do so.
> 2. The hand of S is more nearly paralleled in D than in any other
> dramatic document known to us.
The handwriting is paralleled? I'm not buying this for a second.
> 3. Setting S aside, it can be shown that D was not written by any
> dramatist of whose hand we have adequate knowledge.
Which, therefore, makes it an argument in Shakspere's favor? I mean,
what sort of idiocy IS this? I thought that the signatures (oh, and
the "by me") WERE an adequate sample of handwriting with which to make
these palaeographic comparisons. Why SHOULD we be "setting S aside"?
Is the existence of Shakspere's known autograph only relevant to the
determination of his being D on alternate days of the week?
> 4. On purely palaeographical grounds there is less reason to suppose
> that all six signatures were written by the same hand than there is,
> granting this identity, to suppose that the hand of the signatures
> also wrote the addition to *More*.
Crapola has crowned its masterpiece! If a Stratfordian can't even
depend on all six signatures being Shakspere's, then how can that
sample, in itself, be considered as a single (individual) comparitor
to any other hand? I just don't know why people take these old
scholars seriously on issues where they are clearly in the throes of
madness and/or stupidity.
> END METZ QUOTE
>
> See what I'm talking about? That's what I mean when I say Werstine is
> taking on an antiStrafordian persona in this article. Anybody who has
> read Diana Price's book knows she does this on every page, but she's
> not as subtle about it.
You've just quoted us some of the most retarded [reasoning] in the
history of the species --and you want to fire a shot across PRICE's
bow? Get the hell outta here! Ha, ha!
> BTW, since Dooley insists that adequate "CPLE" exists for most - wait
> a minute, I believe he claims *all* - the first-tier Elizabethan
> playwrights except for Shakespeare, surely he should be able to tell
> us which one's handwriting matches the ill May Day scene, the highest
> quality writing in the entire play.
You're relying on the process of elimination, I see. You've been
suckered into it, Tom. You actually bought Greg's nonsense. For shame!
Toby Petzold
American
Tom Reedy
news:2dbd058e.02081...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<Hk%59.1501$wF2.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > In an earlier post I said that Werstine uses loaded diction.
Here's an
> > interesting comparison that illustrates my comment. Compare what
> > Werstine says with what another scholar says about the exact same
> > article.
> >
> > BEGIN WERSTINE QUOTE
> >
> > The first support for Shakespeare as Hand D is paleographical -
the
> > province of Thompson.
>
> Province? Well, maybe a rotten borough.
You're kidding, right? Obviously you don't know anything about Sir E.
Now there's an argument!
> The "advocates for the negative"
> have "weakened a few of Thompson's points"? What gibberish!
Oh, I am wounded! How can Metz stand against such insightful argument!
If we add
> together the number of "weakened points" and the "somewhat" less
> forceful contentions, is there anything left of what Thompson wrote?
>
> > He doubts that 'the available data are
> > extensive enough to make complete proof possible' and concludes by
> > advancing 'the following propositions', the last 'of a somewhat
> > challenging nature':
> >
> > 1. The palaeographical case for the hands of S[hakespeare] and
Hand D
> > being the same is stronger than any that can be made out for their
> > being different.
>
> It's just incredible that any of this could be so easily accepted by
> "real scholars."
You bring up a good point, which is that there *are* "real scholars."
One identifying characteristic is that they know something about what
they talk about. With all your popping off, it's obvious that you're
not one of them.
> Why are the deficiencies of early Twentieth Century
> scholarship being ignored? Because it serves modern partisanship's
> purposes to do so.
>
> > 2. The hand of S is more nearly paralleled in D than in any other
> > dramatic document known to us.
>
> The handwriting is paralleled? I'm not buying this for a second.
I have never expected evidence to persuade you of anything. It never
has yet, so why shuld you change?
> > 3. Setting S aside, it can be shown that D was not written by any
> > dramatist of whose hand we have adequate knowledge.
>
> Which, therefore, makes it an argument in Shakspere's favor? I mean,
> what sort of idiocy IS this? I thought that the signatures (oh, and
> the "by me") WERE an adequate sample of handwriting with which to
make
> these palaeographic comparisons. Why SHOULD we be "setting S aside"?
