Werstine on Pollard
Tom Reedy
To antiStratfordians, with their myopic and binary view of reality,
everything a traditional Shakespearean scholar does is to either
counter what they consider to be their strong antiStrat arguments or
to ignore those arguments. Werstine takes on the camouflage of an
antiStratfordian early in his essay with his claim that Pollard's
motivation in compiling the evidence for the Hand D attribution was to
specifically counter antiStratfordism. ( "This essay deals with the
very successful resistance movement against the anti-Stratfordians
that was led by A.W. Pollard from 1916 to 1923 ..." (125).)
For evidence, Werstine quotes the preface of *Shakespeare's Hand in
Sir Thomas More* (hereafter *Hand*): "As Pollard emphasized in his
Preface to the 1923 book, 'if Shakespeare wrote these three pages the
discrepant theories which unite in regarding the "Stratford man" as a
mere mask concealing the activity of some noble lord (a 17th Earl of
Oxford, a 6th Earl of Derby, or a Viscounty St Albans) come crashing
to the ground'"(126).
Here's the complete preface from which Werstine makes his contention:
The object of this book is to strengthen the evidence of the existence
(in the Harleian MS.7368 at the British Museum) of three pages written
by Shakespeare in his own hand as part of the play of *Sir Thomas
More*. The contributors have tried not to be over-eager in pressing
their contention, or to claim more than they can make good. They would
not have readers less critical than they have tried to be themselves,
and are aware that from one quarter at least searching criticism is to
be expected, since if Shakespeare wrote these three pages the
discrepant theories which unite in regarding the "Stratford man" as a
mere mask concealing the activity of some noble lord (a 17th Earl of
Oxford, a 6th Earl of Derby, or a Viscounty St Albans) come crashing
to the ground. It is here contended that the writing of the three
pages is compatible with a development into the hand seen in
Shakespeare's considerably later extant signatures and explains
misprints in his text; that the spelling of the three pages can all be
paralleled from the text of the best editions of single plays printed
in Shakespeare's life, and that the temper and even the phrasing of
the three pages in the two crucial points involved, the attitude
toward authority and the attitude toward the crowd, agree with and
render more intelligible passages in much later plays. In the
Introduction it is shown that the most likely date at which the three
pages were written is one which easily admits of their composition by
Shakespeare for the company for which he habitually wrote. All these
contentions may be mistaken; but the Editor may at least claim for his
contributors that they have earned a right to their opinions and that
their conclusions cannot lightly be dismissed. While there has been
some friendly interchange of criticism each contributor must be
understood as taking responsibility only for his own paper. Grateful
acknowledgement is offered to the Dele-gates of the Clarendon Press
for their kindness in allowing use to be made of the facsimiles of the
six signatures in Sir E. Maunde Thompson's book on *Shakespeare's
Handwriting* published by them in 1916.
A. W. POLLARD
June 1923
(v-vi)
Notice the diction Werstine uses: he says Pollard "emphasized" the
antiStratfordian reference, yet Werstine himself says right after the
quoted material that Pollard never again mentions antiStratfordians
(126).
Pollard uses loaded diction when discussing Pollard's purpose in other
places, and he is not above using sarcasm (after all, he is an
academic, and the well-known saying explaining the viciousness of
academic politics applies here also, i.e. because the stakes are so
low, and in this case, I'm sure Werstine is aware the stakes are
almost non-existent).
For example, Werstine quotes Pollard to supply "air quotation marks"
when he says, "It was the 'cause' of Pollard and his 'little company'
to promote Simpson's conjecture." Werstine often repeats the quoted
"cause" and "little company" to give the reader a little in-the-know
chuckle when he makes an unsupported statement about the group of
scholars that contributed to *Hand*, as if it added weight to his
contentions.
Werstine says they "set out . . . to win adherents to their belief,"
and that "Pollard set out to shape an argument in favour of
Shakespearean authorship that mirrored the argument against it," all
motivations of which he can only point to one phrase in Pollard's
preface for support (126).
This habit of using loaded syntax is carried out all through Werstine'
s essay. Scholars who urge caution are "not persuaded;" Pollard's
skill in making his case is instead referred to as his "skill in
controversy" (127, 130).
I contend that the prefatory material is not sufficient for a
reasonable person to come to Werstine's conclusion about Pollard's
motive.
Indeed, it seems that Werstine is using the death of evidence for his
conclusion as evidence for it when he says, "In spite of the
prominence accorded this reference to the anti-Stratfordians in the
Preface, they are not explicitly mentioned again in the book, which
was instead devoted (after Pollard's Introduction) to papers by
Pollard's collaborators offering arguments for Shakespeare's hand
...." (126-27).
In other words, Pollard does exactly what he says he wants to do,
which is "to strengthen the evidence of the existence (in the Harleian
MS.7368 at the British Museum) of three pages written by Shakespeare
in his own hand as part of the play of *Sir Thomas More*."
Nowhere does Werstine offer any other evidence that countering
antiStratfordian claims was Pollard's motivation, even though he
discusses subsequent articles concerning the writing and compiling of
the evidence Pollard presents.
As Tom Veal says on his entertaining Website *Stromada*, "His
[Werstine's] suggestion that Hand D advocates are motivated by fear of
anti-Stratfordism looks like pure odium academicum. Rightly or
wrongly, the Shakespeare 'establishment' pays no more attention to the
authorship controversy than serious historians do to Immanuel
Velikovsky." <1>
The antiStratfordain tactic Werstine accuses Pollard of mirroring is
that of "accumulated evidence." He says, "Pollard's skill in
controversy was exhibited to even greater effect in his use of the
rhetoric of accumulation, for in doing so he knowingly fashioned an
argument for Shakespearean authorship (not only of the three More
pages but also of all Shakespeare's works)
that mirrored the argument of his opponents, the anti-Stratfordians"
(130).
He claims Pollard got the idea for using this tactic from W.W. Greg's
review I quoted in my last Werstine post:
BEGIN BLOCK QUOTE:
As Pollard was to reveal in his first book on Shakespeare, published
in 1909, he and Greg collaborated with each other so closely on some
matters Shakespearean, Communicating our results to each other at
every stage, so that our respective responsibilities for them have
become hopelessly entangled" (Shakespeare's folios vj). It is to be
expected, then, that Pollard found in Greg's review the principle of
"cumulative evidence" according to which he organised his campaign
against the anti-Stratfordians. However much Shakespeareans might
ridicule Baconians for arguing from "cumulative evidence," Pollard
seems brilliantly to have recognised the usefulness of deploying
against his opponents an argument that mirrored their own. While such
an argument might have no intrinsic worth, it would be as good as the
arguments against which it was pitted in the controversy over
Shakespeare's authorship of the Shakespeare canon and thus could bring
the controversy to stalemate.
(130-31)
END BLOCK QUOTE
Leaving aside Werstine's seeming omniscience, he is mixing apples and
oranges here. The "cumulative evidence" cited by Baconians, Oxfordians
and other antiStratfordians utilizes errors, misunderstandings,
conjectures and flat-out lies. When the items on their list of
"cumulative evidence" are proven false, one by one, they then usually
start over with the first one on the list.
Pollard, et al, deal with evidence that exists. The evidence is real
and verifiable. A person may not agree with an interpretation, but the
evidence is real; it exists. One category used, bibliographic, is
without any degree of subjectivity at all. Anybody can count the
examples cited and verify whether the interpretation is misleading,
strained or correct.
Next: Werstine and Thompson: The Paleaographic Element.
<1> Veal's response to review of Diana Price's *Shakespeare's
Unorthodox Biography*, July 9, 2001.
http://members.tripod.com/stromata/id26.htm
Pat Dooley
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Nfj59.11831$2k.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Pollard seems to recognize that Shakespeare's the lack of CPLE
is a problem and he's going to fix it.
> It is here contended that the writing of the three
> pages is compatible with a development into the hand seen in
> Shakespeare's considerably later extant signatures and explains
> misprints in his text; > that the spelling of the three pages can
all be
> paralleled from the text of the best editions of single plays
printed
> in Shakespeare's life,
This is abject nonsense. It presumes that the texts were set directly
from Shakespeare's manuscripts. Bayfield makes short work of
that argument.
So Pollard did not introduce his book with the words
" The object of this book is to strengthen the evidence of the
existence
(in the Harleian MS.7368 at the British Museum) of three pages written
by Shakespeare in his own hand as part of the play of *Sir Thomas
More*. The contributors have tried not to be over-eager in pressing
their contention, or to claim more than they can make good. They would
not have readers less critical than they have tried to be themselves,
and are aware that from one quarter at least searching criticism is to
be expected, since if Shakespeare wrote these three pages the
discrepant theories which unite in regarding the "Stratford man" as a
mere mask concealing the activity of some noble lord (a 17th Earl of
Oxford, a 6th Earl of Derby, or a Viscounty St Albans) come crashing
to the ground."?
All of which applies to orthodoxy. Every Shakespeare biography resorts
to conjecture and most pile conjecture upon conjecture without warning
the reader. Schoenbaum is probably the most respected Shakespeare
biographer and I have frequently posted examples of his factifying
myth,
distorting the evidence and creating a personality for Shakespeare
from
impersonal literary evidence. The way he slides over the Roger's
malt sales in one chapter while leaving the reader thinking
Shakespeare is
enjoying fame and fortune in London in the next is typical. His
misappropriation of Barkstead's and Scoloker's literary references
is sad, to put it kindly.
>When the items on their list of
> "cumulative evidence" are proven false, one by one, they then
usually
> start over with the first one on the list.
As do the Hand D advocates.
> Pollard, et al, deal with evidence that exists. The evidence is real
> and verifiable. A person may not agree with an interpretation, but
the
> evidence is real; it exists. One category used, bibliographic, is
> without any degree of subjectivity at all. Anybody can count the
> examples cited and verify whether the interpretation is misleading,
> strained or correct.
Hays points out that nonpaleographic arguments were introduced to
corroborate the paleographic case, but that these other arguments
"cannot strengthen the paleographic arguments themselves." The
paleographic case for "Hand D" cannot be made, because a control
sample of Shakespeare's handwriting, sufficient to make an
identification, does not exist. Unless you can make the paleographic
argument the rest of the arguments, being inconclusive at best, are
worthless.
> Next: Werstine and Thompson: The Paleaographic Element.
The paleographical evidence is suspect on two counts. Firstly, as
Hayes points out, the six inconsistent Shakespeare signatures provide
an inadequate control sample for positive hand-writing identification.
Secondly, there are good grounds for believing that Hand D is scribal.
I'l be interested in seeing how you deal with Hayes, B.A.P. Van Dam
and L.L. Schücking.
> <1> Veal's response to review of Diana Price's *Shakespeare's
> Unorthodox Biography*, July 9, 2001.
> http://members.tripod.com/stromata/id26.htm
Her response is posted at:
http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/Responses/AmazonReview.asp
--
Pat Dooley
Webmaster of www.shakespeare-authorship.com
KQKnave
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
><1> Veal's response to review of Diana Price's *Shakespeare's
>Unorthodox Biography*, July 9, 2001.
>http://members.tripod.com/stromata/id26.htm
>
I haven't seen this site before. There's a lot on anti-Stratfordians, including
excerpts from Stritmatter's thesis and a critique.
Part 1:
http://members.tripod.com/stromata/id288_march_16_2002.htm
Part 2:
http://members.tripod.com/stromata/id288.htm
Apparently, all you need to do to earn a Ph.D. at UMass is put together
a lengthy, convoluted collection of bullshit.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Tom Reedy
news:lsy59.8677$QV2....@news.webusenet.com...
So where does it say Pollard's purpose is to lead a "resistance
movement against the anti-Stratfordians"? His only mentioon of
Stratfordians is in passing.
But you know what, Dooley? We're not discussing biography here. We're
discussing real pieces of paper with writing on them. So quit the
shuffling act your so famous for and try to keep your comments on
topic.
Let's deal with Werstine. Hays can come later.
> > Next: Werstine and Thompson: The Paleaographic Element.
>
> The paleographical evidence is suspect on two counts. Firstly, as
> Hayes points out, the six inconsistent Shakespeare signatures
provide
> an inadequate control sample for positive hand-writing
identification.
> Secondly, there are good grounds for believing that Hand D is
scribal.
>
> I'l be interested in seeing how you deal with Hayes, B.A.P. Van Dam
> and L.L. Schücking.
>
> > <1> Veal's response to review of Diana Price's *Shakespeare's
> > Unorthodox Biography*, July 9, 2001.
> > http://members.tripod.com/stromata/id26.htm
>
> Her response is posted at:
>
> http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/Responses/AmazonReview.asp
>
> --
> Pat Dooley
> Webmaster of www.shakespeare-authorship.com
You'll have to wait a few days for the rest of the posts. I anticipate
writing three more. I apologize for the roughness of the argument;
you're getting all first-draft stuff. The only revision is
being done by the spell-checker.
TR
Tom Reedy
news:lsy59.8677$QV2....@news.webusenet.com...
<snip>
> Hays points out that nonpaleographic arguments were introduced to
> corroborate the paleographic case, but that these other arguments
> "cannot strengthen the paleographic arguments themselves."
No, nonpaleographic arguments were introduced "to strengthen the
evidence of the existence (in the Harleian MS.7368 at the British
Museum) of three pages written by Shakespeare in his own hand as part
of the play of *Sir Thomas More*."
Try to understand the difference. The other evidence is not to
strengthen the paleographic evidence; it is to strengthen the
attribution.
There's a difference, no matter that you (and Hays) try to subtlety
shift the focus of Pollard's argument.
The
> paleographic case for "Hand D" cannot be made, because a control
> sample of Shakespeare's handwriting, sufficient to make an
> identification, does not exist. Unless you can make the paleographic
> argument the rest of the arguments, being inconclusive at best, are
> worthless.
Look up "inconclusive" in the dictionary and tell me where it says it
means "worthless."
Pollard himself said the case could not be made on paleographical
evidence alone, for the same reason (not enough control samples).
Trying to claim he did is misleading and dishonest.
>
> > Next: Werstine and Thompson: The Paleaographic Element.
>
> The paleographical evidence is suspect on two counts. Firstly, as
> Hayes points out, the six inconsistent Shakespeare signatures
provide
> an inadequate control sample for positive hand-writing
identification.
No kidding! Pollard says the same thing!
> Secondly, there are good grounds for believing that Hand D is
scribal.
The grounds for believing it scribal are weak and strained.
> I'l be interested in seeing how you deal with Hayes, B.A.P. Van Dam
> and L.L. Schücking.
At least they marshal some evidence for their claims. Werstine depends
on second-hand opinions.
But get on point: it is Werstine we are discussing.
TR
Bob Grumman
> But get on point: it is Werstine we are discussing.
>
> TR
Asking Dooley to get on point is as silly as asking Richard Kennedy to stop
lying.
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
>
> To antiStratfordians, with their myopic and binary view of reality,
> everything a traditional Shakespearean scholar does is to either
> counter what they consider to be their strong antiStrat arguments or
> to ignore those arguments.
Is that not true? We hear from actual scholars like Kathman and Ross
that the Question is ignored by almost all of them. Of course, the few
who do deign to notice that the subject of their life's work is
fraught with unlikelihoods, implausibilities, and poorly-conceived
excuses are, I suppose, the bottom-feeders of their own disciplines
since they are so easily preyed upon with the skepticism of their
inferiors.
> Werstine takes on the camouflage of an
> antiStratfordian early in his essay with his claim that Pollard's
> motivation in compiling the evidence for the Hand D attribution was to
> specifically counter antiStratfordism. ( "This essay deals with the
> very successful resistance movement against the anti-Stratfordians
> that was led by A.W. Pollard from 1916 to 1923 ..." (125).)
Tom, check out that preface again, why don't you? It's perfectly
reasonable to believe that countering the Anti-Stratfordians was a
primary motivation for Pollard. Why? Because it comes in the preface.
It is a conspicuous lead-in to what comes next, which is a series of
essays devoted to "strengthen[ing] the evidence" for an attribution
already decided upon.
> For evidence, Werstine quotes the preface of *Shakespeare's Hand in
> Sir Thomas More* (hereafter *Hand*): "As Pollard emphasized in his
> Preface to the 1923 book, 'if Shakespeare wrote these three pages the
> discrepant theories which unite in regarding the "Stratford man" as a
> mere mask concealing the activity of some noble lord (a 17th Earl of
> Oxford, a 6th Earl of Derby, or a Viscounty St Albans) come crashing
> to the ground'"(126).
>
> Here's the complete preface from which Werstine makes his contention:
I already made my comments on this preface some weeks ago. Any
objective observer should find his language telling, if not troubling.
> The object of this book is to strengthen the evidence of the existence
> (in the Harleian MS.7368 at the British Museum) of three pages written
> by Shakespeare in his own hand as part of the play of *Sir Thomas
> More*.
See? Evidence doesn't get "strengthened" (unless you're a hoaxster).
> The contributors have tried not to be over-eager in pressing
> their contention, or to claim more than they can make good. They would
> not have readers less critical than they have tried to be themselves,
> and are aware that from one quarter at least searching criticism is to
> be expected, since if Shakespeare wrote these three pages the
> discrepant theories which unite in regarding the "Stratford man" as a
> mere mask concealing the activity of some noble lord (a 17th Earl of
> Oxford, a 6th Earl of Derby, or a Viscounty St Albans) come crashing
> to the ground.
There is a WHOLE lot of rationalizing going on here. Try to be a
little less binary and see what Pollard is up to. He's saying that his
"cause" is riddled with the reservations of its contributors, but that
they have "tried" to anticipate the criticism of the
Anti-Stratfordians.
> It is here contended
That's a polemical word.
> that the writing of the three
> pages is compatible
That's a subliminal word.
> with a development into the hand seen in
> Shakespeare's considerably later extant signatures and explains
> misprints in his text;
There are two lies here. First, it is a lie to say that the evolution
of Shakspere's handwriting can somehow be postulated with such an
exceedingly limited sample to work with. Since nobody knows when STM
was composed or added to (but with the strong likelihood that it
happened in the early 1590s), it is a manifest absurdity to claim that
the traits exhibited in Hand D could be dispositively compared to a
half-dozen poorly-executed signatures some 20 years later. There is no
contemporary or transitional exemplar of Shakspere's hand to use in
dreaming up this alleged "development." This "contention" of Pollard,
Thompson, et al should be a huge embarrassment to any honest
Stratfordian, but it's not. Why? Because, like Clinton, they "have to
win."
The second lie is to "contend" that this imagined Shaksperian hand
would, in any way, explain misprints in this or any other text,
printed or not. Stratfordians must learn how to quit suggesting or
basing any conclusion whatsoever on the idea of what Shakspere's foul
papers or scribal copies looked like when none of them exist. That, in
fact, is their motivation: STM is their last, best hope to bullshit
the world into believing that we have an actual Shakespearean
manuscript. When your eye is that firmly fixed on the prize, all
standards of logic and honesty go out the window.
Let me be clear about this palaeographic "argument" and the people who
foster it: it's very obviously a crock of shit and the Stratfordians
standing around it are its stirrers. I have absolutely no respect, in
this instance, for those who can't admit that there is no
palaeographic argument for Shakespeare as Hand D.
> that the spelling of the three pages can all be
> paralleled from the text of the best editions of single plays printed
> in Shakespeare's life,
Orthographic precedence? Coming from a Stratfordian. Please.
> and that the temper and even the phrasing of
> the three pages in the two crucial points involved, the attitude
> toward authority and the attitude toward the crowd, agree with and
> render more intelligible passages in much later plays.
Oh, how MUCH we have riding on this!
> In the
> Introduction it is shown that the most likely date at which the three
> pages were written is one which easily admits of their composition by
> Shakespeare for the company for which he habitually wrote.
Who was Shakspere writing for before the LCM? Does his name appear
(even "habitually") in Henslowe's accounts? Then, in whose?
> All these
> contentions may be mistaken;
If believed, it was ignored; if not, it was propagated, regardless.
> but the Editor may at least claim for his
> contributors that they have earned a right to their opinions and that
> their conclusions cannot lightly be dismissed. While there has been
> some friendly interchange of criticism each contributor must be
> understood as taking responsibility only for his own paper. Grateful
> acknowledgement is offered to the Dele-gates of the Clarendon Press
> for their kindness in allowing use to be made of the facsimiles of the
> six signatures in Sir E. Maunde Thompson's book on *Shakespeare's
> Handwriting* published by them in 1916.
>
> A. W. POLLARD
> June 1923
> (v-vi)
>
> Notice the diction Werstine uses: he says Pollard "emphasized" the
> antiStratfordian reference, yet Werstine himself says right after the
> quoted material that Pollard never again mentions antiStratfordians
> (126).
That's okay: he gave them pride of place in his preface. To mention
them again might have been a reminder to Pollard's readers of the
inevitable "searching criticism."
