History Today
Thomas Larque
story this month (August 2001) "Who Was Shakespeare?". "William
Rubinstein continues his survey of topics of enduring popular debate".
Although I'm a regular subscriber to the magazine, I don't remember
offhand what the other articles in this series were about, so don't
know what they are comparing the Authorship debate with. The article
is strongly sympathetic to the Oxfordians in particular, and takes the
Baconians claims reasonably seriously but (no doubt to the horror of
Peter Farey and his friends) rejects the Marlovian theory out of hand
saying that "Calvin Hoffman ... argued, without a shred of evidence,
that Marlowe was not in fact killed in a tavern brawl ... but survived
surreptitiously to write Shakespeare's plays".
The article is full of the usual Anti-Stratfordian errors (Shakespeare
can't have been homosexual because he was married and had children,
but Oxford was - what about Oxford's two wives and children?
Shakespeare's daughters were iliterate, Shakespeare was the son of a
Butcher (!), the hyphen in Shakespeare's name means that it was a
pseudonym, "ever-living" was only applied to dead people) and the
Bibliography at the end does not include any Stratfordian arguments
specifically about the authorship (but it does include Diana Price's
book, congratulations Diana) except for Schoenbaum's "Shakespeare's
Lives" which only briefly makes any sort of Stratfordian response to
the Anti-Stratfordians. I'll be writing a letter to History Today
recommending Dave and Terry's site and Matus.
Thomas.
Neuendorffer
>
> The popular British History magazine, History Today, has as its cover
> story this month (August 2001) "Who Was Shakespeare?". "William
> Rubinstein continues his survey of topics of enduring popular debate".
> Although I'm a regular subscriber to the magazine, I don't remember
> offhand what the other articles in this series were about, so don't
> know what they are comparing the Authorship debate with. The article
> is strongly sympathetic to the Oxfordians in particular, and takes the
> Baconians claims reasonably seriously but (no doubt to the horror of
> Peter Farey and his friends) rejects the Marlovian theory out of hand
> saying that "Calvin Hoffman ... argued, without a shred of evidence,
> that Marlowe was not in fact killed in a tavern brawl ... but survived
> surreptitiously to write Shakespeare's plays".
>
> The article is full of the usual Anti-Stratfordian errors (Shakespeare
> can't have been homosexual because he was married and had children,
> but Oxford was - what about Oxford's two wives and children?
Oxford had the minimum number of wives & children required to assure
him of a male heir.
> Shakespeare's daughters were iliterate,
Didn't they mention his wife & parents?
> Shakespeare was the son of a Butcher (!),
That's what it says in his first biography.
> the hyphen in Shakespeare's name means that it was a pseudonym,
The hyphen in Shake-speare's name means that it was a pseudonym.
> "ever-living" was only applied to dead people)
"Ever-living" was almost always applied only to dead people.
> and the
> Bibliography at the end does not include any Stratfordian arguments
> specifically about the authorship (but it does include Diana Price's
> book, congratulations Diana) except for Schoenbaum's "Shakespeare's
> Lives" which only briefly makes any sort of Stratfordian response to
> the Anti-Stratfordians. I'll be writing a letter to History Today
> recommending Dave and Terry's site and Matus.
You do that, Tom.
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
>> can't have been homosexual because he was married and had children,
>> but Oxford was - what about Oxford's two wives and children?
>
> Oxford had the minimum number of wives & children required to assure
>him of a male heir.
The same could apply just as well to Shakespeare, although sadly
Shakespeare failed to produce a male heir to survive him.
As for Oxford, he also seems to have had at least one mistress and
probably also a connection with an Italian prostitute. Both instances
suggest that he had sex with women for fun.
Thomas.
Mark Alexander
and register for free to access articles.
The August issue is not up yet.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:68oaltgn5pplb7vpf...@4ax.com...
Neuendorffer
>
> >> The article is full of the usual Anti-Stratfordian errors (Shakespeare
> >> can't have been homosexual because he was married and had children,
> >> but Oxford was - what about Oxford's two wives and children?
> >
> > Oxford had the minimum number of wives & children required to assure
> >him of a male heir.
>
> The same could apply just as well to Shakespeare, although sadly
> Shakespeare failed to produce a male heir to survive him.
William Davenant was a worthy heir.
> As for Oxford, he also seems to have had at least one mistress and
> probably also a connection with an Italian prostitute. Both instances
> suggest that he had sex with women for fun.
If you continue to insist on branding Oxford as a heterosexual
then you'll have to take your argument up with David Webb.
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> >
> > Shakespeare's daughters were iliterate,
> > Shakespeare was the son of a Butcher (!),
>
> That's what it says in his first biography.
http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/timeline/birth.htm
<<William's early education must be the ways of business he would have
learned around his father's shop. Concerning this period, there is a
legend reported in Aubrey's Brief Lives (Aubrey was a seventeenth
century gentleman known as a gossip and raconteur--1681) that "...his
father was a BUTCHER, & I have been told heretofore by some of the
neighbors, that when he was a boy he exercised his father's Trade, but
when he kill'd a Calfe, he would do it in a high style, & make a
Speech.">>
-------------------------------------------------------
Venus and Adonis
Stanza 101
'Thou hadst been gone,' quoth she, 'sweet boy, ere this,
But that thou told'st me thou wouldst hunt the boar.
O, be advised! thou know'st not what it is
With javelin's point a churlish swine to gore,
Whose tushes never sheathed he whetteth still,
Like to a mortal BUTCHER bent to kill.
Stanza 126
'So in thyself thyself art made away;
A mischief worse than civil home-bred strife,
Or theirs whose desperate hands themselves do slay,
Or BUTCHER-sire that reaves his son of life.
Foul-cankering rust the hidden treasure frets,
But gold that's put to use more gold begets.'
-------------------------------------------------------
> > the hyphen in Shakespeare's name means that it was a pseudonym,
>
> The hyphen in Shake-speare's name means that it was a pseudonym.
> > "ever-living" was only applied to dead people)
>
> "Ever-living" was almost always applied only to dead people.
King Henry VI, Part i Act 4, Scene 3
LUCY Thus, while the vulture of sedition
Feeds in the bosom of such great commanders,
Sleeping neglection doth betray to loss
The conquest of our scarce cold conqueror,
That ever living man of memory,
Henry the Fifth: whiles they each other cross,
Lives, honours, lands and all hurry to loss.
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
>> probably also a connection with an Italian prostitute. Both instances
>> suggest that he had sex with women for fun.
>
> If you continue to insist on branding Oxford as a heterosexual
> then you'll have to take your argument up with David Webb.
>
>Art Neuendorffer
I personally believe that Oxford was probably bisexual. If there is
homosexuality in the Sonnets (something I don't accept as completely
certain, but which is quite possible) then Shakespeare was almost
certainly bisexual as well - particularly since he writes about a Dark
Lady as well as a Fair Youth.
The "History Today" article, probably inspired by Sobran, claims that
Shakespeare cannot have had homosexual interests because he was a
married man with children. If only this were true then Oxford could
have used this as a defence to the accusation of pederasty, since he
was a married man with children himself. Modern newspapers (even the
broadsheets) keep us well informed of men in happy and fulfilling
marriages who have adult and consenting homosexual affairs or who
abuse small boys at the same time.
Oxford probably was a pederast, but whether he was or wasn't it
clearly didn't stop him from enjoying sex with adult women as well.
Thomas.