> Is the existence of Shakspere's known autograph only relevant to the
> determination of his being D on alternate days of the week?
What a fucking moron. Are you sure you're not related to Richard
Kennedy or John Baker? Maybe Roger Nyle Parisious is your grandfather?
TR
Roger Nyle Parisious
Yes, I use his book on Elizabethan handwriting, one of the better
introductions for students wishing to work with original Elizabethan
documents.I likewise have a couple of very kind letters from him in
the late fifties.
Unfortunately Dawson reacted to the authorship question as Mr. Dick
reacted to the question of King Charles's head or as "Thomas More"
groupies like yourself and K.Q.Knave have repeatly reacted to specific
criticisms on this site. His hotheaded mouthings had cost the Folger
in court in an earlier Oxfordian lawsuit and it is understandable the
Strats did not choose to use his expertise in the late eighties
confrontation, though he was available and,I am sure, chomping at the
bit to go after the infidels.The simple fact is that the only two
qualified experts whoever examined the documents absolutely apart from
literary partisanship found not only that the handwriting was not that
of Shakspere(on the highly dubious assumption most of those six
signatures are really his) but the Strats (Thompson included) showed
no understanding of forensic methodology.
The simple fact is that after a hundred and thirty years of trying
you haven't yet produced even one credible expert to support your
case.Take a break.
RNP
>
> TR
Roger Nyle Parisious
> > One last thought on the general question of handwriting.I do not
> >profess to be an expert on handwriting. I am,however, an expert on the
> >handwriting of W. B. Yeats in whose library I spent most of five years
> >as archivist.One day on a Dublin bookstall near the quays I found a
> >book "Bandits in a Landscape" bearing an unsigned inscription of
> >nearly two hundred words and some figures. Late Yeats had one of the
> >most unique handwritings in twentieth century literature.
> >He often wasn't able to read his own writing after ten or twelve
> >days."Bandits in a Landscape", a wonderful but unknown work, was a
> >favorite of WBY and no one else. This must be a presentation copy from
> >him. Only... the numerals were quite different from any thing by Yeats
> >I had ever seen. I took it home to Anne Yeats, the poet's daughter,
> >she instantaneously identified it as her father's writing. Then, after
> >five minutes, unprompted, she said ,"I think we had better check those
> >figures;I've never seen them before." And neither of us ever saw them
> >because their is nothing like them in the Yeats archives.
> >
>
> You're a liar.
Back to your lair,viper!
KQKnave
rpari...@yahoo.com (Roger Nyle Parisious) writes:
>
> The simple fact is that after a hundred and thirty years of trying
>you haven't yet produced even one credible expert to support your
>case.Take a break.
What case? Please prove that Hand D is not in the hand of Shakespeare.
If you can't, then stop spouting off about it. Many experts over the years
have produced convincing arguments that Hand D is Shakespeare's, many
of them in the 1989 book edited by Howard Hill. The issue of paleography
is just a straw man that you set up to knock down, pretending that it's the
main issue.
Pat Dooley
I'd say the four points are slanted in favor of the proposition that
Hand D is Shakespeare's and ignore more likely options.
The four points Metz gives ignore the central paleographic
problem: the six inconsistent Shakespeare signatures are
an inadequate control sample.
Points 2 and 3 ignore more plausible options, given below.
> BTW, since Dooley insists that adequate "CPLE" exists for most -
wait
> a minute, I believe he claims *all* - the first-tier Elizabethan
> playwrights except for Shakespeare, surely he should be able to tell
> us which one's handwriting matches the ill May Day scene, the
highest
> quality writing in the entire play.
Chillington proposes Webster as a possible candidate for writing
the scene. His hand writing has not been identified from any
surviving manuscripts. Others have suggested than Hand D
is a scribe's, just as Hand C's is assumed to be the work of
a playhouse scribe. A few have suggested that Hand D and
Hand C are the same. Gerry Down's analysis (unpublished)
shows that the various errors in Hand D are the sorts of
errors a copyist makes as they switch their attention from
original to copy and back again.
All these alternatives preclude Shakespeare.
--
Pat Dooley
Webmaster of www.shakespeare-authorship.com
KQKnave
<patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> writes:
>Chillington proposes Webster as a possible candidate for writing
>the scene.