> Pollard uses loaded diction when discussing Pollard's purpose in other
> places,
Nice slip, Sigmund.
> and he is not above using sarcasm (after all, he is an
> academic, and the well-known saying explaining the viciousness of
> academic politics applies here also, i.e. because the stakes are so
> low, and in this case, I'm sure Werstine is aware the stakes are
> almost non-existent).
Because this is a parody?
> For example, Werstine quotes Pollard to supply "air quotation marks"
> when he says, "It was the 'cause' of Pollard and his 'little company'
> to promote Simpson's conjecture." Werstine often repeats the quoted
> "cause" and "little company" to give the reader a little in-the-know
> chuckle when he makes an unsupported statement about the group of
> scholars that contributed to *Hand*, as if it added weight to his
> contentions.
Werstine is simply using the characterizations Pollard himself made.
What's wrong with that?
> Werstine says they "set out . . . to win adherents to their belief,"
> and that "Pollard set out to shape an argument in favour of
> Shakespearean authorship that mirrored the argument against it," all
> motivations of which he can only point to one phrase in Pollard's
> preface for support (126).
That's a nothing argument. Are you saying that Werstine should only
have pointed out Pollard's motivations if Pollard had mentioned them
more explicitly? He PREFACED a book of others' essays devoted to
"strengthen[ing] the evidence." What else do you want?
> This habit of using loaded syntax is carried out all through Werstine'
> s essay. Scholars who urge caution are "not persuaded;" Pollard's
> skill in making his case is instead referred to as his "skill in
> controversy" (127, 130).
>
> I contend that the prefatory material is not sufficient for a
> reasonable person to come to Werstine's conclusion about Pollard's
> motive.
I contend that your standard of sufficiency is unreasonable and easily
dismissed. I contend that ONLY a reasonable person would conclude that
Werstine's characterizations are correct.
> Indeed, it seems that Werstine is using the death of evidence
The death of evidence for the Shakespearean Hand D attribution
occurred in the moment of delusion that gripped Simpson in 1871.
> for his
> conclusion as evidence for it when he says, "In spite of the
> prominence accorded this reference to the anti-Stratfordians in the
> Preface, they are not explicitly mentioned again in the book, which
> was instead devoted (after Pollard's Introduction) to papers by
> Pollard's collaborators offering arguments for Shakespeare's hand
> ...." (126-27).
>
> In other words, Pollard does exactly what he says he wants to do,
> which is "to strengthen the evidence of the existence (in the Harleian
> MS.7368 at the British Museum) of three pages written by Shakespeare
> in his own hand as part of the play of *Sir Thomas More*."
How, exactly, do you "strengthen the evidence"? Does it involve
forgery? (I know already that it involves stupidity snd dishonesty.)
> Nowhere does Werstine offer any other evidence that countering
> antiStratfordian claims was Pollard's motivation, even though he
> discusses subsequent articles concerning the writing and compiling of
> the evidence Pollard presents.
>
> As Tom Veal says on his entertaining Website *Stromada*, "His
> [Werstine's] suggestion that Hand D advocates are motivated by fear of
> anti-Stratfordism looks like pure odium academicum. Rightly or
> wrongly, the Shakespeare 'establishment' pays no more attention to the
> authorship controversy than serious historians do to Immanuel
> Velikovsky." <1>
I'm banking on a sea-change in public opinion. Maybe if people stopped
to think about how we know what we know and about why we should trust
academics when they issue their edicts, the world would be a less
gullible place.
The prima facie case (palaeographic) doesn't exist. So, that would be
a lie.
> The evidence is real
> and verifiable.
Nope. You're just repeating the same old garbage.
> A person may not agree with an interpretation, but the
> evidence is real; it exists.
The absence of any real palaeographic evidence is not a matter of
interpretation; it's a real and incontrovertible fact.
> One category used, bibliographic, is
> without any degree of subjectivity at all. Anybody can count the
> examples cited and verify whether the interpretation is misleading,
> strained or correct.
>
> Next: Werstine and Thompson: The Paleaographic Element.
>
> <1> Veal's response to review of Diana Price's *Shakespeare's
> Unorthodox Biography*, July 9, 2001.
> http://members.tripod.com/stromata/id26.htm
I don't think you've risen above the primary problems of this issue,
Tom. Even if you could somehow catch Werstine being inconsistent with
his characterizations, that wouldn't change the fact that Pollard,
Thompson, et al went on a fool's errand 80 years ago --and still
haven't come back.
Toby Petzold
American
Tom Reedy
news:2dbd058e.02081...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
>
> > Indeed, it seems that Werstine is using the death of evidence
>
> The death of evidence for the Shakespearean Hand D attribution
> occurred in the moment of delusion that gripped Simpson in 1871.
Typo. It should read "dearth."
<snip>
KQKnave
it: it's very obviously a crock of shit and the Stratfordians
>standing around it are its stirrers. I have absolutely no respect, in
>this instance, for those who can't admit that there is no
>palaeographic argument for Shakespeare as Hand D.
This latest post of yours is typical: Hysterical shrieking without a bit of
substantive evidence to back up your claims.
This is just a straw man. Here is a typical consensus view
of the paleographic argument for Hand D, from the Riverside
Shakespeare:
"The handwriting of Addition II has been painstakingly
compared with the other six genuine Shakespeare
signatures and the only other two words known to be in
Shakespeare's hand ("By me") by the eminent paleographer
Sir E. Maunde Thompson, and declared in his view
to be that of Shakespeare. But the material for
comparison is so limited that an absolute verdict
on the basis of the handwriting alone is impossible."
Do you understand that paragraph? The handwriting is
consistent with the known Shakespeare handwriting,
but there aren't enough examples of his authentic
handwriting to be sure. It is definitely not in the hand
of any other playwright for whom we have samples
of handwriting, which is also *consistent* with the
idea that it is Shakespeare's handwriting.
John W. Kennedy
> This is abject nonsense. It presumes that the texts were set directly
> from Shakespeare's manuscripts.
No it doesn't. You're a liar.
> All of which applies to orthodoxy. Every Shakespeare biography resorts
> to conjecture and most pile conjecture upon conjecture without warning
> the reader. Schoenbaum is probably the most respected Shakespeare
> biographer and I have frequently posted examples of his factifying
> myth,
> distorting the evidence and creating a personality for Shakespeare
> from
> impersonal literary evidence.
Dooleyism for, "evidence that I desperately wish to ignore."
> Hays points out that nonpaleographic arguments were introduced to
> corroborate the paleographic case, but that these other arguments
> "cannot strengthen the paleographic arguments themselves." The
> paleographic case for "Hand D" cannot be made, because a control
> sample of Shakespeare's handwriting, sufficient to make an
> identification, does not exist. Unless you can make the paleographic
> argument the rest of the arguments, being inconclusive at best, are
> worthless.
You are scum. Lying, evil, degenerate, filthy scum.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
Roger Nyle Parisious
As I had occasion to point out on my first long paper on this
site,"The Manuscript of "Sir Thomas More", whatever Thompson did or
not think in the late teens of the twentieth century is now longer
relevent. In the past eighty years only one handwriting expert,Charles
Hamilton, has been prepared to back that opinion and he shortly
discredited himself by identifying manuscripts by Thomas Middleton and
(apparently)Francis Bacon as being in the same handwriting.
At the Great Trial of l987 the Oxfordians brought two qualified
handwriting experts with, most importantly, expertise in Elizabethan
scripts.(Thompson,while an eminent paleographer, had no knowledge at
all of normal forensic methods as he was not trained in either
contemporary or law.)Confronted with the new expertise the
Stratfordian attorneys did not attempt to call rebuttal and withdrew
this section of their brief.
This is astonishing for, in all good faith, it is usual for
handwriting experts to disagree.Check any of the Great Trials such as
the Anastasia case or the Lindbergh kidnapping. Absolutely honest
experts have sworn each other blind over the greater part of a century
in these notorious affairs.
The failure of the Strats to produce even a single credible expert
to support their claim since l920 , while stuffing the academic
journals throughout this period with false puffs about the scientific
nature of their achievement, is one of the worst debacles in
twentieth century literary scholarship.Quantity cannot make up for
quality. Congratulations to the dozen Strats who had the courage to
say what the silent majority has always known: The Emperor has no
clothes.
Toby Petzold
> >Let me be clear about this palaeographic "argument" and the people >who foster
> it: it's very obviously a crock of shit and the Stratfordians
> >standing around it are its stirrers. I have absolutely no respect, in
> >this instance, for those who can't admit that there is no
> >palaeographic argument for Shakespeare as Hand D.
Agent Jim:
> This latest post of yours is typical: Hysterical shrieking without a bit of
> substantive evidence to back up your claims.
Gimme a break. I have as good a knowledge of the relevant facts as
most folks here and, as far as I'm concerned, a belief in the
palaeographic argument for Shakespeare as Hand D is the same as a
delusion. When was the last time YOU had a good, close look at the
plates in Pollard's 1923 book? I'm looking at them right now and I
think Thompson was in his cups when he issued his decree. But, really,
they're ALL guilty: Simpson, Spedding, Pollard, Greg et al. They all
needed Shakespeare to be a contributor to STM and that's what they
got.
> This is just a straw man.
Jim, I think you're about an inch away from pure hackery.
> Here is a typical consensus view
> of the paleographic argument for Hand D, from the Riverside
> Shakespeare:
>
> "The handwriting of Addition II has been painstakingly
> compared with the other six genuine Shakespeare
> signatures and the only other two words known to be in
> Shakespeare's hand ("By me") by the eminent paleographer
> Sir E. Maunde Thompson, and declared in his view
> to be that of Shakespeare. But the material for
> comparison is so limited that an absolute verdict
> on the basis of the handwriting alone is impossible."
If the "material for comparison is so limited," why is it even
permissible to make the suggestion that Hand D is Shakespeare's in the
first place? It's NOTHING more than planting the seed of doubt or hope
or whatever. You and your coreligionists keep Hand D alive because it
serves your propangandistic aims and NOT because it's good
scholarship.
> Do you understand that paragraph?
You won't know it, but it's not possible for a believer in the
palaeographic argument for Shakespeare as Hand D to condescend to
anyone.
> The handwriting is
> consistent with the known Shakespeare handwriting,
> but there aren't enough examples of his authentic
> handwriting to be sure.
"Consistent" is as slippery a word as "compatible." Neither of them
means anything in this context except that [real scholars] can
continue with their dissembling. Your main problem is that this belief
was inherited. It's been a Stratfordian favorite since 1871 and,
therefore, has all the authority that such years can confer. But, when
you honestly examine Thompson's work, you'll agree that there is no
basis for the claims he makes. None.
> It is definitely not in the hand
> of any other playwright for whom we have samples
> of handwriting, which is also *consistent* with the
> idea that it is Shakespeare's handwriting.
Am I reading this correctly? You are saying that Hand D is the
handwriting of a playwright (and DEFINITELY NOT a scribe). You are
also saying that Hand D is the handwriting of a playwright "for whom
we [DO NOT] have samples of handwriting." But isn't the VERY BASIS of
the palaeographic "argument" that we DO HAVE ENOUGH of a sample? Which
shall it be? If there wasn't enough of a comparitor ab initio, how can
there be enough of one now (or vice versa)? It's all gibberish. Now,
you add the phrase "which is also *consistent* with the idea that it
is Shakespeare's [sic] handwriting," but what does that MEAN? Is Hand
D "consistent" with an "idea" or another hand altogether? If Thompson
and the others had meant to say that Hand D was identical or
indistinguishable from the few letters that comprise Shakspere's
signature, they would have said so. But, they couldn't (not
explicitly, anyway). So, in order to maintain some semblance of
scholarly integrity, they used weasel words like consistent and
compatible.
Toby Petzold
American
Tom Reedy
1. It isn't the handwriting that first suggested the passage might be
by Shakespeare. It's the quality of the writing. Have you not read the
play yet? Do you not agree that the quality of the play is head and
shoulders above the rest of the play? Are you not familiar enough with
Shakespeare to see the closeness of the style?
2. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a definite
paleographical proof, unless the writer was actually seen writing the
sample. There are only degrees of confidence. The handwriting of D is
consistent with Shakespeare's signatures and there is no case that can
be made against it. That's about as good as it gets until more of his
writing is discovered, an event which I'm sure you feel confident will
never happen.
> It's NOTHING more than planting the seed of doubt or hope
> or whatever. You and your coreligionists keep Hand D alive because
it
> serves your propangandistic aims and NOT because it's good
> scholarship.
>
> > Do you understand that paragraph?
>
> You won't know it, but it's not possible for a believer in the
> palaeographic argument for Shakespeare as Hand D to condescend to
> anyone.
>
> > The handwriting is
> > consistent with the known Shakespeare handwriting,
> > but there aren't enough examples of his authentic
> > handwriting to be sure.
>
> "Consistent" is as slippery a word as "compatible." Neither of them
> means anything in this context except that [real scholars] can
> continue with their dissembling. Your main problem is that this
belief
> was inherited. It's been a Stratfordian favorite since 1871 and,
> therefore, has all the authority that such years can confer. But,
when
> you honestly examine Thompson's work, you'll agree that there is no
> basis for the claims he makes. None.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the literature on the subject, save
for the 75-year-old initial compendium of Pollard's.
You obviously have a very limited grasp of the English language,
similar to Pat Dooley when he said "inconclusive" is defined as
"worthless."
I'm disappointed that Pat has been too busy to respond to my posts and
that the task has been taken up by such as you and Roger Nyle
Parisious, neither of whom can figure out how to make a rational
argument.
TR
> Toby Petzold
> American
>
KQKnave
neogno...@hotmail.com (Toby Petzold) writes:
>> Here is a typical consensus view
>> of the paleographic argument for Hand D, from the Riverside
>> Shakespeare:
>>
>> "The handwriting of Addition II has been painstakingly
>> compared with the other six genuine Shakespeare
>> signatures and the only other two words known to be in
>> Shakespeare's hand ("By me") by the eminent paleographer
>> Sir E. Maunde Thompson, and declared in his view
>> to be that of Shakespeare. But the material for
>> comparison is so limited that an absolute verdict
>> on the basis of the handwriting alone is impossible."
>
>If the "material for comparison is so limited," why is it even
>permissible to make the suggestion that Hand D is Shakespeare's in the
>first place?
Tom answered for me, but obviously you can't read. Take a look
at the paragraph above quoted from the Riverside, and go over
it slowly, line by line. I know it won't do any good, but I thought it
would be polite to at least make a recommendation. I'm sure you'll
keep on pretending that the paleography issue is the most important
one with regard to Hand D, and that since the evidence is inconclusive,
that means it's not by Shakespeare, when in fact it is the least important
issue because it's impossible to *prove*, even with a good authentic
handwriting sample from Shakespeare, that the hands are the same.
On the other hand, the handwriting is not inconsistent with Shakespeare's
and it doesn't match any other known handwriting, so it is not
contradictory to the idea that Shakespeare wrote Hand D.
Toby Petzold
> > > Here is a typical consensus view
> > > of the paleographic argument for Hand D, from the Riverside
> > > Shakespeare:
> > >
> > > "The handwriting of Addition II has been painstakingly
> > > compared with the other six genuine Shakespeare
> > > signatures and the only other two words known to be in
> > > Shakespeare's hand ("By me") by the eminent paleographer
> > > Sir E. Maunde Thompson, and declared in his view
> > > to be that of Shakespeare. But the material for
> > > comparison is so limited that an absolute verdict
> > > on the basis of the handwriting alone is impossible."
Petzold:
> > If the "material for comparison is so limited," why is it even
> > permissible to make the suggestion that Hand D is Shakespeare's in
> the
> > first place?
Reedy:
> 1. It isn't the handwriting that first suggested the passage might be
> by Shakespeare.
So Simpson had as much reason to believe that the famous Three Pages
of STM were Shakespearean as did anyone ever have to think that any
work of the apocrypha was his. He figured that the quality was there,
that the opportunity was not impossible, and that we needed to give
this 25 year-old something to do to draw him out of his Lost Years. I
mean, there had to have been an apprentice period, right?
Regardless, you're misrepresenting the facts. Pollard says Simpson
believed that the Hand D Addition had "Shakespearian flavour," but
ALSO that "the way in which the letters are formed is absolutely the
same as the way in which they are formed in the signatures of
Shakespeare." (Pollard, quoting Simpson, *Shakespeare's Hand*, p. 6)
So, even from the start, the palaeographic argument WAS a part of the
con job.
> It's the quality of the writing. Have you not read the
> play yet?
Yes, I have.
> Do you not agree that the quality of the play is head and
> shoulders above the rest of the play?
The Hand D Addition? Yes, I think it is superior to the other parts.
Does that make it Shakespeare's? Well, a lot of Shakspere-Hand D
proponents liken More's speech to the mob to the Jack Cade bits in 2
Henry VI. Is that the best possible play for Stratfordians to insist
is Shakespearean? I hear that that attribution is open to question,
even amongst [real scholars].
> Are you not familiar enough with
> Shakespeare to see the closeness of the style?
I am as certain about the style as Foster was that Shakespeare wrote A
Funeral Elegy.
> 2. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a definite
> paleographical proof, unless the writer was actually seen writing the
> sample.
So, palaeography can only be used in making cumulative arguments for
attribution. It is, as you say, inherently incapable of carrying the
load of an attribution on its own. Remember that as we go along.
> There are only degrees of confidence.
Wrong. There are also absolutes. For example, there is nothing about a
palaeographic argument that can somehow bolster or reinforce an
imagery argument. Neither can be employed to "improve" the other.
> The handwriting of D is
> consistent with Shakespeare's signatures and there is no case that can
> be made against it.
Of course there is. The words William Shakspeare don't even come close
to using all the letters in the alphabet. What sort of rotten case do
the palaeographers have when they have absolutely no examples of whole
stretches of the alphabet to make a comparison to? It's a joke and you
know it. What, are they using divination? Do they conjecture upstrokes
and minims of phantom letters?
> That's about as good as it gets until more of his
> writing is discovered, an event which I'm sure you feel confident will
> never happen.
"Good as it gets" doesn't buy a lot.
> > It's NOTHING more than planting the seed of doubt or hope
> > or whatever. You and your coreligionists keep Hand D alive because
> it
> > serves your propangandistic aims and NOT because it's good
> > scholarship.
> >
> > > Do you understand that paragraph?
> >
> > You won't know it, but it's not possible for a believer in the
> > palaeographic argument for Shakespeare as Hand D to condescend to
> > anyone.
> >
> > > The handwriting is
> > > consistent with the known Shakespeare handwriting,
> > > but there aren't enough examples of his authentic
> > > handwriting to be sure.
> >
> > "Consistent" is as slippery a word as "compatible." Neither of them
> > means anything in this context except that [real scholars] can
> > continue with their dissembling. Your main problem is that this
> belief
> > was inherited. It's been a Stratfordian favorite since 1871 and,
> > therefore, has all the authority that such years can confer. But,
> when
> > you honestly examine Thompson's work, you'll agree that there is no
> > basis for the claims he makes. None.
>
> You are obviously unfamiliar with the literature on the subject, save
> for the 75-year-old initial compendium of Pollard's.
Being familiar with the literature hasn't done anything for YOUR case,
Tom. Don't be deluded into thinking that these scholarly conventions
are inherently superior to common sense.
I'm guessing that Pat is as disappointed in the quality of argument
you've tendered here as I am. You can quote some old goats; how about
addressing the reality of the illogic of your case?
Toby Petzold
American
Tom Reedy
You write like that and think you're competent to judge what's
Shakespearean and what isn't?
He figured that the quality was there,
> that the opportunity was not impossible, and that we needed to give
> this 25 year-old something to do to draw him out of his Lost Years.
I
> mean, there had to have been an apprentice period, right?
>
> Regardless, you're misrepresenting the facts. Pollard says Simpson
> believed that the Hand D Addition had "Shakespearian flavour," but
> ALSO that "the way in which the letters are formed is absolutely the
> same as the way in which they are formed in the signatures of
> Shakespeare." (Pollard, quoting Simpson, *Shakespeare's Hand*, p. 6)
Read the beginning of that sentence: "Simpson based this claim mainly
on the literary evidence . . . ."
Like I said, it isn't the handwriting that first suggested the passage
might be by Shakespeare.
> So, even from the start, the palaeographic argument WAS a part of
the
> con job.
>
> > It's the quality of the writing. Have you not read the
> > play yet?
>
> Yes, I have.
>
> > Do you not agree that the quality of the play is head and
> > shoulders above the rest of the play?
>
> The Hand D Addition? Yes, I think it is superior to the other parts.
> Does that make it Shakespeare's? Well, a lot of Shakspere-Hand D
> proponents liken More's speech to the mob to the Jack Cade bits in 2
> Henry VI. Is that the best possible play for Stratfordians to insist
> is Shakespearean? I hear that that attribution is open to question,
> even amongst [real scholars].
>
> > Are you not familiar enough with
> > Shakespeare to see the closeness of the style?