Neuendorffer
>
> >> As for Oxford, he also seems to have had at least one mistress and
> >> probably also a connection with an Italian prostitute. Both instances
> >> suggest that he had sex with women for fun.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > If you continue to insist on branding Oxford as a heterosexual
> > then you'll have to take your argument up with David Webb.
Thomas Larque wrote:
> I personally believe that Oxford was probably bisexual.
We agree then!
> If there is homosexuality in the Sonnets
> (something I don't accept as completely certain,
> but which is quite possible) then Shakespeare was almost
> certainly bisexual as well - particularly since he writes about
> a Dark Lady as well as a Fair Youth.
We agree once more!!
> The "History Today" article, probably inspired by Sobran, claims that
> Shakespeare cannot have had homosexual interests because he was a
> married man with children. If only this were true then Oxford could
> have used this as a defence to the accusation of pederasty, since he
> was a married man with children himself. Modern newspapers (even the
> broadsheets) keep us well informed of men in happy and fulfilling
> marriages who have adult and consenting homosexual affairs or who
> abuse small boys at the same time.
>
> Oxford probably was a pederast, but whether he was or wasn't it
> clearly didn't stop him from enjoying sex with adult women as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.mo-net.com/~mlindste/socrates.html
<<The second charge against Socrates, that he had corrupted the youth of
Athens, was even more damning. The foremost examples of the gilded youth
he led astray was Alcibiades and Critias,>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcibiades’ Significance in The Symposium © 2000 Kimberly Ong
http://www.swafo.com/kennethrong/kim/alcibiades.htm
<<In Plato’s Symposium, the important men of Greece gather in Agathon’s
home to discuss and praise the divinity Love. Of the seven men there,
Alcibiades is the last to speak. At the end of Socrates’ speech, he
interrupts the party drunk, raving, and accompanied by a group of
equally drunk companions. He chooses to talk about love through his
description of Socrates. Alcibiades laments about the awful games
Socrates plays with him. As Alcibiades’ speech advances, we realize that
Socrates acts in the way he does in order to teach Alcibiades the true
meaning of love. As Socrates’ beloved, he is also his student.
Alcibiades is treated the way his is so he can understand Love as a
spirit on a deeper level. . . Though Alcibiades physically resembles
Dionysus, he is not a god, and lacks gods’ wisdom. He sees this wisdom
he desires in Socrates, which is why he is so desperate for his love.
“…Something much more painful than a snake has bitten me…” he exclaims.
“…My heart, or my soul… has been struck and bitten by philosophy, whose
grip on young and eager souls is much more vicious than a viper’s and
makes them do the most amazing things.” He, relating to Dionysus, later
compares this need for philosophy to a “Bacchic frenzy.” Alcibiades
wanted to be loved by Socrates because, in the young man’s words,
Socrates “would teach me everything he knew.” Therefore, like Love,
he lacks wisdom but desires it, proving Socrates’ point.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
?Platonic? pederasty with Orazio COGNO
"yet not Alcybiades person, but hys soule,"
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/januarye.html
<<In thys place seemeth to be some sauour
of disorderly loue, which the learned call paederastice:
but it is gathered beside his meaning. For who that hath
red Plato his dialogue called Alcybiades, Xenophon and Maximus Tyrius
of Socrates opinions, may easily perceiue, that such loue is muche to
be alowed and liked of, specially so meant, as Socrates vsed it: who
sayth, that in deede he loued Alcybiades extremely, yet not Alcybiades
person, but hys soule, which is Alcybiades owne selfe. And so is
paederastice much to be praeferred before gynerastice, that is the loue
whiche enflameth men with lust toward woman kind. But yet let no man
thinke, that herein I stand with Lucian or hys deuelish disciple Vnico
Aretino, in defence of execrable and horrible sinnes of forbidden and
vnlawful fleshlinesse. Whose abominable errour is fully confuted of
Perionius, and others.>> Januarye Gloss - The Shepheardes Calender
http://westwood.fortunecity.com/galliano/293/g/Gerome_Jean-Leon/Socrates_seeking_Alcibiades_in_the_House_of_Aspasia.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biography" of Oxford in Tudor Encyclopedia.
<<In 1567, Oxford killed an unarmed undercook with a rapier, the first
of many killings that occurred within his circle of influence. In
Venice, he took up with Virginia Padoana, a courtesan, and Orazio Cogno,
a choirboy. He spent heavily, and is reported to have built a house.
When he reached England he rejected both his wife and his new daughter,
born July 1575. Instead, he lived with COGNO.>> - Alan Nelson
----------------------------------------------------------
Horatio COGNOsco
Orazio Cogno
---------------------------------------------------------
Latin COGNOSCO: to become acquainted with, acquire knowledge of,
ascertain, learn, perceive, understand ; perf., to know.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hamlet Act 1, Scene 5
HAMLET Yes, by Saint Patrick, but there is, HORATIO,
And much offence too. Touching this vision here,
It is an honest ghost, that let me tell you:
For your desire to KNOW what is between us,
O'ermaster 't as you may.
HAMLET There are more things in heaven and earth, HORATIO,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;
Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,
That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As 'Well, well, we KNOW,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
That you KNOW aught of me: this not to do,
So grace and mercy at your most need help you, Swear.
Act 4, Scene 6
First Sailor He shall, sir, an't please him. There's a letter for
you, sir; it comes from the ambassador that was
bound for England; if your name be HORATIO,
as I am let to KNOW it is.
HORATIO 'He that thou KNOWest thine, HAMLET.'
Come, I will make you way for these your letters;
Act 5, Scene 2
HAMLET O good HORATIO, what a wounded name,
Things standing thus unKNOWn, shall live behind me!
----------------------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida Act 5, Scene 2
TROILUS Fear me not, sweet lord;
I will not be myself, nor have COGNITION
Of what I feel: I am all patience.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.elizreview.com/ogburn.htm
<<My guess is that it was Horace Vere who,in the year of Oxford's death,
arranged to have Hamlet printed from the author's manuscript (a novelty
in the case of a play of Shakespeare's) with the royal coat of arms of
the PLANTAGENETS on the first page, as befitted the passing of a prince.
It was probably the best he could do to see that his cousin's story
was told.>> - Charlton Ogburn
-------------------------------------------------------------
"plant a G E N E T"
-------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O N L I E B 'raw' probabilities:
E G E T T E R O F T H
E S E I N S V I N G S TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
O N N E T S M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
L H A P I N E S GROTS: 1 in 199
|L] N D T [P] A T E [S| PHEON: 1 in 127
[E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
R [N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
S E [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
R L I [V|I][N][G|P] O E [T]
W I S H [E||T||H] T H [E] (W)
E L L W I S H I [N] G(A)
D V E N T U R [E] R I(N)
S E T T I N [G] F O R(T) H
----------------------------------------------------------
Horatio Vere, Baron Vere of Tilbury Born: 1565
Acceded: 24 JUL 1625
Died: 2 MAY 1635, Whitehall, London
Interred: 8 MAY 1635, Westminster Abbey, London, England
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.everreader.com/manindep.htm
http://www.npg.org.uk/search/a-z/sitO.htm
<<A convergence of pictures of "Shakspeare" and of Oxford in the
18th century may someday fit the pattern. At the point of convergence
is Edward Harley, whose library became the Harleian Collection. In 1737
Harley took the engraver George Vertue with him to see Stratford and the
monument in Trinity Church. Vertue sketched the monument but declined to
show the face of the monument's "Shakspeare" in his sketch. Instead, he
substituted a likeness based on the so-called Chandos portrait of
Shakespeare. He also put Harley into his sketch, as a lone spectator of
this bust with a substitute face.