Here we go again. Chillington's 1980 proposal was soundly defeated
by Charles Forker. I refer you to the book *Shakespeare and
Sir Thomas More*, edited by Howard Hill. An essay in the book
by Charles R. Forker compares the Hand D segment with
Shakespeare's and Webster's practice. There is a long table of
results in the article, but I'll try to quickly summarize them here.
The book was published in 1989, Cambridge University Press.
Forker begins:
"Chillington's case, although impressive, is less watertight than
it might at first appear. Neither the seventeenth century date
nor the link with Henslowe can be demonstrated on the basis
of external evidence, however plausible these assumptions may
seem in the light of internal pointers. I must confess that
as a longtime student of Webster's style and canon I resisted
the attribution to the Jacobean tragedian from the beginning
-but intuitively and on wholly subjective grounds, for the
style seemed to me eminently Shakespearean. It was not until
I began studying Hand D closely, using Spevack's indispensable
Complete Concordance to Shakespeare, and the equally valuable
concordance to Webster by Corballis and Harding, that I was
able to collect evidence that seems to me to justify my initial
skepticism."
Here is part of his table which compares Shakespeare and Webster:
STM Sh. Webster
'come to that
pass' 3 similar never uses 'pass'
forms (e.g., in this sense
'brought to that pass')
'upon th' hip' 3 times never
'accept of' 3 times never
'how say you?' 14 times never; W prefers
'say you' or 'what say you'.
'Friends, Masters,
Countrymen 5 similar uses Webster associates
'friend' and 'countrymen' only
once.
'Peace, ho,
peace.' 5 in JC, once in Webster never uses
4 other plays, 'ho peace and ho together
peace.' once
'Are you men Sh. uses 'or what are Rarely used and never
of wisdom or you' as a rhetorical preceded by 'or'
what are you?' question 5 times
'A keeps a Sh. uses the contra- 3 times, 1 more
plentiful shriev- ction 'a 178 times possibly.
altry and a'
made...'
'cry upon' 5 times Never
'Cannot choose Once
but...' 24 times, 2 other
similar instances
'self-same Sh. habitually uses Never uses 'self' to
hand, self 'self' as an adjective to mean 'same'.
reasons, and (10 examples given)
self right'
Forker gives 35 total examples like this.
In his section on vocabulary, Forker says
"Excluding proper names, the two additions to the More manuscript
contain 545 different words. Of these, 485 (almost 89 percent of the
total) are common to both Shakespeare and Webster. Of the remainder,
50 words (slightly more than 9 percent of the word count) appear in
Shakespeare but not in Webster. Only one word (less than one-fifth
of one percent of the total) occurs in Webster but not in Shakespeare.
Nine words from the two More additions (approximately one and a half
percent) occur in neither Shakespeare nor Webster."
If you divide the 50 words by 7.5, which is the ratio of the size of
the two canons, you still get a 6.6 to 1 ratio.
Tom Reedy
news:blA69.1277$3s4...@news.webusenet.com...
Actually, my post was not about the evidence for the *More*
attribution. It was about the unscholarly loaded language Werstine
uses in his essay. So I assume you agree with me in my assessment?
> The four points Metz gives ignore the central paleographic
> problem: the six inconsistent Shakespeare signatures are
> an inadequate control sample.
Greg concedes that (and the points are Greg's, not Metz's). He doubts
that "the available data are extensive enough to make complete proof
possible."
>
> Points 2 and 3 ignore more plausible options, given below.
>
> > BTW, since Dooley insists that adequate "CPLE" exists for most -
> wait
> > a minute, I believe he claims *all* - the first-tier Elizabethan
> > playwrights except for Shakespeare, surely he should be able to
tell
> > us which one's handwriting matches the ill May Day scene, the
> highest
> > quality writing in the entire play.
>
> Chillington proposes Webster as a possible candidate for writing
> the scene. His hand writing has not been identified from any
> surviving manuscripts.
Well, the dates for the composition of the piece are all over the
place, from 1590 to around 1605. Webster was born sometime around
1580, so that would mean a late date for the *More* play, one which
most scholars doubt.
Jim quoted the rebuttal to Chillington by Charles Forker, so I won't
repeat that here. I've never seen you try to answer him on that.
