Advice to new WS readers re: authorship
Tue Sorensen
excessive attention to the authorship debate is obstructing and
diluting the general enjoyment of Shakespeare's works in the online
communities.
It seems as if the first thing a new Shakespeare reader does or is
told to do when getting online is to take a stand about the
authorship. The discussions on this group and on many other
Shakespeare websites make it seem as if that it the most important and
essential thing to get straight in one's mind before proceeding to
say, read or do anything Shakespeare related. I think this is hurting
the Bard's work and reputation, and I hereby advice all new readers to
focus on the work itself rather than the frequently hysterical and
often very unqualified authorship debate.
Just my two cents.
- Tue Sorensen
ItIsShining
reading, enjoying, and getting an understanding of Shakespeare's work. There
are so many other things that I would like to understand before I will even
begin to get around to concerning myself about the "authorship debate". I mean
I would like to at least finish the entire works of Shakespeare, understand a
fair amount of the background material to the works, understand the history of
Shakespeare's era, and the history that is the backdrop for the history plays
before I even begin to be concerned about if Shakespeare was really
Shakespeare. To me this authorship question should be off in it's own separate
newsgroup where it can be discussed as a separate topic. How uninteresting is
it to open what looks to be an interesting thread, and see speculation on any
number of other authors. Maybe that issue is a worthy and advanced topic for
those with an interest, but for me it is so tangential that I would rather not
even think about it now. It realy is a distraction to someone who is just
trying to go through the works and appreciate them for what they are at face
value.
So does anyone want to go about creating a separate Shakespeare authorship
newsgroup?
John
Tue Sorensen wrote:
>Date: 8/26/01 9:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Tom Reedy
news:20010826131929...@mb-fh.aol.com...
It has already been done. The name of it is
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare. The group was created specifically to
allow discussion of the authorship "question," and if you stick around
you'll learn a fair amount of the background material to the works, the
history of
Shakespeare's era, and the history that is the backdrop for the history
plays, probably more so than in any other Shakespeare discussion group.
I will admit that the golden years for HLAS seems to have passed, mainly
because some of the most knowledgeable contributors have become extremely
busy with more important things. Threads such as the ones recently begun by
Pat Dooley used to be more common fare.
Perhaps we should repost some of the better posts of 3-6 years ago for the
benefit of those who weren't reading the ng at that time and to stimulate
conversation.
If you don't want to read authorship discussions, perhaps you would be
happier reading a different Shakespeare discussion group.
TR
Ken Holmes
of scholars debating the finer points of word usage and so forth. In all
the years that this forum has been going on, has any decisive authorship
evidence ever been produced? Is anyone bothering to question the authorship
of Chaucer? or of any of the Greeks? Why are you all picking on Shakespeare?
I am an actor and director, and have been inovlved in productions of about
half of the canon. I have no doubt that whoever penned these plays was in
the theater, and would have been known to all the actors involved as well as
many others. That would be quite a convoluted conspiracy involving a LOT of
people. What was in it for the dozens, or hundreds of friends and enemies
to remain silent about the "truth"? What motive would they have to all live
their lives by a lie? Very religious people they were, would they really
rather suffer the fires of Hell than expose a fraud? To suppose that it was
anyone else than a man named Shakespeare is just silly, and none of your
arguments hold a drop of water. And you "Stratfordians" are just as bad.
You are right, rest on that knowledge. You don't have to prove that the sky
is blue, we all know it is.
The fact that some of you have wasted years of your lives in persuit of this
question is ludicrous, even insane. Oh, the conspiracies and plots you come
up are brilliant fantasies, I will give you that, you should all get jobs at
FOX. But you are missing the very basis of an argument of conspiracy. There
was never any question or mystery about the authorship of Shakespeare's
works until someone like yourselves invented it. Had all these works been
performed and written down with no name attributed to them, either in
writing or anecdotally, then there would be a mystery. The Kennedy
Assasination falls into the realms of conspiracy since there was a forensic
mystery as to how all the shots could have been fired from one spot. With
Shakespeare, the mystery has been created by scholars with apparently
nothing better to do. There is no mystery here, and more importantly, there
is no MOTIVE.
One of you told me once that if it could be proved that someone other than
Shakespeare wrote his works, the entire belief systems of our civilazation
would be rocked. That it would be the same as proof that intellegent alien
life was visiting our planet. Our whole belief system would be devestated!
This is delusional. Get help. Or are you all hoping that your perfect
theory will lead you to scholarly fame and riches? Is that YOUR motivation?
The plays are great, some better than others. Some poorly written, some
nearly perfect. They all demonstrate to me an amazing understanding of what
it is to be human. From working on his plays, I have found he had a great
deal of respect for actors and artists, and very little for scholars.
Shakespeare wasn't writting so a bunch of Sir Nathanials could debate the
usage of a single word here and there. I think you should all question your
own motives in the debate. I will venture to bet that they stem from an
egotistical hunger for fame rather than an ernest search for truth.
Ken Holmes
"Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4Ibi7.5666$Ib.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "ItIsShining" <itiss...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010826131929...@mb-fh.aol.com...
>
Tom Reedy
news:IHci7.8229$MK5.5...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> But Tom, isn't the discussion a bit boring? I mean really.
I agree. Wit is not very much in evidence on the antistratfordian side, but
reading and making fun of them is very amusing.
> Years and years
> of scholars debating the finer points of word usage and so forth.
Scholars? Now see--there's a laugh I wouldn't have had otherwise.
In all
> the years that this forum has been going on, has any decisive authorship
> evidence ever been produced?
Of course. See http://www.clark.net/tross/ws/howdowe.html.
> Is anyone bothering to question the authorship
> of Chaucer? or of any of the Greeks? Why are you all picking on
Shakespeare?
You'll have to ask those who pick in him.
> I am an actor and director, and have been inovlved in productions of about
> half of the canon.
Perhaps if you looked at hlas as theater it would help. Although one side
seems to be very earnest and believe that their arguments are scholarly,
most of the posters here are just one step up from trolling. Think of
professional wrestling, where each participant adopts a persona and
play-acts violence. If I'm not wrong (and I don't believe I am), 90 percent
of the posters here are play-acting. A few--the ones who believe this is a
serious forum in which serious issues with potentially serious consequences
are discussed--are truly mentally ill, but they aren't dangerous.
> I have no doubt that whoever penned these plays was in
> the theater, and would have been known to all the actors involved as well
as
> many others. That would be quite a convoluted conspiracy involving a LOT
of
> people. What was in it for the dozens, or hundreds of friends and enemies
> to remain silent about the "truth"? What motive would they have to all
live
> their lives by a lie? Very religious people they were, would they really
> rather suffer the fires of Hell than expose a fraud? To suppose that it
was
> anyone else than a man named Shakespeare is just silly, and none of your
> arguments hold a drop of water.
Yes, I agree, it is very silly. But the world is full of silly people who
for some reason believe their fantasies should be taken seriously. Some get
quite exercised about it when you don't. Read any post of Mark Alexander or
Ken Kaplan. They swell up and harumph like Major Hoople.
> And you "Stratfordians" are just as bad.
> You are right, rest on that knowledge. You don't have to prove that the
sky
> is blue, we all know it is.
If we're right, how can we just as silly? (Although I admit I try to amuse
probably more than instruct, and slapstick is not beneath me.)
> The fact that some of you have wasted years of your lives in persuit of
this
> question is ludicrous, even insane.
Some people have wasted their lives on what others would consider wasted
pursuits. Some people feel like anything that doesn't make money is a waste
of time; I doubt if anyone here on hlas feels that way.
> Oh, the conspiracies and plots you come
> up are brilliant fantasies, I will give you that, you should all get jobs
at
> FOX. But you are missing the very basis of an argument of conspiracy.
There
> was never any question or mystery about the authorship of Shakespeare's
> works until someone like yourselves invented it. Had all these works been
> performed and written down with no name attributed to them, either in
> writing or anecdotally, then there would be a mystery. The Kennedy
> Assasination falls into the realms of conspiracy since there was a
forensic
> mystery as to how all the shots could have been fired from one spot. With
> Shakespeare, the mystery has been created by scholars with apparently
> nothing better to do. There is no mystery here, and more importantly,
there
> is no MOTIVE.
>
> One of you told me once that if it could be proved that someone other
than
> Shakespeare wrote his works, the entire belief systems of our civilazation
> would be rocked.
Pretty goddamn silly; I agree (unless he was pulling your leg; it happens
around here).
> That it would be the same as proof that intellegent alien
> life was visiting our planet. Our whole belief system would be
devestated!
> This is delusional. Get help. Or are you all hoping that your perfect
> theory will lead you to scholarly fame and riches? Is that YOUR
motivation?
>
> The plays are great, some better than others. Some poorly written, some
> nearly perfect.
Can't you be more specific? I thought you wanted to discuss the plays, and
here you are wasting your time berating those who participate on hlas.
> They all demonstrate to me an amazing understanding of what
> it is to be human. From working on his plays, I have found he had a great
> deal of respect for actors and artists, and very little for scholars.
Ironic, isn't it?
> Shakespeare wasn't writting so a bunch of Sir Nathanials could debate the
> usage of a single word here and there. I think you should all question
your
> own motives in the debate.
I think you should question your motives for taking a bunch of harmless
arguers to task. Where's your screed against inveterate television game show
watchers?
> I will venture to bet that they stem from an
> egotistical hunger for fame rather than an ernest search for truth.
>
> Ken Holmes
Or maybe a search for entertainment and distraction, which I believe is the
third strongest instinct.
Neuendorffer
>
> But Tom, isn't the discussion a bit boring? I mean really. Years and years
> of scholars debating the finer points of word usage and so forth. In all
> the years that this forum has been going on, has any decisive authorship
> evidence ever been produced?
1) Freud's evaluation that Oxford was a good psychological match.
2) £1,000 a year in Shakespeare/Oxford/Lady Suffolk/Shelton.
3) The evidence of "VERO NIHIL VERIUS"
+ (Masonic)"G"
in the Sonnet's Dedications: "OUR EVERLIVING" &
"HIS EVERLIVING WOR(kes)"
4) The Troilus & Cressida intro: "A Never Writer to
an Ever Reader"
----------------------------------------------------------------
> Is anyone bothering to question the authorship of Chaucer?
I have from time to time.
> or of any of the Greeks? Why are you all picking on Shakespeare?
Shakspere is the most obvious phoney.
> I am an actor and director, and have been inovlved in productions of about
> half of the canon. I have no doubt that whoever penned these plays was in
> the theater,
Shakespeare has left the theater.
> and would have been known to all the actors involved as well as
> many others. That would be quite a convoluted conspiracy involving a LOT of
> people.
Indeed.
> What was in it for the dozens, or hundreds of friends and enemies
> to remain silent about the "truth"?
What was in it for the dozens, or hundreds of friends and enemies
to tell the "truth"? Even Reedy reminds me of the danger I myself risk.
> What motive would they have to all live their lives by a lie?
We all live our lives by lies. (Go see Jim Carey's Liar liar.)
> Very religious people they were, would they really
> rather suffer the fires of Hell than expose a fraud?
Ask Cranmer or Bruno about fires.
> To suppose that it was
> anyone else than a man named Shakespeare is just silly,
To suppose that it was the illiterate boob named Shakespeare is just
silly,
> and none of your
> arguments hold a drop of water.
Some arguments are half full others half empty.
> And you "Stratfordians" are just as bad.
Worse!
> You are right, rest on that knowledge.
Sort of like an air matress.
> You don't have to prove that the sky is blue, we all know it is.
Not during a sunset.
> The fact that some of you have wasted years of your lives in persuit of this
> question is ludicrous, even insane.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Romeo and Juliet Act 1, Scene 4
MERCUTIO I mean, sir, in delay
We WASTE our lights in vain, like lamps by day.
Take our good meaning, for our judgment sits
FIVE TIMES in that ere once in our FIVE wits.
Sonnet 129
The expense of spirit in a WASTE of shame
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shakespeares Sonnets dedication (1609)
UPPER CASE letters only.
145 = 29 x 5
T O.T H E.
O N L I E.
B E G E T
T E R.O F.
T H E S E.
I N S V I
N G.S O N
N E T S Mr
[W]H A L L. W{H}
H[A]P P I {H}A
N E[S]S E. S
A N D[T]H T
A T.E T[E] E?
R N I T I
E P R O M
I S E D.B
Y.O V R.E
V E R-L I
V I N G.P
O E T.W I
S H E T H.
T H E.W E
L L-W I S
H I N G.A
D V E N T
V R E R I
N.S E T T
I N G.F O
R T H.T.T.
----------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, the conspiracies and plots you come
> up are brilliant fantasies, I will give you that, you should all get jobs at
> FOX. But you are missing the very basis of an argument of conspiracy.
Dooh!
> There
> was never any question or mystery about the authorship of Shakespeare's
> works until someone like yourselves invented it. Had all these works been
> performed and written down with no name attributed to them, either in
> writing or anecdotally, then there would be a mystery. The Kennedy
> Assasination falls into the realms of conspiracy since there was a forensic
> mystery as to how all the shots could have been fired from one spot. With
> Shakespeare, the mystery has been created by scholars with apparently
> nothing better to do. There is no mystery here, and more importantly, there
> is no MOTIVE.
There are so many possible motives that it is hard to choose just five
or six.
> One of you told me once that if it could be proved that someone other than
> Shakespeare wrote his works, the entire belief systems of our civilazation
> would be rocked. That it would be the same as proof that intellegent alien
> life was visiting our planet. Our whole belief system would be devestated!
> This is delusional. Get help. Or are you all hoping that your perfect
> theory will lead you to scholarly fame and riches? Is that YOUR motivation?
Scholarly flame and breeches.
> The plays are great, some better than others. Some poorly written, some
> nearly perfect. They all demonstrate to me an amazing understanding of what
> it is to be human.
You mean you're human! I thought you were a Strat computer
algorithm.
> From working on his plays, I have found he had a great
> deal of respect for actors and artists, and very little for scholars.
We all have very little respect for scholars.
> Shakespeare wasn't writting so a bunch of Sir Nathanials could debate the
> usage of a single word here and there. I think you should all question your
> own motives in the debate. I will venture to bet that they stem from an
> egotistical hunger for fame rather than an ernest search for truth.
I'll have a pastrami on rye.
Art Neuendorffer
Symposium1
twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen) writes:
>This may not be a popular opinion around here, but I think the
>excessive attention to the authorship debate is obstructing and
>diluting the general enjoyment of Shakespeare's works in the online
>communities.
I would say, rather, that it's the lack of other discussion. For myself,
however, I'm rather burned out. I don't think I could offer anything new to say
if you threatened me with a trip to the Atlantic Shakespeare Festival. (ouch)
The answer is usually -- and I mean this with all due respect -- why not start
posting on the things you want to see discussed? If you take the initiative,
which I believe I have done in times past, you will not only get things
started, but also realize that it's quite an exertion sometimes to start a
thread going and keep it going.
No one has ever been threatened with expulsion for talking about the works
here. There are some instances where literary and theatrical threads have
gotten hijacked and become authorship issues, but actually that's not the rule.
I know from my own experience it's easier to decry the overabundance of
authorship discussion than to create something provocative and insightful
that's non-authorship.
There's also SHAKSPER, the discussion list, which does ban authorship
discussion. I would recommend participating in both if you are interested in a
wide variety of takes.
To check out SHAKSPER, go to The S H A K S P E R Webpage,
http://ws.bowiestate.edu
There is also at least one Yahoogroups list dedicated to
Shakespeare-in-performance, the sometimes dormant but well-populated
"killclaudio" list. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/killclaudio
It is not limited to performers.
As to Whit's query as to whether he's the only professional actor on the
newsgroup, I don't think that's so. At least, it wasn't in the past. Maybe
they've all gone off for the summer.
--Ann
David Kathman
Tom is right. This newsgroup was created in 1995 by an Oxfordian,
Marty Hyatt, in response to the banning of the authorship question on
the SHAKSPER mailing list. If you're looking for discussion of Shakespeare
and his works without all the authorship crap, I highly suggest SHAKSPER,
which is moderated by Hardy Cook and whose members include everybody
from Shakespeare neophytes to internationally renowned Shakespeare
scholars.
I've been a member since 1994, and have greatly enjoyed many of the
discussions. To join, go to http://ws.bowiestate.edu.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Peter Farey
>
> But Tom, isn't the discussion a bit boring? I mean really.
Not to quite a lot of HLAS contributors apparently.
> Years and years
> of scholars debating the finer points of word usage and so forth. In all
> the years that this forum has been going on, has any decisive authorship
> evidence ever been produced?
Decisive? Never happen. But a lot of evidence has been produced,
the relative strength of which appears to depend upon who is
doing the assessing. I, for example, rate Tom and Dave's "How
we know..." paper very highly, and quarrel only with their
conclusion, which should be that "most people at the time
believed William Shakespeare to have been the author", and not
that we therefore "know" he was.
> Is anyone bothering to question the authorship
> of Chaucer? or of any of the Greeks? Why are you all picking on Shakespeare?
Well, in my case because he is the one whose works I like most,
and he is also the one that I have the doubts about.
> I am an actor and director, and have been inovlved in productions of about
> half of the canon. I have no doubt that whoever penned these plays was in
> the theater, and would have been known to all the actors involved as well as
> many others.
Then why don't you give your reasons for being so certain about
this? I have been acting in Shakespeare's plays for most of my
life, and do not detect it. Why do Mark Rylance and Derek Jacobi
appear not to have noticed it either? Why not tell us about
that, which would be far more interesting than wasting your time
criticizing us for having interests which differ from yours.
> That would be quite a convoluted conspiracy involving a LOT of
> people. What was in it for the dozens, or hundreds of friends and enemies
> to remain silent about the "truth"? What motive would they have to all live
> their lives by a lie? Very religious people they were, would they really
> rather suffer the fires of Hell than expose a fraud?
If I do not accept your premiss, I am unlikely to accept your
conclusion.
> To suppose that it was
> anyone else than a man named Shakespeare is just silly, and none of your
> arguments hold a drop of water.
Do you know what my arguments are? I'll bet you haven't read my
new essay on Marlowe's death for a start.
> And you "Stratfordians" are just as bad.
> You are right, rest on that knowledge. You don't have to prove that the sky
> is blue, we all know it is.
Only those with a fear of flying.
> The fact that some of you have wasted years of your lives in persuit of this
> question is ludicrous, even insane.
Ken, a mere ten days ago I posted the following:
"For me, this is just a totally fascinating *problem*, which has
given me enormous pleasure trying to get to the bottom of. It
has taken me to places I would have never been, to libraries I
never knew existed, and to an appreciation of the Elizabethan/
Jacobean world that could have never come from my love of Shake-
speare alone. It has got me reading far more from other authors
of the time, which I would certainly have not done otherwise,
and it has, I think, kept my brain far sharper than it might
otherwise been by now, had I joined most of my former colleagues
where they spend most of their days - on the golf course."
Wasted? Ludicrous? Insane?
> Oh, the conspiracies and plots you come
> up are brilliant fantasies, I will give you that, you should all get jobs at
> FOX. But you are missing the very basis of an argument of conspiracy. There
> was never any question or mystery about the authorship of Shakespeare's
> works until someone like yourselves invented it. Had all these works been
> performed and written down with no name attributed to them, either in
> writing or anecdotally, then there would be a mystery. The Kennedy
> Assasination falls into the realms of conspiracy since there was a forensic
> mystery as to how all the shots could have been fired from one spot. With
> Shakespeare, the mystery has been created by scholars with apparently
> nothing better to do. There is no mystery here, and more importantly, there
> is no MOTIVE.
Is there not? I would be most happy to discuss that with you,
but it is an 'authorship' question, so you would find it a bit
boring. Ironic that you are joining in an argument for which
you have no time, wouldn't you say? No, of course you
wouldn't - that's what makes it ironic.
> One of you told me once that if it could be proved that someone other than
> Shakespeare wrote his works, the entire belief systems of our civilazation
> would be rocked. That it would be the same as proof that intellegent alien
> life was visiting our planet. Our whole belief system would be devestated!
> This is delusional. Get help. Or are you all hoping that your perfect
> theory will lead you to scholarly fame and riches? Is that YOUR motivation?
No. I had already told you my motivation, had you bothered to
read it.
> The plays are great, some better than others. Some poorly written, some
> nearly perfect. They all demonstrate to me an amazing understanding of what
> it is to be human. From working on his plays, I have found he had a great
> deal of respect for actors and artists, and very little for scholars.
Shakespeare had a great deal of respect for actors,
therefore he was an actor.
Shakespeare had very little respect for scholars,
therefore he wasn't a scholar.
Not too happy with the logic there, Ken.
He was writing for an audience, remember?
> Shakespeare wasn't writting so a bunch of Sir Nathanials could debate the
> usage of a single word here and there. I think you should all question your
> own motives in the debate. I will venture to bet that they stem from an
> egotistical hunger for fame rather than an ernest search for truth.
Ernest was a lie.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Peter Farey
"OK Richard, here's my latest play. You'll love it. There are
two lots of people in it. First there is a troupe of actors,
like us here, and I portray them as a load of idle, stupid,
illiterate drunks. Second, there are some 'university wits',
scholars all, and I show them as honest, hard-working brilliant
pillars of the community. Now ...
What do you mean, you don't like it?"
DerColin
>plays, was an actor
I disagree. I don't see it in the works. What actors are there? The clowns
of MNDream? The performers in Hamlet?
Does he seem to write from the inside of the "profession" in either case? In
Dream, they are amusing but ludicrous; in Hamlet, they are tools to an end.
But the sensibility of the writer is with those who use the actors for their
own ends (pleasure or psychology.)
>f only Patrick Tucker
>were here!
Have you used the FF technique in acting? I find it wonderful for development
(though I distrust the "unrehearsed" aspect -- for which I doubt there really
is historical grounds.)
Elizabeth Weir
> I must agree. I have enjoyed this group so far, but because of my name, have
> encountered some hostility and derision from some in the group.
What hostility and derision? 'Whitt Brantley' is a perfect take off
on the kind of archly phoney names Nabokov was so good at inventing.
I'm amused.
> Based on a name. The conversations here are intelligent and thoughtful,
> sometimes juvenile, but I am wondering just who in this group has actually
> performed Shakespeare.
> Am I the only professional Shakespearian actor in this group?
You're the only Dartmouth mathematician posing as a professional
Shakespearean actor in this group.
Because if I am,
> my question is answered.
>
> For 18 years, I have performed the works.
Eighteen years ago you were eighteen years old being traumatized by
your first read through of 'Lolita.'
And I know, for a fact, that none of
> what we discuss concerning the authorship mystery,
> would be possible had these works not been composed.
>
> Of course, new students of Shakespeare should be directed to focus solely on
> the playes and not the mystery.
>
> I will tell you that as an actor I am indeed torn, because whoever wrote those
> plays, was an actor,and I am sure attended a few rehearsals from time to time.
Bacon acted in his own masques. Nabokov would know that.
>
> So where was Edward de Vere, or Bacon, or Marlowe, when it came down to the
> performance. How many hours were spent in rehearsal? If only Patrick Tucker
> were here!
Oxford was out killing peasants for sport, Shakespeare was holding
horses for gentlemen and Bacon was in his study writing the plays.
> Regards to All!
>
> PS: In response to elizabeth-weir@boldplanet (I have no idea who you are, and
> I don't know Webb or Streitz...my name is Whitt Brantley.
>
> and your emails are rather rude.
> Formed I'm sure, by years of conceit.
All those years memorizing Nabokov's every line weren't a waste of
time, Webb. You've got the style down.
I only hope you don't run out of free AOL sign-up disks.
Paul Crowley
> But Tom, isn't the discussion a bit boring? I mean really. Years and years
> of scholars debating the finer points of word usage and so forth.
Are you talking about the sterile discussion of the meaning
of the sonnets -- or some such?
> In all
> the years that this forum has been going on, has any decisive authorship
> evidence ever been produced?
Yes. Plenty.
> Is anyone bothering to question the authorship
> of Chaucer? or of any of the Greeks?
No one doubts Chaucer's authorship. He had the
right education, the right kind of family; the right kind
of background; his trips to Italy are well recorded; the
environment in which he did his literary (and other)
work is well known . . . etc.
> Why are you all picking on Shakespeare?
None of the statements made about Chaucer (as
above) could be applied to the Stratford man. His
parents were illiterate, if he went to school at all,
it was only to the local readin & riting one. His
wife was illiterate, his children were illiterate; he
left no letters of any kind (for no good reason
anyone can ever suggest). Since he lived over
200 years after Chaucer, and long after printing had
been invented, in times for which we have much more
detailed and reliable records . . . . . . it is at least
astonishing and IMHO quite impossible that his
_literary_ record should be so slight -- especially
given that we have 70 or so records about his
personal life -- none of which indicate any connection
with the theatre, with writing, or the royal court.
> I am an actor and director, and have
> been inovlved in productions of about
> half of the canon. I have no doubt that
> whoever penned these plays was in
> the theater
He pretty well invented it.
> and would have been known to all the
> actors involved as well as many others.
Hmm . . . maybe. Maybe not. I think he made a
decision very early in his career, NOT to let his
authorship be known -- or it was made for him.
Thereafter, he took steps to avoid it being known
more than was essential -- working through
secretaries and agents.
> That would be quite a convoluted
> conspiracy involving a LOT of people.
Nope.
> What was in it for the dozens, or
> hundreds of friends and enemies
> to remain silent about the "truth"?