As it happens, Harley was the 2nd earl of Oxford (second creation),
while his wife had connections to the 17th earl of Oxford.
She was the great-great-granddaughter of Oxford's favorite cousin,
the famous Horace de Vere. Also, she had inherited the so-called
Welbeck portrait of the 17th Earl of Oxford, now at the National
Portrait Gallery.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.brynmawr.edu/classics/redmonds/socrates.html
Role Reversal and Midwifery in Plato's Symposium
<<In a society that valued physical beauty, he was an ugly man. In a
culture that idealized youth, he was an old man. Snub-nosed, with
protruding eyes, he looked like one of the ridiculous satyrs on the
painted vases. "I say that he is like the satyr Marsyas. That you are
like them, at least in form, Socrates, you yourself would not deny."
Thus Alcibiades the beautiful taunts him in the Symposium, as he begins
his speech in praise of Socrates. Yet Alcibiades tells in his speech how
he is captivated by this man, an individual like no one else he has ever
known or heard of. Although the symposiasts laugh at him because he
seems still to be in love with Socrates, Alcibiades accuses Socrates of
having played an outrageous trick on him, of having pretended to be in
love with him, yet of somehow ending up as the pursued and not the
pursuer in their relationship. Beware, he warns Agathon, he could do the
same to you. In the Symposium, there are several pairs whose roles as
lover and beloved are reversed or confused: Socrates and Alcibiades,
Socrates and Agathon, Socrates and Aristodemus, Socrates and Diotima,
and, in Diotima's myth, Poros and Penia. In each case, confusion arises
as to who is the active, educating, dominant lover and who the passive,
educated, subordinate beloved. The significance of these reversals may
be seen if we examine Socrates as both lover and beloved in terms of
Diotima's erotic
theory and its confusing imagery of spiritual pregnancy. On the one
hand, Socrates is identified with the erastes, the needy, barefooted
philosopher who is eternally seeking.
He seeks out beautiful youths and engages them in conversation about the
good life and virtue. But Socrates is also Socrates the beautiful, the
most desirable eromenos,
whose outward ugliness hides supreme beauty, which Alcibiades compares
to little golden images of the gods. This beauty serves as midwife to
the thoughts of all the young
men with whom Socrates consorts - Charmides, Euthydemus, Agathon,
Aristodemus, and Alcibiades - relieving them of the pains of their
spiritual pregnancy. As Diotima says, "Beauty is the Fate and Goddess of
Childbirth at the birth." Socrates plays both roles in these
relationships and compels his partners to do the same, breaking down the
hierarchical relation and replacing it with a kind of philosophic
reciprocity. While previous scholars have noted instances of this role
reversal in the Symposium, no scholar has traced a pattern of such
reversals throughout the dialogue or explored the significance of such a
pattern for the understanding of Plato's ideas of philosophy. In this
essay, I first examine the most explicit case of role reversal,
Alcibiades' speech about Socrates. Alcibiades' failure to understand the
Socratic reversals he narrates illustrates the crucial importance of
these reversals for Plato's philosophy. Plato, however, does not have
Socrates confine this kind of role reversal to Alcibiades, but rather it
forms a persistent theme throughout the dialogue and even appears in
other dialogues. I then show how this theme can be used to understand
the baffling imagery of pregnancy and midwifery in the Symposium. In my
analysis of Socrates as a midwife in the Symposium, I argue against the
current consensus in scholarship that the imagery of midwifery in the
Symposium is inconsistent with the more developed imagery of the midwife
in the Theaetetus. Plato combines the role reversals of Socratic eros
with the image of the midwife to provide a model of the philosophic
process as a reciprocal relation in which both partners interact to
bring forth each other's ideas.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcibiades’ Significance in The Symposium © 2000 Kimberly Ong
http://www.swafo.com/kennethrong/kim/alcibiades.htm
In Plato’s Symposium, the important men of Greece gather in Agathon’s
home to discuss and praise the divinity Love. Of the seven men there,
Alcibiades is the last to speak. At the end of Socrates’ speech, he
interrupts the party drunk, raving, and accompanied by a group of
equally drunk companions. He chooses to talk about love through his
description of Socrates. Alcibiades laments about the awful games
Socrates plays with him. As Alcibiades’ speech advances, we realize that
Socrates acts in the way he does in order to teach Alcibiades the true
meaning of love. As Socrates’ beloved, he is also his student.
Alcibiades is treated the way his is so he can understand Love as a
spirit on a deeper level. Alcibiades’ image also has meaning. Drunk,
young, and attractive, he vaguely resembles Dionysus. By judging his
actions as actions of Dionysus, they take on different implications. It
is because of the dual meanings of Alcibiades’ appearance and his words
that he is one of the most significant characters to partake in the
symposium that night. Alcibiades, as he enters, resembles Dionysus, the
god of theater and wine. Physically, Alcibiades resembles Dionysus
through his youthful and beautiful appearance. Alcibiades is also
“crowned with a beautiful wreath of violets and ivy and ribbons in his
hair,” similar to the way Dionysus is often portrayed wearing a crown of
ivy. In addition, Alcibiades is drunk and urges others to drink, while
Dionysus is the god of wine. When he enters the room, he is also
accompanied by a group of people, much like the Bacchae follow Dionysus
on his travels.
In the beginning of the Symposium, Agathon and Socrates argue over
which of the two men are the wiser. As the speeches begin, Agathon
proclaims, “Dionysus will soon enough be the judge of our claims to
wisdom!” (176A) It is significant then that later in the evening,
Alcibiades arrives to crown Agathon, congratulating him on his recent
win at the tragedy festival. However, when seeing that Socrates was
present, he, removes parts of the wreath from Agathon’s head and crowns
Socrates. By giving some of Agathon’s gift to Socrates, Alcibiades is
suggesting that Socrates stole some of Agathon’s glory, for by winning
that night’s competition, Socrates outshone Agathon’s victory at the
festival. In most men’s eyes, Socrates has won this ‘competition’
between men.
Though Alcibiades physically resembles Dionysus, he is not a god, and
lacks gods’ wisdom. He sees this wisdom he desires in Socrates, which is
why he is so desperate for his love. “…Something much more painful than
a snake has bitten me…” he exclaims. “…My heart, or my soul… has been
struck and bitten by philosophy, whose grip on young and eager souls is
much more vicious than a viper’s and makes them do the most amazing
things.” He, relating to Dionysus, later compares this need for
philosophy to a “Bacchic frenzy.” Alcibiades wanted to be loved by
Socrates because, in the young man’s words, Socrates “would teach me
everything he knew.” Therefore, like Love, he lacks wisdom but desires
it, proving Socrates’ point.
Because he is not a god, he is also capable of Love, something perfect
beings cannot possess, because they have everything they could possibly
desire. Alcibiades is young, impressionable, and very susceptible to the
forces of Love. When it comes to Socrates, Alcibiades is powerless. In
the past, Socrates had ignored any subtle advances Alcibiades had tried
to make. Growing impatient and desiring Socrates so strongly, Alcibiades
swallowed his pride and directly asked Socrates to be his lover, and as
Alcibiades angrily exclaims, “He turned me down!” However, Socrates
continued to send mixed signals, which put Alcibiades through misery,
making him feel ashamed and embarrassed. Nevertheless, Alcibiades is
incapable of doing anything about it. As he laments in his speech, “I
can’t live with him, and I can’t live without him!”, and “No one else
has ever known the real meaning of slavery!” Alcibiades is caught under
Socrates’ spell he compares to the music the Sirens sing. For this
reason, Alcibiades remains with Socrates, for as Socrates says in his
speech, “Love is wanting to possess the good forever.” This type of love
has no relation to how the object being loved treats its lover.