> Others have suggested than Hand D
> is a scribe's, just as Hand C's is assumed to be the work of
> a playhouse scribe.
A scribe whose hand is not seen elsewhere.
> A few have suggested that Hand D and
> Hand C are the same.
Do you believe that? I've considered that myself, given that the Hand
C is a scribe and also present on two plots and that Shakespeare was
called "an absolute Johannes fac totum" by Greene.
> Gerry Down's analysis (unpublished)
> shows that the various errors in Hand D are the sorts of
> errors a copyist makes as they switch their attention from
> original to copy and back again.
I thought he published that here on HLAS. Are you talking about
another one? Anyway, Downs is unconvincing, for reasons I won't go
into now. We're trying to discuss Werstine's essay.
> All these alternatives preclude Shakespeare.
Well, yes, they do. But none of the alternatives has the weight of
evidence behind them as the Shakespeare attribution does. For the most
part, they are speculations based upon an interpretation of one part
of the evidence that ignore the rest of it.
TR
Toby Petzold
> > > In an earlier post I said that Werstine uses loaded diction.
> Here's an
> > > interesting comparison that illustrates my comment. Compare what
> > > Werstine says with what another scholar says about the exact same
> > > article.
> > >
> > > BEGIN WERSTINE QUOTE
> > >
> > > The first support for Shakespeare as Hand D is paleographical -
> the
> > > province of Thompson.
Petzold:
> > Province? Well, maybe a rotten borough.
>
> You're kidding, right? Obviously you don't know anything about Sir E.
What, is he all bad-ass and I didn't know? Who cares?
I think it's pretty clear that Greg didn't want to be associated with
Pollard's and Thompson's excesses and tried to worm his way out of it.
Good for him.
> > The "advocates for the negative"
> > have "weakened a few of Thompson's points"? What gibberish!
>
> Oh, I am wounded! How can Metz stand against such insightful argument!
Okay, Tom. I'll go read Metz tonight and find out exactly what parts
of Thompson's argument were left unaffected by the "advocates for the
negative." I hope there's more than just "somewhat less forceful
contentions" to be had.
> If we add
> > together the number of "weakened points" and the "somewhat" less
> > forceful contentions, is there anything left of what Thompson wrote?
> >
> > > He doubts that 'the available data are
> > > extensive enough to make complete proof possible' and concludes by
> > > advancing 'the following propositions', the last 'of a somewhat
> > > challenging nature':
> > >
> > > 1. The palaeographical case for the hands of S[hakespeare] and
> Hand D
> > > being the same is stronger than any that can be made out for their
> > > being different.
> >
> > It's just incredible that any of this could be so easily accepted by
> > "real scholars."
>
> You bring up a good point, which is that there *are* "real scholars."
> One identifying characteristic is that they know something about what
> they talk about. With all your popping off, it's obvious that you're
> not one of them.
Oh, what gave me away?
> > Why are the deficiencies of early Twentieth Century
> > scholarship being ignored? Because it serves modern partisanship's
> > purposes to do so.
> >
> > > 2. The hand of S is more nearly paralleled in D than in any other
> > > dramatic document known to us.
> >
> > The handwriting is paralleled? I'm not buying this for a second.
>
> I have never expected evidence to persuade you of anything. It never
> has yet, so why shuld you change?
I've been persuaded before, but it won't be happening this time.
> > > 3. Setting S aside, it can be shown that D was not written by any
> > > dramatist of whose hand we have adequate knowledge.
> >
> > Which, therefore, makes it an argument in Shakspere's favor? I mean,
> > what sort of idiocy IS this? I thought that the signatures (oh, and
> > the "by me") WERE an adequate sample of handwriting with which to
> make
> > these palaeographic comparisons. Why SHOULD we be "setting S aside"?
> > Is the existence of Shakspere's known autograph only relevant to the
> > determination of his being D on alternate days of the week?
>
> What a fucking moron. Are you sure you're not related to Richard
> Kennedy or John Baker? Maybe Roger Nyle Parisious is your grandfather?
You've got nothing, tool. It'll be a pleasure watching you rationalize
and squirm around once the rebuttals start coming your way. I see from
skimming the other messages that you and Agent Jim are already
climbing down from Mount Palaeography. Is the air a little thin up
there?