They kept out of prison, kept working, and kept
their various body parts attached. It did not do to
annoy the rich and powerful of the day. Sir Francis
Drake murdered (or 'executed') an officer whom he
decided was Burghley's spy on board his ship on
the circumnavigation. Learning about it on the
return, his brother disapproved and started asking
questions and seeking legal remedy. Since Drake
had come back with great glory and booty, and was
an important military and political figure, the
questions were unwise. The brother finished up
in prison, and AFAIR eventually died there.
> What motive would they have to all live
> their lives by a lie?
What would you have done in those circumstances?
Sold the story to the Sunday newspapers? Or to
some other media outlet? -- If so, which one?
> Very religious people they were, would they really
> rather suffer the fires of Hell than expose a fraud?
How would this 'exposure' be done? I don't think
you understand that in England (and Europe
generally) secrecy is thought to be a _good_
thing -- per se.
> There
> was never any question or mystery
> about the authorship of Shakespeare's
> works until someone like yourselves
> invented it.
How come that we have no biography of the
author? -- One that relates the life of the
country yokel to the plays and poems?
> With Shakespeare, the mystery has been
> created by scholars with apparently
> nothing better to do.
The 'scholars' have tried their best to shut it
down. It's the public that does not buy their line.
> There is no mystery here, and more importantly,
> there is no MOTIVE.
Elizabethan England was not just like modern
Ploughkeepsie. Great writers do not come into
existence merely by chance. There was no one
like Shakespeare before, nor has there been
since, nor will there ever be again. Try to locate
the man (and yourself) in some historical, cultural
and political context.
{..]
> The plays are great, some better than
> others. Some poorly written, some
> nearly perfect. They all demonstrate to me
> an amazing understanding of what
> it is to be human. From working on his
> plays, I have found he had a great
> deal of respect for actors and artists,
> and very little for scholars.
Ssshhh . . . it's the 'scholars' who are on
your side.
> Shakespeare wasn't writting so a bunch
> of Sir Nathanials could debate the
> usage of a single word here and there.
That's what traditional 'Shakespeare studies'
are all about. See the SHAKSPER list -- where
authorship discussions are barred.
Paul.
--
Email: pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)
Christian Lanciai
month, I am a very recent newcomer who primarily would like to
apologize for intruding and maybe even disturbing, but I can't help
observing a tendency in these debates, that Stratfordians and only
Stratfordians are reluctant to discuss the authorship question, which
only results in increased intensity in that very delicate issue.
Wouldn't it be more rational to open all doors to all arguments to
have the rooms thoroughly ventilated if there is any doubt at all
concerning the authorship, which there seems to be, since for instance
the Baconians are still quite persistent in their arguments after 120
years and there seems to be arguments for 61 other candidates as well,
according to John Michell in his meticulously researched work "Who
Wrote Shakespeare?"
Please bear with the intrusion.
all yours,
Christian
Nicholas Whyte
> deve...@aol.com (DeVereLtd) wrote in message news:<20010826102156...@mb-fr.aol.com>...
> > I must agree. I have enjoyed this group so far, but because of my name, have
> > encountered some hostility and derision from some in the group.
>
> What hostility and derision? 'Whitt Brantley' is a perfect take off
> on the kind of archly phoney names Nabokov was so good at inventing.
> I'm amused.
There is in fact a real actor called Whitt Brantley; according to
www.imdb.com he has a modest tally of four small parts in movies -
"Selma, Lord, Selma" in 1999, "Flash" in 1998, "Black Dog" also in
1998 and "Blue Sky" in 1994. He is also pictured at
http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0699/069912.html as starring in a play
called "Schrödinger's girlfriend". There is also an L. Whitt Brantley
who works for NASA and figures (I suppose involuntarily) in UFO
conspiracy theories, who is presulmably a different person. Either of
them may also be the Whitt Brantley who wrote "Men of Mt Rushmore"
published by Project Read Press in 1997.
Perhaps Elizabeth is right, and the "Whitt Brantley" who posts to the
group is an established poster working under a pseudonym, who maybe
has done enough research both to enjoy the irony of using a real
actor's name and also to enjoy the fact that his nom de plume is
associated with a quite different area of loony speculation, ie
ufology.
However I am inclined to think that she is wrong, and that Whitt
Brantley is exactly who he says he is. Occam's razor, after all. (If
so, Whitt, did you write the Mount Rushmore book, or is there yet
another person out there using your name?)
Nicholas Whyte
Mark Steese
Lanciai) that wrote news:7e67b43b.01082...@posting.google.com,
on the day of 28 Aug 2001:
> Having followed this lit.authors.shakespeare debate for only one
> month, I am a very recent newcomer who primarily would like to
> apologize for intruding and maybe even disturbing, but I can't help
> observing a tendency in these debates, that Stratfordians and only
> Stratfordians are reluctant to discuss the authorship question, which
> only results in increased intensity in that very delicate issue.
Christian, if you have access to groups.google.com, please take a look at
the archives of humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare. If there is any
reluctance to discuss the authorship 'question' on the part of those of us
who believe Shakespeare wrote his own plays, it is the reluctance of people
who are tired of making the same points and refuting the same arguments
over and over again, only to have someone pop up and present them as though
they had never been addressed.
> Wouldn't it be more rational to open all doors to all arguments to
> have the rooms thoroughly ventilated
If anyone were presenting arguments that had not previously been rebutted,
then it might be rational to consider them. If any of the factions opposed
to Shakespeare's authorship could address the evidence for Shakespeare
without invoking conspiracies to conceal the truth, that would also be
welcome. I'm still waiting for a reasoned response to my own argument,
which runs as follows:
Given the complete absence of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents containing
so much as a suggestion that anyone other than William Shakespeare wrote
the plays and poetry now attributed to him, it is perfectly reasonable for
scholars to reject modern assertions to the contrary.
> if there is any doubt at all concerning the authorship, which there
> seems to be, since for instance the Baconians are still quite persistent
> in their arguments after 120 years and there seems to be arguments for 61
> other candidates as well, according to John Michell in his meticulously
> researched work "Who Wrote Shakespeare?"
I'm familiar with John Michell, and to call him a meticulous researcher is
grossly misleading. This is a man who has written, in all seriousness,
that it has not yet been proven that the earth isn't flat! (See his books
'Phenomena' (co-authored with Robert J.M. Rickard) and 'Eccentric Lives and
Peculiar Notions.')
That gets to the heart of the problem. Of course there are people who
doubt that Shakespeare wrote his own plays. There are also people who
doubt that astronauts have ever walked on the moon. They, too, present
what they think is evidence; their claims are swiftly rebutted; and then
they pop up again a little later with *exactly the same claims*. They will
not accept rebuttal.
The various authorship claimants also don't do the one thing that would
convince the skeptics (or me, anyway) - find and publish authentic primary
documents demonstrating that someone else wrote Shakespeare's works. It's
not as though the relevant archives are sealed. If any of the claimants
could so much as document a contemporary rumor that Shakespeare didn't
write his own plays, I'd be impressed. (There is documentation that Ben
Jonson knew of such a rumor about John Marston's plays, and passed it along
to William Drummond.)
Mark Steese
--
The next plague and the nearest that I know in affinity to a consumption is
long depending hope frivolously defeated, than which there is no greater
misery on earth, and *per consequens* no men in earth more miserable than
courtiers. -Thomas Nashe
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <cd15e95a.0108...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
Weir <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote:
> deve...@aol.com (DeVereLtd) wrote in message
> news:<20010826102156...@mb-fr.aol.com>...
> > I must agree. I have enjoyed this group so far, but because of my name,
> > have
> > encountered some hostility and derision from some in the group.
> What hostility and derision? 'Whitt Brantley' is a perfect take off
> on the kind of archly phoney names Nabokov was so good at inventing.
> I'm amused.
Actually, I see no reason to connect "Whitt Brantley" with "the kind
of archly phoney names Nabokov was so good at inventing."
[...]
> > Am I the only professional Shakespearian actor in this group?
> You're the only Dartmouth mathematician posing as a professional
> Shakespearean actor in this group.
You are, as usual, barking up the wrong tree. I have been
birdwatching in a remote camp on the Maine coast for over a week; in
particular I have been nowhere near an internet connection. I have not
posted as myself, as Whitt Brantley, or as anyone else during that
time. I have no idea who Whitt Brantley may be, but I certainly am not
he.
> > Because if I am,
> > my question is answered.
> >
> > For 18 years, I have performed the works.
> Eighteen years ago you were eighteen years old being traumatized by
> your first read through of 'Lolita.'
Wrong again.
[...]
> > I will tell you that as an actor I am indeed torn, because whoever wrote
> > those
> > plays, was an actor,and I am sure attended a few rehearsals from time to
> > time.
> Bacon acted in his own masques. Nabokov would know that.
So? I have no idea what your point, if any, is supposed to be.
> > So where was Edward de Vere, or Bacon, or Marlowe, when it came down to the
> > performance. How many hours were spent in rehearsal? If only Patrick
> > Tucker
> > were here!
> Oxford was out killing peasants for sport, Shakespeare was holding
> horses for gentlemen and Bacon was in his study writing the plays.
[...]
> > PS: In response to elizabeth-weir@boldplanet (I have no idea who you are,
> > and
> > I don't know Webb or Streitz...my name is Whitt Brantley.
> >
> > and your emails are rather rude.
> > Formed I'm sure, by years of conceit.
> All those years memorizing Nabokov's every line weren't a waste of
> time, Webb. You've got the style down.
>
> I only hope you don't run out of free AOL sign-up disks.
If you mistake Brantley's style for mine or either of our styles for
Nabokov's magisterial style, then you evidently have such a poor
command of English and such a meager ability to recognize stylistic
nuances that you have no business whatever making any attributional
conjectures based upon "style."
As Whitt Brantley has already told you, he is not I; as I already
told you, I am not he. In fact, I have never posted pseudonymously in
this newsgroup since its inception; on a few occasions when I was in
Argentina and had no access to reliable newsreading software, a few of
my posts appeared under the name "Courier" (courtesy of a kind friend
who offered to post messages that I e-mailed to him), but all those
messages were clearly *signed* with my name. Finally, I have never in
my life used AOL, and don't intend to.
The leaps of folly of which some of the less intelligent and/or less
mentally stable anti-Stratfordians are capable are positively
mind-boggling.
David Webb
DerColin
>then it might be rational to consider them.
Rebutted? What has been rebutted? The other arguments are there -- just out
there. One selects what makes the most sense, given the information as it is.
Different people assess differently. The claim that some Stratfordians make,
that the case is in effect closed because their evidence is so obviously
superior, is only a claim.
> If any of the factions opposed
>to Shakespeare's authorship could address the evidence for Shakespeare
>without invoking conspiracies to conceal the truth, that would also be
>welcome.
Conspiracies are the most probable alternate explanation, given the FF and the
monument, so asking for an explanation "without invoking conspiracies" is to
close consideration of most of the rational alternatives. Why would one rule
out conspiracies as a matter of course, anyway? It's just a tactic to evade
other possible explanations -- explanations which are quite reasonable to many
people.
> I'm still waiting for a reasoned response to my own argument,
>which runs as follows:
>
>Given the complete absence of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents containing
>so much as a suggestion that anyone other than William Shakespeare wrote
>the plays and poetry now attributed to him,
(did you look at the Northumberland manuscript info?)
> it is perfectly reasonable for
>scholars to reject modern assertions to the contrary.
>
This rules out a successful conspiracy, without examination. It would be fair,
on one hand, to say that the preponderance of overt evidence clearly supports
the Stratford man, but it would be disingenuous to then reject other
intepretations as if the Stratford man's case were proven.
>> if there is any doubt at all concerning the authorship, which there
>> seems to be, since for instance the Baconians are still quite persistent
>> in their arguments after 120 years and there seems to be arguments for 61
>> other candidates as well, according to John Michell in his meticulously
>> researched work "Who Wrote Shakespeare?"
>
<snip Michell discussion>
There have been grounds for doubting the Stratford attribution since it was
first explored by Wilmot. On one hand, these grounds seem to have gotten
firmer over the years (see Price's book, for instance); on the other, the lack
of what everyone will accept as a "smoking gun" frustrates everyone. So we
look for new light -- new insights. And whenever someone has what they think
is THE insight, others point out why it may not, in fact, be. And the world
goes round.
Okay Fine
>
> Hwęt! We have heard of the glory of clan...@hotmail.com (Christian
> Lanciai) that wrote news:7e67b43b.01082...@posting.google.com,
> on the day of 28 Aug 2001:
>
> > Having followed this lit.authors.shakespeare debate for only one
> > month, I am a very recent newcomer who primarily would like to
> > apologize for intruding and maybe even disturbing, but I can't help
> > observing a tendency in these debates, that Stratfordians and only
> > Stratfordians are reluctant to discuss the authorship question, which
> > only results in increased intensity in that very delicate issue.
>
> Christian, if you have access to groups.google.com, please take a look at
> the archives of humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare. If there is any
> reluctance to discuss the authorship 'question' on the part of those of us
> who believe Shakespeare wrote his own plays, it is the reluctance of people
> who are tired of making the same points and refuting the same arguments
> over and over again, only to have someone pop up and present them as though
> they had never been addressed.
>
> > Wouldn't it be more rational to open all doors to all arguments to
> > have the rooms thoroughly ventilated
>
> If anyone were presenting arguments that had not previously been rebutted,
> then it might be rational to consider them. If any of the factions opposed
> to Shakespeare's authorship could address the evidence for Shakespeare
> without invoking conspiracies to conceal the truth, that would also be
> welcome.
That's very amusing, Mark. A secret without any secrecy! Very rich,
indeed.
Do you mean to suggest that Stratfordians would cover up evidence
pointing to a different author? I didn't think they'd go that far.
OF.
David Kathman
Whitt originally e-mailed me asking if there was any place on
the Internet to discuss the Shakespeare authorship issue, and
I directed him here. A day later he started posting here.
If he was an establish poster posting under a pseudonym, I don't
know why he would go through all that pretense and trouble.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Mark Steese
wrote news:20010828150444...@mb-fd.aol.com, on the day of 28
Aug 2001:
>>If anyone were presenting arguments that had not previously been
>>rebutted, then it might be rational to consider them.
>
> Rebutted? What has been rebutted?
What *hasn't* been rebutted?
> The other arguments are there -- just out there. One selects what makes
> the most sense, given the information as it is.
That's not the way it works. We are not arguing a metaphysical issue that
is inherently unprovable; we are arguing history. History starts with
evidence and moves on to interpretation.
> Different people assess differently. The claim that some Stratfordians
> make, that the case is in effect closed because their evidence is so
> obviously superior, is only a claim.
That's not a claim I make. I claim that the antis have produced *no*
evidence. Not a scrap. All they have to offer is misinterpretation and
fantasy.
>>If any of the factions opposed to Shakespeare's authorship could address
>>the evidence for Shakespeare without invoking conspiracies to conceal the
>>truth, that would also be welcome.
>
> Conspiracies are the most probable alternate explanation, given the FF
> and the monument, so asking for an explanation "without invoking
> conspiracies" is to close consideration of most of the rational
> alternatives.
There *are no* rational alternatives, because there *is no* evidence for
anyone other than Shakespeare. You aren't dealing with the evidence for
Shakespeare; you're making up excuses for why you shouldn't have to deal
with it.
> Why would one rule out conspiracies as a matter of course, anyway?
I don't rule out conspiracies when there is evidence for them. Deciding
that someone else must have written Shakespeare's plays, and that therefore
there must have been a conspiracy to make people believe otherwise, is not
evidence. It is what you seem to be doing, though.
> It's just a tactic to evade other possible explanations -- explanations
> which are quite reasonable to many people.
"Explanations" of how the Apollo lunar landings were faked are quite
reasonable to many people. What's your point?
>> I'm still waiting for a reasoned response to my own argument, which
>> runs as follows:
>>
>>Given the complete absence of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents
>>containing so much as a suggestion that anyone other than William
>>Shakespeare wrote the plays and poetry now attributed to him,
>
> (did you look at the Northumberland manuscript info?)
Yes. My point stands.
>>it is perfectly reasonable for scholars to reject modern assertions to
>>the contrary.
>
> This rules out a successful conspiracy, without examination.
Well, yes, I suppose it does, if by "successful conspiracy" you mean a
conspiracy that successfully concealed every last scrap of evidence not
only of the true author or authors but also of the conspiracy's own
existence.
> It would be fair, on one hand, to say that the preponderance of overt
> evidence clearly supports the Stratford man, but it would be disingenuous
> to then reject other intepretations as if the Stratford man's case were
> proven.
Nonsense. It is the job of those who claim other authors wrote the works
to provide evidence for their claims. Until such evidence is provided,
Shakespeare's case *is* proven. No one is under any obligation to consider
other interpretations that cannot be shown to be based in fact.
>>> if there is any doubt at all concerning the authorship, which there
>>> seems to be, since for instance the Baconians are still quite
>>> persistent in their arguments after 120 years and there seems to be
>>> arguments for 61 other candidates as well, according to John Michell
>>> in his meticulously researched work "Who Wrote Shakespeare?"
>>
><snip Michell discussion>
>
> There have been grounds for doubting the Stratford attribution since it
> was first explored by Wilmot. On one hand, these grounds seem to have
> gotten firmer over the years (see Price's book, for instance);
Price's book is a demonstration that, once you exclude all the evidence for
Shakespeare's authorship, you find that there is no evidence for
Shakespeare's authorship. What a surprise.
> on the other, the lack of what everyone will accept as a "smoking gun"
> frustrates everyone.
Does it? Then why haven't you been looking? The archives are there.
> So we look for new light -- new insights. And whenever someone has what
> they think is THE insight, others point out why it may not, in fact, be.
> And the world goes round.
There have never been grounds for doubting the attribution, though there
have been many, many people who have thought otherwise. What of it? A
fallacy is a fallacy, whether it is believed by one person or a billion.
If you want to show that your beliefs are true, start providing the
evidence for them.
Mark Steese
wrote news:3B8C04BD...@qwest.net, on the day of 28 Aug 2001:
[snip]
>> If anyone were presenting arguments that had not previously been
>> rebutted, then it might be rational to consider them. If any of the
>> factions opposed to Shakespeare's authorship could address the
>> evidence for Shakespeare without invoking conspiracies to conceal the
>> truth, that would also be welcome.
>
> That's very amusing, Mark. A secret without any secrecy! Very rich,
> indeed.
Without any evidence, that is. Have you evidence for a conspiracy other
than the fact that you believe there must have been one? If so, bring it
out.
>> I'm still waiting for a reasoned response to my own argument, which
>> runs as follows:
>>
>> Given the complete absence of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents
>> containing so much as a suggestion that anyone other than William
>> Shakespeare wrote the plays and poetry now attributed to him, it is
>> perfectly reasonable for scholars to reject modern assertions to the
>> contrary.
Thank you for reprinting this. No response, I see.
[snip]
>> The various authorship claimants also don't do the one thing that
>> would convince the skeptics (or me, anyway) - find and publish
>> authentic primary documents demonstrating that someone else wrote
>> Shakespeare's works.
>
> Do you mean to suggest that Stratfordians would cover up evidence
> pointing to a different author? I didn't think they'd go that far.
Eric, only someone with your previously-demonstrated incompetence at
interpreting the written word could possibly think I meant to suggest
something as stupid as that.
Neuendorffer
> > > > I must agree. I have enjoyed this group so far, but because of my name, have
> > > > encountered some hostility and derision from some in the group.
> > elizabe...@boldplanet.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > > What hostility and derision? 'Whitt Brantley' is a perfect take off
> > > on the kind of archly phoney names Nabokov was so good at inventing.
> > > I'm amused.
> Nicholas Whyte wrote:
> >
> > There is in fact a real actor called Whitt Brantley; according to
> > www.imdb.com he has a modest tally of four small parts in movies -
> > "Selma, Lord, Selma" in 1999, "Flash" in 1998, "Black Dog" also in
> > 1998 and "Blue Sky" in 1994. He is also pictured at
> > http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0699/069912.html as starring in a play
> > called "Schrödinger's girlfriend". There is also an L. Whitt Brantley
> > who works for NASA and figures (I suppose involuntarily) in UFO
> > conspiracy theories, who is presulmably a different person. Either of
> > them may also be the Whitt Brantley who wrote "Men of Mt Rushmore"
> > published by Project Read Press in 1997.
David Kathman wrote:
>
> > Perhaps Elizabeth is right, and the "Whitt Brantley" who posts to the
> > group is an established poster working under a pseudonym, who maybe
> > has done enough research both to enjoy the irony of using a real
> > actor's name and also to enjoy the fact that his nom de plume is
> > associated with a quite different area of loony speculation, ie
> > ufology.
> >
> > However I am inclined to think that she is wrong, and that Whitt
> > Brantley is exactly who he says he is. Occam's razor, after all. (If
> > so, Whitt, did you write the Mount Rushmore book, or is there yet
> > another person out there using your name?)
>
> Whitt originally e-mailed me asking if there was any place on
> the Internet to discuss the Shakespeare authorship issue, and
> I directed him here. A day later he started posting here.
> If he was an establish poster posting under a pseudonym, I don't
> know why he would go through all that pretense and trouble.
If Dr. Nick and Dave Kathman are willing to vouch for "Whitt
Brantley" then surely he must be trustworthy.
Art N.
Tom Reedy
news:3B8C04BD...@qwest.net...
> Mark Steese wrote:
> >
> > Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of clan...@hotmail.com (Christian
You see what I mean, Stephanie, when I wrote, " . . . I don't believe the
group was ever so dominated by such dimwits as it is now. Kennedy and Baker
led the way, and now the screen is filled daily with such people as OK Fine,
Toby Petzold and Buckeye Pete, none of whom can even comprehend an argument,
much less make one. It's as if hlas has become some kind of super democratic
Bizarro Shakespeare group for retards, where being able to afford an ISP is
the only requirement to post. It's just so dismal."
Here's living proof I speak truly.
TR
ItIsShining
Good point by you! Thanks for explaining this and pointing me to an
additional resource. I'm sure I'll view this group in a whole new light now.
Maybe at some point the HLAS FAQ, if I could make one other small suggestion,
could include the origin scenario you describe in its answer to the question,
"What is HLAS?"
Thanks,
John
MakBane
>You see what I mean, Stephanie, when I wrote, " . . . I don't believe the
>group was ever so dominated by such dimwits as it is now. Kennedy and Baker
>led the way, and now the screen is filled daily with such people as OK Fine,
>Toby Petzold and Buckeye Pete, none of whom can even comprehend an argument,
>much less make one. It's as if hlas has become some kind of super democratic
>Bizarro Shakespeare group for retards, where being able to afford an ISP is
>the only requirement to post. It's just so dismal."
That's unfair to my pals, Tom. Their command of the facts is far greater than
mine. Plus, they make interesting points and some good arguments. What do you
do but piss on everyone with your tedious attempts at humor and your arrogant
incivility? I haven't been at this game as long as you, and I have much more to
learn, but your anger (which is clearly related to some sort of dysfunction)
isn't going to dissuade me from having my fun in HLAS. So put that in your pipe
and smoke it.
Toby Petzold
Elizabeth Weir
> elizabe...@boldplanet.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<cd15e95a.0108...@posting.google.com>...
> > deve...@aol.com (DeVereLtd) wrote in message news:<20010826102156...@mb-fr.aol.com>...
> > > I must agree. I have enjoyed this group so far, but because of my name, have
> > > encountered some hostility and derision from some in the group.
> >
> > What hostility and derision? 'Whitt Brantley' is a perfect take off
> > on the kind of archly phoney names Nabokov was so good at inventing.
> > I'm amused.
>
> There is in fact a real actor called Whitt Brantley; according to
> www.imdb.com he has a modest tally of four small parts in movies -
> "Selma, Lord, Selma" in 1999, "Flash" in 1998, "Black Dog" also in
> 1998 and "Blue Sky" in 1994. He is also pictured at
> http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0699/069912.html as starring in a play
> called "Schrödinger's girlfriend". There is also an L. Whitt Brantley
> who works for NASA and figures (I suppose involuntarily) in UFO
> conspiracy theories, who is presulmably a different person. Either of
> them may also be the Whitt Brantley who wrote "Men of Mt Rushmore"
> published by Project Read Press in 1997.
Why would 'Whitt Brantley' drop into HLAS just when Webb was finally
taking time out from abusing other posters? Why would 'Whitt
Brantley' send me such a trollish e-mail? And with Elizabethan
wordes? I was afraid to open the attachment.
>
> Perhaps Elizabeth is right. and the "Whitt Brantley" who posts to the
> group is an established poster working under a pseudonym, who maybe
> has done enough research both to enjoy the irony of using a real
> actor's name and also to enjoy the fact that his nom de plume is
> associated with a quite different area of loony speculation, ie
> ufology.
Webb's obsession with the conspiracy theorist Stephanie Caruana
suggests that Webb may have been stalking Stephanie on the conspiracy
sites. Webb is too familiar with the names of some of those sites.
I searched Usenet and L. Whitt Brantley specializes in 'Podkletnov
gravity shielded anti-gravitational devices.' Webb translates Russian
scientific papers when he isn't inventing insults. Pardon me,
recycling insults. I think that's where Webb saw the name Whitt
Brantley.
> However I am inclined to think that she is wrong, and that Whitt
> Brantley is exactly who he says he is. . .
I think it's Webb. Webb has posted on the fact that he has read
everything Nabokov has written in English and Russian *and* the entire
body of literary criticism on Nabokov in both languages. More than
once.
Nabokov wrote the handbook on this kind of parody and Webb has it
memorized.