Through Alcibiades’ speech, he whines about the manner in which
Socrates treats him. However, through his story, we learn that
Alcibiades is a student of Socrates’ teachings, though he isn’t aware of
it. Socrates treats Alcibiades the way he treats his other students,
teaching them through his method of dialectic. In his dialectics,
Socrates questions someone who thinks they are wise in a subject.
Through his questions, he teaches his student that he is in fact
ignorant in the subject, which forces the student to rethink his
previous assumptions. Socrates similarly forces Alcibiades to rethink
his definition of Love. By showing indifference towards incentives
Alcibiades expects to be attractive, he is forced to rethink his
expectations and assumptions about Love, and the relationship between
lovers and their beloved. Socrates does all this in order to lead
Alcibiades to a deeper understanding of love.
Alcibiades is learning, however, for when he enters Agathon’s house,
he says, “I want this crown to come directly from my head to the head
that belongs, I don’t mind saying, to the cleverest and the best looking
man in town.” At first, he crowns Agathon, as he won a prize for his
first tragedy. Later on, however, he takes some of the flowers from
Agathon’s head and crowns Socrates, symbolizing that he, indeed, is most
deserving of praise and admiration. It is not physical beauty that
deserves if praise, for that fades with time. Inner beauty is the more
admirable quality, for it remains in a person throughout old age. At the
end of his speech, he urges every man to fill himself with virtue, for
that is something anyone should have should they want “to become a truly
good man.”
One of Alcibiades’ strongest complaints was that “If you were to
listen to [Socrates’] arguments, at first they’d strike you as totally
ridiculous; they’re clothed in words as coarse as the hides worn by the
most vulgar satyrs…if you are foolish, or simply unfamiliar with him,
you’d find it impossible not to laugh at his arguments. But if … you go
behind their surface, you’ll realize that no other arguments make any
sense.” Such is the character of Alcibiades. Though at first he appears
merely as a rude, uncontrollable drunk, if we listen to his arguments,
we can learn a lot. There is no other character who feels and suffers
from Love as much as Alcibiades. While Socrates explains his theory to
us, Alcibiades makes his theory real and therefore brings it to full
fruition.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.mo-net.com/~mlindste/socrates.html
<<The second charge against Socrates, that he had corrupted the youth of
Athens, was even more damning. The foremost examples of the gilded youth
he led astray was Alcibiades and Critias, although Socrates' effect on
the rich young aristocratic fops was already mentioned in Aristophanes'
"The Birds," written in 414 B.C., fifteen years before he was called to
account:
Why, till ye built this city in the air, _____ line 1280
All men had gone Laconian-mad; they went __ [Spartan-mad]
Long-haired, half-starved, unwashed, Socratified,
With scytales in their hands; but Oh the change!
They are all bird-mad now, and imitate ____ line 1284
Aristophanes made fun of the dandies with their Spartan habits, dress,
and even carrying their little Spartan secret police short clubs about
town, but this was before the rich kids turned mean. When he mentions
the intellectual beliefs of the Athenian "Spur Posse" as being
"Socratified" he refers to their instilled beliefs that they were better
than everyone else and that the poor and middle class were disposable
human beings they could use with impunity.
One rich kid named Alcibiades was a relative of Pericles and raised in
Pericles' own household. Brilliant, handsome, rich, and of noble birth,
Alcibiades had it all, except for a good character. As a general, he
betrayed Athens, fled to Sparta, knocked up a Spartan king's wife and
was kicked out of Sparta as a troublemaker, ran back to Athens, got
elected general again, betrayed Athens again and was kicked out, then
fled to Persia where he was killed upon the orders of another Athenian
rich kid named Critias who set up a dictatorship backed by the Spartans.
The Athenians loved Alcibiades, but nobody could trust him.
Alcibiades was Socrates' favorite pupil. Socrates saved his life on a
battlefield. But the lesson Alcibiades learned from Socrates was that
the rulers have no duty to their country; that their ambitions and
desires come ahead of the common herd's well-being and lives. Alcibiades
was a Socratified "superman."
The other pupil of Socrates mentioned in this indictment was Critias.
Critias was Plato's cousin and Plato wrote a dialogue about him. In 411,
an aristocratic over-throw of the Athenian democracy occurred and Athens
lived in a state of terror for four months until they were able to
restore a democracy. In 404, Athens lost the Peloponnesian war and the
Spartans installed a puppet government of the aristocratic "Socratified"
element.
The leader of The Thirty, Critias, was the Athenian Robespierre. He
killed and murdered as many Athenians from the middle and poor classes
as the Spartans had killed in battle over the last ten years of the war.
The democratic element fled Athens and waged a civil war and retook the
city the next year. To have it said that you had stayed in the city was
hereafter a mark of reproach. But a mark of reproach was all it was,
because Athens did one thing not done before or since -- it forgave. An
amnesty was offered. Even the aristocrats were offered amnesty without
an acre of their lands being confiscated or a copper obol of their money
seized. They were not loved, they were not respected, but they were
allowed to live in peace.
Critias and another leader of The Thirty, Plato's uncle Charmides, a man
Socrates urged to go into government, didn't live to see the armistice.
Before they were overthrown, like Nazis seeking refuge in South America,
the Thirty carved out a temporary refuge in the small village Eleusis,
where they murdered 300 of the male citizens under color of law, having
forced an Athenian assembly to vote in a death sentence without trial.
Soon afterwards, Critias and Charmides were killed in battle and the
amnesty declared.
The aristocrats left for Eleusis and used their money to buy mercenaries
to attack Athens. The alarmed Athenians executed the ringleaders, but
still extended the amnesty to the rest. Finally, in 401 B.C., two years
before Socrates' trial and death, a weary, tired peace came to Athens,
who had lost a war, her empire, and many of her citizens.
Socrates remained in Athens and kept his mouth shut when mildly
threatened by his Socratified pupils of The Thirty.
Plato does not allude to these matters for some reason. He was 25 years
old, military age, and was urged to share in his uncle's and first
cousin's government, but like so
many "intellectuals," he wussed out. He preferred government by
"philosopher-kings" in a book, but never did anything to actually attain
it.
So now Athens is as whupped as a cut dog. Her walls have been torn down
by order of the victorious Spartans and she has no navy. A civil war
between rich and poor has weakened her social cohesion and confidence
among her populace. And here comes Socrates, an intellectual Bourbon
having remembered everything and learning nothing, preaching the gospel
and glories of Spartan style despotism and wanting to teach a new
generation of rich kids to despise their elders and their social order.
Athens had had enough.
Athens put Socrates on trial in 399 B.C. when he was 70, a ripe old age
considering the times. If Socrates had put on a defense of demanding
that Athens live up to its high ideals, perhaps he might have only been
ostracized for ten years, a fate that had happened to both good and bad
men before him. But instead, in accordance with his wanting to destroy
the moral legitimacy of a free government by using its judicial system
to fulfill his death wish, he baited both the jury to find him guilty
and to punish him with death.
Socrates, who always said that he knew nothing while he asked his
destructively critical questions boasted about how the Oracle at Delphi
declared that Socrates was the wisest, most free, just, and prudent man
in the world. In other words, "I am a fool, but I know I'm a fool and
that makes me smarter than you." The jury convicted him on both counts.
Then Socrates asked that his penalty be that he be declared a civic hero
and fed at the public table for life! That did not go over too well. The
jury, incensed, gave out the death penalty.