>
> I am as certain about the style as Foster was that Shakespeare wrote
A
> Funeral Elegy.
And?
> > 2. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a definite
> > paleographical proof, unless the writer was actually seen writing
the
> > sample.
>
> So, palaeography can only be used in making cumulative arguments for
> attribution.
You can't even glean the meaning from a sentence, yet you suppose
yourself competent to judge what's Shakespearean and what isn't?
> It is, as you say, inherently incapable of carrying the
> load of an attribution on its own. Remember that as we go along.
>
> > There are only degrees of confidence.
>
> Wrong. There are also absolutes.
Of course. To binary-minded antiStratfordians everything is absolute.
The very idea of inconclusiveness is offensive to them.
For example, there is nothing about a
> palaeographic argument that can somehow bolster or reinforce an
> imagery argument. Neither can be employed to "improve" the other.
You'r falling into the same trap Dooley did. The different types of
evidence aren't employed to "improve" the other evidence. The
different types of evidence are employed to bolster the attribution of
the fragment.
And even then, very few claim infallibility in teh Shakespearean
identification.
"We shall probably never be able to prove that Shakespeare wrote the
three pages in *Sir Thomas More*." Dover Wilson, Shakespeare Survey 9,
(1956) 200.
Greg doubts that "the available data are extensive enough to make
complete proof possible."
> > The handwriting of D is
> > consistent with Shakespeare's signatures and there is no case that
can
> > be made against it.
>
> Of course there is. The words William Shakspeare don't even come
close
> to using all the letters in the alphabet. What sort of rotten case
do
> the palaeographers have when they have absolutely no examples of
whole
> stretches of the alphabet to make a comparison to? It's a joke and
you
> know it. What, are they using divination? Do they conjecture
upstrokes
> and minims of phantom letters?
Your well-thought-out objections are noted and we wait for your
alternative explanation.
Don't you ever get tired of being thought a joke? If you think
ignorantly popping off is an adequate rebuttal to the argument, fine,
and I'm sure it works down at the beer joint on 6th Street, especially
for a person who weighs as much as you do, but don't think it's enough
to carry the day for you in an argument of this nature.
Here's another quote for you to try to wrap your mind around:
"The hypothesis of Shakespeare's authorship and hand in the 147 or 148
lines of Addition II, supported as it is by separate but convergent
lines of enquiry conducted by scholars of pre-eminent skill and
authority (notably those of the 1923 collection) cannot be met by
simple denial or doubts as to its adequacy. An alternative hypothesis
must be suggested, but none adequate to challenge that of
Shakespearian authorship has been offered."
T.H. Howard Hill, *Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More: essays on the play
and its Shakespearian interest*, p. 2.
TR
Toby Petzold
> In article <2dbd058e.02081...@posting.google.com>,
> neogno...@hotmail.com (Toby Petzold) writes:
>
> >> Here is a typical consensus view
> >> of the paleographic argument for Hand D, from the Riverside
> >> Shakespeare:
> >>
> >> "The handwriting of Addition II has been painstakingly
> >> compared with the other six genuine Shakespeare
> >> signatures and the only other two words known to be in
> >> Shakespeare's hand ("By me") by the eminent paleographer
> >> Sir E. Maunde Thompson, and declared in his view
> >> to be that of Shakespeare. But the material for
> >> comparison is so limited that an absolute verdict
> >> on the basis of the handwriting alone is impossible."
> >
> >If the "material for comparison is so limited," why is it even
> >permissible to make the suggestion that Hand D is Shakespeare's in the
> >first place?
>
> Tom answered for me, but obviously you can't read.
Oh, I can read just fine. For instance, this reply to me reads a whole
lot like a weasel making for the escape-hatch. How'm I doing?
> Take a look
> at the paragraph above quoted from the Riverside, and go over
> it slowly, line by line.
Okay. The Riverside is basically disagreeing with Thompson. Do you see
that? Thompson says that Hand D IS Shakespeare and the Riverside
editors are saying that that determination can't be made absolutely.
Of course, the Riverside editors leave us with the suggestion that
there are OTHER lines of argument that COULD be brought together to
cinch the attribution, but they (and you) know that that is not true.
> I know it won't do any good, but I thought it
> would be polite to at least make a recommendation.
Yes, being polite to me is the bread and butter of your replies.
> I'm sure you'll
> keep on pretending that the paleography issue is the most important
> one with regard to Hand D, and that since the evidence is inconclusive,
> that means it's not by Shakespeare, when in fact it is the least important
> issue because it's impossible to *prove*, even with a good authentic
> handwriting sample from Shakespeare, that the hands are the same.
Pure weasel. You know full well that the prima facie case for
Shakspere as Hand D has always been palaeographical. So what are you
trying to pull here now? It's fine by me, though. Go ahead and drop
the handwriting thing; that'll leave you gristle-heads more time to
think of the great parallels between More's speech to the mob and some
other play that no one knows for sure who wrote, like 2H6.
> On the other hand, the handwriting is not inconsistent with Shakespeare's
> and it doesn't match any other known handwriting, so it is not
> contradictory to the idea that Shakespeare wrote Hand D.
Don't you recognize illogic when you see it? Let's break this down:
"[T]he handwriting is not inconsistent with Shakespeare's..." In my
view, Shakspere wrote ten words that have survived: his first name and
his surname five times each. (I personally don't believe he wrote that
last signature and the "by me" phrase on his will, but, if you want,
throw those in, too. Give him the whole fourteen words.) With those
fourteen words, you have less than half of the alphabet represented.
Presented with this simple fact, on what basis can any palaeographer
say ANYTHING about the character of Shakspere's handwriting? Do you
understand what I'm asking? MORE THAN HALF of the letters of the
alphabet have no example from Shakspere's hand to be compared with.
Shouldn't that be at least a small hindrance to saying what is and
isn't "consistent" with his handwriting in general?
"...and it doesn't match any other known handwriting..." But doesn't
it SOMEWHAT match Shakspere's? I mean, what kind of nonsense is that?
Because it fragmentarily resembles Shakspere's handwriting and doesn't
look like anyone else's handwriting, THAT makes it LIKELY that it IS
his? The supposition here is that Shakspere's handwriting IS "known"
and subject to comparison. Whether Hand D fails to match other
"unknown" hands should be irrelevant to someone who believes that we
already have a sufficient control sample to make a partial
identification with Shakspere. Right? Forget about the large number of
anonymous playwrights whose names, let alone their hands, are unknown
to us. There's no way that one of them could have written such a great
pro-monarchy speech. It's a lot of snake oil.
"...so it is not contradictory to the idea that Shakespeare wrote Hand
D." But what IS contradictory to the idea is that the palaeographic
evidence is far too deficient to even be used to make the case. It's
too absurd for words that Stratfordians think that the default setting
on Hand D should be Shakspere and that his right to it stands until
it's disproved.
Toby Petzold
American
Tom Reedy
Since *More* is one of the surviving 18 autograph plays from the
Elizabthen age, and since it contains six differnt hands, the fact
that paleography has been involved in the study of the play since it
bagen shuld not be surprising.
But it was the quality of the passage that first brought attention to
the notion that Shakespeare might have had a ahand in it.
Here's one passage that is obviously Shakespearean:
MORE.
Grant them removed, and grant that this your noise
Hath chid down all the majesty of England;
Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,
Their babies at their backs and their poor luggage,
Plodding tooth ports and costs for transportation,
And that you sit as kings in your desires,
Authority quite silent by your brawl,
And you in ruff of your opinions clothed;
What had you got? I'll tell you: you had taught
How insolence and strong hand should prevail,
How order should be quelled; and by this pattern
Not one of you should live an aged man,
For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,
With self same hand, self reasons, and self right,
Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes
Would feed on one another.
If you knew anything about Shakespeare, which you don't, you would
recognize that no other playwright of the era could have written this
passage.
An entire essay could be written about the line, "Authority quite
silent by your brawl," or about the phrase, "How order should be
quelled," and why they are undoubtely Shakespearean.
<snip typical Petzoldian ignorance>
TR
KQKnave
So what are you saying, that the Riverside editors are part of the
big conspiracy to hide the true Shakespeare from the public?
>
>> I know it won't do any good, but I thought it
>> would be polite to at least make a recommendation.
>
>Yes, being polite to me is the bread and butter of your replies.
>
>> I'm sure you'll
>> keep on pretending that the paleography issue is the most important
>> one with regard to Hand D, and that since the evidence is inconclusive,
>> that means it's not by Shakespeare, when in fact it is the least important
>> issue because it's impossible to *prove*, even with a good authentic
>> handwriting sample from Shakespeare, that the hands are the same.
>
>Pure weasel. You know full well that the prima facie case for
>Shakspere as Hand D has always been palaeographical.
This statement is so astoundingly stupid (and wrong) I'm not sure
why I'm bothering here. Let's try again: Read the above quote from
the Riverside again, this time, very...very...very...slowly and carefully.
Try to extract the meaning of the words. I'll put it below again for
your convenience:
"The handwriting of Addition II has been painstakingly
compared with the other six genuine Shakespeare
signatures and the only other two words known to be in
Shakespeare's hand ("By me") by the eminent paleographer
Sir E. Maunde Thompson, and declared in his view
to be that of Shakespeare. But the material for
comparison is so limited that an absolute verdict
on the basis of the handwriting alone is impossible."
How could *any* paleographic case be "prima facie" evidence for
anything? Do you know what "prima facie" means? In the
case of Hand D, all that the handwriting analysis can do
is not rule out Shakespeare.
>So what are you trying to pull here now? It's fine by me, though.
I'm trying to teach you how to read.
>Go ahead and drop the handwriting thing; that'll leave you
>gristle-heads more time to
>think of the great parallels between More's speech to the mob and some
>other play that no one knows for sure who wrote, like 2H6.
There are parallels to More throughout the Shakespeare canon.
And very few people believe that 2H6 is not by Shakespeare.
And by people I mean "genuine scholars", not Marloxenfordibaconians.
>
>> On the other hand, the handwriting is not inconsistent with Shakespeare's
>> and it doesn't match any other known handwriting, so it is not
>> contradictory to the idea that Shakespeare wrote Hand D.
>
>Don't you recognize illogic when you see it? Let's break this down:
>
>"[T]he handwriting is not inconsistent with Shakespeare's..." In my
>view, Shakspere wrote ten words that have survived: his first name and
>his surname five times each. (I personally don't believe he wrote that
>last signature and the "by me" phrase on his will, but, if you want,
>throw those in, too. Give him the whole fourteen words.) With those
>fourteen words, you have less than half of the alphabet represented.
>Presented with this simple fact, on what basis can any palaeographer
>say ANYTHING about the character of Shakspere's handwriting?
Very simple: He can say that the formation of the letters in those
fourteen words is not inconsistent with the formation of those same
letters in Hand D.
>Do you
>understand what I'm asking? MORE THAN HALF of the letters of the
>alphabet have no example from Shakspere's hand to be compared with.
>Shouldn't that be at least a small hindrance to saying what is and
>isn't "consistent" with his handwriting in general?
No, because you can only compare what is there, and what is there
is not inconsistent with Hand D. If you're asking what you need to be
reasonably sure that the handwriting actually is Shakespeare's, then
you would need a larger authentic sample of Shakespeare's handwriting.
If you read the above paragraph from the Riverside very...very...very...slowly
and carefully, you will see that that is precisely what they are saying.
[snip of stupidities too tiresome to bother responding]
Toby Petzold
A poorly-worded sentence in a newsgroup posting and my judgement is
condemned to irrelevance? That hardly seems fair.
> He figured that the quality was there,
> > that the opportunity was not impossible, and that we needed to give
> > this 25 year-old something to do to draw him out of his Lost Years.
> I
> > mean, there had to have been an apprentice period, right?
> >
> > Regardless, you're misrepresenting the facts. Pollard says Simpson
> > believed that the Hand D Addition had "Shakespearian flavour," but
> > ALSO that "the way in which the letters are formed is absolutely the
> > same as the way in which they are formed in the signatures of
> > Shakespeare." (Pollard, quoting Simpson, *Shakespeare's Hand*, p. 6)
>
> Read the beginning of that sentence: "Simpson based this claim mainly
> on the literary evidence . . . ."
Simpson depended on both. Are you interested in trying to quantify
which mattered more to him? I don't think it's especially important.
> Like I said, it isn't the handwriting that first suggested the passage
> might be by Shakespeare.
What difference does the sequence of suggestion make? It's just as
likely that the very first suggestion was that there were some lost
years to "rediscover."
> > So, even from the start, the palaeographic argument WAS a part of
> the
> > con job.
> >
> > > It's the quality of the writing. Have you not read the
> > > play yet?
> >
> > Yes, I have.
> >
> > > Do you not agree that the quality of the play is head and
> > > shoulders above the rest of the play?
> >
> > The Hand D Addition? Yes, I think it is superior to the other parts.
> > Does that make it Shakespeare's? Well, a lot of Shakspere-Hand D
> > proponents liken More's speech to the mob to the Jack Cade bits in 2
> > Henry VI. Is that the best possible play for Stratfordians to insist
> > is Shakespearean? I hear that that attribution is open to question,
> > even amongst [real scholars].
> >
> > > Are you not familiar enough with
> > > Shakespeare to see the closeness of the style?
> >
> > I am as certain about the style as Foster was that Shakespeare wrote
> A
> > Funeral Elegy.
>
> And?
Just having some fun.
> > > 2. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a definite
> > > paleographical proof, unless the writer was actually seen writing
> the
> > > sample.
> >
> > So, palaeography can only be used in making cumulative arguments for
> > attribution.
>
> You can't even glean the meaning from a sentence, yet you suppose
> yourself competent to judge what's Shakespearean and what isn't?
If you understood what the word palaeography meant, you'd probably
realize that the exception you made above is a meaningless anachronism
since there wouldn't be any eyewitness around to confirm something
written in the distant past. As to my statement which you ignored, I
assume that you agree that palaeographical arguments can ONLY be used
with other lines of evidence. If this is so, then you would have to
concede that the prima facie case for Shakspere as Hand D is worthless
on its own; irrelevant in support of non-palaeographical arguments in
his favor; and a great deceit as it's been propounded.
> > It is, as you say, inherently incapable of carrying the
> > load of an attribution on its own. Remember that as we go along.
> >
> > > There are only degrees of confidence.
> >
> > Wrong. There are also absolutes.
>
> Of course. To binary-minded antiStratfordians everything is absolute.
> The very idea of inconclusiveness is offensive to them.
Why argue at all if inconclusiveness is satisfying to you? If these
questions are incapable of being disposed of, then why should your
answers be any more valid than mine? Because you understand that
inconclusiveness is abhorrent to ANYone who actually cares.
> For example, there is nothing about a
> > palaeographic argument that can somehow bolster or reinforce an
> > imagery argument. Neither can be employed to "improve" the other.
>
> You'r falling into the same trap Dooley did. The different types of
> evidence aren't employed to "improve" the other evidence. The
> different types of evidence are employed to bolster the attribution of
> the fragment.
Great. So three or four weak arguments can be combined into an
overwhelming assertion of Shakspere's authorship of Hand D. You
wouldn't take that off of your opponents; why should you expect them
to take it off of you?
> And even then, very few claim infallibility in teh Shakespearean
> identification.
This brings us to our most important point, I think. With all these
disclaimers and caveats about the reliability of the Hand D
attribution, what is the rationale behind its promotion? If it's so
fraught with uncertainties, then why should a Stratfordian stand
behind even its "probable" truth? Is that because the rule of
probability rests so easily on y'alls necks? For Anti-Stratfordians,
it must be a matter of demolishing the whole thing and ripping it up
by its roots; otherwise, such [scholarship] can continue to be
resorted to and subliminally advanced as a hope to those who wish to
believe that Shakspere could, after all, write more than just his own
name.
> "We shall probably never be able to prove that Shakespeare wrote the
> three pages in *Sir Thomas More*." Dover Wilson, Shakespeare Survey 9,
> (1956) 200.
>
> Greg doubts that "the available data are extensive enough to make
> complete proof possible."
And, yet, neither one was willing to lose the benefit of its
dismissal. True intellectual cowardice.
> > > The handwriting of D is
> > > consistent with Shakespeare's signatures and there is no case that
> can
> > > be made against it.
> >
> > Of course there is. The words William Shakspeare don't even come
> close
> > to using all the letters in the alphabet. What sort of rotten case
> do
> > the palaeographers have when they have absolutely no examples of
> whole
> > stretches of the alphabet to make a comparison to? It's a joke and
> you
> > know it. What, are they using divination? Do they conjecture
> upstrokes
> > and minims of phantom letters?
>
> Your well-thought-out objections are noted and we wait for your
> alternative explanation.
Just know that I'm right.
I don't believe I am.
> If you think
> ignorantly popping off is an adequate rebuttal to the argument, fine,
> and I'm sure it works down at the beer joint on 6th Street,
Sixth Street? That's where we send the tourists to get scalped.
> especially
> for a person who weighs as much as you do, but don't think it's enough
> to carry the day for you in an argument of this nature.
So you're saying that my being a fat man precludes my besting you in
this exchange? That's demonstrably false. Not only have I mopped the
floor with your worthless "arguments," but I'll be doing it every time
you presume to bore us with your delusions.
Howard Hill is wrong. He does, however, show us why the Question
verges on the theological: you can't strip someone of their faith in
shit scholarship and obvious lies. I am, he says, barred from denial
and doubt of an attribution that was only made because of partisan
(and, in Simpson's case, probably religious) machinations. That's
breathtakingly presumptuous. The Old Ten Percenter has been installed
as poet, playwright, and (here) a patcher. Let the chronological
issues arise. Let's go have a whiff of these remarkable parallels.
Let's go find even more people who should have known Shakspere but
didn't. There's nothing too far beyond the pale of truth and reason
that Stratfordians can't embrace.
Toby Petzold
American
Tom Reedy
Simpson claimed the fragment was autograph Shakespeare without doing
any kind of detailed paleographical study (he wasn't qualified, but he
had eyes), with just the assertion that the letter formation was
identical to that of the signatures. A year later, in 1872, another
scholar, I forget his name, agreed with part of Simpson's assertion
and called for a detailed paleographical study, which wasn't done
until 1911 by Greg, who separated out the various penmen in the MSS. A
comparison of addition II with Shakespeare's signatures wasn't done
until 1916, by Thompson, whom you seem to think didn't know what he
was doing, which shows how unfamiliar you are with his work (not
surprising).
> > Like I said, it isn't the handwriting that first suggested the
passage
> > might be by Shakespeare.
>
> What difference does the sequence of suggestion make? It's just as
> likely that the very first suggestion was that there were some lost
> years to "rediscover."
No, it's not "just as likely" that they were trying to fill in holes
in Shakepeare's biography. The play had been published in 1844, and
the quality of the writing attracted attention, especially with the
foil of the rest of the play.
To repeat my question: are you not familiar enough with Shakespeare to
see the closeness of the style? In particular, the unique way he plays
words off on each other. No other playwright of the era can do it.
> > > > 2. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a definite
> > > > paleographical proof, unless the writer was actually seen
writing
> > > > the sample.
> > >
> > > So, palaeography can only be used in making cumulative arguments
for
> > > attribution.
> >
> > You can't even glean the meaning from a sentence, yet you suppose
> > yourself competent to judge what's Shakespearean and what isn't?
>
> If you understood what the word palaeography meant, you'd probably
> realize that the exception you made above is a meaningless
anachronism
> since there wouldn't be any eyewitness around to confirm something
> written in the distant past.
Gotta hand this one to you.
As to my statement which you ignored, I
> assume that you agree that palaeographical arguments can ONLY be
used
> with other lines of evidence.
In this particular case, I would agree with that. But there are times
when paleographical arguments can be used alone, such as when there
are sufficient handwriting samples. The case for Dekker's hand in
*More* was made suchly.
If this is so, then you would have to
> concede that the prima facie case for Shakspere as Hand D is
worthless
> on its own;
But it does not stand on its own.
> irrelevant in support of non-palaeographical arguments in
> his favor;
If you're going to make such statements it wuld be nice if you put
forth your argument for such a view.
> and a great deceit as it's been propounded.
>
> > > It is, as you say, inherently incapable of carrying the
> > > load of an attribution on its own. Remember that as we go along.
> > >
> > > > There are only degrees of confidence.
> > >
> > > Wrong. There are also absolutes.
> >
> > Of course. To binary-minded antiStratfordians everything is
absolute.
> > The very idea of inconclusiveness is offensive to them.
>
> Why argue at all if inconclusiveness is satisfying to you?
Apparently you have no stomach for scholarly or scientific inquiry.
There are people who spend their entire lives following lines of
evidence in the service of a question that will never be answered in
their lifetimes.
If these
> questions are incapable of being disposed of, then why should your
> answers be any more valid than mine?
Uh, because I actually try to research the question rather than sit on
my ass and make things up?