> . . . Occam's razor, after all. (If
> so, Whitt, did you write the Mount Rushmore book, or is there yet
> another person out there using your name?)
ARistotle's razor says Whitt could have written the book on Mount
Rushmore *and* another person could be out there using his name.
Elizabeth Weir
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
> In article <cd15e95a.0108...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
> Weir <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote:
>
> > deve...@aol.com (DeVereLtd) wrote in message
> > news:<20010826102156...@mb-fr.aol.com>...
> > > I must agree. I have enjoyed this group so far, but because of my name,
> > > have
> > > encountered some hostility and derision from some in the group.
>
> > What hostility and derision? 'Whitt Brantley' is a perfect take off
> > on the kind of archly phoney names Nabokov was so good at inventing.
> > I'm amused.
>
> Actually, I see no reason to connect "Whitt Brantley" with "the kind
> of archly phoney names Nabokov was so good at inventing."
Or no motive if you're posing as Whitt Brantley.
> [...]
> > > Am I the only professional Shakespearian actor in this group?
>
> > You're the only Dartmouth mathematician posing as a professional
> > Shakespearean actor in this group.
>
> You are, as usual, barking up the wrong tree. I have been
> birdwatching in a remote camp on the Maine coast for over a week;
You've got a mixed metaphor there with hunting and bird watching.
> in
> particular I have been nowhere near an internet connection. I have not
> posted as myself, as Whitt Brantley, or as anyone else during that
> time. I have no idea who Whitt Brantley may be, but I certainly am not
> he.
If you were he you would not admit that you were he.
> > > Because if I am,
> > > my question is answered.
> > >
> > > For 18 years, I have performed the works.
>
> > Eighteen years ago you were eighteen years old being traumatized by
> > your first read through of 'Lolita.'
>
> Wrong again.
I sense that I am substantially correct but have some detail wrong.
>
> [...]
> > > I will tell you that as an actor I am indeed torn, because whoever wrote
> > > those
> > > plays, was an actor,and I am sure attended a few rehearsals from time to
> > > time.
>
> > Bacon acted in his own masques. Nabokov would know that.
>
> So? I have no idea what your point, if any, is supposed to be.
My point was that Nabokov would have known that Bacon acted in his own
masques.
> > > So where was Edward de Vere, or Bacon, or Marlowe, when it came down to the
> > > performance. How many hours were spent in rehearsal? If only Patrick
> > > Tucker
> > > were here!
>
> > Oxford was out killing peasants for sport, Shakespeare was holding
> > horses for gentlemen and Bacon was in his study writing the plays.
>
> [...]
> > > PS: In response to elizabeth-weir@boldplanet (I have no idea who you are,
> > > and
> > > I don't know Webb or Streitz...my name is Whitt Brantley.
> > >
> > > and your emails are rather rude.
> > > Formed I'm sure, by years of conceit.
'Formed, I'm sure, by years of conceit.' <----< That is pure Webb!
> > All those years memorizing Nabokov's every line weren't a waste of
> > time, Webb. You've got the style down.
> >
> > I only hope you don't run out of free AOL sign-up disks.
>
> If you mistake Brantley's style for mine or either of our styles for
> Nabokov's magisterial style,
Nabokov's style was 'magisterial?' Nabokov was a satirist. Nabokov
was closer to Thomas Berger or Thomas Pynchon than. . .I even can't
think of a 'magisterial' 20th c. novel. There are none. Least of all
any of Nabokov's novels. It was not a magisterial century. Maybe
Churchill's 'A History of the English Speaking Peoples.'
> then you evidently have such a poor
> command of English and such a meager ability to recognize stylistic
> nuances that you have no business whatever making any attributional
> conjectures based upon "style."
Forget style. You haven't even demonstrated that you understand
Nabokov's genre. Anybody who says that Nabokov's style is
'magisterial' is not reading Nabokov ironically. You're not in on the
joke with Vladdy, Webb.
> As Whitt Brantley has already told you, he is not I; as I already
> told you, I am not he.
I need to master the use of the semi-colon.
> In fact, I have never posted pseudonymously in
> this newsgroup since its inception;
What about alt.nordic.skiing. You posed as a skier.
Don't bother giving me one of your precise, pedantic corrections--I'm
kidding.
> on a few occasions when I was in
> Argentina and had no access to reliable newsreading software, a few of
> my posts appeared under the name "Courier" (courtesy of a kind friend
> who offered to post messages that I e-mailed to him), but all those
> messages were clearly *signed* with my name.
We are terribly fascinated by the minutae of your life.
> Finally, I have never in
> my life used AOL, and don't intend to.
Yes, Webb. I have previously stated that using AOL at Dartmouth is
grounds for denial of tenure.
> The leaps of folly of which some of the less intelligent and/or less
> mentally stable anti-Stratfordians are capable are positively
> mind-boggling.
What is puzzling--I wouldn't call it 'mind-boggling--is someone who
can see that the Oxfordians have a case based only on biography and no
evidence but cannot see that the Strats have neither biography nor
evidence.
Bob Grumman
it's always amusing when someone with an insane notion of who wrote
Shakespeare which can't be 100% demolished because it concerns things
that happened too long ago, uses anti-Stratfordian reasoning on
something that CAN, because contemporary, as when Art declared I was
in the pay of . . . The Trust.
--Bob G.
Stephanie Caruana
"Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9oZi7.2757$Fv3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Tom:
I suppose you think you are being clever, appending the same "clever"
remarks to this post as you did to the previous one. Here Steese is,
attermpting to quell another new poster who is herself shyly objecting to
the "deaf as a doorpost" approach of certain Strats to open discussion, and
of course you need to chime in here.
If I weren't such a consummate lady, I tell you, Tom, you would receive a
tongue-lashing, so to speak, that would would make your head spin so hard
that before you knew it you would have been screwed nearly level with the
ground!
(If you are going to insult people, how about using a little imagination?)
Stephanie
Stephanie Caruana
"ItIsShining" <itiss...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010828233625...@mb-fb.aol.com...
> Dave and Tom,
>
> Good point by you! Thanks for explaining this and pointing me to an
> additional resource. I'm sure I'll view this group in a whole new light
now.
>
> Maybe at some point the HLAS FAQ, if I could make one other small
suggestion,
> could include the origin scenario you describe in its answer to the
question,
> "What is HLAS?"
>
> Thanks,
> John
It does, of course.
Stephanie
Stephanie Caruana
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote in message
news:cd15e95a.01082...@posting.google.com...
> nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) wrote in message
news:<7b33cc41.01082...@posting.google.com>...
> > elizabe...@boldplanet.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message
news:<cd15e95a.0108...@posting.google.com>...
> > > deve...@aol.com (DeVereLtd) wrote in message
news:<20010826102156...@mb-fr.aol.com>...
> > > > I must agree. I have enjoyed this group so far, but because of my
name, have
> > > > encountered some hostility and derision from some in the group.
> > >
> > > What hostility and derision? 'Whitt Brantley' is a perfect take off
> > > on the kind of archly phoney names Nabokov was so good at inventing.
> > > I'm amused.
> >
> > There is in fact a real actor called Whitt Brantley; according to
> > www.imdb.com he has a modest tally of four small parts in movies -
> > "Selma, Lord, Selma" in 1999, "Flash" in 1998, "Black Dog" also in
> > 1998 and "Blue Sky" in 1994. He is also pictured at
> > http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0699/069912.html as starring in a play
> > called "Schrödinger's girlfriend". There is also an L. Whitt Brantley
> > who works for NASA and figures (I suppose involuntarily) in UFO
> > conspiracy theories, who is presulmably a different person. Either of
> > them may also be the Whitt Brantley who wrote "Men of Mt Rushmore"
> > published by Project Read Press in 1997.
>
> Why would 'Whitt Brantley' drop into HLAS just when Webb was finally
> taking time out from abusing other posters?
Umm: Because David was off in Maine birdwatching? Or do you really believe
"there are no coincidences"?
Why would 'Whitt
> Brantley' send me such a trollish e-mail?
Umm: because maybe he was trying to be friendly?
And with Elizabethan
> wordes?
>I was afraid to open the attachment.
Talk about "ebullient paranoia"!
> >
> > Perhaps Elizabeth is right. and the "Whitt Brantley" who posts to the
> > group is an established poster working under a pseudonym, who maybe
> > has done enough research both to enjoy the irony of using a real
> > actor's name and also to enjoy the fact that his nom de plume is
> > associated with a quite different area of loony speculation, ie
> > ufology.
>
> Webb's obsession with the conspiracy theorist Stephanie Caruana
> suggests that Webb may have been stalking Stephanie on the conspiracy
> sites. Webb is too familiar with the names of some of those sites.
Talk about obsession! When I was reading your fantasy posts about David
writing to you under an "assumed name" (and using AOL, at that!! :-)) I
started thinking about that movie with Glenn Close and Michael Douglas!
David, don't open any closed cooking pots or you might find your pet rabbit
or cat in a stew.....
>
> I searched Usenet and L. Whitt Brantley specializes in 'Podkletnov
> gravity shielded anti-gravitational devices.' Webb translates Russian
> scientific papers when he isn't inventing insults. Pardon me,
> recycling insults. I think that's where Webb saw the name Whitt
> Brantley.
You ought to put all this into a novel. (Or I might.)
>
> > However I am inclined to think that she is wrong, and that Whitt
> > Brantley is exactly who he says he is. . .
>
> I think it's Webb. Webb has posted on the fact that he has read
> everything Nabokov has written in English and Russian *and* the entire
> body of literary criticism on Nabokov in both languages. More than
> once.
>
> Nabokov wrote the handbook on this kind of parody and Webb has it
> memorized.
>
I think you flatter yourself that David is so interested in you that he went
to this extreme (and extremely uncharacteristic) campaign of deception. But
it does begin to look as though your self-preoccupation and over-active
fantasy life can lead you into these unseemly pickles. Get a grip, girl!
DAVID IS NOT WHITT!
> > . . . Occam's razor, after all. (If
> > so, Whitt, did you write the Mount Rushmore book, or is there yet
> > another person out there using your name?)
>
> ARistotle's razor says Whitt could have written the book on Mount
> Rushmore *and* another person could be out there using his name.
Poor Whitt! Hey, listen, Elizabeth Weir is "not" your "typical HLAS
poster". (What am I saying?)
I hope she will eventually realize her error and allow you to post here in
peace. (But don't count on it.)
Stephanie
Nicholas Whyte
>
> Why would 'Whitt Brantley' drop into HLAS just when Webb was finally
> taking time out from abusing other posters? Why would 'Whitt
> Brantley' send me such a trollish e-mail? And with Elizabethan
> wordes?
Why not? to all three questions.
> I was afraid to open the attachment.
Wise practice. Scan everything before opening. I seem to be getting
half a dozen viruses a day at the moment.
> Webb's obsession with the conspiracy theorist Stephanie Caruana
> suggests that Webb may have been stalking Stephanie on the conspiracy
> sites. Webb is too familiar with the names of some of those sites.
> I searched Usenet and L. Whitt Brantley specializes in 'Podkletnov
> gravity shielded anti-gravitational devices.' Webb translates Russian
> scientific papers when he isn't inventing insults. Pardon me,
> recycling insults. I think that's where Webb saw the name Whitt
> Brantley.
Even if Webb were as obsessed with Caruana as you think, there is no
website in Google that includes both "stephanie caruana" and "whitt
brantley", or even one which includes references to both Caruana's
work on Gemstone and Podkletnov shielding. Podkletnov's work on
anti-gravity shielding was written in English, not in Russian, and in
any case was not published. Whitt Brantley (of NASA) does not write in
Russian either. Anti-gravity is rather a far cry from Webb's preferred
brand of maths. Webb's job is actually as a maths professor not a
Russian translator; no doubt his knowledge of Russian is of use to him
professionally as well as in his leisure. Whitt Brantley (the actor)
has a web-site about Shakespeare on zdnet which he has referred to in
previous posts.
If you had done a little research you would have discovered all this
for yourself. Outside your own fevered imagination (and Art
Neuendorffer's) there is absolutely no reason to believe that Whitt
Brantley is other than he says he is, or that David Webb has detailed
knowledge of ufology. However you prefer to believe that despite Whitt
Brantley's name being clearly and unequivocally associated with his
writings, they must have been by someone else. Now, where have I heard
that before?
> > . . . Occam's razor, after all. (If
> > so, Whitt, did you write the Mount Rushmore book, or is there yet
> > another person out there using your name?)
>
> ARistotle's razor says Whitt could have written the book on Mount
> Rushmore *and* another person could be out there using his name.
No it doesn't, as far as I know. What brand of Aristotle's razor do
you shave with?
Both Brantley and Webb have posted to this group stating that they are
different people. The circumstantial evidence fully supports these
statements. What evidence would it take to get you to accept that you
are wrong?
Nicholas Whyte
Okay Fine
>
> Hwęt! We have heard of the glory of Okay Fine <ein...@qwest.net> thatsnip
If any of the
> >> factions opposed to Shakespeare's authorship could address the
> >> evidence for Shakespeare without invoking conspiracies to conceal the
> >> truth, that would also be welcome.
> >
> > That's very amusing, Mark. A secret without any secrecy! Very rich,
> > indeed.
>
> Without any evidence, that is. Have you evidence for a conspiracy other
> than the fact that you believe there must have been one? If so, bring it
> out.
Show me evidence that there was no conspiracy if Shakspere's not the
author.
> >> I'm still waiting for a reasoned response to my own argument, which
> >> runs as follows:
> >>
> >> Given the complete absence of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents
> >> containing so much as a suggestion that anyone other than William
> >> Shakespeare wrote the plays and poetry now attributed to him, it is
> >> perfectly reasonable for scholars to reject modern assertions to the
> >> contrary.
>
> Thank you for reprinting this. No response, I see.
You're not ready for this discussion yet.
> [snip]
> >> The various authorship claimants also don't do the one thing that
> >> would convince the skeptics (or me, anyway) - find and publish
> >> authentic primary documents demonstrating that someone else wrote
> >> Shakespeare's works.
> >
> > Do you mean to suggest that Stratfordians would cover up evidence
> > pointing to a different author? I didn't think they'd go that far.
>
> Eric, only someone with your previously-demonstrated incompetence at
> interpreting the written word could possibly think I meant to suggest
> something as stupid as that.
Mark, only someone as immune to thought as you could fail to comprehend
my meaning.
OF.
>
> Mark Steese
Okay Fine
Tom, I know you're still feeling burned because I outsmarted you. Hey,
it happened, man. Let it go.
OF.
Tom Reedy
news:20010829005926...@mb-dd.aol.com...
> Reedy:
>
> >You see what I mean, Stephanie, when I wrote, " . . . I don't believe the
> >group was ever so dominated by such dimwits as it is now. Kennedy and
Baker
> >led the way, and now the screen is filled daily with such people as OK
Fine,
> >Toby Petzold and Buckeye Pete, none of whom can even comprehend an
argument,
> >much less make one. It's as if hlas has become some kind of super
democratic
> >Bizarro Shakespeare group for retards, where being able to afford an ISP
is
> >the only requirement to post. It's just so dismal."
>
> That's unfair to my pals, Tom. Their command of the facts is far greater
than
> mine.
Their "command of the facts" could be on an order of a thousand times
greater than yours, and it still wouldn't rise above the level of moronic.
Come to think of it, their "command of the facts" *IS* 1,000 times better
than yours, and it *IS* still moronic.
> Plus, they make interesting points and some good arguments.
Why am I not surprised that you would think that?
> What do you
> do but piss on everyone with your tedious attempts at humor and your
arrogant
> incivility?
Tell you what, moron. why don't you try your hand at answering this post
from May 1998 that no one form your side has yet answered? Here's you some
"interesting points (they're even numbered for you) and some good
arguments."
======================================================
POINT #1
A. May 19, 1603, on the license for the King's Men - "Wee . . . doe
licence . . . Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage,
Augustyne Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert
Armyn, Richard Cowly . . . ."
B. Oxford died June 24, 1604.
C. Will of Augustine Phillips, written May 4, 1605, proved May 16, 1605 -
"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 . . . ."
Augustine Phillips' bequest of 30 shillings to his "Fellowe" Shakespeare
comes 11 months after Oxford's death. If Oxford were Shakespeare, Phillips
would have known that he was dead. Therefore, Shakespeare and Oxford cannot
be the same person. Since Volker admits that the actor and the writer were
the same man, Oxford could not be the writer.
POINT #2
William Shakespeare is connected with John Heminge through several
contemporary documents. Not only in the license for the King's Men (above),
but from the lease of the grounds upon which the Globe was built (Feb 21,
1599, in which the name is spelled Heminges) & the indenture between the
shareholders of the Globe (Feb 20, 1599, spelled Hemynges). These are known
through a court record of April 28, 1619, so they are not strictly
contemporary. However, the lease for the Blackfriers Theater, Aug 9, 1608,
is recounted in a court document dated May 20, 1611. The Latin document
lists Ricardus Burbadge, Johannia Hemynges, & Willo Shakespeare.
Now in the deed for the Blackfrier's Gate House, March 10, 1613, John
Hemmyng (also spelled Hemming) acts as trustee for the buyer, "William
Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon."
The indenture for the Blackfriers Gate House effectively ties William
Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon to John Heminge, ten years before the
publication of the First Folio.
POINT #3
In 1568, John Shakespeare applied to the Heralds' College for a coat of
arms, but he fell on hard times and let the application lapse. In October
of 1596, following the success of his son, John Shakespeare of Stratford
upon Avon applied for a coat of arms, which was granted sometime before
1599. Thereafter he and his sons were entitled to put "gentleman" after
their name, and it appears wherever William Shakespeare's name is recorded
in legal documents after 1599. This title was reserved for those of the
gentility who were below knights but who had been granted the right to bear
arms. That John's son, William, initiated the application is probable,
since he accepted the social order as it was and was ambitious to rise.
In 1602, Peter Brooke, the York Herald, accused Sir William Dethick, the
Garter King-of-Arms, of elevating base persons to the gentry. Brooke drew
up a list of 23 persons whom he claimed were not entitled to bear arms.
Number four on the list was Shakespeare. Brooke included a sketch of the
Shakespeare arms, captioned "Shakespear ye Player by Garter." Unless one is
prepared to argue that John Shakespeare was an actor, or that Edmund
Shakespeare initiated the arms application when he was 16 and was a known
player by the time he was 22, "Shakespear ye Player" can only be the
Shakespeare identified in other documents as an actor, William Shakespeare
of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman.
POINT #4
That this William Shakespeare was the poet is further proved by Edmund
Howe's 1615 list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets." He lists
the poets "according to their priorities as neere I could," and in the
middle of the 27 listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman,"
thus effectively naming the Stratford man as the poet.
POINT #5
That this playwright was the man from Stratford is shown by three documents
contemporary to him.
1. Oct 7, 1601 - mortgage deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley,
John Collet, & Matthew Browne, in which Bodley was given contol of the Globe
playhouse, tenented by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
2. Oct 10, 1601 - deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley, legally
tightening up the control of Bodley. Again the Globe is described as being
tenanted by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
3. 1608 - deed of sale of John Collet's interest to John Bodley. The Globe
is once more described, and the tenants listed as "Richard Burbage and
William Shakespeare, gentlemen."
A. "William Shakespeare, gentleman" is the Stratford man (Point #3 above).
B. The Globe tenant mentioned in the above deeds specifically names "William
Shakespeare (or Shackspeare), gent."
C. Therefore, the Stratford man is the Globe-sharer.
D. Since the Stratford man is the playwright (see point #4), the
Globe-sharer is the playwright.
POINT #6 - A WORD ABOUT THE INTERLINEATIONS
If the interlineations were forged to show a connection between Shakespeare
and Heminge & Condell, why are all the other interlineations in the will in
the same hand? On sheet one the forgers changed the month from Januarij to
Martij, inserted the phrases "in discharge of her marriage porcion," "that
shee," "by my executours & overseers," "the stock," "to be," and "the
house."
On sheet two they forged not only "& to my ffellowes John Hemynge Richard
Burbage & Henry Cundell xxvj s viij d A peece to buy them Ringes," but they
inserted six more phrases that could not be of any benefit to the hoaxers.
On sheet three, in addition to the famous second-best bed bequest, they
inserted "the saied" to legally tighten up the appointment of the overseers
of the will, and struck out "Seale" and wrote "hand" to make the
circumstances of the publishing accurate.
The forgers would have had to be lawyers to tidy up the will in such a
manner. That the forgers did all this strains credulity, yet the so-called
forgeries are in the same hand as the rest of the interlineations.
======================================================
Go ahead, Ptezold. Try your hand. Not one of your cohorts has managed to
refute this argument, and they never will. Most of them will ignore this
argument the same way they did the first time it was posted more than 3
years ago, because they're a bunch of chicken-shit weak-minded
flabby-brained thinkers who think that just because they have successfully
deluded themselves that should be a good enough argument for the rest of us
to believe in their drivel.
Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
> I haven't been at this game as long as you, and I have much more to
> learn, but your anger (which is clearly related to some sort of
dysfunction)
> isn't going to dissuade me from having my fun in HLAS. So put that in your
pipe
> and smoke it.
>
> Toby Petzold
What you construe to be "my anger" is actually my amusement. If you want to
waste your time and life believeing in a made-up fairy tale that changes
almost daily to avoid confronting the cold, hard facts of reality, I say
more power to you. Knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to compliment
you and tell you how wonderful you are when you expose your flabby thinking
and dyfunctional comprehension in public. If you want to have your feelings
spared, go indulge your fantasies in private. If you post here, expect more
of what you've been getting.
TR
Mark James Schryver
> >as an actor I am indeed torn, because whoever wrote those
> >plays, was an actor
>
> of MNDream? The performers in Hamlet?
I've always found there to be an awfully large amount of references to
acting, performing, playing, etc. in Sh's plays, moreso than I would
expect to find coming out of the pen of a man who wasn't an actor.
Hamlet's players; the rude mechanicals; all the world's a stage;
life's but a poor player: the examples - most of them brilliant, and
thus famous, are plentiful.
I think that that's more than just coincidence.
> Have you used the FF technique in acting? I find it wonderful for development
> (though I distrust the "unrehearsed" aspect -- for which I doubt there really
> is historical grounds.)
I actually have worked FF; the production I'm in right now, as a
matter of fact. It's facinating, illuminating, and enormously
helpful, as long as you remember that every rule deserves to be broken
once in a while.
I've only ever attempted the unrehearsed aspect in a class situation.
You memorize your lines, come to class, and listen for your cue;
that's when you find out who your scene partner is. After the initial
"throw 'em together and see what happens" night, then you and your
partner meet and work together. But that first, nervous night is
delightfully terrifying, and boy, does it ever make you LISTEN to the
words.
That's a lesson most actors need to be reminded of, now and then, and
one that a few of the posters to this newsgroup would do well to take
heed of, as well.
Mark James
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B896F7C...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> Ken Holmes wrote:
> >
> > But Tom, isn't the discussion a bit boring? I mean really. Years and years
> > of scholars debating the finer points of word usage and so forth. In all
> > the years that this forum has been going on, has any decisive authorship
> > evidence ever been produced?
> 1) Freud's evaluation that Oxford was a good psychological match.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Attribution by psychoanalysis! Of course, one wonders what data Freud
used for his assessment of Oxford's psychology. Incidentally, Art, you
would do well to read one of Martin Gardner's essays concerning some of
the other utter rubbish that Freud believed. Maybe you would believe
it too!
[...]
> > The fact that some of you have wasted years of your lives in persuit of this
> > question is ludicrous, even insane.
> Romeo and Juliet Act 1, Scene 4
>
> MERCUTIO I mean, sir, in delay
> We WASTE our lights in vain, like lamps by day.
> Take our good meaning, for our judgment sits
> FIVE TIMES in that ere once in our FIVE wits.
>
> Sonnet 129
> The expense of spirit in a WASTE of shame
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shakespeares Sonnets dedication (1609)
> UPPER CASE letters only.
Why do you acribe any significance to upper case letters, Art?
> 145 = 29 x 5
But Art -- aren't you going to remind us that each of the numbers
145, 29, and 5 is both the sum of two consecutive integers and the
difference of their squares? Remarkable!
> T O.T H E.
> O N L I E.
> B E G E T
> T E R.O F.
> T H E S E.
> I N S V I
> N G.S O N
> N E T S Mr
> [W]H A L L. W{H}
> H[A]P P I {H}A
> N E[S]S E. S
> A N D[T]H T
> A T.E T[E] E?
> R N I T I
> E P R O M
> I S E D.B
> Y.O V R.E
> V E R-L I
> V I N G.P
> O E T.W I
> S H E T H.
> T H E.W E
> L L-W I S
> H I N G.A
> D V E N T
> V R E R I
> N.S E T T
> I N G.F O
> R T H.T.T.
You're strangely selective, Art. What about the occurrence of
"Ver -- I, Ed"
reading upward along the center column? Note too that the "E" in "Ed"
is intersected diagonally by the word "etene," an older form of
"eaten," a circumstance that points unmistakably to the Masonic ritual
cannibalism I mentioned to you earlier, Art:
T O. T H <E>
O N <L><I><E>
B E G E <T>
T <E><R><O><F>
T H E S E.
I N S V I
N G. S O N
N E T S Mr
W H A L L.
H A P P I
N E S S <E>
A N <D><T> H
A T <E> T E
R <N><I> T I
<E> P <R> O M
I S <E> D. B
Y. O <V> R. E
V E R- L I
V I N G. P
O E <T> W I
S H <E> T H.