One of Socrates' disciples suggested a jailbreak and escape, with the
tacit connivance of the authorities who just wanted him gone, but
Socrates refused. So he drank the hemlock while he put on the airs of a
martyr. After all that he had done for democratic Athens, this is the
thanks he got! Christ wept over Jerusalem, but Socrates shed not a tear
for Athens.
Socrates' most famous pupil, Plato, figured out the heat was on, so he
traveled abroad for 12 years, living on his inherited money. Then when
the stink cleared, he gave up his notions of becoming a playwright and
instead wrote up numerous books about his leading man, Socrates. He
formed an academy, wherein his most gifted student, Aristotle, studied.
Of course, Aristotle formed his own conclusions, most of which differed
from Plato's. No philosopher kings for Aristotle! Aristotle's royal
pupil was Alexander the Great.
Fifth century Athens was possibly the brightest and most beautiful
civilization that ever graced this planet. Fourth century Athens did not
shine as brightly, and afterwards Athens did not produce any more great
men or institutions. Athenians became like the Mayans, living in stone
huts outside the splendid ruins of their ancestors. Socrates should bear
some of the blame for this. But let this article close with the
judgement of another man of Socrates' generation, the Greek playwright
Euripides, "the philosopher of the stage," as he was known by his
contemporaries. Euripides wrote with feeling and humanity about the
tragic follies of powerful people who forgot to act with decency and the
punishment the gods brought down on them for their misconduct. Character
determined destiny. With Euripides began Western Civilization's worthy
portrayal of women and the poor. Euripides, while of noble family, was a
democrat in the best, most responsible sense of the word.
In one of his lost plays, The Auge, Euripides has one character say in
the few lines which survive:
"Cursed be all those who rejoice to see the city in the hands of a
single man or under the yoke of a few men! The name of a freeman is the
most precious of titles: to possess it is to have much, even when one
has little."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
<mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Go to
>
>www.historytoday.com
>
>and register for free to access articles.
>
>The August issue is not up yet.
>
>Cheers
>
>Mark Alexander
The registration is free. The articles aren't. They seem to expect
you to pay for them.
Thomas.
Thomas Larque
>you to pay for them.
>
>Thomas.
There are some free articles accessible without registration via the
Home Page, but the archives available to registered members seem to
charge for articles. Maybe the Shakespeare article will be provided
free, however, you never know your luck.
Thomas.
Peter Farey
>
> The popular British History magazine, History Today, has as its cover
> story this month (August 2001) "Who Was Shakespeare?". "William
> Rubinstein continues his survey of topics of enduring popular debate".
> Although I'm a regular subscriber to the magazine, I don't remember
> offhand what the other articles in this series were about, so don't
> know what they are comparing the Authorship debate with. The article
> is strongly sympathetic to the Oxfordians in particular, and takes the
> Baconians claims reasonably seriously but (no doubt to the horror of
> Peter Farey and his friends) rejects the Marlovian theory out of hand
> saying that "Calvin Hoffman ... argued, without a shred of evidence,
> that Marlowe was not in fact killed in a tavern brawl ... but survived
> surreptitiously to write Shakespeare's plays".
I do not at any time react with "horror" to anyone disagreeing
with my views, let alone when they clearly haven't the remotest
idea of what those views are, nor why I hold them. For example,
what "evidence" Calvin Hoffman may or may not have given in
support of the Marlovian theory is in fact almost completely
irrelevant to what I think and why I think it.
People do indeed reject the Marlovian theory "out of hand"
(i.e. without bothering to find out anything about it), but
that's their problem, not mine.
> The article is full of the usual Anti-Stratfordian errors (Shakespeare
> can't have been homosexual because he was married and had children,
> but Oxford was - what about Oxford's two wives and children?
> Shakespeare's daughters were iliterate, Shakespeare was the son of a
> Butcher (!), the hyphen in Shakespeare's name means that it was a
> pseudonym, "ever-living" was only applied to dead people) and the
> Bibliography at the end does not include any Stratfordian arguments
> specifically about the authorship (but it does include Diana Price's
> book, congratulations Diana) except for Schoenbaum's "Shakespeare's
> Lives" which only briefly makes any sort of Stratfordian response to
> the Anti-Stratfordians. I'll be writing a letter to History Today
> recommending Dave and Terry's site and Matus.
If his ignorance of the current argument bothers you that much,
perhaps you'd better give mine a plug too? You won't find any
of those "usual Anti-Stratfordian errors" there. ;o)
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
David L. Webb
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> > As for Oxford, he also seems to have had at least one mistress and
> > probably also a connection with an Italian prostitute. Both instances
> > suggest that he had sex with women for fun.
> If you continue to insist on branding Oxford as a heterosexual
> then you'll have to take your argument up with David Webb.
I have neVER asserted that Oxford was exclusively or even primarily
homosexual, nor have I eVER suggested that he was not involved in
heterosexual relations; indeed, if you could actually remember things long
enough to avoid repeating yourself Kennedy-style eVERy few days, Art, you
would probably recall that I've mentioned Oxford's affair with Anne
Vavasour and its consequences on seVERal occasions. You're probably
making the same moronic mistake made in the article, Art: most likely the
existence of bisexuals is news to you. Perhaps you've neVER heard of
switch hitters either.
There is some evidence that Oxford was a pederast. If so, this
circumstance does not mean that he was not heterosexual; rather, it simply
means that he was not above engaging in the sexual abuse of children.
David Webb
Alkibiades
You kill me. Let's have a drink some time.
- Alk.
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:01:07 -0400, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
wrote:
Richard Kennedy
"nut case" by the same writer a day ago. If some reader is looking
for a smooth reply or a smart turn of phrase, he /she is not going to
buy from such a fishmonger. If you've got something fresh and
firm to sell to the listeners, don't wrap it up with a rotten fish.
Neuendorffer
>
> > > As for Oxford, he also seems to have had at least one mistress and
> > > probably also a connection with an Italian prostitute. Both instances
> > > suggest that he had sex with women for fun.
> (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> > If you continue to insist on branding Oxford as a heterosexual
> > then you'll have to take your argument up with David Webb.
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> I have neVER asserted that Oxford was exclusively or even primarily
> homosexual, nor have I eVER suggested that he was not involved in
> heterosexual relations;
Tom Larque seemed to be arguing that Oxford was primarily (if not
exclusively) heterosexual. However, Tom *now* admits that Oxford was
most likely bisexual.
> You're probably
> making the same moronic mistake made in the article, Art: most likely the
> existence of bisexuals is news to you. Perhaps you've neVER heard of
> switch hitters either.
I was initially quite naive about the prevelance of sensitive
bisexual/homosexual artistic geniuses like Tchaikovski, Bernstein,
Alec Guinness & Derek Jacobi. I think it is relatively safe to
include Shakespeare/Oxford to this group.
> There is some evidence that Oxford was a pederast. If so, this
> circumstance does not mean that he was not heterosexual; rather, it simply
> means that he was not above engaging in the sexual abuse of children.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.mo-net.com/~mlindste/socrates.html
Act 4, Scene 6
Act 5, Scene 2
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
>exclusively) heterosexual. However, Tom *now* admits that Oxford was
> most likely bisexual.
Well I never actually said anything different, Art. I simply pointed
out that William Shakespeare and Oxford were *both* married with
children (and in fact Oxford is the more clearly heterosexually active
as he had mistresses and used prostitutes) and that the fact of
Shakespeare's marriage and offspring could not be used to argue that
Shakespeare was "plainly not homosexual" and could not have had
homosexual feelings or a homosexual affair. If you do think on this
basis, then you should be equally convinced that Oxford was only
interested in adult women.