> Because you understand that
> inconclusiveness is abhorrent to ANYone who actually cares.
Spoken like a true rigidnik.
"In the penultimate decade of the twentieth century, more than a
century after Richard Simpson's brief paper, the question rests
incompletely resolved. A majority of Shakespearians, including many of
the most eminent, believe D is Shakespeare's hand; but a significant
minority, including some respected students of the play, deny it or
conclude that there is insufficient evidence to arrive at a decision."
G. Harold Metz, "The Scholars and Sir thomas More," *Shakesepare and
Sir Thomas More: essays on the play and its Shakespearian interest*,
T.H. Howard Hill, p. 17.
Now according to Werstine, the inconclusiveness of the evidence
disproves it (we are talking about Werstine here, you know, although
you'd never know from your responses). According to you, the whole
thing shouldn't even be studied since everybody can't agree on a
black-and-white answer.
> > For example, there is nothing about a
> > > palaeographic argument that can somehow bolster or reinforce an
> > > imagery argument. Neither can be employed to "improve" the
other.
> >
> > You'r falling into the same trap Dooley did. The different types
of
> > evidence aren't employed to "improve" the other evidence. The
> > different types of evidence are employed to bolster the
attribution of
> > the fragment.
>
> Great. So three or four weak arguments
Have you even read the arguments? "Weak" is hardly the word to
describe them.
can be combined into an
> overwhelming assertion of Shakspere's authorship of Hand D. You
> wouldn't take that off of your opponents; why should you expect them
> to take it off of you?
>
> > And even then, very few claim infallibility in teh Shakespearean
> > identification.
>
> This brings us to our most important point, I think. With all these
> disclaimers and caveats about the reliability of the Hand D
> attribution, what is the rationale behind its promotion?
Because all the evidence points to it.
If it's so
> fraught with uncertainties, then why should a Stratfordian stand
> behind even its "probable" truth?
Read the above quote. Most Shakespearians agree Shakespeare wrote the
addition. I agree also.
Is that because the rule of
> probability rests so easily on y'alls necks? For Anti-Stratfordians,
> it must be a matter of demolishing the whole thing and ripping it up
> by its roots; otherwise, such [scholarship] can continue to be
> resorted to and subliminally advanced as a hope to those who wish to
> believe that Shakspere could, after all, write more than just his
own
> name.
>
> > "We shall probably never be able to prove that Shakespeare wrote
the
> > three pages in *Sir Thomas More*." Dover Wilson, Shakespeare
Survey 9,
> > (1956) 200.
> >
> > Greg doubts that "the available data are extensive enough to make
> > complete proof possible."
>
> And, yet, neither one was willing to lose the benefit of its
> dismissal. True intellectual cowardice.
You confuse careful scholarship with cowardice, probably because
you've only had experience with one of them.
> > > > The handwriting of D is
> > > > consistent with Shakespeare's signatures and there is no case
that
> > can
> > > > be made against it.
> > >
> > > Of course there is. The words William Shakspeare don't even come
> > close
> > > to using all the letters in the alphabet. What sort of rotten
case
> > do
> > > the palaeographers have when they have absolutely no examples of
> > whole
> > > stretches of the alphabet to make a comparison to? It's a joke
and
> > you
> > > know it. What, are they using divination? Do they conjecture
> > upstrokes
> > > and minims of phantom letters?
> >
> > Your well-thought-out objections are noted and we wait for your
> > alternative explanation.
>
> Just know that I'm right.
I'm glad you're adding some support to your objections.
What, not tired of it yet?
> > If you think
> > ignorantly popping off is an adequate rebuttal to the argument,
fine,
> > and I'm sure it works down at the beer joint on 6th Street,
>
> Sixth Street? That's where we send the tourists to get scalped.
>
> > especially
> > for a person who weighs as much as you do, but don't think it's
enough
> > to carry the day for you in an argument of this nature.
>
> So you're saying that my being a fat man precludes my besting you in
> this exchange?
No, I'm saying your size works to ensure that popping off is an
adequate rebuttal to the denizens of a bar, but it doesn't work here.
That's demonstrably false. Not only have I mopped the
> floor with your worthless "arguments,"
I guess you're not tired of being a joke.
Toby, let's get real. Stop deluding yourself. You're not there yet,
but you're headed to the same place Parisious, Richard Kennedy and
Zenner live. It's not too late to turn back.
GREAT REBUTTAL!
He does, however, show us why the Question
> verges on the theological: you can't strip someone of their faith in
> shit scholarship and obvious lies. I am, he says, barred from denial
> and doubt of an attribution that was only made because of partisan
> (and, in Simpson's case, probably religious) machinations. That's
> breathtakingly presumptuous. The Old Ten Percenter has been
installed
> as poet, playwright, and (here) a patcher. Let the chronological
> issues arise. Let's go have a whiff of these remarkable parallels.
> Let's go find even more people who should have known Shakspere but
> didn't. There's nothing too far beyond the pale of truth and reason
> that Stratfordians can't embrace.
>
> Toby Petzold
> American
Your arguments are laced with just as many facts as Crowley's are. You
two can hold hands when the glorious new paradigm takes over.
TR
Pat Dooley
news:<20020814151152...@mb-cn.aol.com>...
> > In article <2dbd058e.02081...@posting.google.com>,
> > neogno...@hotmail.com (Toby Petzold) writes:
<snip>
>
> > On the other hand, the handwriting is not inconsistent with
Shakespeare's
> > and it doesn't match any other known handwriting, so it is not
> > contradictory to the idea that Shakespeare wrote Hand D.
>
> Don't you recognize illogic when you see it? Let's break this down:
>
> "[T]he handwriting is not inconsistent with Shakespeare's..." In my
> view, Shakspere wrote ten words that have survived: his first name
and
> his surname five times each. (I personally don't believe he wrote
that
> last signature and the "by me" phrase on his will, but, if you want,
> throw those in, too. Give him the whole fourteen words.) With those
> fourteen words, you have less than half of the alphabet represented.
> Presented with this simple fact, on what basis can any palaeographer
> say ANYTHING about the character of Shakspere's handwriting? Do you
> understand what I'm asking? MORE THAN HALF of the letters of the
> alphabet have no example from Shakspere's hand to be compared with.
> Shouldn't that be at least a small hindrance to saying what is and
> isn't "consistent" with his handwriting in general?
Worse than that, the letters that Shakespeare allegedly wrote
with his own hand are so inconsistent it is difficult to actually
establish whether he had a distinctive hand of his own and
whether all the signatures are actually his.
It gets worse. Signatures are often distinct from the owner's
handwriting. WE HAVE NO SAMPLE OF SHAKESPEARE'S
WRITING AVAILABLE FOR COMPARISON. Sorry for shouting
but that is the truth. Not one word beyond the pitiful attempts
to sign his own name. We've got something for most everybody else,
as Pollard and company freely acknowledge, but zip for Shakespeare.
<snip>
Toby Petzold
Interesting. You'll give credence to the palaeographical opinion of
someone whom you admit wasn't qualified (so long as his opinion serves
your purposes). Am I supposed to take you seriously? I have "eyes,"
too, and I am amazed that anyone could possibly describe the
letter-formation of the Shakespearean signatures as consistent with
Hand D. They're not even "consistent" with each other --and you want
people to believe that so small and distorted a sample as that is
amenable to comparison?
> with just the assertion that the letter formation was
> identical to that of the signatures.
"Identical"? That's outrageous. Did he actually use that term?
> A year later, in 1872, another
> scholar, I forget his name,
Spedding, probably.
> agreed with part of Simpson's assertion
> and called for a detailed paleographical study, which wasn't done
> until 1911 by Greg, who separated out the various penmen in the MSS.
But Spedding thought that Simpson was claiming too much for Shakspere.
Now, was that because of the handwriting or the quality of the
language? Simpson was not sure about where Hands C and D were
different, remember. So, now, you and Agent Jim can tell me how the
palaeographic argument was NOT prima facie. Were these old goats
trying to get the HANDWRITING or the QUALITY OF THE LANGUAGE straight?
> A
> comparison of addition II with Shakespeare's signatures wasn't done
> until 1916, by Thompson, whom you seem to think didn't know what he
> was doing, which shows how unfamiliar you are with his work (not
> surprising).
I guess all that's left to do is invest this response with some
imagination since it cannot be made any clearer than this: the extant
handwriting sample of William Shakspere is simply too small, too
self-inconsistent, and (if you accept a date of composition for Hand D
as c1590) too far removed from the STM MS. to be reasonably
comparable. I believe that those who argue for their similarity are
more influenced by the partisan need to supply Shakespeare with the
same kind of evidence that his contemporaries have than by any actual,
empirical reason.
> > > Like I said, it isn't the handwriting that first suggested the
> passage
> > > might be by Shakespeare.
> >
> > What difference does the sequence of suggestion make? It's just as
> > likely that the very first suggestion was that there were some lost
> > years to "rediscover."
>
> No, it's not "just as likely" that they were trying to fill in holes
> in Shakepeare's biography. The play had been published in 1844, and
> the quality of the writing attracted attention, especially with the
> foil of the rest of the play.
Richard Simpson was a liberal Catholic convert who was probably drawn
to the idea that Shakespeare had written a play about the great
Catholic martyr Thomas More. Simpson believed that Shakspere was, in
fact, a Catholic, and I am confident that Simpson's motivations in
attributing the More mob speech to his great literary hero (and
co-religionist) were EVERY bit as religious as they were literary or
palaeographical or whatever. (Is Dickson reading this?)
I'm not nearly as familiar with Shakespeare as you. However, I agree
that the More speech is Shakespearean in its quality. Of course, my
opinion isn't worth much, but it's the same as yours.
> In particular, the unique way he plays
> words off on each other.
Are you referring to his metaphors? Yes, they're quite nice. Thank God
Shakespeare invented that part of speech.
> No other playwright of the era can do it.
What era are you referring to, Tom? Fifteen-ninety or 1605? The dating
DOES matter because it obligates us to consider priority. Who is the
influence and who are the influenced? I'll consider your sweeping
assessments once you alight upon a date.
> > > > > 2. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a definite
> > > > > paleographical proof, unless the writer was actually seen
> writing
> > > > > the sample.
> > > >
> > > > So, palaeography can only be used in making cumulative arguments
> for
> > > > attribution.
> > >
> > > You can't even glean the meaning from a sentence, yet you suppose
> > > yourself competent to judge what's Shakespearean and what isn't?
> >
> > If you understood what the word palaeography meant, you'd probably
> > realize that the exception you made above is a meaningless
> anachronism
> > since there wouldn't be any eyewitness around to confirm something
> > written in the distant past.
>
> Gotta hand this one to you.
>
> As to my statement which you ignored, I
> > assume that you agree that palaeographical arguments can ONLY be
> used
> > with other lines of evidence.
>
> In this particular case, I would agree with that. But there are times
> when paleographical arguments can be used alone, such as when there
> are sufficient handwriting samples. The case for Dekker's hand in
> *More* was made suchly.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
> If this is so, then you would have to
> > concede that the prima facie case for Shakspere as Hand D is
> worthless
> > on its own;
>
> But it does not stand on its own.
Yet you find it strong enough to serve to bolster the other lines of
evidence. Can you show me a word or two from the MS. that appear to be
particularly Shaksperian in their letter-formation? I have the
facsimiles. Just point some out for us. Remember, the comparison you
choose will actually bolster the other lines of evidence. I know from
my own experience that the way I write my Qs always tips people off to
my latinate diction.
> > irrelevant in support of non-palaeographical arguments in
> > his favor;
>
> If you're going to make such statements it wuld be nice if you put
> forth your argument for such a view.
You have me at a disadvantage, Tom. I'm not as good a liar as you to
come up with a scenario that would make an invalid palaeographic
argument support another for verbal parallelism.
> > and a great deceit as it's been propounded.
> >
> > > > It is, as you say, inherently incapable of carrying the
> > > > load of an attribution on its own. Remember that as we go along.
> > > >
> > > > > There are only degrees of confidence.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. There are also absolutes.
> > >
> > > Of course. To binary-minded antiStratfordians everything is
> absolute.
> > > The very idea of inconclusiveness is offensive to them.
> >
> > Why argue at all if inconclusiveness is satisfying to you?
>
> Apparently you have no stomach for scholarly or scientific inquiry.
> There are people who spend their entire lives following lines of
> evidence in the service of a question that will never be answered in
> their lifetimes.
And, then again, some people just force their Hands.
> If these
> > questions are incapable of being disposed of, then why should your
> > answers be any more valid than mine?
>
> Uh, because I actually try to research the question rather than sit on
> my ass and make things up?
So what happens when your opponents make the same effort as you? Maybe
they go for the ad hominem approach.
> > Because you understand that
> > inconclusiveness is abhorrent to ANYone who actually cares.
>
> Spoken like a true rigidnik.
Where IS my man Bob?
> "In the penultimate decade of the twentieth century, more than a
> century after Richard Simpson's brief paper, the question rests
> incompletely resolved.
Ah, but the potentiality has been fully [implemented] and has even
come (upon some) to resemble fact.
> A majority of Shakespearians, including many of
> the most eminent, believe D is Shakespeare's hand; but a significant
> minority, including some respected students of the play, deny it or
> conclude that there is insufficient evidence to arrive at a decision."
> G. Harold Metz, "The Scholars and Sir thomas More," *Shakesepare and
> Sir Thomas More: essays on the play and its Shakespearian interest*,
> T.H. Howard Hill, p. 17.
I love that Metz guy.
> Now according to Werstine, the inconclusiveness of the evidence
> disproves it (we are talking about Werstine here, you know, although
> you'd never know from your responses).
Oh, I see. I thought you had already knocked that pinata down.
> According to you, the whole
> thing shouldn't even be studied since everybody can't agree on a
> black-and-white answer.
No, I think it should be studied even more. That may be the only way
to finally move Stratfordians off of their perch.
> > > For example, there is nothing about a
> > > > palaeographic argument that can somehow bolster or reinforce an
> > > > imagery argument. Neither can be employed to "improve" the
> other.
> > >
> > > You'r falling into the same trap Dooley did. The different types
> of
> > > evidence aren't employed to "improve" the other evidence. The
> > > different types of evidence are employed to bolster the
> attribution of
> > > the fragment.
> >
> > Great. So three or four weak arguments
>
> Have you even read the arguments? "Weak" is hardly the word to
> describe them.
Yes, I'm reading them now. Go ahead, please, and introduce one of them
so that we can have something besides palaeography to talk about.
Show us one or two words from the MS. that are Shaksperian in their
letter-formation, why don't you? Don't worry about losing me: I can
follow along.
Where are you getting this picture of me as a bully in some bar? It's
completely inappropriate. Not only do I not go to bars (I've been to a
couple of my favorite pubs probably six or seven times this whole
year), but I very rarely even drink (alcoholics disgust me). But, more
relevant to your concerns, I am not a bully. I don't have to be. If
people are intimidated by me physically, it's because they are so
small. Are you a small man, Tom? Do you lash out with words over the
Internet because you've finally had enough of getting your ass whupped
in bars? We all have to compensate, I know. If we ever meet, though,
perhaps at some conference or production, don't slink away from me:
come on over and shake my hand. Maybe then you won't feel like calling
me a fucking moron.
> That's demonstrably false. Not only have I mopped the
> > floor with your worthless "arguments,"
>
> I guess you're not tired of being a joke.
>
> Toby, let's get real. Stop deluding yourself. You're not there yet,
> but you're headed to the same place Parisious, Richard Kennedy and
> Zenner live. It's not too late to turn back.
I like Roger. I usually like Richard. Don't know enough about Peter,
but I think of Roger and Richard as men of some accomplishment, so I
don't take your opinion of them as my own.
And more to come.
> He does, however, show us why the Question
> > verges on the theological: you can't strip someone of their faith in
> > shit scholarship and obvious lies. I am, he says, barred from denial
> > and doubt of an attribution that was only made because of partisan
> > (and, in Simpson's case, probably religious) machinations. That's
> > breathtakingly presumptuous. The Old Ten Percenter has been
> installed
> > as poet, playwright, and (here) a patcher. Let the chronological
> > issues arise. Let's go have a whiff of these remarkable parallels.
> > Let's go find even more people who should have known Shakspere but
> > didn't. There's nothing too far beyond the pale of truth and reason
> > that Stratfordians can't embrace.
>
> Your arguments are laced with just as many facts as Crowley's are. You
> two can hold hands when the glorious new paradigm takes over.
Okay. Let's move on to another argument for Shakespeare as Hand D. I'm
tired of rubbing your nose in the palaeographical argument.
Toby Petzold
American
Bob Grumman
instead of to HLAS, and now I can't find which post it was I was responding
to, so am just sticking my re-send in here. It's the right thread, I
believe. Here it is:
"If this is so, then you would have to
concede that the prima facie case for Shakspere as Hand D is worthless on
its own"--The American
Tom Reedy: "But it does not stand on its own."
Me: "And it is not worthless on its own. To show that this is so, compare
a situation in which the handwriting of a text slightly matches the
handwriting of a very short text with a situation in which the handwriting
of a text matches the handwriting of NO other text. Now, the latter would
not bother an Oxfordian, who--if he wanted it to
be Oxford's (and Oxford's hand were unknown)--would find in it aristocratic
elegance in the slant of its l's and the curves of its c's and s's that only
someone born of nobility could have penned, and lots else of the same
nature. But a sane person would consider it less valuable evidence than it
would have been had it matched some other text's handwriting."
Many snips, as there were before the above.
The American: "Because you understand that
inconclusiveness is abhorrent to ANYone who actually cares."
Tom Reedy's magnificently worded response:
"Spoken like a true rigidnik."
Yay!
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
> I again posted a message to the author of the post I was responding to
> instead of to HLAS, and now I can't find which post it was I was responding
> to, so am just sticking my re-send in here. It's the right thread, I
> believe. Here it is:
>
> "If this is so, then you would have to
> concede that the prima facie case for Shakspere as Hand D is worthless on
> its own"--The American
>
> Tom Reedy: "But it does not stand on its own."
>
> Me: "And it is not worthless on its own. To show that this is so, compare
> a situation in which the handwriting of a text slightly matches the
> handwriting of a very short text with a situation in which the handwriting
> of a text matches the handwriting of NO other text.
Assuming that the "very short text" in your hypothetical is your way
of saying "Shakspere's signatures," I wonder why you can't see (or,
acknowledge) the problems in making comparisons between them and Hand
D. For one thing, letter-formation in a person's signature is far more
likely than not to be stylized and idiosyncratic. That, in itself, is
enough to complicate the comparison between signatures and regular
text. (Looking at my own signature, the way in which I write the T and
the b in my given name are absolutely unique to that purpose; it would
never occur to me to write those two letters in that way in any other
word. And the "-old" in my surname is a pair of loops that do not
resemble those three letters; nevertheless, their formation never
changes.) And, of course, you have to know that the sample of
Shakspere's "text" is just too small and messy. Isn't it ironic that
the signatures of the man who is imagined to have scarcely left a blot
on his papers are riddled with blotting?
> Now, the latter would
> not bother an Oxfordian, who--if he wanted it to
> be Oxford's (and Oxford's hand were unknown)--would find in it aristocratic
> elegance in the slant of its l's and the curves of its c's and s's that only
> someone born of nobility could have penned, and lots else of the same
> nature.
I have no idea what you're saying, but that would be because you don't
either.
> But a sane person would consider it less valuable evidence than it
> would have been had it matched some other text's handwriting."
Are you feeling okay, Bob?
> Many snips, as there were before the above.
I assume you misspelled sips.
> The American: "Because you understand that
> inconclusiveness is abhorrent to ANYone who actually cares."
>
> Tom Reedy's magnificently worded response:
> "Spoken like a true rigidnik."
>
> Yay!
Oh, brother!
Toby Petzold
American
Tom Reedy
> > A
> > comparison of addition II with Shakespeare's signatures wasn't
done
> > until 1916, by Thompson, whom you seem to think didn't know what
he
> > was doing, which shows how unfamiliar you are with his work (not
> > surprising).
>
> I guess all that's left to do is invest this response with some
> imagination since it cannot be made any clearer than this: the
extant
> handwriting sample of William Shakspere is simply too small, too
> self-inconsistent, and (if you accept a date of composition for Hand
D
> as c1590) too far removed from the STM MS. to be reasonably
> comparable.
The extant signatures of William Shakespeare are not inconsistent with
the handwriting of Hand D. It doesn't matter if you are only talking
about ONE LETTER of the alphabet, a trained paleographer can compare
the letter formation with another sample and tell you whether it's
consistent or not.
> I believe that those who argue for their similarity are
> more influenced by the partisan need to supply Shakespeare with the
> same kind of evidence that his contemporaries have than by any
actual,
> empirical reason.
What you believe is not material, especially since you give no
evidence for your belief.