T H <E> W E
<L> L- W I S
H <I> N G. A
<D> V <E> N T
V <R> E R I
N. S <E> T T
I N G <F> O
R T H. T <T>
More ominously, as has been pointed out before, what about the
appearance of the contiguous words "lie," "fore," and "tee" near the
top of the grid? (In fact, *both* "tee" and "lie" occur *twice* in the
grid.) The presence of these words strongly suggests that the
concealed message concerns golf (which makes sense -- two of the best
known Scottish obsessions are Freemasonry and golf). This inference is
resoundingly confirmed by the appearance of "dreft" (an older form of
"drive"). "Dreft" is a five-letter word and hence even in isolation
would be eVERy bit as impressive as "waste"; that the word appears
moreoVER in conjunction with "fore," "tee," and "lie" makes it
oVERwhelmingly less likely to be a chance occurrence than your feeble
"waste." (The only possible pertinence of the latter that I can see is
that your posts do consist largely of solid waste, generally of the
bovine variety.)
> 2) £1,000 a year in Shakespeare/Oxford/Lady Suffolk/Shelton.
>
> 3) The evidence of "VERO NIHIL VERIUS"
> + (Masonic)"G"
But there is *no* "Masonic G" in "Vero nihil verius." The only "G"
I see is Moronic, not Masonic; it arises from your utterly incompetent
inability to discoVER genuine anagrams, Art.
> in the Sonnet's Dedications: "OUR EVERLIVING" &
> "HIS EVERLIVING WOR(kes)"
What?! What is your point here, Art?
> 4) The Troilus & Cressida intro: "A Never Writer to
> an Ever Reader"
You mean, anyone who uses the character string "ver" is Oxford? I
thought that even you had been disabused of that charmingly naive
notion, Art.
> > Is anyone bothering to question the authorship of Chaucer?
> I have from time to time.
Yes, Art -- you're an equal opportunity nutcase.
> > or of any of the Greeks? Why are you all picking on Shakespeare?
> Shakspere is the most obvious phoney.
[...]
> > What was in it for the dozens, or hundreds of friends and enemies
> > to remain silent about the "truth"?
> What was in it for the dozens, or hundreds of friends and enemies
> to tell the "truth"? Even Reedy reminds me of the danger I myself risk.
Don't worry, Art; the Grand Master won't let anything happen to you.
You are the Order's most eloquently persuasive spokesperson, and the
Stratfordians' most valuable asset.
> > What motive would they have to all live their lives by a lie?
> We all live our lives by lies.[...]
Ah -- so you *are* trolling, Art.
[...]
> > There
> > was never any question or mystery about the authorship of Shakespeare's
> > works until someone like yourselves invented it. Had all these works been
> > performed and written down with no name attributed to them, either in
> > writing or anecdotally, then there would be a mystery. The Kennedy
> > Assasination falls into the realms of conspiracy since there was a forensic
> > mystery as to how all the shots could have been fired from one spot. With
> > Shakespeare, the mystery has been created by scholars with apparently
> > nothing better to do.
Rather, the "mystery" has been created by farcically misinformed,
comically clueless pseudo-scholars with nothing better to do.
> > There is no mystery here, and more importantly, there
> > is no MOTIVE.
> There are so many possible motives that it is hard to choose just five
> or six.
That's all right, Art; if there are indeed so *many* "motives," what
*are* five of six of the most plausible ones?
> > One of you told me once that if it could be proved that someone other than
> > Shakespeare wrote his works, the entire belief systems of our civilazation
> > would be rocked. That it would be the same as proof that intellegent alien
> > life was visiting our planet.
It's about as likely, too.
[...]
> > This is delusional. Get help.
That would certainly be my advice as well, Art.
> > Or are you all hoping that your perfect
> > theory will lead you to scholarly fame and riches? Is that YOUR motivation?
> Scholarly flame and breeches.
Well, at least you perceive that the flames directed to you are
*scholarly*. Of course, such flames are usually nothing of the sort --
the scholarly responses come from people like Dave Kathman and Terry
Ross, and their rejoinders are not flames. NeVERtheless, I realize
that in comparison to your insane and often completely incoherent
stream-of-altered-consciousness logorrhoeic ramblings, the jocular
flames in response must seem profoundly scholarly indeed.
[...]
> > From working on his plays, I have found he had a great
> > deal of respect for actors and artists, and very little for scholars.
> We all have very little respect for scholars.
Then why are Oxfordians so indebted to Dave Kathman and Terry Ross
for nearly eVERything they know about the question?
> > Shakespeare wasn't writting so a bunch of Sir Nathanials could debate the
> > usage of a single word here and there. I think you should all question your
> > own motives in the debate. I will venture to bet that they stem from an
> > egotistical hunger for fame rather than an ernest search for truth.
> I'll have a pastrami on rye.
But Art -- "pastrami" is an anagram of "I'm Art (sap)."
David Webb
Geralyn Horton
you put in each classification?
Plays with actors: MND, LLL, MWW, Ham, Temp
plays with scholars: LLL, MWW, MV, TS,
Peter Farey wrote:
> "OK Richard, here's my latest play. You'll love it. There are
> two lots of people in it. First there is a troupe of actors,
> like us here, and I portray them as a load of idle, stupid,
> illiterate drunks. Second, there are some 'university wits',
> scholars all, and I show them as honest, hard-working brilliant
> pillars of the community. Now ...
>
> What do you mean, you don't like it?"
>
> Peter F.
> pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
> http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
DerColin
>===========================
>
>POINT #1
>
>A. May 19, 1603, on the license for the King's Men - "Wee . . . doe
>licence . . . Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage,
>Augustyne Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert
>Armyn, Richard Cowly . . . ."
>
>B. Oxford died June 24, 1604.
>
>C. Will of Augustine Phillips, written May 4, 1605, proved May 16, 1605 -
>"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 . . . ."
>
>Augustine Phillips' bequest of 30 shillings to his "Fellowe" Shakespeare
>comes 11 months after Oxford's death. If Oxford were Shakespeare, Phillips
>would have known that he was dead. Therefore, Shakespeare and Oxford cannot
>be the same person. Since Volker admits that the actor and the writer were
>the same man, Oxford could not be the writer.
>
"further"???
> proved by Edmund
>Howe's 1615 list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets." He lists
>the poets "according to their priorities as neere I could," and in the
>middle of the 27 listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman,"
>thus effectively naming the Stratford man as the poet.
>
He is the Stratford man because of the "gentleman" is your meaning, I take it?
Which certainly indicates that Howe thought so.
>POINT #5
>
>That this playwright was the man from Stratford is shown by three documents
>contemporary to him.
>
Poet = playwright? You assert this?
>1. Oct 7, 1601 - mortgage deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley,
>John Collet, & Matthew Browne, in which Bodley was given contol of the Globe
>playhouse, tenented by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
>
>2. Oct 10, 1601 - deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley, legally
>tightening up the control of Bodley. Again the Globe is described as being
>tenanted by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
>
>3. 1608 - deed of sale of John Collet's interest to John Bodley. The Globe
>is once more described, and the tenants listed as "Richard Burbage and
>William Shakespeare, gentlemen."
>
>A. "William Shakespeare, gentleman" is the Stratford man (Point #3 above).
>
>B. The Globe tenant mentioned in the above deeds specifically names "William
>Shakespeare (or Shackspeare), gent."
>
>C. Therefore, the Stratford man is the Globe-sharer.
>
Sounds likely. Don't most people of all persuasions believe this?
>D. Since the Stratford man is the playwright (see point #4), the
>Globe-sharer is the playwright.
>
#4 only talked of a poet. And you are assuming that Howe made the attribution
correctly. Is this it??? One mention in a list? Your "proof"???
>POINT #6 - A WORD ABOUT THE INTERLINEATIONS
>
>If the interlineations were forged to show a connection between Shakespeare
>and Heminge & Condell, why are all the other interlineations in the will in
>the same hand? On sheet one the forgers changed the month from Januarij to
>Martij, inserted the phrases "in discharge of her marriage porcion," "that
>shee," "by my executours & overseers," "the stock," "to be," and "the
>house."
>
>On sheet two they forged not only "& to my ffellowes John Hemynge Richard
>Burbage & Henry Cundell xxvj s viij d A peece to buy them Ringes," but they
>inserted six more phrases that could not be of any benefit to the hoaxers.
>On sheet three, in addition to the famous second-best bed bequest, they
>inserted "the saied" to legally tighten up the appointment of the overseers
>of the will, and struck out "Seale" and wrote "hand" to make the
>circumstances of the publishing accurate.
>
>The forgers would have had to be lawyers to tidy up the will in such a
>manner. That the forgers did all this strains credulity, yet the so-called
>forgeries are in the same hand as the rest of the interlineations.
>
>======================================================
>
>Go ahead, Ptezold. Try your hand. Not one of your cohorts has managed to
>refute this argument, and they never will.
It is startling, how tenuous the connections between the writer and the man
from Stratford -- actor (probably), manager (probably), gentleman -- are -- how
thin the documentation for the writer compared to the documentation of the
business associate. Look at Tom's list: very little crossover. It certainly
reinforces respect for Price's analysis.
I think that those that are asking for refutation are asking the wrong thing.
We want to know #1/ what is the evidence, and then from that, #2/ what
interpretation makes the most sense. If there were no surviving Shakespearean
texts -- no FF, no poems -- then I would agree that this analysis makes the
best connections of the facts. We'd have no reasons to think otherwise. But
many see in the texts problems with the standard attribution -- an excessive
difficulty in matching man with work -- and from there have looked for clues
via text and in previously ignored quarters, for more likely authors. (For
example, who would have doubted Marlowe's early death, but for suspicion that
he might have been involved in writing Shakespeare? And suddenly it is found
that his "death" is, indeed, suspect.)
Most of them will ignore this
>argument the same way they did the first time it was posted more than 3
>years ago, because they're a bunch of chicken-shit weak-minded
>flabby-brained thinkers who think that just because they have successfully
>deluded themselves that should be a good enough argument for the rest of us
>to believe in their drivel.
>
>Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
>
Is Reedy refuted? No.
Is his explanation cohesive? Yes.
Is it convincing? Not to many. Not to me.
With all those "facts", it yet seems very thin. And logical leaps are glossed
over (poet to playwright, for instance), as if hiding deficiencies.
So Tom, feel jolly that you are not refuted. I hope you do not confuse that
with either being convincing or being right.
DerColin
>development
>> (though I distrust the "unrehearsed" aspect -- for which I doubt there
>really
>> is historical grounds.)
>
>I actually have worked FF; the production I'm in right now, as a
>matter of fact. It's facinating, illuminating, and enormously
>helpful, as long as you remember that every rule deserves to be broken
>once in a while.
>
work on FF scenes. Hopefully we'll be able to mount a production eventually.
But it hardly matters, it is such a wonderful tool to sharpen one's acting
techniques in general.
>I've only ever attempted the unrehearsed aspect in a class situation.
>You memorize your lines, come to class, and listen for your cue;
>that's when you find out who your scene partner is. After the initial
>"throw 'em together and see what happens" night, then you and your
>partner meet and work together. But that first, nervous night is
>delightfully terrifying, and boy, does it ever make you LISTEN to the
>words.
>
>That's a lesson most actors need to be reminded of, now and then,
Yes, LISTENing is crucial.
> and
>one that a few of the posters to this newsgroup would do well to take
>heed of, as well.
>
>Mark James
I envy you your opportunity. I'd like to hear any further insights you have
from it.
Neuendorffer
'Whitt Brantley' = 'David L. Webb'
is the whole question of why a newbie like Dr. Nick would be so obsessed
in arguing this particular point to death. And how does Dr. Nick know so
much about 'David L. Webb':
<<Anti-gravity is rather a far cry from Webb's preferred
brand of maths. Webb's job is actually as a maths professor not a
Russian translator; no doubt his knowledge of Russian is of use
to him professionally as well as in his leisure.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
> elizabe...@boldplanet.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<cd15e95a.01082...@posting.google.com>...
> > Webb's obsession with the conspiracy theorist Stephanie Caruana
> > suggests that Webb may have been stalking Stephanie on the conspiracy
> > sites. Webb is too familiar with the names of some of those sites.
> > I searched Usenet and L. Whitt Brantley specializes in 'Podkletnov
> > gravity shielded anti-gravitational devices.' Webb translates Russian
> > scientific papers when he isn't inventing insults. Pardon me,
> > recycling insults. I think that's where Webb saw the name Whitt
> > Brantley.
Nicholas Whyte wrote:
>
> Even if Webb were as obsessed with Caruana as you think, there is no
> website in Google that includes both "stephanie caruana" and "whitt
> brantley", or even one which includes references to both Caruana's
> work on Gemstone and Podkletnov shielding. Podkletnov's work on
> anti-gravity shielding was written in English, not in Russian, and in
> any case was not published. Whitt Brantley (of NASA) does not write in
> Russian either. Anti-gravity is rather a far cry from Webb's preferred
> brand of maths. Webb's job is actually as a maths professor not a
> Russian translator; no doubt his knowledge of Russian is of use to him
> professionally as well as in his leisure. Whitt Brantley (the actor)
> has a web-site about Shakespeare on zdnet which he has referred to in
> previous posts.
>
> If you had done a little research you would have discovered all this
> for yourself. Outside your own fevered imagination (and Art
> Neuendorffer's) there is absolutely no reason to believe that Whitt
> Brantley is other than he says he is, or that David Webb has detailed
> knowledge of ufology. However you prefer to believe that despite Whitt
> Brantley's name being clearly and unequivocally associated with his
> writings, they must have been by someone else. Now, where have I heard
> that before?
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
> Re: Elizabeth's ridiculous belief that Whitt Brantley is David Webb,
You didn't receive an e-mail from Whitt Brantley so you don't have all
the evidence. I deleted the attachment without looking at it so even
I don't have all the evidence.
> it's always amusing when someone with an insane notion of who wrote
> Shakespeare
Bacon is the only candidate of the four with ***evidence*** Bob.
Strats have mo evidence and Oxfordians have committed identity theft
on Bacon and appear to have evidence but there is no Oxfordian
evidence.
Not a whit.
> which can't be 100% demolished because it concerns things
> that happened too long ago,
It wouldn't matter how old the evidence was if Strats had any. They
don't have any.
> uses anti-Stratfordian reasoning on
> something that CAN,
> because contemporary,
> as when Art declared I was
> in the pay of . . . The Trust.
Art was foolin' with ya Bob.
>
> --Bob G.
Okay Fine
Shakspere might have been an actor for the company in which he held a
share, even while (and this is where it gets super wicked double tricky)
his name was used as the front for the author of the plays attributed to
William Shakespeare...?
> POINT #4
>
> That this William Shakespeare was the poet is further proved by Edmund
> Howe's 1615 list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets." He lists
> the poets "according to their priorities as neere I could," and in the
> middle of the 27 listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman,"
> thus effectively naming the Stratford man as the poet.
You're pretty smart in your mind: which of the following vitiates #4?
a. Howe knew Shakespeare only by his works.
b. Oxford was referred to as a gentleman.
c. 'Shakespeare' refers to the author, not the actor.
d. Shakespeare is number one.
> POINT #5
>
> That this playwright was the man from Stratford is shown by three documents
> contemporary to him.
>
> 1. Oct 7, 1601 - mortgage deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley,
> John Collet, & Matthew Browne, in which Bodley was given contol of the Globe
> playhouse, tenented by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
>
> 2. Oct 10, 1601 - deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley, legally
> tightening up the control of Bodley. Again the Globe is described as being
> tenanted by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
>
> 3. 1608 - deed of sale of John Collet's interest to John Bodley. The Globe
> is once more described, and the tenants listed as "Richard Burbage and
> William Shakespeare, gentlemen."
>
> A. "William Shakespeare, gentleman" is the Stratford man (Point #3 above).
In some contexts.
> B. The Globe tenant mentioned in the above deeds specifically names "William
> Shakespeare (or Shackspeare), gent."
True.
> C. Therefore, the Stratford man is the Globe-sharer.
Probably, but not for the reason you offer here.
> D. Since the Stratford man is the playwright (see point #4),
"Since"? Isn't this the conclusion you're aiming for? I think you
mixed up your form here.
> the
> Globe-sharer is the playwright.
This isn't your conclusion. I think you mean to say
D2. Since the Globe-sharer is the playwright, the Stratford man is the
playwright.
You left out a key step. You have to show that the Globe-sharer is the
playwright. That will not be easy.
OF.
snip
John W. Kennedy
Rebutted? What has been rebutted? The other arguments are there --
just out
> there. One selects what makes the most sense, given the information as it is.
> that the case is in effect closed because their evidence is so obviously
> superior, is only a claim.
No, it is a fact. Anti-Stratfordians are lunatics. Period.
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
Mark Steese
Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "Stephanie Caruana"
<spear-...@mindspring.com> that wrote
news:9miis4$c23$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net, on the day of 29 Aug 2001:
> Tom:
>
> I suppose you think you are being clever, appending the same "clever"
> remarks to this post as you did to the previous one. Here Steese is,
> attermpting to quell another new poster who is herself shyly objecting
> to the "deaf as a doorpost" approach of certain Strats to open
> discussion, and of course you need to chime in here.
Steese is not attempting to do anything of the sort, Caruana. Steese is
pointing out why a new reader of hlas might get the impression that there
is reluctance to discuss claims for other authors. Steese noted,
accurately, that the claimants for other authors have been making the same
unfounded and disproven 'arguments' on this newsgroup for years, and Steese
directed said new reader to the groups.google.com archives, where said
reader can see the truth for said reader's self. Steese didn't notice
Caruana doing anything nearly as helpful.
> If I weren't such a consummate lady, I tell you, Tom, you would receive
> a tongue-lashing, so to speak, that would would make your head spin so
> hard that before you knew it you would have been screwed nearly level
> with the ground!
Don't trip over that long, long, tongue now, Caruana.
> (If you are going to insult people, how about using a little
> imagination?)
Perhaps Tom tailors his insults to those who receive them?
Mark Steese
wrote news:3B8CEB1C...@qwest.net, on the day of 29 Aug 2001:
>> >> If any of the factions opposed to Shakespeare's authorship could
>> >> address the evidence for Shakespeare without invoking conspiracies to
>> >> conceal the truth, that would also be welcome.
>> >
>> > That's very amusing, Mark. A secret without any secrecy! Very
>> > rich, indeed.
>>
>> Without any evidence, that is. Have you evidence for a conspiracy
>> other than the fact that you believe there must have been one? If so,
>> bring it out.
>
> Show me evidence that there was no conspiracy if Shakspere's not the
> author.
So, you have no evidence other than your own beliefs. I didn't think so.
Here's a newsflash, Eric: I'm not obliged to provide evidence against the
existence of something for which there is no positive evidence to begin
with! If you think otherwise, show me evidence that there is no conspiracy
to conceal the fact that the moon is actually made of green cheese.
>> >> I'm still waiting for a reasoned response to my own argument, which
>> >> runs as follows:
>> >>
>> >> Given the complete absence of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents
>> >> containing so much as a suggestion that anyone other than William
>> >> Shakespeare wrote the plays and poetry now attributed to him, it is
>> >> perfectly reasonable for scholars to reject modern assertions to
>> >> the contrary.
>>
>> Thank you for reprinting this. No response, I see.
>
> You're not ready for this discussion yet.
Thank you for providing my first good laugh of the day, Putten-Peacham Man.
>> > Do you mean to suggest that Stratfordians would cover up evidence
>> > pointing to a different author? I didn't think they'd go that far.
>>
>> Eric, only someone with your previously-demonstrated incompetence at
>> interpreting the written word could possibly think I meant to suggest
>> something as stupid as that.
>
> Mark, only someone as immune to thought as you could fail to comprehend
> my meaning.
I comprehended your meaning perfectly, Putten-Peacham man. And you were,
as usual, completely wrong.
Mark Steese
[snip]
> Tom, I know you're still feeling burned because I outsmarted you. Hey,
> it happened, man. Let it go.
>
> OF.
And here's my *second* good laugh of the day! Thanks again, Eric!
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <cd15e95a.01082...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
Weir <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Actually, I see no reason to connect "Whitt Brantley" with "the kind
> > of archly phoney names Nabokov was so good at inventing."
> Or no motive if you're posing as Whitt Brantley.
Several people have already pointed out that there is evidence that
Whitt Brantley and I are two different people. But since you evidently
believe that Bacon and Shakespeare were the same person, such an
attributional error is scarcely surprising; probably no amount of
careful reasoning will ever convince a delusional adherent of such
attributional errors of her many mistakes.
> > [...]
> > > > Am I the only professional Shakespearian actor in this group?
> > > You're the only Dartmouth mathematician posing as a professional
> > > Shakespearean actor in this group.
> > You are, as usual, barking up the wrong tree. I have been
> > birdwatching in a remote camp on the Maine coast for over a week;
> You've got a mixed metaphor there with hunting and bird watching.
No -- I was doing the birdwatching; you were doing the barking.
(Dave Kathman recently characterized Mr. Streitz as "barking mad" --
I'm beginning to understand what he must have meant.)
> > in
> > particular I have been nowhere near an internet connection. I have not
> > posted as myself, as Whitt Brantley, or as anyone else during that
> > time. I have no idea who Whitt Brantley may be, but I certainly am not
> > he.
> If you were he you would not admit that you were he.
> > > > Because if I am,
> > > > my question is answered.
> > > >
> > > > For 18 years, I have performed the works.
> > > Eighteen years ago you were eighteen years old being traumatized by
> > > your first read through of 'Lolita.'
> > Wrong again.
> I sense that I am substantially correct but have some detail wrong.
What is it that you hallucinate that you have "substantially
correct"? I did not read _Lolita_ until after I had read some of
Nabokov's Russian works, nor have I ever performed Shakespeare.
> > [...]
> > > > I will tell you that as an actor I am indeed torn, because whoever wrote
> > > > those
> > > > plays, was an actor,and I am sure attended a few rehearsals from time to
> > > > time.
> > > Bacon acted in his own masques. Nabokov would know that.
> > So? I have no idea what your point, if any, is supposed to be.
> My point was that Nabokov would have known that Bacon acted in his own
> masques.
So? I still do not have the vaguest idea what you imagine that that
factoid proves or even suggests.
> > > > So where was Edward de Vere, or Bacon, or Marlowe, when it came down to
> > > > the
> > > > performance. How many hours were spent in rehearsal? If only Patrick
> > > > Tucker
> > > > were here!
> > > Oxford was out killing peasants for sport, Shakespeare was holding
> > > horses for gentlemen and Bacon was in his study writing the plays.
> > [...]
> > > > PS: In response to elizabeth-weir@boldplanet (I have no idea who you
> > > > are,
> > > > and
> > > > I don't know Webb or Streitz...my name is Whitt Brantley.
> > > >
> > > > and your emails are rather rude.
> > > > Formed I'm sure, by years of conceit.
> 'Formed, I'm sure, by years of conceit.' <----< That is pure Webb!
No, I've never written anything even remotely close. For one thing,
unlike you and some other anti-Stratfordians, I am wary of the use of
the word "sure" when speculating upon the motivations of others about
whom I know next to nothing. For another, "years of conceit" is an
inaccurate and imprecise locution that I would never have (and have
never) written.
> > > All those years memorizing Nabokov's every line weren't a waste of
> > > time, Webb. You've got the style down.
> > >
> > > I only hope you don't run out of free AOL sign-up disks.
> > If you mistake Brantley's style for mine or either of our styles for
> > Nabokov's magisterial style,
> Nabokov's style was 'magisterial?' Nabokov was a satirist.
No, Nabokov tended to be bored by satire. As Nabokov himself said,
"Satire is a lesson; parody is a game." (I may be slightly misquoting
from memory.) If you don't think that Nabokov's style was magisterial,
then you can scarcely have read _Dar_, _Zashchita Luzhina_, _The Real
Life of Sebastian Knight_, and countless other works.
> Nabokov
> was closer to Thomas Berger or Thomas Pynchon than. . .I even can't
> think of a 'magisterial' 20th c. novel.
How about _Magister Ludi_?
> There are none. Least of all
> any of Nabokov's novels. It was not a magisterial century. Maybe
> Churchill's 'A History of the English Speaking Peoples.'
> > then you evidently have such a poor
> > command of English and such a meager ability to recognize stylistic
> > nuances that you have no business whatever making any attributional
> > conjectures based upon "style."
> Forget style. You haven't even demonstrated that you understand
> Nabokov's genre.
Nabokov was emphatically *not* a "genre" writer; he was profoundly
original. Even the "genres" he employed as points of departure --
biography in _Dar_ and _Sebastian Knight_, scholarly commentary in
_Pale Fire_, farcical burlesque in _Pnin_, memoir in _Look at the
Harlequins!_, etc. -- are remarkable only insofar as they are
undermined and transformed in the alembic of Nabokov's uncannily
unnerving alchemy. Anyone who consigns an innovator like Nabokov to
any particular "genre" displays profound ignorance both of Nabokov's
_ouevre_ and of its abundant variety.
> Anybody who says that Nabokov's style is
> 'magisterial' is not reading Nabokov ironically. You're not in on the
> joke with Vladdy, Webb.
The common diminutive form of "Vladimir" is "Volodya," not "Vladdy,"
which is too redolent of Dracula for my taste.
> > As Whitt Brantley has already told you, he is not I; as I already
> > told you, I am not he.
> I need to master the use of the semi-colon.
You need to master a good deal of far more substance than that.