Thomas.
Libyad817
>Peter Farey and his friends) rejects the Marlovian theory out of hand
>saying that "Calvin Hoffman ... argued, without a shred of evidence,
>that Marlowe was not in fact killed in
>a tavern brawl ... but survived
>surreptitiously to write Shakespeare's plays"
There seems to be more evidence Marlowe survived - Dido's title-page in '94
attributing his name for the first time in print [along with Nash]. title-page
of Hero and leander in '98, doctor fostes in 1604 and again in 1616 with
additions attributed to the author, and on through the 20s and even 30s as his
works were finally getting published.
An inquest report discovered over 300 years later is greater proof he died in
1593? The evidence is weak for Marlowe's early death.
David
Thomas Larque
>attributing his name for the first time in print [along with Nash]. title-page
>of Hero and leander in '98, doctor fostes in 1604 and again in 1616 with
>additions attributed to the author, and on through the 20s and even 30s as his
>works were finally getting published.
>
>An inquest report discovered over 300 years later is greater proof he died in
>1593? The evidence is weak for Marlowe's early death.
Marlowe was a popular playwright, some of whose works were gradually
printed after his death. So what? Most of Shakespeare's work was not
printed until seven years after he died, and a name on a title page is
certainly no indication that the author in question was still alive.
There were plenty of posthumous publications.
If the Marlovians had no more "evidence" than this, then "History
Today" would have been right to dismiss them.
Thomas.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B5706B3...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> > > Thomas Larque wrote:
> >
> > > > As for Oxford, he also seems to have had at least one mistress and
> > > > probably also a connection with an Italian prostitute. Both instances
> > > > suggest that he had sex with women for fun.
> > (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
>
> > > If you continue to insist on branding Oxford as a heterosexual
> > > then you'll have to take your argument up with David Webb.
> "David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> > I have neVER asserted that Oxford was exclusively or even primarily
> > homosexual, nor have I eVER suggested that he was not involved in
> > heterosexual relations;
> Tom Larque seemed to be arguing that Oxford was primarily (if not
> exclusively) heterosexual. However, Tom *now* admits that Oxford was
> most likely bisexual.
No, Thomas Larque simply argued that the article was ridiculous in
arguing that Shakespeare could not have written the sonnets because he
was hetereosexual (since he had a wife and children) while suggesting
that Oxford could have, since the "argument" completely oVERlooks the
point that Oxford had at various times a wife, children, a mistress,
and a Venetian courtesan. Thomas neither said nor implied that Oxford
was exclusively heterosexual; moreoVER, he expressed himself clearly
enough that I would have thought that *even you* could have parsed what
he said, Art. I would also have thought that my previous mentions of
Anne Vavasour would have disabused you of the bizarre notion that I
believed Oxford to have been exclusively homosexual, and I thought that
my posts were written clearly enough that *even you* would have been
able to understand what was written therein, Art -- but then I'm eVER
the optimist.
> > You're probably
> > making the same moronic mistake made in the article, Art: most likely the
> > existence of bisexuals is news to you. Perhaps you've neVER heard of
> > switch hitters either.
> I was initially quite naive
The "initially" is quite superfluous, since you appear to repose
confidence in Ogburn, Brotherblue, Kersey Graves, Knight and Lomas, and
other risibly unreliable sources.
> about the prevelance of sensitive
> bisexual/homosexual artistic geniuses like Tchaikovski, Bernstein,
> Alec Guinness & Derek Jacobi.
This phrase is superfluous as well.
> I think it is relatively safe to
> include Shakespeare/Oxford to this group.
> > There is some evidence that Oxford was a pederast. If so, this
> > circumstance does not mean that he was not heterosexual; rather, it simply
> > means that he was not above engaging in the sexual abuse of children.
> ?Platonic? pederasty with Orazio COGNO
> "yet not Alcybiades person, but hys soule,"
"Platonic" pederasty is not the offense of which Oxford was accused,
Art; indeed, the allegations are quite specific concerning the acts
involved.
> http://www.elizreview.com/ogburn.htm
>
> <<My guess is that it was Horace Vere who,in the year of Oxford's death,
> arranged to have Hamlet printed from the author's manuscript (a novelty
> in the case of a play of Shakespeare's) with the royal coat of arms of
> the PLANTAGENETS on the first page, as befitted the passing of a prince.
> It was probably the best he could do to see that his cousin's story
> was told.>> - Charlton Ogburn
What a charming fantasy! It's a pity that Ogburn furnishes no
evidence whateVER for it. In any case, Mr. Streitz just argued (to the
extent that it is an argument) that Oxford was the son of the Queen,
and if so, Horace Vere would not have been his cousin. Can you suggest
a resolution of this paradOX, Art?
> http://www.everreader.com/manindep.htm
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Art; it's one of the
funniest things I've read in quite some time. I read the novel years
ago, and of course it has nothing whateVER to do with Edward de Vere,
who is scarcely even mentioned therein. Especially amusing is the
following extract from the article:
"At the start of the novel, the author narrator, who is named
Beauclerk, meets Mortimer de Vere, the novel's hero, and discovers
that they are related. Mortimer de Vere is a direct descendant of
Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, and at his country house
there is a column on a pedestal with an inscription:
Trust in thy own good sword,
Rather than Princes' word.
Trust e'en in fortune sinister,
Rather than Princes' minister.
Of either, trust the guile,
Rather than woman's smile.
But most of all eschew,
To trust in Parvenu.
The only synonym for 'parvenu' in Webster's unabridged dictionary
is 'upstart', as in 'upstart crow'."
The author of the article misses a golden opportunity that would appeal
to you, Art: "parvenu" is an anagram of "a Ver pun."
> http://www.npg.org.uk/search/a-z/sitO.htm
>
> <<A convergence of pictures of "Shakspeare" and of Oxford in the
> 18th century may someday fit the pattern. At the point of convergence
> is Edward Harley, whose library became the Harleian Collection. In 1737
> Harley took the engraver George Vertue with him to see Stratford and the
> monument in Trinity Church. Vertue sketched the monument but declined to
> show the face of the monument's "Shakspeare" in his sketch. Instead, he
> substituted a likeness based on the so-called Chandos portrait of
> Shakespeare. He also put Harley into his sketch, as a lone spectator of
> this bust with a substitute face.
>
> As it happens, Harley was the 2nd earl of Oxford (second creation),
> while his wife had connections to the 17th earl of Oxford.
Of course, Art! And the expression "Harley hog" must surely be a
clandestine reference to Oxford's blue boar! How neatly eVERything
fits together, as Elizabeth Weir would say.
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> > Tom Larque seemed to be arguing that Oxford was primarily (if not
> >exclusively) heterosexual. However, Tom *now* admits that Oxford was
> > most likely bisexual.
Thomas Larque wrote:
> Well I never actually said anything different, Art.
Well Ben Jonson & Leonard Digges never *actually stated*
that the Stratford man wrote Shake-speare.