>
> > > > Like I said, it isn't the handwriting that first suggested the
> > passage
> > > > might be by Shakespeare.
> > >
> > > What difference does the sequence of suggestion make? It's just
as
> > > likely that the very first suggestion was that there were some
lost
> > > years to "rediscover."
> >
> > No, it's not "just as likely" that they were trying to fill in
holes
> > in Shakepeare's biography. The play had been published in 1844,
and
> > the quality of the writing attracted attention, especially with
the
> > foil of the rest of the play.
>
> Richard Simpson was a liberal Catholic convert who was probably
drawn
> to the idea that Shakespeare had written a play about the great
> Catholic martyr Thomas More.
Simpson did not claim that Shakespeare wrote the play. here again we
see the result of your over-hasty popping off without thinking.
Simpson believed that Shakspere was, in
> fact, a Catholic, and I am confident that Simpson's motivations in
> attributing the More mob speech to his great literary hero (and
> co-religionist) were EVERY bit as religious as they were literary or
> palaeographical or whatever. (Is Dickson reading this?)
Once again, what you are confident of doesn't make any difference.
You are free to believe anything you want. The world of Shakespeareans
who actually know something about the topic will remain unaffected by
your unsupported beliefs.
<snip>
> > To repeat my question: are you not familiar enough with
Shakespeare to
> > see the closeness of the style?
>
> I'm not nearly as familiar with Shakespeare as you. However, I agree
> that the More speech is Shakespearean in its quality. Of course, my
> opinion isn't worth much, but it's the same as yours.
>
> > In particular, the unique way he plays
> > words off on each other.
>
> Are you referring to his metaphors? Yes, they're quite nice. Thank
God
> Shakespeare invented that part of speech.
No, I am not.
As I said in another message on this thread, an entire essay could be
written about the line, "Authority quite silent by your brawl," or
about the phrase, "How order should be quelled," and why they are
undoubtedly Shakespearean.
Perhaps you should read Kermode on Shakespeare's use of language and
then come back and talk.
<snip>
> > If you're going to make such statements it wuld be nice if you put
> > forth your argument for such a view.
>
> You have me at a disadvantage, Tom. I'm not as good a liar as you to
> come up with a scenario that would make an invalid palaeographic
> argument support another for verbal parallelism.
Once again, your misunderstanding is getting in the way of your making
a coherent reply. And in any case, your misunderstanding does not
exempt you from offering support for your contentions.
<snip>
> > Now according to Werstine, the inconclusiveness of the evidence
> > disproves it (we are talking about Werstine here, you know,
although
> > you'd never know from your responses).
>
> Oh, I see. I thought you had already knocked that pinata down.
I'm not done yet, but you have not yet made a substantive reply to any
of my points about Werstine.
> > According to you, the whole
> > thing shouldn't even be studied since everybody can't agree on a
> > black-and-white answer.
>
> No, I think it should be studied even more. That may be the only way
> to finally move Stratfordians off of their perch.
The trouble is, the more scholars study Hand D, the more they believe
it's Shakespeare.
<snip>
Once again, more ignorant popping off from the fount of ignorance.
> If we ever meet, though,
> perhaps at some conference or production, don't slink away from me:
> come on over and shake my hand. Maybe then you won't feel like
calling
> me a fucking moron.
It's either that or call you a liar, which I don't believe you are,
the way you do of me.
> > That's demonstrably false. Not only have I mopped the
> > > floor with your worthless "arguments,"
> >
> > I guess you're not tired of being a joke.
> >
> > Toby, let's get real. Stop deluding yourself. You're not there
yet,
> > but you're headed to the same place Parisious, Richard Kennedy and
> > Zenner live. It's not too late to turn back.
>
> I like Roger. I usually like Richard. Don't know enough about Peter,
> but I think of Roger and Richard as men of some accomplishment, so I
> don't take your opinion of them as my own.
Don't forget Crowley and Dickson and Streitz, as long as you're
picking your company. They're of the same ilk, good antiStrats.
<snip>
> > > Howard Hill is wrong.
> >
> > GREAT REBUTTAL!
>
> And more to come.
Unfortunately, we know the quality of your responses has hit its
apogee.
<snip>
TR
Toby Petzold
> >> >> Here is a typical consensus view
> >> >> of the paleographic argument for Hand D, from the Riverside
> >> >> Shakespeare:
> >> >>
> >> >> "The handwriting of Addition II has been painstakingly
> >> >> compared with the other six genuine Shakespeare
> >> >> signatures and the only other two words known to be in
> >> >> Shakespeare's hand ("By me") by the eminent paleographer
> >> >> Sir E. Maunde Thompson, and declared in his view
> >> >> to be that of Shakespeare. But the material for
> >> >> comparison is so limited that an absolute verdict
> >> >> on the basis of the handwriting alone is impossible."
Petzold:
> >> >If the "material for comparison is so limited," why is it even
> >> >permissible to make the suggestion that Hand D is Shakespeare's in the
> >> >first place?
> >>
> >> Tom answered for me, but obviously you can't read.
> >
> >Oh, I can read just fine. For instance, this reply to me reads a whole
> >lot like a weasel making for the escape-hatch. How'm I doing?
> >
> >> Take a look
> >> at the paragraph above quoted from the Riverside, and go over
> >> it slowly, line by line.
> >
> >Okay. The Riverside is basically disagreeing with Thompson. Do you see
> >that? Thompson says that Hand D IS Shakespeare and the Riverside
> >editors are saying that that determination can't be made absolutely.
> >Of course, the Riverside editors leave us with the suggestion that
> >there are OTHER lines of argument that COULD be brought together to
> >cinch the attribution, but they (and you) know that that is not true.
>
> So what are you saying, that the Riverside editors are part of the
> big conspiracy to hide the true Shakespeare from the public?
I'm sure it makes things easier (and, perhaps, considering the sadism
you share with your buddies here, more pleasurable) to consider
everyone who disagrees with you a paranoiac loser, but it simply isn't
so. I wouldn't attribute any particular motivation to the Riverside
editors beyond that of standard-issue orthodox defensiveness, but,
occasionally, they go out and buy a bill of goods. Such as the FE.
You know, in the world of the fine arts, such as painting, I would
guess that scholars enjoy making attributions of particular works to
the masters as much as any literary academic does in his own field.
However, it seems that there's no lack of attributions made to the
"schools of" these old geniuses. I don't know whether that's because
the experts aren't sure whether the artist himself was personally
involved in a particular piece or if his pupils were not expected to
be recognized as anything more than the artist's instruments. But
questioned literary works don't get off so easy; the attributions are
meant to be much more exact. Jonson had his tribe, but nobody's
doubting what HE wrote. Shakspere flew solo until a scene is ajudged
inferior and, then, he becomes a collaborator...
> >> I know it won't do any good, but I thought it
> >> would be polite to at least make a recommendation.
> >
> >Yes, being polite to me is the bread and butter of your replies.
> >
> >> I'm sure you'll
> >> keep on pretending that the paleography issue is the most important
> >> one with regard to Hand D, and that since the evidence is inconclusive,
> >> that means it's not by Shakespeare, when in fact it is the least important
> >> issue because it's impossible to *prove*, even with a good authentic
> >> handwriting sample from Shakespeare, that the hands are the same.
> >
> >Pure weasel. You know full well that the prima facie case for
> >Shakspere as Hand D has always been palaeographical.
>
> This statement is so astoundingly stupid (and wrong) I'm not sure
> why I'm bothering here.
Because sadism has its counterpart.
> Let's try again: Read the above quote from
> the Riverside again, this time, very...very...very...slowly and carefully.
> Try to extract the meaning of the words. I'll put it below again for
> your convenience:
>
> "The handwriting of Addition II has been painstakingly
> compared with the other six genuine Shakespeare
> signatures and the only other two words known to be in
> Shakespeare's hand ("By me") by the eminent paleographer
> Sir E. Maunde Thompson,
Considering his powers of extrapolation, perhaps he is better
described as immanent.
> and declared in his view
> to be that of Shakespeare. But the material for
> comparison is so limited that an absolute verdict
> on the basis of the handwriting alone is impossible."
Your predilection for repitition may be useful to you, Jim, but not
others.
> How could *any* paleographic case be "prima facie" evidence for
> anything?
Go ask Reedy. He told me that the identification of Dekker's hand in
STM was arrived at by palaeography ALONE. Maybe y'all can get together
and work it out.
> Do you know what "prima facie" means?
Yes. It's Latin for unjustified condescension.
> In the
> case of Hand D, all that the handwriting analysis can do
> is not rule out Shakespeare.
So when Thompson and Simpson and the others assert that the
letter-formation in Shakspere's signature and Hand D are compatible
and consistent (and things FAR stronger than that), I should NOT
interpret those as affirmative arguments? Did they describe
Shakspere's handwriting in those terms because they did NOT intend
that their position be taken as one FOR its inclusion? Time to take
off the big floppy shoes and the clown make-up, dude.
> >So what are you trying to pull here now? It's fine by me, though.
>
> I'm trying to teach you how to read.
>
> >Go ahead and drop the handwriting thing; that'll leave you
> >gristle-heads more time to
> >think of the great parallels between More's speech to the mob and some
> >other play that no one knows for sure who wrote, like 2H6.
>
> There are parallels to More throughout the Shakespeare canon.
And I am interested in your arguments for them. Please make some and
relieve us all from this torture.
> And very few people believe that 2H6 is not by Shakespeare.
Would those very few people be insane or just idiots? Kathman himself
said that he thought the arguments for alternative authorship of H6
were plausible.
> And by people I mean "genuine scholars", not Marloxenfordibaconians.
Haven't you learned how misleading even the orthodox can be? You have
to follow the evidence, not depend on authority.
> >> On the other hand, the handwriting is not inconsistent with Shakespeare's
> >> and it doesn't match any other known handwriting, so it is not
> >> contradictory to the idea that Shakespeare wrote Hand D.
> >
> >Don't you recognize illogic when you see it? Let's break this down:
> >
> >"[T]he handwriting is not inconsistent with Shakespeare's..." In my
> >view, Shakspere wrote ten words that have survived: his first name and
> >his surname five times each. (I personally don't believe he wrote that
> >last signature and the "by me" phrase on his will, but, if you want,
> >throw those in, too. Give him the whole fourteen words.) With those
> >fourteen words, you have less than half of the alphabet represented.
> >Presented with this simple fact, on what basis can any palaeographer
> >say ANYTHING about the character of Shakspere's handwriting?
>
> Very simple: He can say that the formation of the letters in those
> fourteen words is not inconsistent with the formation of those same
> letters in Hand D.
Ha, ha. Sometimes it's worse finding half a cockroach in your salad
than a whole one.
> >Do you
> >understand what I'm asking? MORE THAN HALF of the letters of the
> >alphabet have no example from Shakspere's hand to be compared with.
> >Shouldn't that be at least a small hindrance to saying what is and
> >isn't "consistent" with his handwriting in general?
>
> No, because you can only compare what is there, and what is there
> is not inconsistent with Hand D. If you're asking what you need to be
> reasonably sure that the handwriting actually is Shakespeare's, then
> you would need a larger authentic sample of Shakespeare's handwriting.
No foolin'?
> If you read the above paragraph from the Riverside very...very...very...slowly
> and carefully, you will see that that is precisely what they are saying.
>
> [snip of stupidities too tiresome to bother responding]
Thanks for synopsizing the balance of your post.
Toby Petzold
American
Neil Brennen
> "Toby Petzold" <neogno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2dbd058e.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > but don't think it's enough to carry the day for you in an
> > > > > argument of this nature.
> > > >
> > > > So you're saying that my being a fat man precludes my besting
> you in
> > > > this exchange?
> > >
> > > No, I'm saying your size works to ensure that popping off is an
> > > adequate rebuttal to the denizens of a bar, but it doesn't work
> here.
> >
> > Where are you getting this picture of me as a bully in some bar?
> It's
> > completely inappropriate. Not only do I not go to bars (I've been to
> a
> > couple of my favorite pubs probably six or seven times this whole
> > year), but I very rarely even drink (alcoholics disgust me). But,
> more
> > relevant to your concerns, I am not a bully. I don't have to be. If
> > people are intimidated by me physically, it's because they are so
> > small. Are you a small man, Tom? Do you lash out with words over the
> > Internet because you've finally had enough of getting your ass
> whupped
> > in bars? We all have to compensate, I know.
>
> Once again, more ignorant popping off from the fount of ignorance.
Tom, I hate to agree with Toby on anything, but making reference to his bulk
is uncalled for, and only brings discredit to you.
I think you should apologize to Mr. Petzold for the comment about his
obesity, and Mr. Petzold should likewise apolgize for the comment about Mr.
Reedy's stature.
Now then, to get back to the argument: Reedy was about to call Petzold a
fucking moron, and Petzold was to call Reedy a liar....
Tom Reedy
news:ajmlt0$4fh$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
My original reference to his size (I never called him fat, nor do I
know that he is) was well within bounds, which was that of a
comparison of two types of arguments and how bluster (the only
rebuttal he has yet offered) and size are sufficient for one type but
not for the type we (or I, rather) are engaging in here: "If you think
ignorantly popping off is an adequate rebuttal to the argument,
fine, and I'm sure it works down at the beer joint on 6th Street,
especially for a person who weighs as much as you do, but don't think
it's enough to carry the day for you in an argument of this nature."
> I think you should apologize to Mr. Petzold for the comment about
his
> obesity, and Mr. Petzold should likewise apolgize for the comment
about Mr.
> Reedy's stature.
If I think Toby should apologize to me, I'll tell him so. If he's such
a wuss as to want one from me, I'm sure he'll ask me, but his mettle
is far from that of Kaplan's, and so I doubt if his request will be
coming anytime soon. So until that time, I'll just bravely soldier on,
stung to the quick and my self-esteem in tatters, bloodied but
unbowed.
And in case you haven't noticed, Neil, this is what passes for lively
argument on this newsgroup. Althugh I may be a bit quicker than some
to make snide replies, I normally mirror my opponent's technique. When
Toby decides to argue on a more substantive plain, I'll be glad to
drop the uncivility and rebut his argument. However, the poor man has
nothing but his ignorance and smartass comments to work with. While I
admit they are entertaining, and thus fulfill the primary function of
this newsgroup, they do not even come close to answering my arguments
about Werstine, and so we continue to engage upon his turf.
To quote myself from an old post:
I no more take your hlas persona seriously than I do my own, or
Volker's, or Crowley's. I hope to Christ none of the authorship
debaters' real personalities resemble their hlas personas!
Wrestling is called "sports entertainment," and nobody really thinks
it's real, although it does take a real, trained athlete to act like
it's real.
The Authorship Debate is "scholastic entertainment," and if you think
it's real, I've seriously misread you! I thought you were just having
some fun! Only a truly unbalanced person could take this kind of crap
seriously.
> Now then, to get back to the argument: Reedy was about to call
Petzold a
> fucking moron, and Petzold was to call Reedy a liar....
Ah, show business! there's no business like it!
TR
KQKnave
You said "...they (and you) know that that is not true". That means
that you believe that the Riverside is intentionally deceiving people,
and that I am as well. You are either so stupid that you understand
the words in front of, or YOU are doing the deceiving. As far as
the FE is concerned, the author of the preface to that work was
skeptical of the attribution.
>You know, in the world of the fine arts, such as painting, I would
>guess that scholars enjoy making attributions of particular works to
>the masters as much as any literary academic does in his own field.
>However, it seems that there's no lack of attributions made to the
>"schools of" these old geniuses. I don't know whether that's because
>the experts aren't sure whether the artist himself was personally
>involved in a particular piece or if his pupils were not expected to
>be recognized as anything more than the artist's instruments. But
>questioned literary works don't get off so easy; the attributions are
>meant to be much more exact. Jonson had his tribe, but nobody's
>doubting what HE wrote.
Sure they are, the additions to Kyd's "Spanish Tragedy" for one.
Do you understand what "prima facie" means?
pri·ma fa·cie adv. 1. At first sight; before closer inspection:
They had, prima facie, a legitimate complaint. --pri·ma fa·cie
adj. 1. True, authentic, or adequate at first sight; ostensible:
prima facie credibility. 2. Evident without proof or reasoning;
obvious: a prima facie violation of the treaty.
There is no way that ANY paleographic study could be "prima facie"
evidence for anything. It requires close inspection, it's not
adequate or obvious at first sight, and it is not evident without
reasoning, and it's not proof, period. The paleographic evidence
for Dekker's hand in that play may be the BEST evidence, but
it's not PRIMA FACIE evidence.
>> Do you know what "prima facie" means?
>
>Yes. It's Latin for unjustified condescension.
No, it's Latin for "at first sight".
>
>> In the
>> case of Hand D, all that the handwriting analysis can do
>> is not rule out Shakespeare.
>
>So when Thompson and Simpson and the others assert that the
>letter-formation in Shakspere's signature and Hand D are compatible
>and consistent (and things FAR stronger than that), I should NOT
>interpret those as affirmative arguments? Did they describe
>Shakspere's handwriting in those terms because they did NOT intend
>that their position be taken as one FOR its inclusion? Time to take
>off the big floppy shoes and the clown make-up, dude.
THEY believed that they had a strong case. The CONSENSUS now,
exemplified by the excerpt from the Riverside, is that there
are not enough of Shakespeare's signatures extant to justify
certainty.
>
>> >So what are you trying to pull here now? It's fine by me, though.
>>
>> I'm trying to teach you how to read.
>>
>> >Go ahead and drop the handwriting thing; that'll leave you
>> >gristle-heads more time to
>> >think of the great parallels between More's speech to the mob and some
>> >other play that no one knows for sure who wrote, like 2H6.
>>
>> There are parallels to More throughout the Shakespeare canon.
>
>And I am interested in your arguments for them. Please make some and
>relieve us all from this torture.
I've already posted them numerous times, replying to you and to Dooley,
so cut the disingenuous crap.
>
>> And very few people believe that 2H6 is not by Shakespeare.
>
>Would those very few people be insane or just idiots? Kathman himself
>said that he thought the arguments for alternative authorship of H6
>were plausible.
Which part of H6? I notice you don't say 2H6, just "H6".
[snip of contentless comments]
Roundtable
timid. I can't change my size (5'4" or 1m63cm) - but I will try
to combat my weight problem after reading these posts - at least the
14 kilos I gained from those thyroid suppressant pills.
Roundtable, subdued.
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<16E79.10103$LO1.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Roger Nyle Parisious
> "Toby Petzold" <neogno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2dbd058e.02081...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
I will be snipping everything that does not relate to a few
statements on which Tombo(He has me more terrified than Rambo) has
been previously corrected and on which he continues to propound new
errors.
TR:
> about ONE LETTER of the alphabet, a trained paleographer can compare
> the letter formation with another sample and tell you whether it's
> consistent or not.
As it stands this is hysterical in two senses of the word."ONE
LETTER of the alphabet,a trained paleographer can compare the letter
formation with another sample"...I hope it is only your syntax that is
off here. You haven't named a first sample. Presumably you mean any
one example of a given letter of the alphabet found in a specified
manuscript can then be compared with another individual sample and be
pronounced by a trained paleographer as consistent or not.On the other
hand you might be more intelligent than what you appear to have said
sounds and would then claim you meant a COLLECTIVE sample of a given
letter in the second manuscript. In such case you refer back to a
non-existent antecedent collective speciman in the first manuscript.
(I defy you to diagram your sentence,Tom.)
In either case this is forensic nonsense. Even BG, one of your most
fervent admirers,pointed out here(in my first thread on "Sir Thomas
More) the large number of impressive and delusive single letter
parallels in the Hamilton book between the More manuscript and the
body of Shakspere's will.Or take that paricular "the" from said will
juxtaposed in Time magazine against an identical "the" in the
Middleton manuscript. Here are three successive letters which are not
only consistent but identical and they aren't by the same person
unless the Stratford lawyer's clerk was writing both "Sir Thomas
More" and "Cardenio" Neo-Stratfordians like yourself and Hamilton are
not really as emotionally far from neo-Oxfordians like Streiz or
neo-Marlovians like Zehner as you prefer to believe.
> TR:
> > > in Shakepeare's biography. The play had been published in 1844,
> and
> > > the quality of the writing attracted attention, especially with
> the
> > > foil of the rest of the play.
> > Toby:
> > Richard Simpson was a liberal Catholic convert who was probably
> drawn
> > to the idea that Shakespeare had written a play about the great
> > Catholic martyr Thomas More.
>
TR:
> Simpson did not claim that Shakespeare wrote the play. here again we
> see the result of your over-hasty popping off without thinking.
Had you bothered to check the "Thomas More" reference in
Simpson's "School of Shakespeare" which I gave to the estimable MK
DAWG(Come back, Mark.) on said "Thomas More" thread, you will find
Simpson was delighted to find Shakspere's duties as company factotum
included revising the manuscript as well as transcribing it. Remember
Simpson believed "C" and "D" were identical.And "C" is certainly
scribal.