> > In fact, I have never posted pseudonymously in
> > this newsgroup since its inception;
> What about alt.nordic.skiing. You posed as a skier.
>
> Don't bother giving me one of your precise, pedantic corrections--I'm
> kidding.
It's rec.nordic.skiing.
> > on a few occasions when I was in
> > Argentina and had no access to reliable newsreading software, a few of
> > my posts appeared under the name "Courier" (courtesy of a kind friend
> > who offered to post messages that I e-mailed to him), but all those
> > messages were clearly *signed* with my name.
> We are terribly fascinated by the minutae [sic] of your life.
Evidently *you* are, at any rate, although I cannot fathom why -- so
much so, in fact, that you are prone to attribute to me with the
invincible assurance of complete ignorance the prose of any random
newcomer, regardless of how dissimilar that prose might be to mine. I
can only liken your extraordinary misperception to that of Hermann in
Nabokov's _Otchayan'ye_, who hallucinates an uncanny resemblance
between himself and a bum, a likeness visible to nobody else. As
Ardelion duly noted, artists note differences, not similarities.
> > Finally, I have never in
> > my life used AOL, and don't intend to.
> Yes, Webb. I have previously stated that using AOL at Dartmouth is
> grounds for denial of tenure.
Even if your jocular and uninformed conjecture were true, it would
be inapplicable, as I came to Dartmouth with tenure. Actually, one
good reason for not using AOL is that the unwanted free disks that they
continually mail out to all and sundry are intended for use with
Windows machines, whereas nearly everybody at Dartmouth uses a Mac.
> > The leaps of folly of which some of the less intelligent and/or less
> > mentally stable anti-Stratfordians are capable are positively
> > mind-boggling.
> What is puzzling--I wouldn't call it 'mind-boggling--is someone who
> can see that the Oxfordians have a case based only on biography and no
> evidence but cannot see that the Strats have neither biography nor
> evidence.
As I said, the leaps of folly of which some of the less intelligent
and/or less mentally stable anti-Stratfordians are capable are
positively mind-boggling.
David Webb
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <cd15e95a.01082...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
Weir <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote:
As I said, I have been birdwatching on a tidal mudflat, far from any
internet access. That Whitt Brantley appeared during that time is no
more remarkable than the recent appearance of many other newcomers,
except perhaps to those periously close to paranoia.
> Why would 'Whitt
> Brantley' send me such a trollish e-mail?
I have no idea. Why don't you ask him? I would certainly have used
a more inventive pseudonym.
> And with Elizabethan
> wordes?
Why do you fear "Elizabethan wordes?" And what do Brantley's
"Elizabethan wordes" have to do with me?
> I was afraid to open the attachment.
There is little need for such fear, unless the attachment was
executable. Some e-mail programs append text or html files as
attachments.
> > Perhaps Elizabeth is right. and the "Whitt Brantley" who posts to the
> > group is an established poster working under a pseudonym, who maybe
> > has done enough research both to enjoy the irony of using a real
> > actor's name and also to enjoy the fact that his nom de plume is
> > associated with a quite different area of loony speculation, ie
> > ufology.
> Webb's obsession
"Obsession"? I am no more "obsessed" with Stephanie than with the
other anti-Stratfordians whose amusing errors and fantasies I've
refuted in the past. The chief respect in which Stephanie is
exceptional is that she is intelligent (if you've read any of Paul
Streitz or Okay Fine, then you will appreciate why this trait is a
refreshing change), articulate (if you have read Streitz, Richard
Kennedy, PWDBard, or many of the other Oxfordians in this newsgroup who
can scarcely cobble together an intelligible sentence, then you will
understand why this attribute too is a refreshing change), creative
(where no evidence exists, Stephanie will almost unfailingly invent
some), witty (again, if you've read Streitz _et al_, you will probably
appreciate why this asset is highly valued), and so thoroughly in the
sway of her own vivid imagination (rather than in secure command of the
source material) that she can be relied upon to commit comic gaffes
(chiefly attributable to fantasy-mediated memory lapses and outright
wishful thinking) in nearly every post. She's a most entertaining
interlocutor.
> with the conspiracy theorist Stephanie Caruana
To the best of my knowldege at this point, Stephanie is only a
"conspiracy theorist" to the extent that virtually all Oxfordians
perforce are. My recent posting of some links to her published work
referred to her prior activity as a journalist rather than as a
conspiracy theorist, and it was in that context that I encountered it.
> suggests that Webb may have been stalking Stephanie on the conspiracy
> sites. Webb is too familiar with the names of some of those sites.
I'm sorry that my perfunctory familiarity with conspiracy theories
apparently unnerves you. In the same way, although I have no expertise
in Elizabethan and Jacobean literary history and know next to nothing
about the subject, my superficial, amateurish familiarity with that
body of material as well is too deep for the comfort of those such as
yourself who are completely ignorant of the material.
> I searched Usenet and L. Whitt Brantley specializes in 'Podkletnov
> gravity shielded anti-gravitational devices.' Webb translates Russian
> scientific papers when he isn't inventing insults.
No, I don't; I learned Russian with the aim of reading Pushkin,
Tyutchev, Griboyedov, Tolstoy, Turgenev, etc., and I haven't translated
a Russian scientific paper in years. For one thing, most of the
important Russian mathematical papers are now written in English. The
last thing I translated from Russian to English was a rejoinder to a
polemical Russian work of "history."
> Pardon me,
> recycling insults. I think that's where Webb saw the name Whitt
> Brantley.
I had never seen the name until well after you did. This whole
affair is a product of your own paranoia.
> > However I am inclined to think that she is wrong, and that Whitt
> > Brantley is exactly who he says he is. . .
> I think it's Webb.
As I've said before, you "think" a lot of counterfactual things.
> Webb has posted on the fact that he has read
> everything Nabokov has written in English and Russian *and* the entire
> body of literary criticism on Nabokov in both languages. More than
> once.
No, your reading comprehension and/or memory are failing you again.
I have indeed read what Nabokov wrote in Russian and in English. I
doubt that anybody has read "the entire body of literary criticism on
Nabokov in both languages," although I am pretty familiar with some of
the main landmarks in the Nabokov critical landscape. In any event,
what has Whitt Brantley to do with Nabokov? Or are you just free
associating again?
> Nabokov wrote the handbook on this kind of parody and Webb has it
> memorized.
> > . . . Occam's razor, after all. (If
> > so, Whitt, did you write the Mount Rushmore book, or is there yet
> > another person out there using your name?)
> ARistotle's razor says Whitt could have written the book on Mount
> Rushmore *and* another person could be out there using his name.
Those who invoke "Aristotle's razor" are apt to suffer
self-inflicted wounds.
David Webb
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B8D1CAA...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> Much more interesting than whether
>
> 'Whitt Brantley' = 'David L. Webb'
>
> is the whole question of why a newbie like Dr. Nick would be so obsessed
> in arguing this particular point to death.
So you're adopting your Petulant Paranoid persona again, Art? I
warned you not to spring that one on newcomers. Only one post by
Nicholas Whyte to this thread has shown up on my server, Art, compared
to three or four of Elizabeth Weir's and at least two of yours. In any
case, I have little doubt that by your time-honored technique of
farcical free assocation, you'll be able to prolong the thread
interminably, long after Nicholas has lost what little interest he ever
had in the matter.
> And how does Dr. Nick know so
> much about 'David L. Webb':
>
> <<Anti-gravity is rather a far cry from Webb's preferred
> brand of maths. Webb's job is actually as a maths professor not a
> Russian translator; no doubt his knowledge of Russian is of use
> to him professionally as well as in his leisure.>>
Because Nicholas Whyte -- unlike you, Art -- knows to use both a
library and a search engine. My published works are a matter of public
record, like those of almost all working scientists (except those at
the NSA), and there is no secret whateVER about what I do. Of course,
I realize that as someone utterly ignorant of modern information
technology, such wizardry must appear to you as miraculous as did the
use of matches in an account I read of the last surviving member of a
remote tribal culture thrust unexpectedly into late 20th century urban
America.
Elizabeth Weir?! *Research*?! Besides being a sane and sensible
newsgroup participant, Nicholas has the makings of a comedian as well!
> > Outside your own fevered imagination (and Art
> > Neuendorffer's) there is absolutely no reason to believe that Whitt
> > Brantley is other than he says he is, or that David Webb has detailed
> > knowledge of ufology. However you prefer to believe that despite Whitt
> > Brantley's name being clearly and unequivocally associated with his
> > writings, they must have been by someone else. Now, where have I heard
> > that before?
I couldn't have put it any better myself. This instance of spurious
attribution is *hilariously* funny, and so typical of anti-Stratfordian
"methods" of "research" that one can only marvel that Elizabeth Weir is
presumably *serious*!
David Webb
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <9mikv4$b2b$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephanie Caruana
<spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote:
I'm afraid that she really *does* believe that. Moreover, even when
there is *no* "coincidence" to start with -- for instance, in the case
of the _Cryptomenytices_ illustrations (if you haven't seen Weir's
amusing "Shakespeare Caught Taking Payoff" thread, Stephanie, you
really should take a look at it) -- Elizabeth Weir habitually invents,
imagines, or hallucinates one. Incidentally, "A L. Whitt Brantley" is
an anagram of
"Blatantly, th'Weir."
One might just as plausibly argue on that basis that "Whitt Brantley"
is actually Elizabeth Weir!
> > Why would 'Whitt
> > Brantley' send me such a trollish e-mail?
> Umm: because maybe he was trying to be friendly?
> > And with Elizabethan
> > wordes?
> >I was afraid to open the attachment.
> Talk about "ebullient paranoia"!
As I mentioned elsewhere, Elizabeth Weir's use of that particular
locution must surely be one of the most unintentionally comic (and most
*ironic*!) utterances in the entire history of this newsgroup.
> > > Perhaps Elizabeth is right. and the "Whitt Brantley" who posts to the
> > > group is an established poster working under a pseudonym, who maybe
> > > has done enough research both to enjoy the irony of using a real
> > > actor's name and also to enjoy the fact that his nom de plume is
> > > associated with a quite different area of loony speculation, ie
> > > ufology.
> > Webb's obsession with the conspiracy theorist Stephanie Caruana
> > suggests that Webb may have been stalking Stephanie on the conspiracy
> > sites. Webb is too familiar with the names of some of those sites.
> Talk about obsession! When I was reading your fantasy posts about David
> writing to you under an "assumed name" (and using AOL, at that!! :-)) I
> started thinking about that movie with Glenn Close and Michael Douglas!
> David, don't open any closed cooking pots or you might find your pet rabbit
> or cat in a stew.....
Yes, I found her use of the word "obsession" almost as revealing as
it was risible.
> > I searched Usenet and L. Whitt Brantley specializes in 'Podkletnov
> > gravity shielded anti-gravitational devices.' Webb translates Russian
> > scientific papers when he isn't inventing insults. Pardon me,
> > recycling insults. I think that's where Webb saw the name Whitt
> > Brantley.
> You ought to put all this into a novel. (Or I might.)
Nabokov already did substantially that, in _Pale Fire_. But I agree
that it would make excellent novelistic raw material. Elizabeth Weir
makes an even better Kinbote than Art.
> > > However I am inclined to think that she is wrong, and that Whitt
> > > Brantley is exactly who he says he is. . .
> > I think it's Webb. Webb has posted on the fact that he has read
> > everything Nabokov has written in English and Russian *and* the entire
> > body of literary criticism on Nabokov in both languages. More than
> > once.
> >
> > Nabokov wrote the handbook on this kind of parody and Webb has it
> > memorized.
> I think you flatter yourself that David is so interested in you that he went
> to this extreme (and extremely uncharacteristic) campaign of deception.
That's certainly neither my method nor my style.
> But
> it does begin to look as though your self-preoccupation and over-active
> fantasy life can lead you into these unseemly pickles. Get a grip, girl!
> DAVID IS NOT WHITT!
And Shakespeare is not Bacon.
> > > . . . Occam's razor, after all. (If
> > > so, Whitt, did you write the Mount Rushmore book, or is there yet
> > > another person out there using your name?)
> > ARistotle's razor says Whitt could have written the book on Mount
> > Rushmore *and* another person could be out there using his name.
> Poor Whitt! Hey, listen, Elizabeth Weir is "not" your "typical HLAS
> poster". (What am I saying?)
>
> I hope she will eventually realize her error and allow you to post here in
> peace. (But don't count on it.)
Yes, I agree -- poor Whitt Brantley must feel almost as disoriented
as the amiable Nicholas Whyte must have felt upon being the target both
of an accusation from Art's "petulant paranoid" persona *and* Crowley's
delusions right from the outset.
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
>
> > Much more interesting than whether
> >
> > 'Whitt Brantley' = 'David L. Webb'
> >
> > is the whole question of why a newbie like Dr. Nick would be so obsessed
> > in arguing this particular point to death.
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> So you're adopting your Petulant Paranoid persona again, Art? I
> warned you not to spring that one on newcomers. Only one post by
> Nicholas Whyte to this thread has shown up on my server, Art, compared
> to three or four of Elizabeth Weir's and at least two of yours.
But what a post it was!
> > And how does Dr. Nick know so
> > much about 'David L. Webb':
> >
> > <<Anti-gravity is rather a far cry from Webb's preferred
> > brand of maths. Webb's job is actually as a maths professor not a
> > Russian translator; no doubt his knowledge of Russian is of use
> > to him professionally as well as in his leisure.>>
>
> Because Nicholas Whyte -- unlike you, Art -- knows to use both a
> library and a search engine.
Perhaps, but the silly t-test he performed shows that he is no
mathematician.
> My published works are a matter of public
> record, like those of almost all working scientists (except those at
> the NSA), and there is no secret whateVER about what I do.
It's not you we're worried about; it's Whitt Brantley.
Art N.
Bob Grumman
derangement, but I wondered if anyone could tell me what in the
world he meant by the following:
"Show me evidence that there was no conspiracy if Shakspere's not the
author."
Mark replied, "Here's a newsflash, Eric: I'm not obliged to
provide evidence against the existence of something for which
there is no positive evidence to begin with!" He took it to
mean "if you believe Shakespeare was Shakespeare, demonstrate it
be showing evidence that there was no conspiracy concealing
someone else's being Shakespeare the poet," as I did at first.
But he's literally asking us to assume that the Stratford man was
NOT the poet, and then to present evidence indicating that there
was no conspiracy involved in this. Most of his "reasoning" is
similarly confusing. There seems to be some kind of attempt at
sane arguing in what he says, but I can't follow it. As I said
in an earlier post, it is sometimes hard to believe he is not
purposely trying to confuse us, hoping that our confusion will
infect us presentation of other points. Or something.
--Bob G.
--
Posted from nut-n-but.net [205.161.239.5]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Neuendorffer
> > >
> > > But Tom, isn't the discussion a bit boring? I mean really. Years and year
s
> > > of scholars debating the finer points of word usage and so forth. In all
> > > the years that this forum has been going on, has any decisive authorship
> > > evidence ever been produced?
> (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
>
> > 1) Freud's evaluation that Oxford was a good psychological match.
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> Attribution by psychoanalysis! Of course, one wonders what data
> Freud used for his assessment of Oxford's psychology.
Apparently, expert scholars like Freud don't count for much
if they don't give you the particular answer that you desire.
> Incidentally, Art, you
> would do well to read one of Martin Gardner's essays concerning some of
> the other utter rubbish that Freud believed.
<<It is hard to know which deserves the stronger condemnation: Freud's
childish credulity or the shameful way his daughter and other guardians
of the orthodox analytic flame have done their best to prevent the lurid
facts about Freud's early career from reaching the general public.>> --
_Freud, Fliess, and Emmas's Nose_ by Martin Gardner.
It is hard to know which DEsERVEs the stronger condemnation: Oxford's
bisexuality or the shameful way the Cecils and other guardians of the
orthodox analytic flame have done their best to prevent the lurid facts
about Shake-speare's true life from reaching the general public.
A possibility.
> Note too that the "E" in "Ed"
> is intersected diagonally by the word "etene," an older form of
> "eaten," a circumstance that points unmistakably to the Masonic ritual
> cannibalism I mentioned to you earlier, Art:
Why don't you tell us about Masonic ritual cannibalism, Dave.
"Fore" doesn't count (i.e., it lies horizontally) and
your three letter words are unimpressive.
> The presence of these words strongly suggests that the
> concealed message concerns golf (which makes sense -- two of the best
> known Scottish obsessions are Freemasonry and golf). This inference is
> resoundingly confirmed by the appearance of "dreft" (an older form of
> "drive").
I prefer bottled ale to dreft.
> "Dreft" is a five-letter word and hence even in isolation
> would be eVERy bit as impressive as "waste";
I don't quite catch your dreft.
> that the word appears
> moreoVER in conjunction with "fore," "tee," and "lie" makes it
> oVERwhelmingly less likely to be a chance occurrence than your feeble
> "waste."
-------------------------------------------------------------
One can arrange the 144 alphabits
into 48 rows of 3 letters each:
T O T
H [E] O
N [L] I
E [B] E
G [E] T
T [E] R
O [F] T
H E S
E I N
S V I
N G S
O N N
E T S
. . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------
> > 2) £1,000 a year in Shakespeare/Oxford/Lady Suffolk/Shelton.
> >
> > 3) The evidence of "VERO NIHIL VERIUS"
> > + (Masonic)"G"
>
> But there is *no* "Masonic G" in "Vero nihil verius."
Then that explains the "+" sign.
> > in the Sonnet's Dedications: "OUR EVERLIVING" &
> > "HIS EVERLIVING WOR(kes)"
>
> What?! What is your point here, Art?
"VERO NIL VERIU[S]" + "G"
"OUR EVERLIVIN[G]" + "S"
"VERO NIHIL VERI[U]S" + "G"
"HIS EVERLIVING [W]OR"
> > 4) The Troilus & Cressida intro: "A Never Writer to
> > an Ever Reader"
>
> You mean, anyone who uses the character string "ver" is Oxford? I
> thought that even you had been disabused of that charmingly naive
> notion, Art.
But you've just suggested that I use it, Dave: "Ver -- I, Ed"
Make up your mind.
> > > Is anyone bothering to question the authorship of Chaucer?
>
> > I have from time to time.
>
> Yes, Art -- you're an equal opportunity nutcase.
I try to be fair.
> > > or of any of the Greeks? Why are you all picking on Shakespeare?
>
> > Shakspere is the most obvious phoney.
> > > What was in it for the dozens, or hundreds of friends and enemies
> > > to remain silent about the "truth"?
>
> > What was in it for the dozens, or hundreds of friends and enemies
> > to tell the "truth"? Even Reedy reminds me of the danger I myself risk.
>
> Don't worry, Art; the Grand Master won't let anything happen to you.
> You are the Order's most eloquently persuasive spokesperson, and the
> Stratfordians' most valuable asset.
You like me; you *really* like me!
> > > What motive would they have to all live their lives by a lie?
>
> > We all live our lives by lies.[...]
>
> Ah -- so you *are* trolling, Art.
But you just suggested that I use it, Dave: <<What about the
appearance of the contiguous words "lie," "fore," and "tee" near the
top of the grid? (In fact, *both* "tee" and "lie" occur *twice* in the
grid.)>> Make up your mind.
> > > There
> > > was never any question or mystery about the authorship of Shakespeare's
> > > works until someone like yourselves invented it. Had all these works been
> > > performed and written down with no name attributed to them, either in
> > > writing or anecdotally, then there would be a mystery. The Kennedy
> > > Assasination falls into the realms of conspiracy since there was a forensi
c
> > > mystery as to how all the shots could have been fired from one spot. With
> > > Shakespeare, the mystery has been created by scholars with apparently
> > > nothing better to do.
>
> Rather, the "mystery" has been created by farcically misinformed,
> comically clueless pseudo-scholars with nothing better to do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Better, a.; compar. of Good. [OE. betere, bettre, and as adv. bet, AS.
betera, adj., and bet, adv.; akin to Icel. betri, adj., betr, adv.,
Goth. batiza, adj., OHG. bezziro, adj., baz, adv., G. besser, adj. and
adv., bass, adv., E. boot, and prob. to Skr. bhadra excellent.] 1.
Having good qualities in a greater degree than another; as, a better
man; a better physician; a better house; a better air.
Could make the worse appear The better reason. --Milton.
My dear, my better half (said he), I find I must now leave thee. --Sir
P. Sidney.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > There is no mystery here, and more importantly, there
> > > is no MOTIVE.
>
> > There are so many possible motives that it is hard to choose just five
> > or six.
>
> That's all right, Art; if there are indeed so *many* "motives," what
> *are* five of six of the most plausible ones?
1) The powerful Cecil family didn't wish to be held in ridicule.
2) Elizabeth & James didn't wish to be held in ridicule.
3) Standard Rosicrucian policy was to remain anonymous.
4) The propaganda value of the plays vis-a-vis the general populous was
enhanced with a hererosexual 'man of the people' as author.
5) The survivability of plays during Puritan Cromwell period was
enhanced with a hererosexual 'man of the people' as author
> > > One of you told me once that if it could be proved that someone other tha
n
> > > Shakespeare wrote his works, the entire belief systems of our civilazation
> > > would be rocked. That it would be the same as proof that intellegent alien
> > > life was visiting our planet.
>
> It's about as likely, too.
Then you must have a detailed knowledge of ufology.
> > > This is delusional. Get help.
>
> That would certainly be my advice as well, Art.
------------------------------------------------------
Help, n. [AS. help; akin to D. hulp, G. h["u]lfe, hilfe, Icel. hj[=a]lp,
Sw. hjelp, Dan. hielp. See {Help}, v. t.] 1. Strength or means furnished
toward promoting an object, or deliverance from difficulty or distress;
aid; ^; also, the person or thing furnishing the aid; as, he gave me a
help of fifty dollars.
Give us help from trouble, for vain is the help of man. --Ps. lx. 11.
God is . . . a very present help in trouble. --Ps. xlvi. 1.
2. A domestic servant, man or woman.
Do I have to pay her Social Security?
------------------------------------------------------
> > > Or are you all hoping that your perfect
> > > theory will lead you to scholarly fame and riches? Is that YOUR motivation
?
>
> > Scholarly flame and breeches.
>
> Well, at least you perceive that the flames directed to you are
> *scholarly*. Of course, such flames are usually nothing of the sort --
> the scholarly responses come from people like Dave Kathman and Terry
> Ross, and their rejoinders are not flames.
I could still use the bottled ale.
> NeVERtheless, I realize
> that in comparison to your insane and often completely incoherent
> stream-of-altered-consciousness logorrhoeic ramblings, the jocular
> flames in response must seem profoundly scholarly indeed.
--------------------------------------------------
Weary and old with service, to the mercy
Of a rude STREAM, that must for E.VER hide me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That E.VER I was BOURN to set it right,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOURN, n. [OE. burne, borne, AS. burna; akin to
OS. brunno spring, G. born, brunnen, OHG. prunno, Goth. brunna, Icel.
brunnr, and perh. to Gr. ?. The root is prob. that of burn, v., because
the ource of a stream seems to issue forth bubbling and boiling from
the earth. Cf. {Torrent}, and see {Burn}, v.] A stream or rivulet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > From working on his plays, I have found he had a great
> > > deal of respect for actors and artists, and very little for scholars.
>
> > We all have very little respect for scholars.
>
> Then why are Oxfordians so indebted to Dave Kathman and Terry Ross
> for nearly eVERything they know about the question?
What question?
> > > Shakespeare wasn't writting so a bunch of Sir Nathanials could debate the
> > > usage of a single word here and there. I think you should all question
> > > your own motives in the debate. I will venture to bet that they stem from
> > > an egotistical hunger for fame rather than an ernest search for truth.
>
> > I'll have a pastrami on rye.
>
> But Art -- "pastrami" is an anagram of "I'm Art (sap)."
It's the "bezziro" mirror image of pastrami.
Why don't you tell us about Masonic ritual cannibalism, Dave.
Art
N.
Bob Grumman
only a SAMPLING of such evidence for Shakespeare, chosen (I suspect)
for their untoppleability; for being simple enough for even
anti-Stratfordians like Toby to understand, though not--I'm
fairly--for Okay Fine to; and for being evidence of a kind your
side continually tells us we lack.
Sure, you can say some evidence was forged, and some the testimony
of people not in on The Truth, but in the absence of any direct
concrete evidence or good cicrumstantial evidence that any of this
was the case, why should we take you seriously? (No, your
subjective opinion that Will Shakespeare of Stratford just wasn't
the right sort of fellow to have written The Oeuvre is speculation,
not evidence of substance, if evidence at all.)
Stephanie Caruana
> > >Ken Holmes wrote:
> > >.>
"Neuendorffer" <ph...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3B8D63FA...@erols.com..wrote:.
> > >
> > > >
> > (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> >
>
> "David L. Webb" wrote
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > This is delusional. Get help.
> >
> > That would certainly be my advice as well, Art.
> > > > Or are you all hoping that your perfect
> > > > theory will lead you to scholarly fame and riches? Is that YOUR
motivation
> ?
> >
> > > Scholarly flame and breeches.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> Weary and old with service, to the mercy
> Of a rude STREAM, that must for E.VER hide me.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > ...I think you should all question
> > > > your own motives in the debate. I will venture to bet that they stem
from
> > > > an egotistical hunger for fame rather than an ernest search for
truth.
> >
> > > I'll have a pastrami on rye.
> >
> > But Art -- "pastrami" is an anagram of "I'm Art (sap)."
>
> It's the "bezziro" mirror image of pastrami.