> I simply pointed out that William Shakespeare
> and Oxford were *both* married with children
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[Edward O'Neill/] Al Bundy's Polk High full back football jersey #
-------------------------------------------------------------------
jersey # 33 (ep.520, 601, 613, 615, 621, 626, 722, 910, 1114, 1120)
(jersey # 12 in ep. 523). [http://www.bundyology.com/bal.html]
#33 x #12 = 396 = [1946 - 1550]
Birthdays
--------------
Edward O'Neill: April 12, 1946
Edward de Vere: April 12, 1550
[Peggy Bundy: April 12. 19??]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Larque wrote:
> (and in fact Oxford is the more clearly heterosexually
> active as he had mistresses and used prostitutes). . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Aubrey went on to quote Sir William Davenant (1606-1668), a theatrical
manager and playwright, as having said that "he had a most prodigious
wit"
and: "That he never blotted out a line in his life: said Ben Jonson,
I wish he had blotted otu a thousand." In another note he indicates
that Sir William told him that "Shakespeare" used to lie over at
the Devenant's tavern in Oxford on the way to Warwickshire and that
Sir William "seemed contentended enough to be thought his son.">>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Upon a time when Burbage played Richard III there was a citizen grew
so far in liking with him that before she went from the play she
appointed
him to come that night unto her by the name of Richard the Third.
Shakespeare, overhearing their conclusion, went before, was entertained,
and at his game ere Burbage came. The message being brought that
Richard
the Third was at the door, Shakespeare caused return to be made that
William the Conqueror was before Richard the Third. Shakespeare's name
William.>> - John Manningham diary February 2, 1602
The following poem which alludes to Susan Vere's want of an adequate
dowry was recorded by John Manningham of the Middle Temple during
the year 1602-3, when she was about 15 and Oxford was still alive:
LA[DY] SUSAN VERE
Nothing's your lott, that's more then can be told
For nothing is more precious then gold.
From The Diary of John Manningham of the Middle Temple 1602-1603,
ed. Robert Parker Sorlien (Hanover, NH), p. 182."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Thomas Greene's Diary records scraps of Shakespeare's talk during a
crisis over land enclosure. He and his brother John, who was also active
at Stratford, were called to the bar; John was a lawyer of Clements Inn.
>From the Middle Temple, Greene had been solicitor ofor the Stratford
Corporation, before he served from 1603 to 1617 as borough steward (by
patent) and as town clerk. While waiting for a house, he had noted in
September 1609, 'I mighte stay another yeare at New Place'.>>
- p.384 _Shakespeare a life_ by Park Honan
<<[Among Thomas Greene's fellow students at the Middle Temple] there was
John MANNINGham, the now-famous diarist who described a performance of
*Twelfth Night* in the Middle Temple hall on February 2, 1602 and told a
bawdy anecdote about Shakespeare and Richard Burbage. Manningham knew
Greene, and quotes him in his diary for February 5, 1603:
"There is best sport always when you put a woman on the case.">>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Larque wrote:
> and that the fact of
> Shakespeare's marriage and offspring could not be used to argue that
> Shakespeare was "plainly not homosexual" and could not have had
> homosexual feelings or a homosexual affair.
Ben Jonson "lov'd the man and honoured his memory
(on this side Idolatry) AS MUCH AS ANY."
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonson's First Folio dedication:
-------------------------------------------------------
To the memory of my beloved,
The Author
MR. W I L L I A M S H A K E S P E A R E :
A N D
what he hath left us.
----------------------------------------------------------
"(To the m)emory of my beloved "
(To the m)[-eMOry of my beloVED]
(To them) [my OM, by fo(DEVere)ol-]
" To them, my OM, by fo(DEVere)ol- "
--------------------------------------------------------------
[m-y-OM-by-fo-DEV-e-r-e-ol-] => [-e-MO-r-y-of-m-yb-e-lo-VED]
--------------------------------------------------------------
m-y-OM- => -MO -y -m
by- => -yb
fo- => -of
DEV-e-r-e- => -e -r -e -VED
ol- => -lo
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shuffle permutation of 10 objects in five decks:
only 10!/(3!*1!*1!*4!*1!) = 25,200 possibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Larque wrote:
> If you do think on this basis, then you should be equally
> convinced that Oxford was only interested in adult women.
Just like Lewis Carroll of Oxford:
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<In his diary on July 4, 1862, Lewis Carroll wrote, "Duckworth and
I made an expedition up the river (Isis) to Godstow with the three
Liddells: we had tea on the bank there, and did not reach Christ Church
again till quarter past eight, when we took them to my rooms to see my
collection of micro photographs, and restored them to the Deanery just
before nine.">>
SEVEN MONTHS LATER he added, "on which occasion I told them the
fairy tale of Alice's Adventures Underground, which I undertook;
to write out for Alice."
------------------------------------------------------------------
"ORANGE MARMALADE"
"ANAGRAMMED O.EARL?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<First, she tried to look down and make out what she was coming to, but
it was too dark to see anything; then she looked at the sides of the
well, and noticed that they were filled with cupboards and book-shelves;
here and there she saw maps and pictures hung upon pegs. She took down
a jar from one of the shelves as she passed; it was labelled
'ORANGE MARMALADE',
but to her great disappointment it was empty: she did not
like to drop the jar for fear of killing somebody, so managed
to put it into one of the cupboards as she fell past it. >>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> > >
> > > > > As for Oxford, he also seems to have had at least one mistress and
> > > > > probably also a connection with an Italian prostitute. Both instances
> > > > > suggest that he had sex with women for fun.
>
> > > (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> >
> > > > If you continue to insist on branding Oxford as a heterosexual
> > > > then you'll have to take your argument up with David Webb.
>
> > "David L. Webb" wrote:
> >
> > > I have neVER asserted that Oxford was exclusively or even primarily
> > > homosexual, nor have I eVER suggested that he was not involved in
> > > heterosexual relations;
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > Tom Larque seemed to be arguing that Oxford was primarily (if not
> > exclusively) heterosexual. However, Tom *now* admits that Oxford was
> > most likely bisexual.
"David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> No, Thomas Larque simply argued that the article was ridiculous in
> arguing that Shakespeare could not have written the sonnets because he
> was hetereosexual (since he had a wife and children) while suggesting
> that Oxford could have, since the "argument" completely oVERlooks the
> point that Oxford had at various times a wife, children, a mistress,
> and a Venetian courtesan. Thomas neither said nor implied that Oxford
> was exclusively heterosexual; moreoVER, he expressed himself clearly
> enough that I would have thought that *even you* . . .
Larque screwed up. . . (that's why you're here attempting to save his
sorry ass). Next time make sure Tom reads the Junior Goon Squad Handbook
first & O.K.'s his post first with the Grand Master.
> > > You're probably
> > > making the same moronic mistake made in the article, Art: most likely the
> > > existence of bisexuals is news to you. Perhaps you've neVER heard of
> > > switch hitters either.
>
> > I was initially quite naive
>
> The "initially" is quite superfluous, since you appear to repose
> confidence in Ogburn, Brotherblue, Kersey Graves, Knight and Lomas,
> and other risibly unreliable sources.
This phrase is quite supercilious.
> > about the prevelance of sensitive
> > bisexual/homosexual artistic geniuses like
> > Tchaikovski, Bernstein, Alec Guinness & Derek Jacobi.
>
> This phrase is superfluous as well.
This phrase is supercilious as well.
> > I think it is relatively safe to
> > include Shakespeare/Oxford to this group.
>
> > > There is some evidence that Oxford was a pederast. If so, this
> > > circumstance does not mean that he was not heterosexual; rather, it simply
> > > means that he was not above engaging in the sexual abuse of children.
>
> > ?Platonic? pederasty with Orazio COGNO
> > "yet not Alcybiades person, but hys soule,"
>
> "Platonic" pederasty is not the offense of which Oxford was accused,
> Art; indeed, the allegations are quite specific concerning the acts
> involved.
So what was the offense Oxford was convicted of?