>
> Simpson believed that Shakspere was, in
> > fact, a Catholic, and I am confident that Simpson's motivations in
> > attributing the More mob speech to his great literary hero (and
> > co-religionist) were EVERY bit as religious as they were literary or
> > palaeographical or whatever. (Is Dickson reading this?)
>
> Once again, what you are confident of doesn't make any difference.
>
> You are free to believe anything you want. The world of Shakespeareans
> who actually know something about the topic will remain unaffected by
> your unsupported beliefs.
RNP
As usual you are miles behind the limited information already in
your possesion.Simpson was an honorable and ordinarally careful man
and he was therefore far more certain that Greene said(whether truly
or not) that Shakspere was playing the Batyllus by the fall of
l587,than he was that Shakspere penned Hands C and D in the More
manuscript. Furthur, if you had read Simpson on Shakespeare's
politics(He appears in the New Shakspere Transactions in the first
half of the l870's) you would know that Toby is absolutely right.You
see,TR,Toby oftens feels out the logic of a situation and knows when
the missing piece of evidence ought to appear, as it not infrequently
does.
>
> <snip> A section in which Tom and Toby both show good sense(meaning they agree with my aesthetic perceptions) in agreeing that Hand D has the best material in the show, whoever wrote it.
>
> >
> > You have me at a disadvantage, Tom. I'm not as good a liar as you to
> > come up with a scenario that would make an invalid palaeographic
> > argument support another for verbal parallelism.
> TR
> Once again, your misunderstanding is getting in the way of your making
> a coherent reply.>
> <snip>
>
>>
> The trouble is, the more scholars study Hand D, the more they believe
> it's Shakespeare.
RNP
Unfortunately,TR,you have yet to produce a single forensic expert
in the entire world who will support the Thomas More attribution. It
is generally regarded by the few who have noticed it at all as
fantasy.You know this but you endlessly go on about "more scholars"
who support your opinions.Toby,I know,doesn't like to use the word
liar anymore than I do, but the alternative is to regard you as an
utterly blinkered fanatic ,which is kinder and probably truer.
On another Werstine thread you finally cited Giles Dawson as
your(only) expert without giving a reference. I replied with
presumptive reasons for distrusting Dr.Dawson's expertise but expected
you would give me and your other readers a chance to check back on the
Dawson argument.You immediately ran away and then made a personal act
on my illogic on daring to challenge your (as of the present
moment)still baseless assertions.As you do not seem to have used
Dawson on any previous threads could this be a bit of desperate
puffery?
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > > > Toby, let's get real. Stop deluding yourself. You're not there
> yet,
> > > but you're headed to the same place Parisious, Richard Kennedy and
> > > Zenner live. It's not too late to turn back.
If you will care to check the Internet,TR, you will find my
places include some extremely well placed centers of Celtic literature
and Japanese art.Such names as Arland Ussher(I don't imagine you will
know or like our work) and W.H. Auden are placed there. Kennedy smoked
all you guys out on Ford, me too.Congratulations,Richard. Yes, I think
Peter is as far off base as you are. But he hasn't had your advantages
and he is far more amiable.
> > I like Roger. I usually like Richard. Don't know enough about Peter,
> > but I think of Roger and Richard as men of some accomplishment, so I
> > don't take your opinion of them as my own.
>
> Don't forget Crowley and Dickson and Streitz, as long as you're
> picking your company. They're of the same ilk, good antiStrats.
And then there is Foster in Denver, and the horrible incident with
Mark Alexander, and Greg Reynolds in full heat.All of the same ilk.
Good neo-Strats all.
>
> TR
Tom Reedy
sooner or later. I don't have time to answer you for
the next couple of days, but for right now let me say
one thing.
"Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:a3cc4070.02081...@posting.google.com...
Ah, sweet irony!
TR
Toby Petzold
You suggested that I believed that the Riverside editors were engaged
in some "big conspiracy to hide the true Shakespeare." You're wrong. I
believe that they are promoting a false Shakspere by attributing to
him things he never wrote and inserting him into situations he never
knew. Think about the difference.
> You are either so stupid that you understand
> the words in front of, or YOU are doing the deceiving.
Note to Jim: be sure to make more sense when accusing others of
stupidity.
> As far as
> the FE is concerned, the author of the preface to that work was
> skeptical of the attribution.
But see how that makes no difference? Even those who have serious
doubts still permit themselves to be associated with these
"discoveries." Maybe people have no choice in the matter, but, when
they give in to things they don't personally support, they make it
easier for misinformation and nonsense to be perpetuated.
> >You know, in the world of the fine arts, such as painting, I would
> >guess that scholars enjoy making attributions of particular works to
> >the masters as much as any literary academic does in his own field.
> >However, it seems that there's no lack of attributions made to the
> >"schools of" these old geniuses. I don't know whether that's because
> >the experts aren't sure whether the artist himself was personally
> >involved in a particular piece or if his pupils were not expected to
> >be recognized as anything more than the artist's instruments. But
> >questioned literary works don't get off so easy; the attributions are
> >meant to be much more exact. Jonson had his tribe, but nobody's
> >doubting what HE wrote.
>
> Sure they are, the additions to Kyd's "Spanish Tragedy" for one.
But at least scholars have a reason to believe that Jonson had
something to do with its revision. They have a record to justify their
interest, and not just some imaginings of palaeographic "consistency"
or "compatibility."
<snip>
Agent Jim:
> >> How could *any* paleographic case be "prima facie" evidence for
> >> anything?
Petzold:
> >Go ask Reedy. He told me that the identification of Dekker's hand in
> >STM was arrived at by palaeography ALONE. Maybe y'all can get together
> >and work it out.
>
> Do you understand what "prima facie" means?
Do you understand that I am aware of how you aren't responding to me?
If Dekker's hand in STM was determined by palaeography alone, then
that would certainly include the idea that his handwriting was
visually recognized FROM THE FIRST as being the same as that of one of
the Hands in STM.
> pri·ma fa·cie adv. 1. At first sight; before closer inspection:
> They had, prima facie, a legitimate complaint. --pri·ma fa·cie
> adj. 1. True, authentic, or adequate at first sight; ostensible:
> prima facie credibility. 2. Evident without proof or reasoning;
> obvious: a prima facie violation of the treaty.
>
> There is no way that ANY paleographic study could be "prima facie"
> evidence for anything.
You're wrong. If I were to be shown a page of text written in longhand
by someone I know, I could tell you, by an initial, even cursory,
examination of it whose handwriting it is. That's because people are
able to recognize such things as voices, faces, handwriting, etc. as a
natural extension of their full senses. Even if I didn't know a person
whose handwriting I was inspecting, I would almost certainly be able
to compare and match it to another example in that same hand. That's
because the ability to make such recognitions is not rational or
intellectual, but innately visual-peceptual.
> It requires close inspection, it's not
> adequate or obvious at first sight, and it is not evident without
> reasoning, and it's not proof, period.
Are you saying that you have to THINK about whether a document is in
the hand of a certain person? You have to "reason" it out? That's
ridiculous. A scholar who is familiar with the handwriting of Ben
Jonson or Gabriel Harvey or Edward de Vere can tell with ease whether
he is looking at a document in any of these men's hands. In the office
where I work, there are always handwritten notes posted here and
there, often without being signed. Even though I've worked with some
of these people for only a month or two, I can tell at a glance which
of them has written any given note.
In looking at these older hands, there may be (as there is for me) a
lot of doubt about whose is whose simply because of a lack of
familiarity with the letter-formations and the different styles in
which they're made. But I take it for granted that the recognition of
a person's handwriting is self-evident to a person who is familiar
with it in other contexts.
> The paleographic evidence
> for Dekker's hand in that play may be the BEST evidence, but
> it's not PRIMA FACIE evidence.
It would be to anyone who's familiar with his hand.
YOU'RE unwilling to repost something? What the hell? Mr.
Copy-and-Paste finally draws a line at repeating himself! What a load
of shit, Jim.
> >
> >> And very few people believe that 2H6 is not by Shakespeare.
> >
> >Would those very few people be insane or just idiots? Kathman himself
> >said that he thought the arguments for alternative authorship of H6
> >were plausible.
>
> Which part of H6? I notice you don't say 2H6, just "H6".
I don't recall. I think he meant the whole thing. But, why would you
say that "very few" people believe that H6 is not Shakespeare's? Lots
of people have their doubts. The editor of the Arden edition of 1H6
(Burns, 3rd series) refers only to the "dramatists" of that play,
taking it for granted that it wasn't just a solo project. Do you think
that Shakspere was back in Stratford in his early 20s, busily penning
the prototypes or early versions of those plays, or is what we have
just more of his pinching and patching?
> [snip of contentless comments]
Toby Petzold
American
Toby Petzold
> > > A
> > > comparison of addition II with Shakespeare's signatures wasn't
> done
> > > until 1916, by Thompson, whom you seem to think didn't know what
> he
> > > was doing, which shows how unfamiliar you are with his work (not
> > > surprising).
> >
> > I guess all that's left to do is invest this response with some
> > imagination since it cannot be made any clearer than this: the
> extant
> > handwriting sample of William Shakspere is simply too small, too
> > self-inconsistent, and (if you accept a date of composition for Hand
> D
> > as c1590) too far removed from the STM MS. to be reasonably
> > comparable.
>
> The extant signatures of William Shakespeare are not inconsistent with
> the handwriting of Hand D.
"Not inconsistent" is even snakier than "consistent," which doesn't
mean just a whole hell of a lot on its own. What DOES it mean, Tom?
> It doesn't matter if you are only talking
> about ONE LETTER of the alphabet, a trained paleographer can compare
> the letter formation with another sample and tell you whether it's
> consistent or not.
And he'll do so with all the necessary caution one might expect of a
"trained" professional, which is to say that he will employ words like
consistent when he can't, without lying, employ words like identical.
It really is difficult to understand how anyone could represent
Shakspere's upper case letter-formation, for example, as being
"consistent" with that found in Hand D when all Shakspere ever managed
were S's and W's (and not even those with anything like real
self-consistency).
> > I believe that those who argue for their similarity are
> > more influenced by the partisan need to supply Shakespeare with the
> > same kind of evidence that his contemporaries have than by any
> actual,
> > empirical reason.
>
> What you believe is not material, especially since you give no
> evidence for your belief.
If STM, even in part, were Shakspere's, why didn't it appear in the
FF? Other plays which [real scholars] believe he only collaborated on
were included, so why not that one? And why is Shakspere alone among
his putatively closest colleagues (e.g., Jonson and Drayton) in having
no relevant scrap of manuscript to his name? Hand D as Shakespeare was
an idea that emerged from the Halliwell-Phillipps/Collier/Dyce milieu
when standards of scholarship were still relatively weak and methods
of investigation were crude and intrusive; THEN, you could bully the
public into accepting those standards. And, once introduced, the
confidence in assigning Shakespeare a hand in writing STM cold only
grow to fill the void in Shakespearean MSS.
> > > > > Like I said, it isn't the handwriting that first suggested the
> passage
> > > > > might be by Shakespeare.
> > > >
> > > > What difference does the sequence of suggestion make? It's just
> as
> > > > likely that the very first suggestion was that there were some
> lost
> > > > years to "rediscover."
> > >
> > > No, it's not "just as likely" that they were trying to fill in
> holes
> > > in Shakepeare's biography. The play had been published in 1844,
> and
> > > the quality of the writing attracted attention, especially with
> the
> > > foil of the rest of the play.
> >
> > Richard Simpson was a liberal Catholic convert who was probably
> drawn
> > to the idea that Shakespeare had written a play about the great
> > Catholic martyr Thomas More.
>
> Simpson did not claim that Shakespeare wrote the play. here again we
> see the result of your over-hasty popping off without thinking.
You're correct. I should have said he was believed to have written
"part of" the play.
> > Simpson believed that Shakspere was, in
> > fact, a Catholic, and I am confident that Simpson's motivations in
> > attributing the More mob speech to his great literary hero (and
> > co-religionist) were EVERY bit as religious as they were literary or
> > palaeographical or whatever. (Is Dickson reading this?)
>
> Once again, what you are confident of doesn't make any difference.
Do you believe that Simpson's assertion that Shakspere had a hand in
STM was NOT influenced by his own religious convictions? I think your
view of human nature (even among [real scholars]) is naive.
> You are free to believe anything you want. The world of Shakespeareans
> who actually know something about the topic will remain unaffected by
> your unsupported beliefs.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > To repeat my question: are you not familiar enough with
> Shakespeare to
> > > see the closeness of the style?
> >
> > I'm not nearly as familiar with Shakespeare as you. However, I agree
> > that the More speech is Shakespearean in its quality. Of course, my
> > opinion isn't worth much, but it's the same as yours.
> >
> > > In particular, the unique way he plays
> > > words off on each other.
> >
> > Are you referring to his metaphors? Yes, they're quite nice. Thank
> God
> > Shakespeare invented that part of speech.
>
> No, I am not.
Then what did you mean with that incisive, essay-inspiring phrase "the
unique way he plays words off on each other"?
> As I said in another message on this thread, an entire essay could be
> written about the line, "Authority quite silent by your brawl," or
> about the phrase, "How order should be quelled," and why they are
> undoubtedly Shakespearean.
I noticed that. I also noticed that you failed to elaborate.
> Perhaps you should read Kermode on Shakespeare's use of language and
> then come back and talk.
No thanks.
> <snip>
>
> > > If you're going to make such statements it wuld be nice if you put
> > > forth your argument for such a view.
> >
> > You have me at a disadvantage, Tom. I'm not as good a liar as you to
> > come up with a scenario that would make an invalid palaeographic
> > argument support another for verbal parallelism.
>
> Once again, your misunderstanding is getting in the way of your making
> a coherent reply. And in any case, your misunderstanding does not
> exempt you from offering support for your contentions.
>
> <snip>
I can't respond because you cut out the antecedent argument. Nice
going, Bob.
> > > Now according to Werstine, the inconclusiveness of the evidence
> > > disproves it (we are talking about Werstine here, you know,
> although
> > > you'd never know from your responses).
> >
> > Oh, I see. I thought you had already knocked that pinata down.
>
> I'm not done yet, but you have not yet made a substantive reply to any
> of my points about Werstine.
What are your points? That he mischaracterizes Pollard et al's
motivations for advocating Shakespeare as Hand D? That he "loads his
diction" in making his case? Who cares? That's what you would EXPECT
of someone trying to make a case FOR something besides the usual
orthodox propaganda.
> > > According to you, the whole
> > > thing shouldn't even be studied since everybody can't agree on a
> > > black-and-white answer.
> >
> > No, I think it should be studied even more. That may be the only way
> > to finally move Stratfordians off of their perch.
>
> The trouble is, the more scholars study Hand D, the more they believe
> it's Shakespeare.
Sure, especially when those same scholars are told that Shakespeare
owns the default setting on Hand D and that his claim MUST be
disproven, not by negative tactics, which are inadequate, anyway, but
by the direct and affirmative attribution of it to another writer. The
presumption is mind-numbing, but you go in for it, too: nobody else of
that time could have written such fantastic language. No possibility
of an alternative candidate: it MUST have been Shakespeare, even
though we don't have a firm date of composition, no evidence that he
had ever written that sort of history play before, or with THOSE
particular men, or with such a large NUMBER of those men, or for whom
that play would have been written (although McMillin's thoughts on
that subject are interesting), etc.
<snip of Reedy's ad hominem irrelevance and sorry rationalizations>
Toby Petzold
American
Tom Reedy
<snip>
> > Perhaps you should read Kermode on Shakespeare's
use of language and
> > then come back and talk.
>
> No thanks.
<snip>
I misspoke. I meant Stephen Booth. Here's an old post
from several years back that illustrates my point about
More's speech.
TR
One of my main interests in Shakespeare is the study of
how he uses the
language to achieve his effects. Somehow, to me the
effects he produces are
more than the sum of the language, its arrangement, the
choice of metaphors,
etc. I'm sure most readers of this ng are familiar
with Spurgeon's comments
(_Shakespeare's Imagery_, Cambridge UP 1935) on how
Shakespeare animates his
scenes by using active verbs that give life to
inanimate objects:
". . . note how constantly in description it is the
aspect of movement or
life he seizes upon and portrays; so that many of his
most memorable and
unapproachable lines are charged with this quality,
often conveyed in a
single word . . . . His use of verbs of movement is a
study in itself, and
one of his outstanding characteristics is the way in
which by introducing
verbs of movement about things which are motionless, or
rather which are
abstractions and cannot have physical movement, he
gives life to the whole
phrase:
I *stole* all courtesy from heaven,
And *dressed* myself in such humility
That I did *pluck* allegiance from men's hearts. (1H4,
3.2.50)
So weary with disasters, *tugged* with fortune. (Mac.,
3.1.112)
How he did seem to *dive* into their hearts. (R2,
1.4.25)
He continually in this way endows inanimate and
motionless objects with a
sense of life:
that pale, that white-faced shore,
Whose foot *spurns* back the ocean's roaring tides.
(KJ, 2.1.23)
And when such objects are in motion, by attributing to
them human feelings and
actions he supplies the sense of activity:
Where the Norweyan banners *flout* the sky
And *fan* our people cold. (Mac. 1.2.49)
This 'giving life to lifeless things, as Aristotle puts
it, is, it may be
said, the ordinary method of poetry, but no poet before
or since has made
such constant and such varied use of it as has
Shakespeare" (51-52).
"Indeed, it would almost seem as if a predominating
movement, which informs
and vitalises the whole passage, is in part the secret
of many of
Shakespeare's magical effects" (55).
Stephen Booth, in his article, "Shakespeare's Language
and the Language of
Shakespeare's Time," in the latest _Shakespeare
Survey_, #50, delves deeper
than Spurgeon. He says that a good part of the
excitement of the language of
Shakespeare is due to the rhymes, near-puns, and echoes
he imbeds in his
language, elements which are often not even relevant to
the content of the
speech in which they appear. They are almost
subliminal, or in any case not
meant to be registered in the consciousness of the
auditor. He says that the
subconscious of the auditor picks them up and gives
otherwise nonsensical
sentences meaning. In case I'm not translating Booth
right, here's his exact
words:
"Shakespeare's language is exciting to the minds that
hear it . . . because
what is being said in a Shakespearean sentence often
comes to us in a soup of
possibilities, possibilities engendered by
substantively negligible,
substantively irrelevant relationships among elements
in a syntax to which
those relationships do not pertain and by which those
relationships are
filtered from consciousness" (3).
In other words, with a Shakespearean sentence, you get
more than the meaning,
you get elements which suggest other interpretations,
even though they don't
register in the conscious mind. In this way
Shakespeare toys with the
language and imbues it with excitement beyond the
content.
Booth gives more examples than I can quote here, but a
few of them should
suffice to show his meaning.
From our current POTM:
A goodly day not to keep house with such
Whose roof's as low as ours. Stoop, boys, this gate
Instructs you how t'adore the heavens, and bows you
To a morning's holy office. (Cym. 3.3.1-4)
"In the words 'this gate/Instructs you how t'adore,'
the sound of the word
'adore' casually echoes the sense of the word 'gate'"
(10).
To that I might also add that the word "stoop" connects
with the word "gate,"
in that one meaning of it is a post used to hold up a
gate or a fence (see
1579 reference, OED).
From A&C:
O, never was there queen
So mightily betrayed! Yet at the first
I saw the treasons planted. (1.3.24-6)
"The phrase 'treasons planted' embodies an entirely
irrelevant arboreal
reminiscence that presumably goes unobserved--or is at
best dismissed from a
listener's consciousness" (10).
Also from A&C:
CAESAR . . . Where is he now?
OCTAVIA My lord, in Athens.
CAESAR No, my most wrongèd sister. Cleopatra
Hath nodded him to her. (3.6.64-66)
"Antony is not in Athens. Octavia is *wrong*. The
first syllable of
'wrongèd' says so. The word then goes on to say quite
another thing--another
thing that is also true" (11).
"Just before the Battle of Agincourt, King Henry prays:
O God of battles, steel my soldiers' hearts.
Possess them not with fear. Take from them now
The sense of reck'ning, ere the opposèd numbers
Pluck their hearts from them. Not today, O Lord,
O not today, think not upon the fault
My father made in compassing the crown. (4.1.286-91)
. . . .
Context makes it impossible for audiences to hear
reference to theft in the
sound of 'steal' in 'steel my soldiers' hearts.' In
asking God to 'take
from' his soldiers, however, the next line asks him to
do something
ideationally akin to stealing. And, two lines further
on, a non-imperative,
non-parallel construction presents a precise echo of
the contextually
impossible sense that 'steel my soldiers' hearts' does
not convey at the
beginning of the speech: 'Pluck their hearts from
them.' Note, moreover,
that that unspectacular verbal event occurs in company
with even less
spectacular give and take between the negated 'give' of
'Possess them not'
and the effectively positive 'take' of 'Take from them
now/The sense of
reck'ning.' When the prayer continues, its topic
shifts and also does not:
'Not today, O Lord,/O not today, think not upon the
fault/My father made in
compassing the crown' (289-91). The new topic,
Lancastrian guilt, maintains
and makes overt the shadow topic of the first lines,
theft: Henry
Bolinbroke's fault was stealing the crown" (14-15).