Not only that! By sandwiching an "Aha" in the middle, I have created that
rarest of thingamabobs, a palindrome!
>
"I'm Art (sap)! Aha! Pastrami!"
Copyright (c) 2001 by Stephanie Caruana
You see, I have to admit that Ken Holmes was right: My motives DO stem from
an egotistical hunger for fame. Therefore I have copyrighted the above. (I
could use an extra line on my resume.)
Stephanie
Neuendorffer
> truth.
> > >
> > > > I'll have a pastrami on rye.
> > >
> > > But Art -- "pastrami" is an anagram of "I'm Art (sap)."
> >
> > It's the "bezziro" mirror image of pastrami.
Stephanie Caruana wrote:
>
> Not only that! By sandwiching an "Aha" in the middle,
> I have created that rarest of thingamabobs, a palindrome!
> "I'm Art (sap)! Aha! Pastrami!"
> Copyright (c) 2001 by Stephanie Caruana
PSALM 35:21 Yea, they opened their mouth wide against me, and said,
Aha!
Art N.
KQKnave
<BobGr...@nut-n-but.net> writes:
> As I said
>in an earlier post, it is sometimes hard to believe he is not
>purposely trying to confuse us, hoping that our confusion will
>infect us presentation of other points. Or something.
>
That's what I would say. Hoping that in the confusion we'll
say something wrong. Otherwise I don't see how anyone
could be that stupid and still write English. Same for
petzold.
Jim
Bob Grumman
But he was a poet, too, and I believe he meant his plays to be
both plays and literature. Aside from that, I would be most
interested in learning exactly what evidence there is in the plays
that he was an actor. My own best is merely that he tries to give
every actor something good. But that doesn't necessarily require
him to be an actor thinking of actors.
We've done this before but I've already forgotten what was said.
It would be good if someone knowledgeable could say why plays
written by non-actors like Greene, Kyd and Marlowe show their
authors to be non-actors. (Jonson acted, so evidence that he
wrote for actors more than the non-actors did would be valuable,
too.)
Stephanie Caruana
--------------------------------------------------
Weary and old with service, to the mercy
Of a rude STREAM, that must for ever hide me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Look at this line which Art has pulled up shining out of that vast and
glorious stream.
Think of the pompous and stupid things that are said here on this newsgroup
every day.
Stephanie
Bob Grumman
there is NO evidence that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare is insane.
--Bob G.
> > Re: Elizabeth's ridiculous belief that Whitt Brantley is David Webb,
>
> You didn't receive an e-mail from Whitt Brantley so you don't have all
> the evidence. I deleted the attachment without looking at it so even
> I don't have all the evidence.
I have enough.
*****
> Bacon is the only candidate of the four with ***evidence*** Bob.
> Strats have mo evidence and Oxfordians have committed identity theft
> on Bacon and appear to have evidence but there is no Oxfordian
> evidence.
--
Tom Reedy
news:9miis4$c23$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
<snip>
> Tom:
>
> I suppose you think you are being clever, appending the same "clever"
> remarks to this post as you did to the previous one. Here Steese is,
> attermpting to quell another new poster who is herself shyly objecting to
> the "deaf as a doorpost" approach of certain Strats to open discussion,
and
> of course you need to chime in here.
>
> tongue-lashing, so to speak, that would would make your head spin so hard
> that before you knew it you would have been screwed nearly level with the
> ground!
>
imagination?)
>
My compliments. Very nicely done.
TR
Okay Fine
>
> Hwęt! We have heard of the glory of Okay Fine <ein...@qwest.net> that
> wrote news:3B8CEB1C...@qwest.net, on the day of 29 Aug 2001:
>
> >> >> If any of the factions opposed to Shakespeare's authorship could
> >> >> address the evidence for Shakespeare without invoking conspiracies to
> >> >> conceal the truth, that would also be welcome.
> >> >
> >> > That's very amusing, Mark. A secret without any secrecy! Very
> >> > rich, indeed.
> >>
> >> Without any evidence, that is. Have you evidence for a conspiracy
> >> other than the fact that you believe there must have been one? If so,
> >> bring it out.
> >
> > Show me evidence that there was no conspiracy if Shakspere's not the
> > author.
>
> So, you have no evidence other than your own beliefs. I didn't think so.
> Here's a newsflash, Eric: I'm not obliged to provide evidence against the
> existence of something for which there is no positive evidence to begin
> with! If you think otherwise, show me evidence that there is no conspiracy
> to conceal the fact that the moon is actually made of green cheese.
So you're sticking to your wyrd belief that there can be a secret
without secrecy. I really get a kick out of that, Mark. Thanks.
OF.
snip
Elizabeth Weir
It's very clever Stephanie. It's a palindrome that manages to be
completely meaningless and at the same time meaningfully demeaning to
Art. Emotionally palindromic.
> You see, I have to admit that Ken Holmes was right: My motives DO stem from
> an egotistical hunger for fame.
Prepare for anorexia.
Therefore I have copyrighted the above. (I
> could use an extra line on my resume.)
You are truly Webb's postmodern Lucy Ricardo.
Copyright (c) 2001 by Elizabeth Weir
Mark Steese
but.net> that wrote news:3B8D62...@nut-n-but.net, on the day of 29 Aug
2001:
> Excuse me for butting into Okay Fine's further demonstrations of
> derangement, but I wondered if anyone could tell me what in the
> world he meant by the following:
>
> "Show me evidence that there was no conspiracy if Shakspere's not the
> author."
>
> Mark replied, "Here's a newsflash, Eric: I'm not obliged to
> provide evidence against the existence of something for which
> there is no positive evidence to begin with!" He took it to
> mean "if you believe Shakespeare was Shakespeare, demonstrate it
> be showing evidence that there was no conspiracy concealing
> someone else's being Shakespeare the poet," as I did at first.
> But he's literally asking us to assume that the Stratford man was
> NOT the poet, and then to present evidence indicating that there
> was no conspiracy involved in this.
Bob, I'm not sure you're right about that. It's possible, but I think it's
more likely that Eric simply can't write. I didn't even try to parse the
second half of Eric's statement, since either way, he was asking me to show
evidence that there was no conspiracy, which is ridiculous.
> Most of his "reasoning" is similarly confusing. There seems to be some
> kind of attempt at sane arguing in what he says, but I can't follow it.
> As I said in an earlier post, it is sometimes hard to believe he is not
> purposely trying to confuse us, hoping that our confusion will infect us
> presentation of other points. Or something.
Honestly, I really think he's just bone-stupid. His argument is that there
is no evidence for the 'conspiracy' because it was a secret. I think he
actually believes it.
Mark Steese
wrote news:3B8DAFAB...@qwest.net, on the day of 29 Aug 2001:
[snip]
> So you're sticking to your wyrd belief that there can be a secret
> without secrecy. I really get a kick out of that, Mark. Thanks.
But how did you find out about the secret? By your own logic, you couldn't
have.
Mark Steese
[snip]
> Tom:
>
> I suppose you think you are being clever, appending the same "clever"
> remarks to this post as you did to the previous one. Here Steese is,
> attermpting to quell another new poster who is herself shyly objecting
An additional point: what gives Stephanie the impression that a poster
named "Christian Lanciai" is a woman? I don't suppose it's possible that
Stephanie misread the name as "Christina"?
Stephanie Caruana
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote in message
news:cd15e95a.01082...@posting.google.com...
> "Stephanie Caruana" <spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<9mjrep$61$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >
> > "Neuendorffer" <ph...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B8D63FA...@erols.com..wrote:.
>>>
> > > > (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> > > > > I'll have a pastrami on rye.
> > > "David L. Webb wrote:
> > > > But Art -- "pastrami" is an anagram of "I'm Art (sap)."
> > >
> > > It's the "bezziro" mirror image of pastrami.
> >
> > Not only that! By sandwiching an "Aha" in the middle, I have created
that
> > rarest of thingamabobs, a palindrome!
> > >
> > "I'm Art (sap)! Aha! Pastrami!"
> > Copyright (c) 2001 by Stephanie Caruana
>
> It's very clever Stephanie. It's a palindrome that manages to be
> completely meaningless and at the same time meaningfully demeaning to
> Art. Emotionally palindromic.
>
But Art gave it his blessing! Aha!
>
Stephanie
Nicholas Whyte
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
> In article <cd15e95a.01082...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
> Weir <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote:
>
> > Why would 'Whitt Brantley' drop into HLAS just when Webb was finally
> > taking time out from abusing other posters?
>
> As I said, I have been birdwatching on a tidal mudflat, far from any
> internet access. That Whitt Brantley appeared during that time is no
> more remarkable than the recent appearance of many other newcomers,
> except perhaps to those periously close to paranoia.
In any case Brantley's first post to hlas was actually on 2 August,
some days before you took your break, and you reacted to several
Neuendorffer posts in the thread "Francis Bacon : A funny acrostic in
Merchant" which Brantley started. So Elizabeth's first item of
evidence is as weak as all the rest.
However she has probably succeeded in chasing the poor guy away
permanently.
Nicholas
Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Why would 'Whitt Brantley' drop into HLAS just when Webb was finally
> > > taking time out from abusing other posters?
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > As I said, I have been birdwatching on a tidal mudflat, far from any
> > internet access. That Whitt Brantley appeared during that time is no
> > more remarkable than the recent appearance of many other newcomers,
> > except perhaps to those periously close to paranoia.
Nicholas Whyte wrote:
> In any case Brantley's first post to hlas was actually on 2 August,
> some days before you took your break, and you reacted to several
> Neuendorffer posts in the thread "Francis Bacon : A funny acrostic in
> Merchant" which Brantley started. So Elizabeth's first item of
> evidence is as weak as all the rest.
>
> However she has probably succeeded in chasing the poor guy away
> permanently.
"He's crashing. He's crashing terrible. Oh my. . . get out of
the way, please. He's bursting into flames. And he's falling
on the keyboard. All the folks agree this is terrible. . .
one of the worst catastrophies in the world. Oh, the flames,
four or five hundred feet in the sky, it's a terrific crash
ladies and gentlemen. The smoke and the flames now and the
computer frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the
mooring mast. OH, the HUMANITIES and all the hlas posters."
Art N.
Stephanie Caruana
"Neuendorffer" <ph...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3B8DF77F...@erols.com...
[enough with the handwringing, Art. After all, it isn't quite like the
Hindenburg.....]
Stephanie
John W. Kennedy
> An additional point: what gives Stephanie the impression that a poster
> named "Christian Lanciai" is a woman? I don't suppose it's possible that
> Stephanie misread the name as "Christina"?
Stephanie believes that Shakespeare was an eyewitness to the War of the
Roses. Stephanie believes that the solution to the great mystery of why
Shakespeare never wrote about Arthur is that he and Malory had a
no-compete clause.
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
Geralyn Horton
his plays for things to happen during long speeches to the characters
who are silently listening. I've never seen Kyd performed, but if you
see the same good actors in Shakespeare and Marlowe within a short
period, you notice that in Marlowe they do a lot of standing around
waiting their turn to speak. When they do speak, it is to re-assert a
previos position. If characters change their minds, it is most likely
to happen off stage. The real excitment of performance, the instance
when it is most alive, is when everyone on stage, including those
without lines, is changing during a scene in response to their
encounters with what the others say and do. Spectators tend to notice
only the foregrounded exchanges, but the others register unconsciously
as richness, life "understood" in a way not possible otherwise, and
thrilling for that reason.
Actors love to have "something to act", especially in plays with long
speeches for the other guy. Acting teachers call it "being alive in the
moment", and it is the goal of most instruction and practice past the
elementary "don't bump into the furniture" level. One of the great joys
of acting is to look at another actor silent in the scene "in
character"-- with a "what do you think of this" or "what are we going to
do about this" look, and get an "in character" response: "poor fellow"
"let's kill the bastard" "now we know his weakness" "if we don't change
sides quickly now, we're likely to lose our heads". One can respond to
that, check to see whether the still orating main character has noticed
what we are thinking, respond to that....
Wonderful stuff. Directors and dramaturgs pick up on it too, but
writers with talent but w/o extensive stage experience typically do not.
It is the anthesis of the abstracting qualities that go into a good
Masque. Farce, I guess, can do w/o this too-- characters there may work
better if they have tunnel vision and don't have a clue what others are
thinking.
John W. Kennedy
> Actors love to have "something to act", especially in plays with long
> speeches for the other guy. Acting teachers call it "being alive in the
> moment", and it is the goal of most instruction and practice past the
> elementary "don't bump into the furniture" level. One of the great joys
> of acting is to look at another actor silent in the scene "in
> character"-- with a "what do you think of this" or "what are we going to
> do about this" look, and get an "in character" response: "poor fellow"
> "let's kill the bastard" "now we know his weakness" "if we don't change
> sides quickly now, we're likely to lose our heads". One can respond to
> that, check to see whether the still orating main character has noticed
> what we are thinking, respond to that....
For some reason, I find I am often cast in roles that involve me
pointedly _ignoring_ the other guy. (e.g., Alonso being bombarded by
the Pollyannaisms of Gonzalo, et al.). I've had to build up a rep of
"business" for the purpose; for example, Duke Frederick didn't come
alive for me until I gave him an obsession with cleaning his nails
(Shauspielen, of course, but one has to do _something_).
Marlowe's weakness, of course, is that this _not_ the kind of thing that
he is thinking of. When his focus isn't on a character, that character
doesn't exist.
Okay Fine
>
> Hwęt! We have heard of the glory of Okay Fine <ein...@qwest.net> that
> wrote news:3B8DAFAB...@qwest.net, on the day of 29 Aug 2001:
>
> [snip]
> > So you're sticking to your wyrd belief that there can be a secret
> > without secrecy. I really get a kick out of that, Mark. Thanks.
>
> But how did you find out about the secret? By your own logic, you couldn't
> have.
>
> Mark Steese
Not my logic, but I think I can see a corollary to your thinking that a
secret must be undetectable: evidence should be impossible to find,
right?
OF.
Mark Steese
wrote news:3B8E680D...@qwest.net, on the day of 30 Aug 2001:
> Mark Steese wrote:
>>
>> Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of Okay Fine <ein...@qwest.net> that
>> wrote news:3B8DAFAB...@qwest.net, on the day of 29 Aug 2001:
>>
>> [snip]
>> > So you're sticking to your wyrd belief that there can be a secret
>> > without secrecy. I really get a kick out of that, Mark. Thanks.
>>
>> But how did you find out about the secret? By your own logic, you
>> couldn't have.
>>
>> Mark Steese
>
> Not my logic, but I think
Well, actually, you don't.
[remainder snipped]
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <9mk1am$bbv$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephanie Caruana
<spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote:
You mean, like your claim that university plays must have profoundly
influenced Oxford because of all those years he spent as a student at
Oxford University?
I'm not sure precisely which "pseudo-'scholarly' ninnies" you have
in mind, but the vast preponderance of pseudo-scholarship I've seen for
almost the entire duration of this newsgroup's existence has come
*overwhelmingly* from a small group of anti-Stratfordians. We've been
treated to a remarkably creative and varied display of it: Crowley's
absolutist pronouncements on the genuineness of KQKnave's delightfully
ingenious, faux-Elizabethan sonnet; Streitz's insipid inanities
concerning the Elizabethan "magic 'e'" and its consequences for the
authorship "debate" -- not to mention his stunning disclosure that only
one of Shakespeare's plays is set in a foreign country other than Italy
(I am not making this up!) and his "Super D.T. theory"; your own comic
contributions concerning the dowager Countess of Oxford's unduly
"hasty" remarriage, and the farcical speculations that the utter lack
of evidence for that conclusion impelled you to invent; Ken Kaplan's
dismal display of Dryden scholarship; various asinine attempts to
dragoon Nabokov and Leslie Howard (posthumously) as supporting
witnesses, despite a complete inability to exhibit *any* evidence that
either man would have done anything but laugh at the suggestion (and in
Nabokov's case, despite considerable evidence that he would have done
*exactly* that); your own learned lesson on Shakespeare's presumptive
illiteracy (because Caxton had not yet illuminated the benighted
British during our playwright's bucolic boyhood); the ludicrous
lexicographic incompetence proudly paraded by Pat Dooley, Richard
Kennedy, Art Neuendorffer, John Baker, _et al_; the scarcely
intelligible, farcical fulminations of PWDBard, beginning with an
expression of his perennial obsession concerning various locales where
Shakespeare's remains "must" reside in order that the attribution not
implode, and often truncated abruptly by a random string of gibberish;
the incompetent crank cryptography and nutcase numerology of Art
Neuendorffer ("Agnes a gob," "I kill Edwasd de Vese," etc.), and more
recently, of Elizabeth Weir; the puerile perorations in Okay Fine's
recent triumphant exhibition of actual illiteracy, in which he:
(1) hallucinated a reference to Oxford as an unattributed author which
is nowhere present in the text he quoted,
(2) confused Peacham with Puttenham,
(3) obligingly demonstrated conclusively that he could not even read
Terry Ross's essay (he jubilantly deployed the very quotation,
ostensibly from Puttenham, which *that very essay* shows is an
Oxfordian fabrication, and
(4) blamed Terry for his (Okay Fine's) own illiteracy by grousing that
Terry had "buried" the information that the quotation was bogus (in
fact, that disclosure occurs a scant *two sentences* following the
spurious "quotation" itself -- again, I am *not* making this up!)...one
could go on for pages and pages without even beginning to exhaust the
rich reservoir of anti-Stratfordian pseudo-scholarship. Were those the
"pseudo-'scholarly' ninnies" you had in mind, Stephanie?
Compare that risible record with the record for factual accuracy of
genuine scholars like Dave Kathman and Terry Ross. And I haven't even
mentioned the more profound question of intimate, detailed familiarity
with the source material: most anti-Stratfordians, as Okay Fine just
dismally demonstrated, have never even looked at Peacham or Puttenham,
let alone read those volumes -- indeed, they are dimly aware of what is
there only because they can read the pertinent parts at the
Kathman/Ross web site! There is no question whatever who are the
scholars and who are the pseudo-scholars.
As for the "pompous and stupid things that are said here on this
newsgroup every day," there are many options -- for pomposity, I'd
recommend Crowley and Richard Kennedy (although I would concede that
Kennedy might be disqualified by the circumstance that someone so
inarticulate can scarcely be viewed as pompous); for some of the
stupidest utterances ever to have graced the newsgroup, you might look
to authors such as Mr. Streitz, Okay Fine, Elizabeth Weir, and -- well,
yourself, Stephanie. Mind you, I'd be the first to grant that you're
*FAR* more intelligent than any of the others mentioned, and even some
of the others may indeed be intelligent, if abysmally ignorant -- but I
think you'd agree that you *have* said some amazingly stupid things in
this newsgroup.
So, enlighted us, Stephanie -- precisely which "pseudo-'scholarly'
ninnies" did you have in mind?
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> Incidentally, Art, you
> would do well to read one of Martin Gardner's essays concerning
> some of the other utter rubbish that Freud believed.
<<It is hard to know which deserves the stronger condemnation: Freud's
childish credulity or the shameful way his daughter and other guardians
of the orthodox analytic flame have done their best to prevent the lurid
facts about Freud's early career from reaching the general public.>> --
_Freud, Fliess, and Emmas's Nose_ by Martin Gardner.
It is hard to know which DEsERVEs the stronger condemnation: Oxford's
bisexuality or the shameful way the Cecils and other guardians of the
orthodox analytic flame have done their best to prevent the lurid
facts about Shake-speare's true life from reaching the general public.
-------------------------------------------------------
[EDWARD VERE ]
[ SIN ]
[E AR EVER D D W]
[ S N I ]
ca[ESAR NEVER DID W]rong
-------------------------------------------------------
<< Many times he fell into those things [that] could not
escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar,
one speaking to him, "Caesar thou dost me wrong".
He replied,
"CAESAR NEVER DID WRONG,
but with just cause",
and such like, which were ridiculous.>> -- Ben Jonson
----------------------------------------------------------
[CAESAR NEVER DID WRONG]
[EDWARD VERE CAIRN SONG]
----------------------------------------------------------
CAIRN, n. [Date: 15th century: Gael. carn, gen. cairn, a heap: cf. Ir. &
W. carn.] 1. A rounded or conical heap of stones erected by early
inhabitants of the British Isles, apparently as a sepulchral monument.
----------------------------------------------------------
* Mizpah * or Miz'peh, watch-tower; the look-out. A place in Gilead, so
named by Laban, who overtook Jacob at this spot (Gen. 31:49) on his
return to Palestine from Padan-aram. Here Jacob and Laban set up their
memorial CAIRN of stones.
-------------------------------------------------------
Ballad of the White Horse - Chesterton, G. K.
( ETHANDUNE: THE LAST CHARGE )
Therefore is Mark forgotten,
That was wise with his tongue and brave;
And the CAIRN over Colan crumbled,
And the cross on Eldred's grave.
Their great souls went on a wind away,
And they have not tale or tomb;
And Alfred born in Wantage
Rules England till the doom.
----------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey - Homer (tr. Samuel Butler) ** ( BOOK XII )
<<Then, when the child of morning, rosy-fingered Dawn, appeared, I sent
some men to Circe's house to fetch the body of Elpenor. We cut firewood
from a wood where the headland jutted out into the sea, and after we had
wept over him and lamented him we performed his funeral rites. When his
body and armour had been burned to ashes, we raised a CAIRN, set a stone
over it, and at the top of the CAIRN we fixed the oar that he had been
used to row with.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
Divine Comedy Purgatorio: Canto III - Dante
(English translation by Henry W. Longfellow)
Horrible my iniquities had been;
But Infinite Goodness hath such ample arms,
That it receives whatever turns to it.
Had but Cosenza's pastor, who in chase
Of me was sent by Clement at that time,
In God read understandingly this page,
The bones of my dead body still would be
At the bridge-head, near unto Benevento,
Under the safeguard of the heavy CAIRN.
Now the rain bathes and moveth them the wind,
Beyond the realm, almost beside the Verde,
Where he transported them with tapers quenched.
-------------------------------------------------------
Don Juan - Lord Byron
Suppose him then at Petersburgh; suppose
That pleasant capital of painted snows;
Suppose him in a handsome uniform,-
A scarlet coat, black facings, a long plume,
Waving, like sails new shiver'd in a storm,
Over a cock'd hat in a crowded room,
And brilliant BREECHES, bright as a CAIRN Gorme,
Of yellow casimere we may presume,
White stocking drawn uncurdled as new milk
O'er limbs whose symmetry set off the silk;
Suppose him sword by side, and hat in hand,
Made up by youth, fame, and an army tailor-
That great enchanter, at whose rod's command
Beauty springs forth, and Nature's self turns paler,
Seeing how Art can make her work more grand
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
> Weir <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Actually, I see no reason to connect "Whitt Brantley" with "the kind
> > > of archly phoney names Nabokov was so good at inventing."
>
> > Or no motive if you're posing as Whitt Brantley.
>
> Several people have already pointed out that there is evidence that
> Whitt Brantley and I are two different people. But since you evidently
> believe that Bacon and Shakespeare were the same person, such an
> attributional error is scarcely surprising; probably no amount of
> careful reasoning will ever convince a delusional adherent of such
> attributional errors of her many mistakes.
>
> > > [...]
> > > > > Am I the only professional Shakespearian actor in this group?
>
> > > > You're the only Dartmouth mathematician posing as a professional
> > > > Shakespearean actor in this group.
>
> > > You are, as usual, barking up the wrong tree. I have been
> > > birdwatching in a remote camp on the Maine coast for over a week;
>
> > You've got a mixed metaphor there with hunting and bird watching.
>
> No -- I was doing the birdwatching; you were doing the barking.
> (Dave Kathman recently characterized Mr. Streitz as "barking mad" --
> I'm beginning to understand what he must have meant.)
Baker treed Kathman a couple of times while you were gone.
> > > in
> > > particular I have been nowhere near an internet connection. I have not
> > > posted as myself, as Whitt Brantley, or as anyone else during that
> > > time. I have no idea who Whitt Brantley may be, but I certainly am not
> > > he.
>
> > If you were he you would not admit that you were he.
>
> > > > > Because if I am,
> > > > > my question is answered.
> > > > >
> > > > > For 18 years, I have performed the works.
>
> > > > Eighteen years ago you were eighteen years old being traumatized by
> > > > your first read through of 'Lolita.'
>
> > > Wrong again.
>
> > I sense that I am substantially correct but have some detail wrong.
>
> What is it that you hallucinate that you have "substantially
> correct"? I did not read _Lolita_ until after I had read some of
> Nabokov's Russian works, nor have I ever performed Shakespeare.
I believe that you have never performed Shakespeare.
>
> > > [...]
> > > > > I will tell you that as an actor I am indeed torn, because whoever wrote
> > > > > those
> > > > > plays, was an actor,and I am sure attended a few rehearsals from time to
> > > > > time.
>
> > > > Bacon acted in his own masques. Nabokov would know that.
>
> > > So? I have no idea what your point, if any, is supposed to be.
>
> > My point was that Nabokov would have known that Bacon acted in his own
> > masques.
>
> So? I still do not have the vaguest idea what you imagine that that
> factoid proves or even suggests.
>
> > > > > So where was Edward de Vere, or Bacon, or Marlowe, when it came down to
> > > > > the
> > > > > performance. How many hours were spent in rehearsal? If only Patrick
> > > > > Tucker
> > > > > were here!
>
> > > > Oxford was out killing peasants for sport, Shakespeare was holding
> > > > horses for gentlemen and Bacon was in his study writing the plays.
>
> [...]