Toby Petzold
American
Tom Reedy
>
> > > > In an earlier post I said that Werstine uses loaded diction.
> > Here's an
> > > > interesting comparison that illustrates my comment. Compare
what
> > > > Werstine says with what another scholar says about the exact
same
> > > > article.
> > > >
> > > > BEGIN WERSTINE QUOTE
> > > >
> > > > The first support for Shakespeare as Hand D is
paleographical -
> > the
> > > > province of Thompson.
>
> Petzold:
>
> > > Province? Well, maybe a rotten borough.
> >
> > You're kidding, right? Obviously you don't know anything about Sir
E.
>
> What, is he all bad-ass and I didn't know? Who cares?
Another mark for ignorance.
Let me get this straight: You say, "I haven't read Greg's indian gift
of 'Shakespeare's Hand Once More,' then you say, "I think it's pretty
clear that Greg . . ."
Would someone care to explain to Petzold . . . nahh, probably not.
Trying to explain something to him is like trying to teach a cat
algebra.
Your moronic comments.
> > > Why are the deficiencies of early Twentieth Century
> > > scholarship being ignored? Because it serves modern
partisanship's
> > > purposes to do so.
> > >
> > > > 2. The hand of S is more nearly paralleled in D than in any
other
> > > > dramatic document known to us.
> > >
> > > The handwriting is paralleled? I'm not buying this for a second.
> >
> > I have never expected evidence to persuade you of anything. It
never
> > has yet, so why shuld you change?
>
> I've been persuaded before, but it won't be happening this time.
We knew that already.
> > > > 3. Setting S aside, it can be shown that D was not written by
any
> > > > dramatist of whose hand we have adequate knowledge.
> > >
> > > Which, therefore, makes it an argument in Shakspere's favor? I
mean,
> > > what sort of idiocy IS this? I thought that the signatures (oh,
and
> > > the "by me") WERE an adequate sample of handwriting with which
to
> > make
> > > these palaeographic comparisons. Why SHOULD we be "setting S
aside"?
> > > Is the existence of Shakspere's known autograph only relevant to
the
> > > determination of his being D on alternate days of the week?
> >
> > What a fucking moron. Are you sure you're not related to Richard
> > Kennedy or John Baker? Maybe Roger Nyle Parisious is your
grandfather?
>
> You've got nothing, tool. It'll be a pleasure watching you
rationalize
> and squirm around once the rebuttals start coming your way.
They'll have to be of a lot higher order than what you're offering.
You're an embarrassment to antiStratfordism, and that's saying quite a
lot when you take into consideration Streitz, Parisious, dickson,
Crowley and Kaplan. (Note: order of names has no relation to degree of
idiocy.)
I see from
> skimming the other messages that you and Agent Jim are already
> climbing down from Mount Palaeography. Is the air a little thin up
> there?
>
> Toby Petzold
> American
You need to add "No. 1 contender for the John Baker Shit-for-Brains
Award of 2002."
TR
Roger Nyle Parisious
> "Toby Petzold" <neogno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2dbd058e.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > Reedy:
> > > > >
> > > > > The first support for Shakespeare as Hand D is
> paleographical -
> the
> > > > > province of Thompson.
> >
> > Petzold:
> >
> > > > Province? Well, maybe a rotten borough.
> > >
> > > You're kidding, right? Obviously you don't know anything about Sir
> E.
> >
> > What, is he all bad-ass and I didn't know? Who cares?
>
> Another mark for ignorance.
RNP
Your accomplice, KQ Knave ,recently had this to say about Sir E.
Maud Thompson:
I DON"T CARE WHAT YOUR CHERRY-PICKED COMMENTATOR SAYS.(Thread
"Newbie",08/l9)
We didn't want you to be ignorant of this ,Pinnochio.
Large snip
TR
> > > > > 2. The hand of S
Simpson and Thompson were identifying two different packages of
handwriting samples. As you revealed yourself,Tom, when you ill
advisedly reprinted Simpson's article.
is more nearly paralleled in D than in any
> other
> > > > > dramatic document known to us.
Good thing you are evading the the l596 letter by William Stanley.