Booth says that these elements are NOT "elements that
once were or should
henceforth be active elements in one's conscious
experience of the passages in
which they innocently lurk" (11). Indeed, he makes no
claim that Shakespeare
put them in consciously. He does say that they give
Shakespeare's lines added
depth and texture which resonate in the subconscious,
even though they may
contribute no additional meaning to the passage.
He also gives examples of echoes and rhymes, devoting
four pages to an
explication of Antonio speech in MoV 4.1.69-82. He
points out the wordplay on
hard/harder/heart, to give just one point he covers.
I must say I find Booth's article intriguing. I
wondered if examples of this
"ideational static" were present in other playwrights,
and I opened Marlowe up
randomly but could find none. I did, however, find
some more examples in our
POTM:
How worthy he is I will leave you to *appear*
*here*after, ra*ther* than story
him in his own *hear*ing. (1.4.34-35)
I was glad I did *atone* my countryman and you. It had
been pity you should
have been *put together* with so mortal a purpose . . .
(1.4.41-42)
I almost wish I hadn't read this article. Now I am
reading the POTM sifting
through the speeches for examples of this, of which
I've found many.
Luckily, I read Cymbeline about three months ago, so
I'm not really missing
any of the drama.
Booth says that Shakespeare, as highly as he is rated,
is one of our most
underappreciated poets. I highly recommend this
article to anyone interested
in the technique of Shakespeare. This is the type of
literary technique that
cannot be learned. To do it consciously would take
forever. It is the
hallmark of inborn genius.
TR
KQKnave
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Booth says that Shakespeare, as highly as he is rated,
>is one of our most underappreciated poets.
Not by me!
Toby Petzold
> <snip>
> > > Perhaps you should read Kermode on Shakespeare's
> use of language and
> > > then come back and talk.
> >
> > No thanks.
> <snip>
>
> I misspoke. I meant Stephen Booth. Here's an old post
> from several years back that illustrates my point about
> More's speech.
<snip all>
Is "ideational static" your term or Booth's? It's a very interesting
suggestion that puns and derivatives are embedded in his language,
consciously or not, to create subliminal associations. I agree that
that's a hallmark of poetic genius, but none that liberates
Shakespeare from the necessity of deep learning. You'd only get
flowers that pretty from the richest soil, and that means a lot of
reading AND a lot of auditory exposure to well-crafted language.
Anyway, ideational static as a variety or subset of psycholinguistics
is a fascinating subject, but its quantification would be extremely
tedious. Still, I think it could yield something like a profile.
Toby Petzold
American
p.s. What are some examples of Shakespearean ideational static in Hand
D's lines?
Tom Reedy
>
> > <snip>
> > > > Perhaps you should read Kermode on
Shakespeare's
> > use of language and
> > > > then come back and talk.
> > >
> > > No thanks.
> > <snip>
> >
> > I misspoke. I meant Stephen Booth. Here's an old
post
> > from several years back that illustrates my point
about
> > More's speech.
>
> <snip all>
>
> Is "ideational static" your term or Booth's? It's a
very interesting
> suggestion that puns and derivatives are embedded in
his language,
> consciously or not, to create subliminal
associations.
It's his term. Do you detect it in those two lines from
*More* I used as examples?
I agree that
> that's a hallmark of poetic genius, but none that
liberates
> Shakespeare from the necessity of deep learning.
You'd only get
> flowers that pretty from the richest soil, and that
means a lot of
> reading AND a lot of auditory exposure to
well-crafted language.
You're shifting topics here. The topic is whether the
Hand D fragment is Shakespeare (suspending for the
moment who he really was). I have certainly not read
every play by every author of the period, but I have
read a good deal and I have yet to find one who writes
with the texture and density of Shakespeare, and that
is certainly present in the *More* fragment.
> Anyway, ideational static as a variety or subset of
psycholinguistics
> is a fascinating subject, but its quantification
would be extremely
> tedious. Still, I think it could yield something like
a profile.
>
> Toby Petzold
> American
>
> p.s. What are some examples of Shakespearean
ideational static in Hand
> D's lines?
OK, take those two lines I quoted, "Authority quite
silent by your brawl," and "How order should be
quelled." I'm taking them out of context so we'll miss
the interplay of them with their surrounding lines.By
its very nature it is hard to point out, plus I am not
very coherent doing it, but I think you get my meaning.
First notice the word "quite" used to both rhyme with
the following two words, "silent by" and as a pun to
play off "silent." "By your brawl" is a rhythmic phrase
of "b" and "r" sounds, the "y" of "your" sliding into
the terminal "r" and then the mixture of the two in
"brawl." Also see the comparison of the word "silent"
with "brawl," how they play off each other's meanings
That's not all, there's also a trio of near-rhymes by
"Authority," "your" and "brawl."
In the second line, notice how the word "quelled" is
used almost exactly opposite of its usual use.
Disorder, not order, is usually quelled, but the reader
and auditor don't notice how the meaning of the word is
stretched all out of its usual sense.
Now what other playwright does this? This is not
something you can learn in school or through reading;
this is congenital.
You should get the original article. It's well worth
reading.
TR
Toby Petzold
> > Is "ideational static" your term or Booth's? It's a
> very interesting
> > suggestion that puns and derivatives are embedded in
> [Shakespeare's] language,
> > consciously or not, to create subliminal
> associations.
>
> It's his term. Do you detect it in those two lines from
> *More* I used as examples?
Yes, in the "Authority quite silent by your brawl" phrase, but not so
much in "How order should be quelled." Nevertheless, it's a great
speech.
> I agree that
> > that's a hallmark of poetic genius, but none that
> liberates
> > Shakespeare from the necessity of deep learning.
> You'd only get
> > flowers that pretty from the richest soil, and that
> means a lot of
> > reading AND a lot of auditory exposure to
> well-crafted language.
>
> You're shifting topics here.
No, no: I was trying to demonstrate subliminalism.
> The topic is whether the
> Hand D fragment is Shakespeare (suspending for the
> moment who he really was). I have certainly not read
> every play by every author of the period, but I have
> read a good deal and I have yet to find one who writes
> with the texture and density of Shakespeare, and that
> is certainly present in the *More* fragment.
But considering the illegitimacy of the palaeographic argument, the
earliness of the probable date of composition, and the lack of hard
evidence showing Shakspere's relationship to any of the other hands
involved, I just don't think it's as "overwhelming" a case as you
would have us believe.
> > Anyway, ideational static as a variety or subset of
> > psycholinguistics
> > is a fascinating subject, but its quantification
> > would be extremely
> > tedious. Still, I think it could yield something like
> > a profile.
> >
It's all very interesting, but I am surprised that a Stratfordian
would argue for Shakespeare's exceptionalism. I thought you guys spent
all your time trying to show how unexalted he deserves to be.
Toby Petzold
American
Tom Reedy
message
news:ad8b29ae.0208...@posting.google.com...
Act like you had never heard of the paleographical
argument. Pretend the fragment had only come down to us
in a printed copy. Would you see the Shakespearian
quality then?
I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about the
authorship "question" at all. I spend much more time
doing other things and reading the works themselves.
Besides, what I am arguing is directly opposite of
antiStratfordism, which holds that Shakespeare's genius
was the result of early social influence and education.
I say he was a born genius, that the way in which he
uses language cannot be learned, at least not to the
extent it is evident in his writing. Whatever it is
they now theorize processes language in the brain, his
was much more developed than the average person.
> Toby Petzold
> American
>
Toby Petzold
Reedy:
> I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about the
> authorship "question" at all.
Why do you and Kathman have this compulsion to tell us how little
regard you have for the "question"? (And does putting the term in
quotation marks somehow confer adequate disdain upon the idea, as
though it were some "fad" that had recently caught on with "urban
youth" or the "counterculture"?) I think it's a joke to announce to a
newsgroup of people who are (could it BE?) somewhat interested in
Shakespeare's identity that you don't think about such a "question"
much. Who are you trying to impress? Are you concerned that you'll be
thought less of for addressing actual problems? Can't worry about THAT
now. You're like some kid who gets busted palming off to a Playboy but
insists that he was just "reading" it for the "articles."
> I spend much more time
> doing other things and reading the works themselves.
Yeah, yeah, we all lead busy lives. We all work, sleep, spend time
with our friends and families, go out on the town, have a bite, do the
laundry, read the papers, look at the TV, etc., etc.
> Besides, what I am arguing is directly opposite of
> antiStratfordism, which holds that Shakespeare's genius
> was the result of early social influence and education.
Those things INFORM the innate genius, obviously. And, so,
Stratfordianism diminutizes the real necessity of both because they
are incapable of being proved exceptional in Shakspere's case. But a
literary genius who is not exposed early on to a rich linguistic
environment will not have the funds to draw on later in life.
> I say he was a born genius, that the way in which he
> uses language cannot be learned, at least not to the
> extent it is evident in his writing.
Again, genius explains everything but knowledge and experience. Those
aren't innate qualities. Naturally, you won't concede that the Canon
reveals any sort of erudition or allusions to personal events, so you
have to make Shakspere's small Latin and less Greek do all the work.
It's an impoverished view of the greatest writer in the English
language, but there you are.
> Whatever it is
> they now theorize processes language in the brain, his
> was much more developed than the average person.
Yep.
Toby Petzold
American
Bob Grumman
> > uses language cannot be learned, at least not to the
> > extent it is evident in his writing.
> Again, genius explains everything but knowledge and experience. Those
> aren't innate qualities.
No. What is innate is the need for knowledge and experience which drives
the born genius to read everything he can get his hands on. It also drives
the intelligent non-genius with a good verbal mind to read everything he can
get his hands on. In my view, the key to genius in ANY field is an innate
need to know--the old curiosity drive. Rigidniks, on the other hand, are
driven by their innate predisposition to avoid knowledge or misinterpret it.
--Bob G.
>Naturally, you won't concede that the Canon
> reveals any sort of erudition or allusions to personal events, so you
> have to make Shakspere's small Latin and less Greek do all the work.
> It's an impoverished view of the greatest writer in the English
> language, but there you are.
What is impoverished is believing that reading the classics in their
original language is more important than the use of the imagination to
assimilate knowledge from a variety of sources besides books, and
rearranging it.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
> <snip>
>
> Reedy:
>
> > I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about
the
> > authorship "question" at all.
>
> Why do you and Kathman have this compulsion to tell
us how little
> regard you have for the "question"?
I don't have any "compulsion" at all. I was trying to
answer your question, "I thought you guys spent all
your time trying to show how unexalted he deserves to
be."
Since you are obviously ignorant of how I "spent all
[my] time," I thought I would enlighten you. Alas,
trying to eradicate your ignorance is a Sisyphian task,
especially since you don't seem to be working to the
same ends: you predictably used my answer to try to
shift topics again, the same way you do whenever you
can't come up with a specious remark.
(And does putting the term in
> quotation marks somehow confer adequate disdain upon
the idea, as
> though it were some "fad" that had recently caught on
with "urban
> youth" or the "counterculture"?)
No. There are no marks of punctuation that could convey
my disdain adequately.
And I don't have disdain for the "question" itself. I
too once thought there might be something to it and I
investigated it. But I actually researched the
question. Participation in a newsgroup is no
substitute.
> I think it's a joke to announce to a
> newsgroup of people who are (could it BE?) somewhat
interested in
> Shakespeare's identity that you don't think about
such a "question"
> much.
Yet I notice you snipped everything in my post relevant
to the "question" in order to display your disdain for
my last and peripheral comment.
Authorship may give meaning to your life, Toby, but
pardon me if I find the idea ludicrous. You see, I've
actually researched the question. I didn't make my mind
up and then decide to ignore all the evidence.
> Who are you trying to impress? Are you concerned that
you'll be
> thought less of for addressing actual problems?
"Actual problem?"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Can't worry about THAT
> now. You're like some kid who gets busted palming off
to a Playboy but
> insists that he was just "reading" it for the
"articles."
>
> > I spend much more time
> > doing other things and reading the works
themselves.
>
> Yeah, yeah, we all lead busy lives. We all work,
sleep, spend time
> with our friends and families, go out on the town,
have a bite, do the
> laundry, read the papers, look at the TV, etc., etc.
>
> > Besides, what I am arguing is directly opposite of
> > antiStratfordism, which holds that Shakespeare's
genius
> > was the result of early social influence and
education.
>
> Those things INFORM the innate genius, obviously.
And, so,
> Stratfordianism diminutizes the real necessity of
both because they
> are incapable of being proved exceptional in
Shakspere's case.
You need to stop reading Parisious. You're beginning to
write like him.
But a
> literary genius who is not exposed early on to a rich
linguistic
> environment will not have the funds to draw on later
in life.
1. That is demonstrably untrue.
2. We don't know much about Shakespeare's early life to
say whether he had an enriched or impoverished or
average environment. One thing we do know it that
Stratford was not the intellectual cesspool
antiStratfordians believe it to be.
> > I say he was a born genius, that the way in which
he
> > uses language cannot be learned, at least not to
the
> > extent it is evident in his writing.
>
> Again, genius explains everything but knowledge and
experience. Those
> aren't innate qualities. Naturally, you won't concede
that the Canon
> reveals any sort of erudition or allusions to
personal events, so you
> have to make Shakspere's small Latin and less Greek
do all the work.
> It's an impoverished view of the greatest writer in
the English
> language, but there you are.
>
> > Whatever it is
> > they now theorize processes language in the brain,
his
> > was much more developed than the average person.
>
> Yep.
>
> Toby Petzold
> American
I notice you snipped the most substantive part of the
post to air your opinions. Go back and get in the
debate if you're so interested in the authorship
"question."
TR
Toby Petzold
> > > I say he was a born genius, that the way in which he
> > > uses language cannot be learned, at least not to the
> > > extent it is evident in his writing.
Petzold:
> > Again, genius explains everything but knowledge and experience. Those
> > aren't innate qualities.
Grumman:
> No. What is innate is the need for knowledge and experience which drives
> the born genius to read everything he can get his hands on.
There's an innate "need" for knowledge and experience? Maybe. I DO
believe in the innate human need to alter consciousness.
> It also drives
> the intelligent non-genius with a good verbal mind to read everything he can
> get his hands on.
I also believe there's an innate need to categorize. It's NOT a mark
of genius, though, but a sure sign of neurotic debilitation.
> In my view, the key to genius in ANY field is an innate
> need to know--the old curiosity drive.
I disagree. The key to genius is the ability to synthesize, predicated
upon the higher power of recollection. Memory is the mother of the
Muses, Bob. Since the brain retains every perception we ever have, it
must be that genius is the ability to recall the knowledge stored
there and make of it new and useful associations in the form of
creativity.
> Rigidniks, on the other hand, are
> driven by their innate predisposition to avoid knowledge or misinterpret it.
That's a poke at me, right? I don't think it's true to say I avoid
knowledge, nor is it really your place to say whether I misinterpret
it. You consider it some virtue to propose multiple solutions to
simple problems and to never be caught standing for any one thing. The
relativistic mind is as fickle and useless as a broken pressure gauge.
I'm blessed to not be burdened with one.
> > Naturally, you won't concede that the Canon
> > reveals any sort of erudition or allusions to personal events, so you
> > have to make Shakspere's small Latin and less Greek do all the work.
> > It's an impoverished view of the greatest writer in the English
> > language, but there you are.
>
> What is impoverished is believing that reading the classics in their
> original language is more important than the use of the imagination to
> assimilate knowledge from a variety of sources besides books, and
> rearranging it.
You're closer with this to the idea of the synthesizing nature of
genius, but your terms are all fucked up. Go again.
Toby Petzold
American
Bob Grumman
> > need to know--the old curiosity drive.
> I disagree. The key to genius is the ability to synthesize, predicated
> upon the higher power of recollection. Memory is the mother of the
> Muses, Bob.
You need to get to the data to be synthesized first, so curiosity is the
key, but not by itself sufficient.
>Since the brain retains every perception we ever have,
I believe this myself, but it is not a fact. We lack sufficient data at
present to say whether it is true or not.
> it
> must be that genius is the ability to recall the knowledge stored
> there and make of it new and useful associations
That is ONE important element of genius.
> in the form of creativity.
bad writing, American: superfluous verbage, and what do you mean by "the
form of creativity?" Actually, I'm pretty sure I get your drift, but it IS
expressed badly, and you insult my writing often enough for me to mention
it.
> > Rigidniks, on the other hand, are
> > driven by their innate predisposition to avoid knowledge or misinterpret
it.
>
> That's a poke at me, right? I don't think it's true to say I avoid
> knowledge, nor is it really your place to say whether I misinterpret
> it. You consider it some virtue to propose multiple solutions to
> simple problems and to never be caught standing for any one thing.
Absurd. I propose multiple possible solutions to
problems for which there is insufficient data to establish one above the
others. I propose single solutions to the many problems I've come across
that I think have but one solution, like who wrote Shakespeare's works.
> The
> relativistic mind is as fickle and useless as a broken pressure gauge.
> I'm blessed to not be burdened with one.
That's why you are able to characterize me as relativistic because I do not
see everything as black&white. I might add that a true relativist is one
who denies that absolute knowledge is possible. Even when I find it
impossible for me to say which of several answers to a given problem is the
correct one, I almost always believe that an absolute answer is possible. I
only believe I lack the means to establish it at that time.
John W. Kennedy
> There's an innate "need" for knowledge and experience? Maybe. I DO
> believe in the innate human need to alter consciousness.
Doesn't this just say it all?
> I also believe there's an innate need to categorize. It's NOT a mark
> of genius, though, but a sure sign of neurotic debilitation.
Well, no, I guess that didn't say it all.
So what you're saying is that you're an apathetic druggie who believes
that logic rots the brain?
--
John W. Kennedy
Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and see only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!
-- Kazuo Koike, "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)
Toby Petzold
> > > I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about
> the
> > > authorship "question" at all.
Petzold:
> > Why do you and Kathman have this compulsion to tell
> us how little
> > regard you have for the "question"?
>
> I don't have any "compulsion" at all. I was trying to
> answer your question, "I thought you guys spent all
> your time trying to show how unexalted he deserves to
> be."
Oh, I see. Literalism saves the day. I was suggesting that
dismissiveness is a character trait of Stratfordians. They downplay
Shakespeare's accomplishments and magnify Shakspere's in hopes of
drawing the two ends together into a portrait of plausibility. You can
see it in y'alls rabid denial of Shakespeare's erudition which,
normally, wouldn't be much of an assertion to make about him, unless
one considers just how much more it involves him in the worlds of
books, languages, and learned society. You CAN'T let him go TOO far
afield there. Better to make the grammar school back in Stratford into
a goddamned doctorate mill.
> Since you are obviously ignorant of how I "spent all
> [my] time," I thought I would enlighten you.
This is EXACTLY what I would imagine arguing with Terry Ross would be
like if he were as petty as you: take a completely inconsequential and
somewhat humorous hyperbole and bend it into a hook to hang your hat
on.
> Alas,
> trying to eradicate your ignorance is a Sisyphian task,
You're trying to "eradicate" my "ignorance" of how YOU spend YOUR
time? Jesus, what a narcissist! Uh, let these things remain a mystery
to me, Tom. Please.
> especially since you don't seem to be working to the
> same ends: you predictably used my answer to try to
> shift topics again,
There was nothing else that was new in your post to respond to. As for
topic-shifting, that's simply not true. I've engaged every substantial
point you've made.
> the same way you do whenever you
> can't come up with a specious remark.
Why would I go to the trouble of shifting the topic when I COULD just
make a specious remark and be done with it?
> (And does putting the term in
> > quotation marks somehow confer adequate disdain upon
> the idea, as
> > though it were some "fad" that had recently caught on
> with "urban
> > youth" or the "counterculture"?)
>
> No. There are no marks of punctuation that could convey
> my disdain adequately.
>
> And I don't have disdain for the "question" itself.
You literally JUST said the opposite. You should spend less time
thinking of the zinger and more on giving the answer.
> I
> too once thought there might be something to it and I
> investigated it. But I actually researched the
> question. Participation in a newsgroup is no
> substitute.
Participation here is part of MY research. I've learned about a lot of
things here, such as the quality of orthodox thinking.
> > I think it's a joke to announce to a
> > newsgroup of people who are (could it BE?) somewhat
> interested in
> > Shakespeare's identity that you don't think about
> such a "question"
> > much.
>
> Yet I notice you snipped everything in my post relevant
> to the "question" in order to display your disdain for
> my last and peripheral comment.
Again, you said almost nothing else besides what I responded to. Why
should I quote an entire post where there was nothing important you
added?