> > > > > PS: In response to elizabeth-weir@boldplanet (I have no idea who you
> > > > > are,
> > > > > and
> > > > > I don't know Webb or Streitz...my name is Whitt Brantley.
> > > > >
> > > > > and your emails are rather rude.
> > > > > Formed I'm sure, by years of conceit.
>
> > 'Formed, I'm sure, by years of conceit.' <----< That is pure Webb!
>
> No, I've never written anything even remotely close. For one thing,
> unlike you and some other anti-Stratfordians, I am wary of the use of
> the word "sure" when speculating upon the motivations of others about
> whom I know next to nothing. For another, "years of conceit" is an
> inaccurate and imprecise locution that I would never have (and have
> never) written.
It shares your 19th c. syntax.
> > > > All those years memorizing Nabokov's every line weren't a waste of
> > > > time, Webb. You've got the style down.
> > > >
> > > > I only hope you don't run out of free AOL sign-up disks.
>
> > > If you mistake Brantley's style for mine or either of our styles for
> > > Nabokov's magisterial style,
>
> > Nabokov's style was 'magisterial?' Nabokov was a satirist.
>
> No, Nabokov tended to be bored by satire. As Nabokov himself said,
> "Satire is a lesson; parody is a game." (I may be slightly misquoting
> from memory.) If you don't think that Nabokov's style was magisterial,
> then you can scarcely have read _Dar_, _Zashchita Luzhina_, _The Real
> Life of Sebastian Knight_, and countless other works.
>
> > Nabokov
> > was closer to Thomas Berger or Thomas Pynchon than. . .I even can't
> > think of a 'magisterial' 20th c. novel.
>
> How about _Magister Ludi_?
The title is misleading. Nice pun though.
> > There are none. Least of all
> > any of Nabokov's novels. It was not a magisterial century. Maybe
> > Churchill's 'A History of the English Speaking Peoples.'
>
> > > then you evidently have such a poor
> > > command of English and such a meager ability to recognize stylistic
> > > nuances that you have no business whatever making any attributional
> > > conjectures based upon "style."
>
> > Forget style. You haven't even demonstrated that you understand
> > Nabokov's genre.
>
> Nabokov was emphatically *not* a "genre" writer; he was profoundly
> original.
'Original' in the sense that only Nabokov has successfully imitated
Bacon.
> Even the "genres" he employed as points of departure --
> biography in _Dar_ and _Sebastian Knight_, scholarly commentary in
> _Pale Fire_, farcical burlesque
Farcical burlesque! I'm trying to find a 1588 work on the rhetoric of
farcical burlesque--'The Mennippee Satires.' It's a technical work. I
think it has to do with the rhetorical structure in the plays--the
rhetorical architecture so to speak. Nabokov knew about this. I'm
*sure* of it.
in _Pnin_, memoir in _Look at the
> Harlequins!_, etc. -- are remarkable only insofar as they are
> undermined and transformed in the alembic of Nabokov's uncannily
> unnerving alchemy.
Did you swallow a Thesaurus?
Anyone who consigns an innovator like Nabokov to
> any particular "genre" displays profound ignorance both of Nabokov's
> _ouevre_ and of its abundant variety.
It's in the nature of parody to imitate the material.
> > Anybody who says that Nabokov's style is
> > 'magisterial' is not reading Nabokov ironically. You're not in on the
> > joke with Vladdy, Webb.
>
> The common diminutive form of "Vladimir" is "Volodya," not "Vladdy,"
> which is too redolent of Dracula for my taste.
I considered the standard VN but decided that 'Vladdy' was the more
irritating choice.
> > > As Whitt Brantley has already told you, he is not I; as I already
> > > told you, I am not he.
>
> > I need to master the use of the semi-colon.
>
> You need to master a good deal of far more substance than that.
>
> > > In fact, I have never posted pseudonymously in
> > > this newsgroup since its inception;
>
> > What about alt.nordic.skiing. You posed as a skier.
> >
> > Don't bother giving me one of your precise, pedantic corrections--I'm
> > kidding.
>
> It's rec.nordic.skiing.
>
> > > on a few occasions when I was in
> > > Argentina and had no access to reliable newsreading software, a few of
> > > my posts appeared under the name "Courier" (courtesy of a kind friend
> > > who offered to post messages that I e-mailed to him), but all those
> > > messages were clearly *signed* with my name.
>
> > We are terribly fascinated by the minutae [sic] of your life.
>
> Evidently *you* are, at any rate, although I cannot fathom why -- so
> much so, in fact, that you are prone to attribute to me with the
> invincible assurance of complete ignorance the prose of any random
> newcomer, regardless of how dissimilar that prose might be to mine. I
> can only liken your extraordinary misperception to that of Hermann in
> Nabokov's _Otchayan'ye_, who hallucinates an uncanny resemblance
> between himself and a bum, a likeness visible to nobody else. As
> Ardelion duly noted, artists note differences, not similarities.
>
> > > Finally, I have never in
> > > my life used AOL, and don't intend to.
>
> > Yes, Webb. I have previously stated that using AOL at Dartmouth is
> > grounds for denial of tenure.
>
> Even if your jocular and uninformed conjecture were true, it would
> be inapplicable, as I came to Dartmouth with tenure.
I don't doubt you were born with tenure, Webb.
> Actually, one
> good reason for not using AOL is that the unwanted free disks that they
> continually mail out to all and sundry are intended for use with
> Windows machines, whereas nearly everybody at Dartmouth uses a Mac.
We all know that Macs are part of the Ivy League template.
>
> > > The leaps of folly of which some of the less intelligent and/or less
> > > mentally stable anti-Stratfordians are capable are positively
> > > mind-boggling.
>
> > What is puzzling--I wouldn't call it 'mind-boggling--is someone who
> > can see that the Oxfordians have a case based only on biography and no
> > evidence but cannot see that the Strats have neither biography nor
> > evidence.
>
> As I said, the leaps of folly of which some of the less intelligent
> and/or less mentally stable anti-Stratfordians are capable are
> positively mind-boggling.
>
> David Webb
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <cd15e95a.01083...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
Weir <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > > You are, as usual, barking up the wrong tree. I have been
> > > > birdwatching in a remote camp on the Maine coast for over a week;
> > > You've got a mixed metaphor there with hunting and bird watching.
> > No -- I was doing the birdwatching; you were doing the barking.
> > (Dave Kathman recently characterized Mr. Streitz as "barking mad" --
> > I'm beginning to understand what he must have meant.)
> Baker treed Kathman a couple of times while you were gone.
What Baker does with trees has *nothing whatever* to do with Kathman.
> I believe that you have never performed Shakespeare.
Good -- that's a start. Maybe eventually you'll figure out that
Whitt Brantley and I are two different people.
[...]
> > > > > > PS: In response to elizabeth-weir@boldplanet (I have no idea who
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > are,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > I don't know Webb or Streitz...my name is Whitt Brantley.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and your emails are rather rude.
> > > > > > Formed I'm sure, by years of conceit.
> > > 'Formed, I'm sure, by years of conceit.' <----< That is pure Webb!
> > No, I've never written anything even remotely close. For one thing,
> > unlike you and some other anti-Stratfordians, I am wary of the use of
> > the word "sure" when speculating upon the motivations of others about
> > whom I know next to nothing. For another, "years of conceit" is an
> > inaccurate and imprecise locution that I would never have (and have
> > never) written.
> It shares your 19th c. syntax.
My "syntax" is perfectly normal, and uremarkable for the 20th and
21st centuries, although I will concede that to some, it might appear
slightly formal -- many poorly read people confuse a rich active
vocabulary with a formal or archaic writing style.
[...]
> > > > then you evidently have such a poor
> > > > command of English and such a meager ability to recognize stylistic
> > > > nuances that you have no business whatever making any attributional
> > > > conjectures based upon "style."
> > > Forget style. You haven't even demonstrated that you understand
> > > Nabokov's genre.
> > Nabokov was emphatically *not* a "genre" writer; he was profoundly
> > original.
> 'Original' in the sense that only Nabokov has successfully imitated
> Bacon.
Really? Did Bacon write a novel in the form of a commentary by a
madman upon a serious literary work? (I realize, of course, that your
commentary uncannily imitates Kinbote's -- as Nabokov said in another
context, it's an instance of life imitating art.)
> > Even the "genres" he employed as points of departure --
> > biography in _Dar_ and _Sebastian Knight_, scholarly commentary in
> > _Pale Fire_, farcical burlesque
> Farcical burlesque! I'm trying to find a 1588 work on the rhetoric of
> farcical burlesque--'The Mennippee Satires.' It's a technical work. I
> think it has to do with the rhetorical structure in the plays--the
> rhetorical architecture so to speak. Nabokov knew about this. I'm
> *sure* of it.
How can you be so emphatically "*sure*" that Nabokov knew the work
if you don't yet know yourself what the work is about?! However, it
wouldn't surprise me to learn that Nabokov knew it, although I know of
no evidence that he did; Nabokov's reading was wide-ranging and
idiosyncratic.
> in _Pnin_, memoir in _Look at the
> > Harlequins!_, etc. -- are remarkable only insofar as they are
> > undermined and transformed in the alembic of Nabokov's uncannily
> > unnerving alchemy.
> Did you swallow a Thesaurus?
All those words are perfectly ordinary, and thoroughly familiar to
habitual readers (and indeed to most native speakers of English). Your
would-be witticism makes one wonder whether you even know what a
Thesaurus is. (Do you know of a more familiar synonym for "alembic"?
Does your Thesaurus furnish one?)
> > Anyone who consigns an innovator like Nabokov to
> > any particular "genre" displays profound ignorance both of Nabokov's
> > _ouevre_ and of its abundant variety.
> It's in the nature of parody to imitate the material.
But comparatively few of Nabokov's novels are parodies.
> > > Anybody who says that Nabokov's style is
> > > 'magisterial' is not reading Nabokov ironically. You're not in on the
> > > joke with Vladdy, Webb.
> > The common diminutive form of "Vladimir" is "Volodya," not "Vladdy,"
> > which is too redolent of Dracula for my taste.
> I considered the standard VN but decided that 'Vladdy' was the more
> irritating choice.
It doesn't irritate me; it doesn't even irritate Nabokov, who is
long dead (although presumably you would not permit his demise to
disqualify him from membership in the Virginia Company). If you wish
to make a fool of yourself (the conditional clause is superfluous),
then by all means please continue.
David Webb
Neuendorffer
Q1 Rossencraft Guilderstone
Q2 Rosencrans Guyldensterne
F1 Rosincrane Guildensterne
F2,3,4 Rosincross(e) Guildenstare
Rosicrucian => Rosy Cross
Freemason => Stone Guild / the Craft
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Many Elizabethans (e.g., John Dee, Edward Dyer & Francis Bacon)
were Rosicrucians {Rosencrantz => Rosenkreutz}
In Folio's 2,3, & 4 Rosencrantz was ROSINCROSS
[In the first Quarto ROSINCROSS is Rossen(CRAFT)!]
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Is there no ROSIN in GILEAD?"
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gilanet.com/jrservice/biblef.html
D) The Treacle Bible, 1568, printed Jer. 8:22,
"Is there no TREACLE in GILEAD?"
E) The Rosin Bible, 1609, printed the same verse,
"Is there no ROSIN in GILEAD?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<GILEAD hill of testimony, (Gen. 31:21), a mountainous region east
of Jordan. From its mountainous character it is called "the mount
of GILEAD" (Gen. 31:25). It is called also "the land of GILEAD"
(Num.32:1), and sometimes simply "GILEAD" (Ps. 60:7; Gen. 37:25). It
comprised the possessions of the tribes of Gad and Reuben and the south
part of Manasseh (Deut. 3:13; Num. 32:40). It was bounded on the north
by Bashan, and on the south by Moab and Ammon (Gen. 31:21; Deut.
3:12-17). "Half GILEAD" was possessed by Sihon, and the other half,
separated from it by the river Jabbok, by Og, king of Bashan.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 31
31:20 And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian, in that he
told him not that he fled.
31:21 So he fled with all that he had; and he rose up, and passed
over the river, and set his face toward the mount Gilead.
31:25 Then Laban overtook Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in
the mount: and Laban with his brethren pitched in the mount of Gilead.
31:26 And Laban said to Jacob, What hast thou done, that thou hast
stolen away unawares to me, and carried away my daughters,
as captives taken with the sword?
31:27 Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from
me; and didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away
with mirth, and with songs, with tabret, and with harp?
31:43 And Laban answered and said unto Jacob, These daughters are my
daughters, and these children are my children, and these
cattle are my cattle, and all that thou seest is mine: and
what can I do this day unto these my daughters, or unto their
children which they have born?
31:44 Now therefore come thou, let us make a covenant, I and thou;
and let it be for a witness between me and thee.
31:45 And Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar.
31:46 And Jacob said unto his brethren, Gather stones; and they took
stones, and made an heap: and they did eat there upon the heap.
31:47 And Laban called it Jegarsahadutha: but Jacob called it
Galeed.
31:48 And Laban said, This heap is a witness between me and thee
this day. Therefore was the name of it called Galeed;
31:49 And Mizpah; for he said, The LORD watch between me and thee,
when we are absent one from another.
31:50 If thou shalt afflict my daughters, or if thou shalt take
other wives beside my daughters, no man is with us; see, God
is witness betwixt me and thee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jegar-sahadutha pile of testimony, the Aramaic or Syriac name which
Laban gave to the pile of stones erected as a memorial of the covenant
between him and Jacob (Gen. 31:47), who, however, called it in Hebrew by
an equivalent name, Galeed.
* Mizpah * or Miz'peh, watch-tower; the look-out. A place in GILEAD,
so named by Laban, who overtook Jacob at this spot (Gen. 31:49)
on his return to Palestine from Padan-aram. Here Jacob and (his
father-in-law) Laban set up their memorial CAIRN of stones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CAIRN, n. [Date: 15th century: Gael. carn, gen. cairn, a heap: cf. Ir.
& W. carn.] 1. A rounded or conical heap of stones erected by early
inhabitants of the British Isles, apparently as a sepulchral monument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[CAESAR NEVER DID WRONG]
[EDWARD VERE CAIRN SONG]
----------------------------------------------------------
<< Many times he fell into those things [that] could not
escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar,
one speaking to him, "Caesar thou dost me wrong".
He replied,
"CAESAR NEVER DID WRONG,
but with just cause",
and such like, which were ridiculous.>> -- Ben Jonson
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B8F12DA...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> "David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, Art, you
> > would do well to read one of Martin Gardner's essays concerning
> > some of the other utter rubbish that Freud believed.
> <<It is hard to know which deserves the stronger condemnation: Freud's
> childish credulity or the shameful way his daughter and other guardians
> of the orthodox analytic flame have done their best to prevent the lurid
> facts about Freud's early career from reaching the general public.>> --
> _Freud, Fliess, and Emmas's Nose_ by Martin Gardner.
[...]
> << Many times he fell into those things [that] could not
> escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar,
> one speaking to him, "Caesar thou dost me wrong".
>
> He replied,
>
> "CAESAR NEVER DID WRONG,
> but with just cause",
>
> and such like, which were ridiculous.>> -- Ben Jonson
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> [CAESAR NEVER DID WRONG]
> [EDWARD VERE CAIRN SONG]
> ----------------------------------------------------------
But Art -- I think that you missed a few anagrams. For instance,
Edward Vere, Grecian son.
That makes more sense than "cairn song." Moreover, in view of the
allegations of pederasty brought against Oxford, it is even topical --
it surely refers to Oxford's predilection for what generations of
English schoolmasters referred to euphemistically as "the Greek vice."
Or, what about "A.C.N. ignores Edward Vere"? That's good advice,
Art. And you oVERlooked all those "Agnes" anagrams afforded by the
text!
[...]
> Divine Comedy Purgatorio: Canto III - Dante
> (English translation by Henry W. Longfellow)
>
> Horrible my iniquities had been;
> But Infinite Goodness hath such ample arms,
> That it receives whatever turns to it.
> Had but Cosenza's pastor, who in chase
> Of me was sent by Clement at that time,
> In God read understandingly this page,
> The bones of my dead body still would be
> At the bridge-head, near unto Benevento,
> Under the safeguard of the heavy CAIRN.
> Now the rain bathes and moveth them the wind,
> Beyond the realm, almost beside the Verde,
> Where he transported them with tapers quenched.
Was Dante involved in the Shakespeare Authorship Coverup Conspiracy,
Art? Inquiring minds want to know.
David Webb
Elizabeth Weir
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
> In article <cd15e95a.01083...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
> Weir <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > > > You are, as usual, barking up the wrong tree. I have been
> > > > > birdwatching in a remote camp on the Maine coast for over a week;
>
> > > > You've got a mixed metaphor there with hunting and bird watching.
>
> > > No -- I was doing the birdwatching; you were doing the barking.
> > > (Dave Kathman recently characterized Mr. Streitz as "barking mad" --
> > > I'm beginning to understand what he must have meant.)
>
> > Baker treed Kathman a couple of times while you were gone.
>
> What Baker does with trees has *nothing whatever* to do with Kathman.
What Kathman thought he knew about the Elizabethan Secretary hand had
*nothing whatever* to do with scholarship.
>
> > I believe that you have never performed Shakespeare.
>
> Good -- that's a start. Maybe eventually you'll figure out that
> Whitt Brantley and I are two different people.
Maybe you'll eventually figure out if I'm fooling.
>
> [...]
> > > > > > > PS: In response to elizabeth-weir@boldplanet (I have no idea who
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > are,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > I don't know Webb or Streitz...my name is Whitt Brantley.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and your emails are rather rude.
> > > > > > > Formed I'm sure, by years of conceit.
>
> > > > 'Formed, I'm sure, by years of conceit.' <----< That is pure Webb!
>
> > > No, I've never written anything even remotely close. For one thing,
> > > unlike you and some other anti-Stratfordians, I am wary of the use of
> > > the word "sure" when speculating upon the motivations of others about
> > > whom I know next to nothing. For another, "years of conceit" is an
> > > inaccurate and imprecise locution that I would never have (and have
> > > never) written.
>
> > It shares your 19th c. syntax.
>
> My "syntax" is perfectly normal,
For 1867.
> and uremarkable for the 20th and
> 21st centuries,
If you're reading Chesterton.
> although I will concede that to some, it might appear
> slightly formal -- many poorly read people confuse a rich active
> vocabulary with a formal or archaic writing style.
My mother inherited a Victorian library. I read it. You have a 19th
c. syntax.
> [...]
> > > > > then you evidently have such a poor
> > > > > command of English and such a meager ability to recognize stylistic
> > > > > nuances that you have no business whatever making any attributional
> > > > > conjectures based upon "style."
I can recognize 19th c. 'nuances.' There wasn't much 'nuance' in the
19th c.
> > > > Forget style. You haven't even demonstrated that you understand
> > > > Nabokov's genre.
>
> > > Nabokov was emphatically *not* a "genre" writer; he was profoundly
> > > original.
>
> > 'Original' in the sense that only Nabokov has successfully imitated
> > Bacon.
>
> Really? Did Bacon write a novel in the form of a commentary by a
> madman upon a serious literary work?
Bacon wrote a novel [superficially a drama] about a madman who
comments on literary works.
>(I realize, of course, that your
> commentary uncannily imitates Kinbote's -- as Nabokov said in another
> context, it's an instance of life imitating art.)
Did you write that? I said essentially the same thing about you in
this post but I felt it was too mean and I cut it. I said that your
long years of reading Nabokov's pardodies had made you into a
Nabokovian parody of yourself.
>
> > > Even the "genres" he employed as points of departure --
> > > biography in _Dar_ and _Sebastian Knight_, scholarly commentary in
> > > _Pale Fire_, farcical burlesque
>
> > Farcical burlesque! I'm trying to find a 1588 work on the rhetoric of
> > farcical burlesque--'The Mennippee Satires.' It's a technical work. I
> > think it has to do with the rhetorical structure in the plays--the
> > rhetorical architecture so to speak. Nabokov knew about this. I'm
> > *sure* of it.
>
> How can you be so emphatically "*sure*" that Nabokov knew the work
> if you don't yet know yourself what the work is about?! However, it
> wouldn't surprise me to learn that Nabokov knew it, although I know of
> no evidence that he did; Nabokov's reading was wide-ranging and
> idiosyncratic.
Since there is only one work in the English language called 'The
Mennippee Satires' and since it was published when Bacon was just
starting to write the plays and when Bacon was still closely
associated with the greatly underestimated rhetorician Gabriel Harvey,
the 'Mennipean satire' that Barkov and his colleague identified in
'Hamlet,' 'Eugene Onegin' and several other works is in Nabokov's
satires. "Hamlet' has many structural similarities to 'Lolita.' Bacon
used the techinques described by Barkov to distance himself from the
narrator just as Nabokov wrote Humbert without being Humbert. Neither
Hamlet nor Humbert are autobiograpical narrators. This is what
Nabokov didn't want to have to spell out to Field. He was trying to
tell Field that his narrators were not [always at least] biographical
so don't look for his childhood trauma in Humbert etc etc but Nabakov
was not in a position to explain the rhetorical mechanism that allowed
him to do so because it would be the career-damaging equivalent of
making a public announcement that was a Baconian.
>
> > in _Pnin_, memoir in _Look at the
> > > Harlequins!_, etc. -- are remarkable only insofar as they are
> > > undermined and transformed in the alembic of Nabokov's uncannily
> > > unnerving alchemy.
>
> > Did you swallow a Thesaurus?
>
> All those words are perfectly ordinary, and thoroughly familiar to
> habitual readers (and indeed to most native speakers of English). Your
> would-be witticism makes one wonder whether you even know what a
> Thesaurus is. (Do you know of a more familiar synonym for "alembic"?
> Does your Thesaurus furnish one?)
I suppose retort.
>
> > > Anyone who consigns an innovator like Nabokov to
> > > any particular "genre" displays profound ignorance both of Nabokov's
> > > _ouevre_ and of its abundant variety.
>
> > It's in the nature of parody to imitate the material.
>
> But comparatively few of Nabokov's novels are parodies.
Yes and no. "Lolita' is a parody of the American picaresque
novel--years stuck in a car driving back and forth through monontonous
landscapes. At the same time its a pitch black satire of American
bent mores.
>
> > > > Anybody who says that Nabokov's style is
> > > > 'magisterial' is not reading Nabokov ironically. You're not in on the
> > > > joke with Vladdy, Webb.
>
> > > The common diminutive form of "Vladimir" is "Volodya," not "Vladdy,"
> > > which is too redolent of Dracula for my taste.
>
> > I considered the standard VN but decided that 'Vladdy' was the more
> > irritating choice.
>
> It doesn't irritate me;
I'm skeptical.
Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Incidentally, Art, you
> > > would do well to read one of Martin Gardner's essays concerning
> > > some of the other utter rubbish that Freud believed.
> (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
>
> > <<It is hard to know which deserves the stronger condemnation: Freud's
> > childish credulity or the shameful way his daughter and other guardians
> > of the orthodox analytic flame have done their best to prevent the lurid
> > facts about Freud's early career from reaching the general public.>> --
> > _Freud, Fliess, and Emmas's Nose_ by Martin Gardner.
> > << Many times he fell into those things [that] could not
> > escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar,
> > one speaking to him, "Caesar thou dost me wrong".
> >
> > He replied,
> >
> > "CAESAR NEVER DID WRONG,
> > but with just cause",
> >
> > and such like, which were ridiculous.>> -- Ben Jonson
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > [CAESAR NEVER DID WRONG]
> > [EDWARD VERE CAIRN SONG]
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> But Art -- I think that you missed a few anagrams. For instance,
>
> Edward Vere, Grecian son.
>
> That makes more sense than "cairn song." Moreover, in view of the
> allegations of pederasty brought against Oxford, it is even topical --
> it surely refers to Oxford's predilection for what generations of
> English schoolmasters referred to euphemistically as "the Greek vice."
>
> Or, what about "A.C.N. ignores Edward Vere"? That's good advice,
> Art. And you oVERlooked all those "Agnes" anagrams afforded by the
> text!
Well, you had to add an extra "E" for these cases, Dave.
> > Divine Comedy Purgatorio: Canto III - Dante
> > (English translation by Henry W. Longfellow)
> >
> > Horrible my iniquities had been;
> > But Infinite Goodness hath such ample arms,
> > That it receives whatever turns to it.
> > Had but Cosenza's pastor, who in chase
> > Of me was sent by Clement at that time,
> > In God read understandingly this page,
> > The bones of my dead body still would be
> > At the bridge-head, near unto Benevento,
> > Under the safeguard of the heavy CAIRN.
> > Now the rain bathes and moveth them the wind,
> > Beyond the realm, almost beside the Verde,
> > Where he transported them with tapers quenched.
>
> Was Dante involved in the Shakespeare Authorship Coverup Conspiracy,
> Art? Inquiring minds want to know.
Henry W. Longfellow was.
Art N.
Neuendorffer
[CAESAR NEVER DID WR-ong]
[EDWARD VERE CAIRN S-ong]
-------------------------------------------------------
<< Many times he fell into those things [that] could not
escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar,
one speaking to him, "Caesar thou dost me wrong".
He replied,
"CAESAR NEVER DID WR-
ong, but with just cause",
and such like, which were ridiculous.>> -- Ben Jonson
----------------------------------------------------------
[CAESAR NEVER DID WR]ong
[EDWARD VERE'S CAIRN]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CAIRN, n. [Date: 15th century: Gael. carn, gen. cairn, a heap: cf. Ir.