> Authorship may give meaning to your life, Toby, but
> pardon me if I find the idea ludicrous.
I wouldn't say it's given my life meaning, but it's certainly
dominated my reading habits lately. And, for a while now, HLAS has
provided me with my one real venue for writing. That may be pathetic,
but I enjoy the give and take. And I'm sure it's a better use of my
time than looking at summer re-runs, sono apologies.
> You see, I've
> actually researched the question. I didn't make my mind
> up and then decide to ignore all the evidence.
Stratfordians can't afford to ignore evidence; there's too little of
it around.
> > Who are you trying to impress? Are you concerned that
> you'll be
> > thought less of for addressing actual problems?
>
> "Actual problem?"
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
The traditional attribution is too full of actual problems for
reasonable people to ignore them.
I wish he'd post MORE.
> But a
> > literary genius who is not exposed early on to a rich
> linguistic
> > environment will not have the funds to draw on later
> in life.
>
> 1. That is demonstrably untrue.
I'll bet it IS true more often than not. And don't give me some
Webbian example of some guy who grew up in a Siberian fur-traders'
post and eventually became a literary hero to halves of dozens
everywhere.
> 2. We don't know much about Shakespeare's early life to
> say whether he had an enriched or impoverished or
> average environment.
That's not what Stratfordians would have the world believe. They
constantly suggest the excellence of his school and its masters and
dredge up any connection there might be to travelling entertainments
or, more snootily, to the more bourgeois tastes and refinement of the
"Arden blood" coursing through his veins.
> One thing we do know it that
> Stratford was not the intellectual cesspool
> antiStratfordians believe it to be.
That's right. Richard Field and William Shakespeare both came from
there, thus making it into a cosmopolitan haven of Renaissance
learning and ---well, I wanted to say erudition, but I don't want any
trouble. It's just so hard knowing where the mean is! Were the town
and people of Stratford an artistically or intellectually sympathetic
bunch, or was it all just a giant sterquinarium-upon-Avon?
> > > I say he was a born genius, that the way in which
> he
> > > uses language cannot be learned, at least not to
> the
> > > extent it is evident in his writing.
> >
> > Again, genius explains everything but knowledge and
> experience. Those
> > aren't innate qualities. Naturally, you won't concede
> that the Canon
> > reveals any sort of erudition or allusions to
> personal events, so you
> > have to make Shakspere's small Latin and less Greek
> do all the work.
> > It's an impoverished view of the greatest writer in
> the English
> > language, but there you are.
> >
> > > Whatever it is
> > > they now theorize processes language in the brain,
> his
> > > was much more developed than the average person.
> >
> > Yep.
>
> I notice you snipped the most substantive part of the
> post to air your opinions. Go back and get in the
> debate if you're so interested in the authorship
> "question."
Lest anyone think that I am avoiding something (or that you might be
telling the truth), I hereby reproduce the entirety of what you wrote
in response to me that I have NOT ALREADY RESPONDED TO:
"Act like you had never heard of the paleographical
argument. Pretend the fragment had only come down to us
in a printed copy. Would you see the Shakespearian
quality then?"
That's it, folks. These few sentences are the only ones Tom added to
the previous post that I have not already responded to. However, since
I HAVE agreed with him at least three times now that, yes, the More
speech to the crowd IS Shakespearean in its quality, I can only guess
that Tom now NEEDS for me to disagree with him. It's strange, I know,
but he's just trying to think of some way to avoid pressing the rest
of the argument in favor of Shakespeare as Hand D. He knows it's a
loser.
Toby Petzold
American
Toby Petzold
> > > In my view, the key to genius in ANY field is an innate
> > > need to know--the old curiosity drive.
Petzold:
> > I disagree. The key to genius is the ability to synthesize, predicated
> > upon the higher power of recollection. Memory is the mother of the
> > Muses, Bob.
>
> You need to get to the data to be synthesized first, so curiosity is the
> key, but not by itself sufficient.
I'm not sure about this. With an excellent memory, one can be more
apparently passive, yet have greater retention.
> >Since the brain retains every perception we ever have,
>
> I believe this myself, but it is not a fact. We lack sufficient data at
> present to say whether it is true or not.
The "authorities" whom you would trust to pronounce upon this fact are
not likely to be the ones who would personally know this for
themselves. It's a problem. But, if you consider the complexity of
dreams, eidetic imagery, procedural recall, the ability to sing a song
you haven't heard in years, or the recognition of the mature face of a
friend not seen since childhood, you just have to know that we store
far greater amounts of information that we have personally processed
than we could ever be fully conscious of. Associations draw on the
dormant sense-memories and are PROOF of our own material existence:
the fragmentary recollection, the imperfectly-recalled detail, the
concealed (but revealable) fact, etc. "For now we see through a glass,
darkly...."
> > it
> > must be that genius is the ability to recall the knowledge stored
> > there and make of it new and useful associations
>
> That is ONE important element of genius.
>
> > in the form of creativity.
>
> bad writing, American: superfluous verbage, and what do you mean by "the
> form of creativity?"
I think it's more likely a matter of poor understanding, Bob. Of
course, if you couldn't understand the distinction I was drawing, then
it's no wonder why you would think it was just superfluous "verbage."
> Actually, I'm pretty sure I get your drift, but it IS
> expressed badly, and you insult my writing often enough for me to mention
> it.
No, I expressed myself just fine. You're just not able to understand
what you read.
> > > Rigidniks, on the other hand, are
> > > driven by their innate predisposition to avoid knowledge or misinterpret
> it.
> >
> > That's a poke at me, right? I don't think it's true to say I avoid
> > knowledge, nor is it really your place to say whether I misinterpret
> > it. You consider it some virtue to propose multiple solutions to
> > simple problems and to never be caught standing for any one thing.
>
> Absurd. I propose multiple possible solutions to
> problems for which there is insufficient data to establish one above the
> others.
Nobody wants a bunch of double-talk, Bob. People want to be told what
to think. Smart people want to be shown why they should think as
they're told. NOW you know what footnotes are for.
> I propose single solutions to the many problems I've come across
> that I think have but one solution, like who wrote Shakespeare's works.
Are you such a black-and-white-bound goon that you can't see the high
probability that the Canon was written by multiple authors?
> > The
> > relativistic mind is as fickle and useless as a broken pressure gauge.
> > I'm blessed to not be burdened with one.
>
> That's why you are able to characterize me as relativistic because I do not
> see everything as black&white.
See above. You think you know (the "one") who wrote the works of
Shakespeare when not even [real scholars] are agreed on it.
> I might add that a true relativist is one
> who denies that absolute knowledge is possible. Even when I find it
> impossible for me to say which of several answers to a given problem is the
> correct one, I almost always believe that an absolute answer is possible. I
> only believe I lack the means to establish it at that time.
Equivocations to the end. Damn.
Bob Grumman
> course, if you couldn't understand the distinction I was drawing, then
> it's no wonder why you would think it was just superfluous "verbage."
Which I note that you don't clarify for poor stupid me.
snip
> > Absurd. I propose multiple possible solutions to
> > problems for which there is insufficient data to establish one above the
> > others.
> Nobody wants a bunch of double-talk, Bob.
How is it double talk to say we can't know how event x came about but
possible causes for it are A, B, C and D?
snip
> > I propose single solutions to the many problems I've come across
> > that I think have but one solution, like who wrote Shakespeare's works.
> Are you such a black-and-white-bound goon that you can't see the high
> probability that the Canon was written by multiple authors?
Like what other piece of creative work at the level of the canon in any
language? I won't ask for supporting evidence, because I know you don't
believe in it.
> > That's why you are able to characterize me as relativistic because I do
not
> > see everything as black&white.
>
> See above. You think you know (the "one") who wrote the works of
> Shakespeare when not even [real scholars] are agreed on it.
Your point?
--Bob G.
Richard Kennedy
Tom Reedy
> Reedy:
>
> > > > I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking
about
> > the
> > > > authorship "question" at all.
>
> Petzold:
>
> > > Why do you and Kathman have this compulsion to
tell
> > us how little
> > > regard you have for the "question"?
> >
> > I don't have any "compulsion" at all. I was trying
to
> > answer your question, "I thought you guys spent all
> > your time trying to show how unexalted he deserves
to
> > be."
>
> Oh, I see. Literalism saves the day. I was suggesting
that
> dismissiveness is a character trait of Stratfordians.
Since that was the only thing new in your post it was
all I could answer.
They downplay
> Shakespeare's accomplishments and magnify Shakspere's
in hopes of
> drawing the two ends together into a portrait of
plausibility. You can
> see it in y'alls rabid denial of Shakespeare's
erudition which,
> normally, wouldn't be much of an assertion to make
about him, unless
> one considers just how much more it involves him in
the worlds of
> books, languages, and learned society. You CAN'T let
him go TOO far
> afield there. Better to make the grammar school back
in Stratford into
> a goddamned doctorate mill.
Watch your blood pressure, Toby. You know what the
doctor says!
> > Since you are obviously ignorant of how I "spent
all
> > [my] time," I thought I would enlighten you.
>
> This is EXACTLY what I would imagine arguing with
Terry Ross would be
> like if he were as petty as you: take a completely
inconsequential and
> somewhat humorous hyperbole and bend it into a hook
to hang your hat
> on.
Good phrase.
> > Alas,
> > trying to eradicate your ignorance is a Sisyphian
task,
>
> You're trying to "eradicate" my "ignorance" of how
YOU spend YOUR
> time? Jesus, what a narcissist! Uh, let these things
remain a mystery
> to me, Tom. Please.
I spoke in general terms.
> > especially since you don't seem to be working to
the
> > same ends: you predictably used my answer to try to
> > shift topics again,
>
> There was nothing else that was new in your post to
respond to.
Gosh, the exact same complaint I have about you! Who
wudda thunk it?
As for
> topic-shifting, that's simply not true. I've engaged
every substantial
> point you've made.
You've made some clever comments that got a chuckle or
two from me. But you haven't engaged anything beyond
giving your opinion.
> > the same way you do whenever you
> > can't come up with a specious remark.
>
> Why would I go to the trouble of shifting the topic
when I COULD just
> make a specious remark and be done with it?
Well, that's about the only response you've made to all
my points so far. My point is that when you run out of
them and are threatened with actually having to deal
with the question, you then shift topics, Dooley-like.
If you're over the age of 30 you know that quality of
almost any type of what passes for thinking leaves a
lot to be desired. The flaws in AntiStratfordism are
just easier to spot.
> > > I think it's a joke to announce to a
> > > newsgroup of people who are (could it BE?)
somewhat
> > interested in
> > > Shakespeare's identity that you don't think about
> > such a "question"
> > > much.
> >
> > Yet I notice you snipped everything in my post
relevant
> > to the "question" in order to display your disdain
for
> > my last and peripheral comment.
>
> Again, you said almost nothing else besides what I
responded to. Why
> should I quote an entire post where there was nothing
important you
> added?
>
> > Authorship may give meaning to your life, Toby, but
> > pardon me if I find the idea ludicrous.
>
> I wouldn't say it's given my life meaning, but it's
certainly
> dominated my reading habits lately.
I think anybody who has any interest in it at all
probably goes through that sometime. It's the ones who
devote their entire lives to it that I pity.
> And, for a while now, HLAS has
> provided me with my one real venue for writing.
You could write that paper I suggested on the other
thread.
> That may be pathetic,
> but I enjoy the give and take. And I'm sure it's a
better use of my
> time than looking at summer re-runs, sono apologies.
I agree. I probably learned more about writing essays
here than I did in class, although I was already a
pretty good writer before I ever went to college. When
you're interested in a topic you're not so reluctant to
do research and to present your argument in good form.
If you're ever going to get past where you are now,
you're going to have to do some real research, rather
than take just any antiStrat's word for it.
> > You see, I've
> > actually researched the question. I didn't make my
mind
> > up and then decide to ignore all the evidence.
>
> Stratfordians can't afford to ignore evidence;
there's too little of
> it around.
>
> > > Who are you trying to impress? Are you concerned
that
> > you'll be
> > > thought less of for addressing actual problems?
> >
> > "Actual problem?"
> > Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
>
> The traditional attribution is too full of actual
problems for
> reasonable people to ignore them.
If you think that, then you need to present what those
problems are in a cogent manner. I can't think of any
"actual problems" brought up by antiStrats that have
survived the light of scholarship.
To each his own. Or should I say sloppy thinkers are
attracted to sloppy thinking?
> > But a
> > > literary genius who is not exposed early on to a
rich
> > linguistic
> > > environment will not have the funds to draw on
later
> > in life.
> >
> > 1. That is demonstrably untrue.
>
> I'll bet it IS true more often than not.
That's not what you said. Sloppy thinking leads to
sloppy writing.
And don't give me some
> Webbian example of some guy who grew up in a Siberian
fur-traders'
> post and eventually became a literary hero to halves
of dozens
> everywhere.
Sorry, but the way you stated your position makes it
false with even ONE example.
> > 2. We don't know much about Shakespeare's early
life to
> > say whether he had an enriched or impoverished or
> > average environment.
>
> That's not what Stratfordians would have the world
believe. They
> constantly suggest the excellence of his school and
its masters and
> dredge up any connection there might be to travelling
entertainments
> or, more snootily, to the more bourgeois tastes and
refinement of the
> "Arden blood" coursing through his veins.
I don't think you really know what traditional scholars
believe about Shakespeare. You need to get off this
newsgroup and quit reading popular biographers if you
really want to know what informed opinion believes. I
think you might be surprised.
> > One thing we do know it that
> > Stratford was not the intellectual cesspool
> > antiStratfordians believe it to be.
>
> That's right. Richard Field and William Shakespeare
both came from
> there, thus making it into a cosmopolitan haven of
Renaissance
> learning and ---well, I wanted to say erudition, but
I don't want any
> trouble. It's just so hard knowing where the mean is!
Were the town
> and people of Stratford an artistically or
intellectually sympathetic
> bunch, or was it all just a giant
sterquinarium-upon-Avon?
It was an average market town of the period. How many
writers of the period do you think were born in similar
towns? Are you curoious abot it at all, or do you think
the answer might shatter your prejudice against
Stratford? How many writers nowadays are born in
similar towns? They can't all be born in New York, Los
Angeles or London, but the great ones all seem to end
up there sooner or later, don't they?
You haven't used those exact words that I recall. So
OK, we're making progress.
Now, do you think the passages were written by
Shakespeare, and if not, what other playwright of the
period do you think may have been responsible for them?
I can only guess
> that Tom now NEEDS for me to disagree with him. It's
strange, I know,
> but he's just trying to think of some way to avoid
pressing the rest
> of the argument in favor of Shakespeare as Hand D. He
knows it's a
> loser.
No, I'm just following the same process Simpson went
through. He didn't have recourse to easily-available
facsimiles of the handwriting in *More*. He judged the
quality of the passages from Dyce's transcription
(which is pretty well reproduced in Brooke's
*Shakespeare Apocrypha* with just a few corrections).
He determined they were Shakespeare's without ever
seeing the writing, regardless of your assertions
otherwise.
TR
> Toby Petzold
> American
Toby Petzold
Reedy to Petzold:
That's not true. I have already "conceded" the Shakespearean quality
of More's speech.
> Now, do you think the passages were written by
> Shakespeare, and if not, what other playwright of the
> period do you think may have been responsible for them?
I think that Munday showed his old friend, Edward de Vere, the play he
was working on and that they decided to do a little collaborating.
Wouldn't that explain the excellence of the language and ideas
therein?
> I can only guess
> > that Tom now NEEDS for me to disagree with him. It's
> strange, I know,
> > but he's just trying to think of some way to avoid
> pressing the rest
> > of the argument in favor of Shakespeare as Hand D. He
> knows it's a
> > loser.
>
> No, I'm just following the same process Simpson went
> through. He didn't have recourse to easily-available
> facsimiles of the handwriting in *More*.
He must have viewed the original manuscript, apparently.
> He judged the
> quality of the passages from Dyce's transcription
> (which is pretty well reproduced in Brooke's
> *Shakespeare Apocrypha* with just a few corrections).
You don't know that. Outrageous!
> He determined they were Shakespeare's without ever
> seeing the writing, regardless of your assertions
> otherwise.
This simply isn't true. Simpson himself comments directly on the
letter-formation (i.e., the handwriting) of what would come to be
called Hand D and says it's just like Shakspere's. Are you saying that
not only was Simpson not a qualified palaeographer, but that he
offered up his [opinion] without actually having seen the manuscript
or a facsimile? Was THIS the haste that launched a thousand slips?
That spurred the thoughtless hours of tedium? I don't know why you
bothered to post Simpson's essay if you weren't going to actually read
what he wrote.
Toby Petzold
American
p.s. Your concern for my health is interesting, Tom. Unfortunately for
you, I'm doing exceedingly well. Would you like to exchange certified
copies of our medical records? I just had a full physical in July and
it turns out that not only are all of my numbers (e.g., LDL, HDL,
triglycerides, etc.) in the normal range, but they're in the middle of
the normal range. Ahh, sweet genetics! I feel GREAT.
Neil Brennen
> I think that Munday showed his old friend, Edward de Vere, the play he
> was working on and that they decided to do a little collaborating.
> Wouldn't that explain the excellence of the language and ideas
> therein?
No, it wouldn't. The passages in More are better-written than Munday and
Oxenforde usually turned out.
Tom Reedy
Whatever.
> > Now, do you think the passages were written by
> > Shakespeare, and if not, what other playwright of
the
> > period do you think may have been responsible for
them?
>
> I think that Munday showed his old friend, Edward de
Vere, the play he
> was working on and that they decided to do a little
collaborating.
> Wouldn't that explain the excellence of the language
and ideas
> therein?
I don't think you really believe that. Have you got any
examples of Oxford's English secretary handwriting?
But the important thing here is you think the passages
were composed by Shakespeare, whoever he was, right?
> > I can only guess
> > > that Tom now NEEDS for me to disagree with him.
It's
> > strange, I know,
> > > but he's just trying to think of some way to
avoid
> > pressing the rest
> > > of the argument in favor of Shakespeare as Hand
D. He
> > knows it's a
> > > loser.
> >
> > No, I'm just following the same process Simpson
went
> > through. He didn't have recourse to
easily-available
> > facsimiles of the handwriting in *More*.
>
> He must have viewed the original manuscript,
apparently.
Right.
> > He judged the
> > quality of the passages from Dyce's transcription
> > (which is pretty well reproduced in Brooke's
> > *Shakespeare Apocrypha* with just a few
corrections).
>
> You don't know that. Outrageous!
>
> > He determined they were Shakespeare's without ever
> > seeing the writing, regardless of your assertions
> > otherwise.
>
> This simply isn't true.
Ah, but it is. If you were capable of sustained,
disciplined, deductive reasoning, you would have
figured that out from his article. Unfortunately,
you're an antiStrat, an intellectual position that
depends on and rewards sloppy habits of thought.
> Simpson himself comments directly on the
> letter-formation (i.e., the handwriting) of what
would come to be
> called Hand D and says it's just like Shakspere's.
Are you saying that
> not only was Simpson not a qualified palaeographer,
but that he
> offered up his [opinion] without actually having seen
the manuscript
> or a facsimile?
No, I'm not saying that at all. Once again, you're
displaying your sloppy habits of thinking.
> Was THIS the haste that launched a thousand slips?
> That spurred the thoughtless hours of tedium? I don't
know why you
> bothered to post Simpson's essay if you weren't going
to actually read
> what he wrote.
You misunderstand me.
Simpson read Dyce, determined the scenes were
Shakespearian, and then viewed the manuscript.
This directly contradicts your contention that the case
for Shakespeare was made on the handwriting.
The paleographical argument was not important to
Simpson's idea that the scenes were Shakespearian. He
says, "There is nothing whatever in the character of
the handwriting to militate against this supposition."
Saying, in effect, what most paleographers have said
since then (except Thompson, who directly came out for
the identification).
Simpson was no paleographer, I agree. He could only
detect a general similarity with the signatures, but,
as he says, ". . . this general similarity is in
itself quite insufficient for identification. The
arguments for or against must depend mainly on the
critical question-are these scenes, or are they not,
Shakespeare's?"
> Toby Petzold
> American
>
> p.s. Your concern for my health is interesting, Tom.
Unfortunately for
> you, I'm doing exceedingly well.
Why do you think I wish you ill health? That's
interesting, and could be indicative of a deeper
psychological problem.
> Would you like to exchange certified
> copies of our medical records? I just had a full
physical in July and
> it turns out that not only are all of my numbers
(e.g., LDL, HDL,
> triglycerides, etc.) in the normal range, but they're
in the middle of
> the normal range. Ahh, sweet genetics! I feel GREAT.
I'm glad to hear it. Since you frequently imagine I am
exercised and you tell me to calm down, I thought I
would return the favor.
TR
P.S. Since you're advertising health statistics, my
resting pulse is 37.