& W. carn.] 1. A rounded or conical HEAP OF STONES erected by early
inhabitants of the British Isles, apparently as a sepulchral monument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD VERE'S CAIRN <=> Beaumont's HEAP OF STONES
----------------------------------------------------------------
How does a 32 year old mediocre poet/playwright like
Francis Beaumont get into POET'S CORNER, anyhow?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 1616 Francis Beaumont Tomb in Westminster Abbey:
<<MORTALITY, behold and fear!
What a CHANGE OF FLESH is here!
Think how many royal BONES
Sleep within this HEAP OF STONES:>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
What a CHANGE OF FLESH . . . is here!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O [N] L i E B E G E T T E R O
F T H E S E [I] n s U I N G S O N N E T
S M R W h a [L] L [h|A] P P I [N] E S S E A
N D t h a t [E] T [e|R] N I T [I] E P R O M
I S E D B Y O U [r|E] V E R [L] I V I N G
P O E t W I S H [e|T] H T H [E] W E L L W
I S h I N G A [d V E] N T U R E R I N S
E t T I N G F O R T H
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Basse _On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare,
he died in April 1616"_
Renowned Spenser, lie a thought more nigh
To learned Chaucer, and rare Beaumont lie
A little nearer Spenser to make room
For Shakespeare in your threefold, fourfold tomb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Encyclopedia Brittanica on Beaumont&Fletcher:
<<they are acutely interested in several problems
that fascinate the modern theatre:
1) the relationships between fictions and truths,
2) the problem of identity,
3) the adoption of roles.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
April 23, 1616 William Shakspere grave in Stratford:
<<Good friend for Iesus sake FORBEARE
To digg the dust encloased HEARE:
Blest be ye man yt spares thes STONES
And curst be he yt moves my BONES.>>
----------------------------------------
1630 John Milton's _On Shakespear_:
<<What needs my SHAKESPEAR
for his honour'd BONES,
The labour of an age in piled STONES,
Or that his hallow'd reliques should be hid
Under a Star-ypointing PYRAMID?>>
----------------------------------------
1632 Shakespeare's epitaph for Thomas Stanley:
<<Ask who lies here, but do not weep;
He is not dead, he doth but sleep.
This stony register is for his BONES;
His fame is more perpetual than these STONES:
And his own goodness, with himself being gone,
Shall live when earthly monument is none.
Not monumental stone preserves our fame,
Nor sky-aspiring PYRAMIDS our name.
The memory of him for whom this stands
Shall out-live marble and defacers' hands.
When all to time's consumption shall be given,
Stanley, for whom this stands, Shall stand in heaven.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Freemason => Stone Guild
Rosicrucian => Rosy Cross / the Craft
Q1 Rossencraft Guilderstone
Q2 Rosencrans Guyldensterne
F1 Rosincrane Guildensterne
F2,3,4 Rosincross(e) Guildenstare
----------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey - Homer (tr. Samuel Butler) ** ( BOOK XII )
<<Then, when the child of morning, rosy-fingered Dawn, appeared, I sent
some men to Circe's house to fetch the body of Elpenor. We cut firewood
from a wood where the headland jutted out into the sea, and after we had
wept over him and lamented him we performed his funeral rites. When his
body and armour had been burned to ashes, we raised a CAIRN, set a stone
over it, and at the top of the CAIRN we fixed the oar that he had been
used to row with.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballad of the White Horse - Chesterton, G. K.
( ETHANDUNE: THE LAST CHARGE )
Therefore is Mark forgotten,
That was wise with his tongue and brave;
And the CAIRN over Colan crumbled,
And the cross on Eldred's grave.
Their great souls went on a wind away,
And they have not tale or tomb;
And Alfred born in Wantage
Rules England till the doom.
-------------------------------------------------------
Divine Comedy Purgatorio: Canto III - Dante
(English translation by Henry W. Longfellow)
Horrible my iniquities had been;
But Infinite Goodness hath such ample arms,
That it receives whatever turns to it.
Had but Cosenza's pastor, who in chase
Of me was sent by Clement at that time,
In God read understandingly this page,
The bones of my dead body still would be
At the bridge-head, near unto Benevento,
Under the safeguard of the heavy CAIRN.
Now the rain bathes and moveth them the wind,
Beyond the realm, almost beside the Verde,
Where he transported them with tapers quenched.
David....@dartmouth.edu
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B901F79...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
Quite right, Art -- I meant to spell Oxford's name as "Edward Ver,"
as you so often do. Incidentally, your "cairn song" anagram merits a
score of only 10/19 (just over 50%) according to the standards of the
Idiotic Neuendorffer Proper Name Criterion, while the "Grecian son"
anagram gets an INPNC score of 16/19, or 84%. The effortless
superiority of the latter oVER the former is manifest.
> > > Divine Comedy Purgatorio: Canto III - Dante
> > > (English translation by Henry W. Longfellow)
> > >
> > > Horrible my iniquities had been;
> > > But Infinite Goodness hath such ample arms,
> > > That it receives whatever turns to it.
> > > Had but Cosenza's pastor, who in chase
> > > Of me was sent by Clement at that time,
> > > In God read understandingly this page,
> > > The bones of my dead body still would be
> > > At the bridge-head, near unto Benevento,
> > > Under the safeguard of the heavy CAIRN.
> > > Now the rain bathes and moveth them the wind,
> > > Beyond the realm, almost beside the Verde,
> > > Where he transported them with tapers quenched.
> > Was Dante involved in the Shakespeare Authorship Coverup Conspiracy,
> > Art? Inquiring minds want to know.
> Henry W. Longfellow was.
Because he used the word "cairn"? My Appalachian Trail guide to the
White Mountains region uses the word "cairn" *far* more often than does
Dante or Longfellow. Is the Appalachian Trail Conference a subsidiary
branch of the Knights Templar and hence of the Shakespeare Authorship
Coverup Conspiracy, Art? Inquiring minds want to know.
David Webb
ItIsShining
>"ItIsShining" <itiss...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> Dave and Tom,
>> Good point by you! Thanks for explaining this and pointing me to an
>> additional resource. I'm sure I'll view this group in a whole new light
>now.
>>
>> Maybe at some point the HLAS FAQ, if I could make one other small
>suggestion,
>> could include the origin scenario you describe in its answer to the
>question,
>> "What is HLAS?"
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>
>It does, of course.
>
>Stephanie
No, the origin of HLAS is not described in the FAQ in the answer to the
question, "What is HLAS all about?" And it is not described elsewhere in the
FAQ either. Here is the part of the FAQ in question:
"Q: What is HLAS all about?
A: The charter for HLAS (which has been online since August 1995)
answers this question thus:
CHARTER
The unmoderated newsgroup humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
will be for discussion of:
1 - The plays and poems of William Shakespeare and other
English writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.
2 - The life and times of Shakespeare and his contemporaries.
3 - The production, staging, and acting of Shakespeare's plays,
including current and past productions.
4 - Shakespeare's influence and impact on subsequent literature
and culture.
5 - Shakespeare's authorship including his sources, allusions
in his works, publication of his works, possible
collaborations, and possible pseudonymity."
John
Neuendorffer
I hardly ever spell Oxford's name as "Edward Ver,"
> Incidentally, your "cairn song" anagram merits a
> score of only 10/19 (just over 50%) according to the standards of the
> Idiotic Neuendorffer Proper Name Criterion,
That is why I prefer:
----------------------------------------------------------
[CAESAR NEVER DID WR]
[EDWARD VERE'S CAIRN]
INPNC = 10/16
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CAIRN, n. [Date: 15th century: Gael. carn, gen. cairn, a heap: cf. Ir.
& W. carn.] 1. A rounded or conical HEAP OF STONES erected by early
inhabitants of the British Isles, apparently as a sepulchral monument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD VERE'S CAIRN <=> Beaumont's HEAP OF STONES
----------------------------------------------------------------
How does a 32 year old mediocre poet/playwright like
FRANCIS BeAumONt get into POET'S CORNER, anyhow?
--------------------------------------------------------------
B
A
mute FRANCIS
O
N
<<MORTALITY, behold and fear!
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
> while the "Grecian son"
> anagram gets an INPNC score of 16/19, or 84%.
Grecian is not a proper name.
Edward Ver, Grecian son.
INPNC score of 9/19
> > > > Divine Comedy Purgatorio: Canto III - Dante
> > > > (English translation by Henry W. Longfellow)
> > > >
> > > > Horrible my iniquities had been;
> > > > But Infinite Goodness hath such ample arms,
> > > > That it receives whatever turns to it.
> > > > Had but Cosenza's pastor, who in chase
> > > > Of me was sent by Clement at that time,
> > > > In God read understandingly this page,
> > > > The bones of my dead body still would be
> > > > At the bridge-head, near unto Benevento,
> > > > Under the safeguard of the heavy CAIRN.
> > > > Now the rain bathes and moveth them the wind,
> > > > Beyond the realm, almost beside the Verde,
> > > > Where he transported them with tapers quenched.
>
> > > Was Dante involved in the Shakespeare Authorship Coverup Conspiracy,
> > > Art? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> > Henry W. Longfellow was.
>
> Because he used the word "cairn"? My Appalachian Trail guide to the
> White Mountains region uses the word "cairn" *far* more often than does
> Dante or Longfellow. Is the Appalachian Trail Conference a subsidiary
> branch of the Knights Templar and hence of the Shakespeare Authorship
> Coverup Conspiracy, Art? Inquiring minds want to know.
Possibly.
Art N.
MakBane
>Tell you what, moron. why don't you try your hand at answering this post
>from May 1998 that no one form your side has yet answered? Here's you some
>"interesting points (they're even numbered for you) and some good
>arguments."
>
>======================================================
>
>POINT #1
>
>A. May 19, 1603, on the license for the King's Men - "Wee . . . doe
>licence . . . Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage,
>Augustyne Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert
>Armyn, Richard Cowly . . . ."
>
>B. Oxford died June 24, 1604.
>
>C. Will of Augustine Phillips, written May 4, 1605, proved May 16, 1605 -
>"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 . . . ."
>
>Augustine Phillips' bequest of 30 shillings to his "Fellowe" Shakespeare
>comes 11 months after Oxford's death. If Oxford were Shakespeare, Phillips
>would have known that he was dead. Therefore, Shakespeare and Oxford cannot
>be the same person. Since Volker admits that the actor and the writer were
>the same man, Oxford could not be the writer.
In what way are Burbage, Condell, Phillips, Fletcher, Armyne, et al "fellowes"
of Shakspere? Are you suggesting that they were also playwrights? If so, please
help me with some evidence of that. If these men were fellows in the sense that
they were actors or shareholders, then why would you try to extrapolate from
that your evidence that shows that Shakspere was a playwright?
And, if what you are saying about Volker (whom I only know vaguely by
reputation and a handful of posts) is true, then he must be a Stratfordian.
>POINT #2
>
>William Shakespeare is connected with John Heminge through several
>contemporary documents. Not only in the license for the King's Men (above),
>but from the lease of the grounds upon which the Globe was built (Feb 21,
>1599, in which the name is spelled Heminges) & the indenture between the
>shareholders of the Globe (Feb 20, 1599, spelled Hemynges). These are known
>through a court record of April 28, 1619, so they are not strictly
>contemporary. However, the lease for the Blackfriers Theater, Aug 9, 1608,
>is recounted in a court document dated May 20, 1611. The Latin document
>lists Ricardus Burbadge, Johannia Hemynges, & Willo Shakespeare.
>
>Now in the deed for the Blackfrier's Gate House, March 10, 1613, John
>Hemmyng (also spelled Hemming) acts as trustee for the buyer, "William
>Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon."
>
>The indenture for the Blackfriers Gate House effectively ties William
>Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon to John Heminge, ten years before the
>publication of the First Folio.
None of this proves that Shakspere of Stratford was the Author of the Canon.
Are you not able to understand that you are proving nothing? Yes, William
Shakspere of Stratford was associated with these men and theaters, but not to
the extent which you believe. Shakspere was not qualified to write those plays.
But he was a part of a secret arrangement to represent himself as the author,
presumably in the event that such an identification was necessary. Now, get
thee to Price's book.
>POINT #3
>
>In 1568, John Shakespeare applied to the Heralds' College for a coat of
>arms, but he fell on hard times and let the application lapse. In October
>of 1596, following the success of his son, John Shakespeare of Stratford
>upon Avon applied for a coat of arms, which was granted sometime before
>1599. Thereafter he and his sons were entitled to put "gentleman" after
>their name, and it appears wherever William Shakespeare's name is recorded
>in legal documents after 1599. This title was reserved for those of the
>gentility who were below knights but who had been granted the right to bear
>arms. That John's son, William, initiated the application is probable,
>since he accepted the social order as it was and was ambitious to rise.
>
>In 1602, Peter Brooke, the York Herald, accused Sir William Dethick, the
>Garter King-of-Arms, of elevating base persons to the gentry. Brooke drew
>up a list of 23 persons whom he claimed were not entitled to bear arms.
>Number four on the list was Shakespeare. Brooke included a sketch of the
>Shakespeare arms, captioned "Shakespear ye Player by Garter." Unless one is
>prepared to argue that John Shakespeare was an actor, or that Edmund
>Shakespeare initiated the arms application when he was 16 and was a known
>player by the time he was 22, "Shakespear ye Player" can only be the
>Shakespeare identified in other documents as an actor, William Shakespeare
>of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman.
This is excellent proof that William Shakspere was an actor. Who better to
represent himself as the Author than one who was already involved in the
theater? Of course, it seems that he must not have been much of an actor since
he only took on small roles. Maybe, as an actor, his fellows were only humoring
their modestly talented money man.
>POINT #4
>
>That this William Shakespeare was the poet is further proved by Edmund
>Howe's 1615 list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets." He lists
>the poets "according to their priorities as neere I could," and in the
>middle of the 27 listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman,"
>thus effectively naming the Stratford man as the poet.
Superficially (and "effectively"), you would appear to be correct. A possible
problem is that William Shakespeare is referred to as a poet and not a
playwright. I don't know who the others on this list are; are any of them also
playwrights? If not, one might surmise that Shakespeare makes the list on the
strength of V&A and RoL. I also don't know whether any of the later editions of
these poems identified him as a gentleman.
>POINT #5
>
>That this playwright was the man from Stratford is shown by three documents
>contemporary to him.
>
>1. Oct 7, 1601 - mortgage deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley,
>John Collet, & Matthew Browne, in which Bodley was given contol of the Globe
>playhouse, tenented by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
>
>2. Oct 10, 1601 - deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley, legally
>tightening up the control of Bodley. Again the Globe is described as being
>tenanted by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
>
>3. 1608 - deed of sale of John Collet's interest to John Bodley. The Globe
>is once more described, and the tenants listed as "Richard Burbage and
>William Shakespeare, gentlemen."
>
>A. "William Shakespeare, gentleman" is the Stratford man (Point #3 above).
>
>B. The Globe tenant mentioned in the above deeds specifically names "William
>Shakespeare (or Shackspeare), gent."
>
>C. Therefore, the Stratford man is the Globe-sharer.
>
>D. Since the Stratford man is the playwright (see point #4), the
>Globe-sharer is the playwright.
Nope. You still have the same problem as before. There's no denying that
William Shakspere of Stratford was involved with Burbage and the Globe. But you
have no evidence that he was the playwright. If Howe knows only the name by
reputation or from seeing it printed on plays and poems, then his identifcation
is insufficient.
>POINT #6 - A WORD ABOUT THE INTERLINEATIONS
>
>If the interlineations were forged to show a connection between Shakespeare
>and Heminge & Condell, why are all the other interlineations in the will in
>the same hand? On sheet one the forgers changed the month from Januarij to
>Martij, inserted the phrases "in discharge of her marriage porcion," "that
>shee," "by my executours & overseers," "the stock," "to be," and "the
>house."
>
>On sheet two they forged not only "& to my ffellowes John Hemynge Richard
>Burbage & Henry Cundell xxvj s viij d A peece to buy them Ringes," but they
>inserted six more phrases that could not be of any benefit to the hoaxers.
>On sheet three, in addition to the famous second-best bed bequest, they
>inserted "the saied" to legally tighten up the appointment of the overseers
>of the will, and struck out "Seale" and wrote "hand" to make the
>circumstances of the publishing accurate.
>
>The forgers would have had to be lawyers to tidy up the will in such a
>manner. That the forgers did all this strains credulity, yet the so-called
>forgeries are in the same hand as the rest of the interlineations.
I have been assured from time to time by Kathman, Ross, and even Dooley that
there is no hay to be made for Oxfordians from the interlineations. So, I will
offer you no further objections here, except to say that the lack of any
"benefit to the hoaxers" in those interlineated phrases which do not relate to
his "fellowes" is irrelevant to whether they might have been made anyway. My
understanding is that the will, as we have it, was the penultimate copy drafted
by Collins.
>Go ahead, Ptezold. Try your hand. Not one of your cohorts has managed to
>refute this argument, and they never will.
But I just did.
>Most of them will ignore this
>argument the same way they did the first time it was posted more than 3
>years ago,
This was an argument? Certainly not one for proving Shakspere's career as a
playwright.
>because they're a bunch of chicken-shit weak-minded
>flabby-brained thinkers who think that just because they have successfully
>deluded themselves that should be a good enough argument for the rest of us
>to believe in their drivel.
But you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that a bunch of real estate
records and petty bequests are evidence of a playwriting career. At some stage
in your encroaching senility, I hope you'll realize that the Shakspere of
record is an individual incapable of actually writing the plays with which he's
been credited. I know it must be easy to buy into the pseudonym (better men
than you have), but it's also important to think through these problems more
thoroughly than you have.
>Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
Done.
>> I haven't been at this game as long as you, and I have much more to
>> learn, but your anger (which is clearly related to some sort of
>dysfunction)
>> isn't going to dissuade me from having my fun in HLAS. So put that in your
>pipe
>> and smoke it.
>
>What you construe to be "my anger" is actually my amusement.
You're lying here, right?
>If you want to
>waste your time and life believeing in a made-up fairy tale that changes
>almost daily to avoid confronting the cold, hard facts of reality, I say
>more power to you.
No, my participation here is a learning process, as well as an opportunity to
provoke a few old goats. Thanks for indulging me.
>Knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to compliment
>you and tell you how wonderful you are when you expose your flabby thinking
>and dyfunctional comprehension in public. If you want to have your feelings
>spared, go indulge your fantasies in private. If you post here, expect more
>of what you've been getting.
Hmm. Sounds like "amusement" to me.
Toby Petzold
Dr Peter Groves
news:20010904025110...@mb-df.aol.com...
> Reedy:
>
> >POINT #4
> >
> >That this William Shakespeare was the poet is further proved by Edmund
> >Howe's 1615 list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets." He lists
> >the poets "according to their priorities as neere I could," and in the
> >middle of the 27 listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman,"
> >thus effectively naming the Stratford man as the poet.
>
> Superficially (and "effectively"), you would appear to be correct. A
possible
> problem is that William Shakespeare is referred to as a poet and not a
> playwright. I don't know who the others on this list are; are any of them
also
> playwrights? If not, one might surmise that Shakespeare makes the list on
the
> strength of V&A and RoL. I also don't know whether any of the later
editions of
> these poems identified him as a gentleman.
>
Middleton and Heywood, all playwrights, which shows that "poet" for Howes
included the idea "playwright". I have to add, however, in the interest of
scholarship, that among the playwrights mentioned is "M. <i>Christopher</i>
Marlo gen.", which suggests that either (a) Howes (not Howe) didn't read the
newspapers, or (b) the Marlovites are correct and he was still in the land
of the living in 1615, or (c) breathing wasn't a pre-requisite for getting
onto Howes' list. I'm afraid this is what the US military call "friendly
fire", as it seems to undermine Tom's point #4.
Peter Groves
_________________________________________
"It is a far far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put
out on the troubled seas of thought." (J. K. Galbraith)
_________________________________________
Tom Reedy
news:LZ1l7.2039$Mb.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
(c) is the right answer here.
Howes says, "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets which worthely florish
in their owne
workes, and all of them in my owne knowledge *lived* togeather in this
Queenes raigne. . . (emphasis mine)."
I don't know who on this newsgroup first said the poets on the list were all
alive; I didn't, and I don't see that it matters to my point. My use of the
list is to show that Shakespeare was known to possess the title "gentleman,"
which effectively names the Stratford man.
In another post I listed others who coupled Shakespeare with his title,
thereby strengthening my contention that the playwright/poet was the
gentleman from Stratford.
TR
Okay Fine
Bob Grumman.
> I didn't, and I don't see that it matters to my point. My use of the
> list is to show that Shakespeare was known to possess the title "gentleman,"
> which effectively names the Stratford man.
> In another post I listed others who coupled Shakespeare with his title,
> thereby strengthening my contention that the playwright/poet was the
> gentleman from Stratford.
>
> TR
Do we agree, Tom, that your argument (as corrected by me) fails if I
could only find that citation that shows that Oxford is referred to as a
gentleman?
OF.
Tom Reedy
news:3B950AF5...@qwest.net...
You're so clever.
You apparently haven't read my post on this. No one ever referred to Oxford
as if his rank was that of gentleman. He was referred to as a "gentleman of
the court," which is a completely different matter than rank.
One way to tell who is being referred to, as I said in my previous post, is
to look at the name. When someone makes reference to Oxford, they generally
use the term, "Oxford" or "Edward, Earl of Oxford" or some similar
appellation.
When someone refers to Shakespeare, they generally use that name.
I will agree that my argument fails if you can produce a contemporary
citation that refers to Oxford as the author of Shakespeare's works.
TR
MakBane
>> >That this William Shakespeare was the poet is further proved by Edmund
>> >Howe's 1615 list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets." He lists
>> >the poets "according to their priorities as neere I could," and in the
>> >middle of the 27 listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman,"
>> >thus effectively naming the Stratford man as the poet.
>>
Petzold:
>> Superficially (and "effectively"), you would appear to be correct. A
>possible
>> problem is that William Shakespeare is referred to as a poet and not a
>> playwright. I don't know who the others on this list are; are any of them
>also
>> playwrights? If not, one might surmise that Shakespeare makes the list on
>the
>> strength of V&A and RoL. I also don't know whether any of the later
>editions of
>> these poems identified him as a gentleman.
Dr. Groves:
>Well, the list includes Chapman, Jonson, Marston, Fletcher, Webster, Dekker,
>Middleton and Heywood, all playwrights, which shows that "poet" for Howes
>included the idea "playwright". I have to add, however, in the interest of
>scholarship, that among the playwrights mentioned is "M. Christopher
>Marlo gen.", which suggests that either (a) Howes (not Howe) didn't read the
>newspapers, or (b) the Marlovites are correct and he was still in the land
>of the living in 1615, or (c) breathing wasn't a pre-requisite for getting
>onto Howes' list. I'm afraid this is what the US military call "friendly
>fire", as it seems to undermine Tom's point #4.
Alright, kids, here's a Ph.D who refers to Elizabethan newspapers. I am now
officially off the hook for referring to pamphlets of the time as newspapers,
right? Whew.
Incidentally, thanks, Dr. Groves, for the friendly fire. Howes' reference is
effectively undermined as a Stratfordian prop, and Reedy can go back to the
drawing table. Why? Because this list is completely defective as a roster of
"present" poets. He very obviously doesn't know anything about these people,
which means that he is simply lifting.
Toby Petzold
MakBane
>Howes says, "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets which worthely florish
>in their owne
>workes, and all of them in my owne knowledge *lived* togeather in this
>Queenes raigne. . . (emphasis mine)."
>
>I don't know who on this newsgroup first said the poets on the list were all
>alive; I didn't, and I don't see that it matters to my point.
Not only does Howes not seem to know any of these poets personally, he can't
even keep his tenses straight. He calls them "present" poets who "florish."
Then he says they "lived togeather." Is this some kind of zeugma or just
personal ignorance of those on the list?
>My use of the
>list is to show that Shakespeare was known to possess the title "gentleman,"
>which effectively names the Stratford man.
Are we sure that Shakespeare isn't identified as a gentleman in later editions
of the long poems? Not that it matters: maybe Howes merely assumed that
Shakespeare was so titled. If so, you're certainly taking that distinction as
far as it can go.
>In another post I listed others who coupled Shakespeare with his title,
>thereby strengthening my contention that the playwright/poet was the
>gentleman from Stratford.
But are any of them references to him as anything other than actor or
shareholder? If not, you're SOL.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
and the date of when he said it to the erroneous conclusion that he
was saying that Shakespeare was alive in 1615. I note that it was
a Stratfordian that caught the error. No matter, as Tom says: Oxford
was no more given the formal title of "gentleman" than he was alive
in 1615; and there are other records of the poet Shakespeare's being
alive after Oxford had died (Heywood's complaint about two of his
poems being attributed to Shakespeare and Shakespeare's being upset
about it, and the preface to Troilus and Cressida, to mention the
only two I can call to mind just now).
Interesting that the ignorant lout, Howes, mentions Marlowe and
Shakespeare as two different people, incidentally.
Unsurprising that the Oxfordians won't admit that regardless of
Howes's status as a witness, what he says is EVIDENCE that Shakespeare
and not Oxford was Shakespeare.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
I will agree that my argument fails if you can produce a contemporary
citation that refers to Oxford as the author of Shakespeare's works.
TR
I'll be more generous than Tom, Okay. I'll drop Tom's argument if
you can produce a list of names from Shakespeare's times that includes
the rank, if any, of each name on it, and has Oxford down as a
"gentleman."
--Bob G.