> > http://www.elizreview.com/ogburn.htm
> >
> > <<My guess is that it was Horace Vere who,in the year of Oxford's death,
> > arranged to have Hamlet printed from the author's manuscript (a novelty
> > in the case of a play of Shakespeare's) with the royal coat of arms of
> > the PLANTAGENETS on the first page, as befitted the passing of a prince.
> > It was probably the best he could do to see that his cousin's story
> > was told.>> - Charlton Ogburn
>
> What a charming fantasy! It's a pity that Ogburn furnishes no
> evidence whateVER for it.
The 1604 Hamlet second Quarto didn't have the PLANTAGENET royal coat
of arms on the first page?
Horace Vere was not called Horatio in the Dictionary of National
Biography?
Horace Vere was not Edward de Vere's cousin?
> In any case, Mr. Streitz just argued (to the extent
> that it is an argument) that Oxford was the son of the Queen,
> and if so, Horace Vere would not have been his cousin.
> Can you suggest a resolution of this paradOX, Art?
Yes. . . Mr. Streitz is wrong.
> > http://www.everreader.com/manindep.htm
>
> Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Art; it's one of the
> funniest things I've read in quite some time. I read the novel
> years ago,
Mandatory reading from the Grand Master?
> and of course it has nothing whateVER to do with Edward de Vere,
> who is scarcely even mentioned therein.
Then why would the Grand Master have assigned it?
> Especially amusing is the following extract from the article:
>
> "At the start of the novel, the author narrator, who is named
> Beauclerk, meets Mortimer de Vere, the novel's hero, and discovers
> that they are related. Mortimer de Vere is a direct descendant of
> Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, and at his country house
> there is a column on a pedestal with an inscription:
>
> Trust in thy own good sword,
> Rather than Princes' word.
> Trust e'en in fortune sinister,
> Rather than Princes' minister.
> Of either, trust the guile,
> Rather than woman's smile.
> But most of all eschew,
> To trust in Parvenu.
>
> The only synonym for 'parvenu' in Webster's unabridged dictionary
> is 'upstart', as in 'upstart crow'."
>
> The author of the article misses a golden opportunity that would appeal
> to you, Art: "parvenu" is an anagram of "a Ver pun."
THERSITES He would pun thee into shiVERs with his fist,
as a sailor breaks a biscuit.
> > http://www.npg.org.uk/search/a-z/sitO.htm
> >
> > <<A convergence of pictures of "Shakspeare" and of Oxford in the
> > 18th century may someday fit the pattern. At the point of convergence
> > is Edward HARLEY, whose library became the Harleian Collection. In 1737
> > HARLEY took the engraver George Vertue with him to see Stratford and the
> > monument in Trinity Church. Vertue sketched the monument but declined to
> > show the face of the monument's "Shakspeare" in his sketch. Instead, he
> > substituted a likeness based on the so-called Chandos portrait of
> > Shakespeare. He also put HARLEY into his sketch, as a lone spectator of
> > this bust with a substitute face.
> >
> > As it happens, HARLEY was the 2nd earl of Oxford (second creation),
> > while his wife had connections to the 17th earl of Oxford.
> > She was the great-great-granddaughter of Oxford's favorite
> > cousin, the famous Horace de Vere. Also, she had inherited
> > the so-called Welbeck portrait of the 17th Earl of Oxford,
> > now at the National Portrait Gallery.>>
>
> Of course, Art! And the expression "HARLEY hog" must surely be a
> clandestine reference to Oxford's blue boar! How neatly eVERything
> fits together, as Elizabeth Weir would say.
Indeed!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/front/publisher.html
<<Although Mr. GulliVER was born in Nottinghamshire, where his Father
dwelt, yet I have heard him say his Family came from OXFORDSHIRE;
to confirm which, I have observed in the Church-Yard at Banbury,
in that County, sEVERal Tombs and Monuments of the GulliVERs.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
A letter from Capt. Gulliver, to his Cousin Sympson:
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<And besides the Fact was altogether false; for to my Knowledge, being
in England during some Part of her Majesty's Reign, she did govern by a
chief Minister; nay, even by two successively; the first whereof was the
Lord of Godolphin, and the second the Lord of OXFORD; SO THAT YOU HAVE
MADE ME SAY THE THING THAT WAS NOT.>>
<< I have now done with all visionary Schemes for EVER.
April 2, 1727.>>
E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Pope
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/apope.htm
<< In middle age Alexander Pope was 4ft 6in tall and weared a
stiffened canvas bodice to support his spine. Pope associating with
anti-Catholic Whig friends, but by 1713 he moved towards the Tories,
becaming one of the members of Scriblerus Club. His friends among Tory
intellectuals included Swift, Gay, Congreve and Robert HARLEY, 1st
Earl of Oxford. During his last years Pope designed a romantic
'grot' in a tunnel which linked the waterfront with his back garden.
It was walled with shells and pieces of mirror.
Pope died on May 30, 1744.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Robinson Crusoe=> RO(bin)SON KREUTZnaer=> ROSENKREUTZ=> Rosicrucian
In 1702 Defoe wrote his famous pamphlet THE SHORTEST-WAY WITH THE
DISSENTERS. Himself a Dissenter he mimicked the extreme attitudes of
High Angligan Tories and pretented to argue for the extermination of
all Dissenters. Nobody was amused, Defoe was arrested in May 1703, but
released in return for services as a pamphleter and intelligence agent
to Robert HARLEY, 1st Earl of OXFORD, and the Tories. While in prison
Defoe wrote a mock ode, HYMN TO THE PILLORY (1703). When the Tories
fell from power Defoe continued to carry out intelligence work for
the Whig government.
In his own days Defoe was regarded as an unscrupulous, diabolical
journalist. From 1716 to 1720 Defoe edited MERCURIUS Politicus.
Defoe published _Robinson Crusoe_ in April 1719:
<<I WAS born in the year 1632, in the city of York, of a good family,
though not of that country, my father being a foreigner of BREMEN,
who settled first at Hull. He got a good estate by merchandise,
and leaving off his trade, lived afterwards at York, from whence he
had married my mother, whose relations were named Robinson, a very
good family in that country, and from whom I was called ROBINSON
KREUTZNAER; but, by the usual corruption of words in England, we
are now called - nay we call ourselves and write our name - Crusoe;
and so my companions always called me.>>
RO(bin)SON KREUTZnaer => ROSENKREUTZ => Rosicrucian
[ http://phanes.com/chewed.html ]
<<_Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae_ was first published in Prague in
1598 under the "privilege and protection" of Rudolph II and who stayed
at the emperor's court as his physician for some time. The work is
described by Frances Yates as forming "a link between a philosophy
influenced by Dee and the philosophy of the ROSICRUCIAN manifestos".
Khunrath met Dee in BREMEN in the same year and was influenced by him>>
[ http://www.levity.com/alchemy/sendi.html ]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Thomas Larque wrote:
>
> > > Shakespeare was the son of a Butcher (!),
> >
> > That's what it says in his first biography.
>
> Art Neuendorffer
I hope the son of a bitch who writes your first
biography has a sense of humor.
Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > Shakespeare was the son of a Butcher (!),
> Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > That's what it says in his first biography.
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> I hope the son of a bitch who writes your
> first biography has a sense of humor.
Why would anyone write my biography?
Art N.
bookburn
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
news:3b579930$0$12831$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
I understand the Shakespeare's were into wool, sheep, calves,
etc., and were into making products of the hides, possibly
including parchment, velum, gloves, etc. There are references to
dyeing goods in the canon. If something like white gloves for
the court was involved, this might be a connection Will had with
benefactors?
bookburn
Thomas Larque
>sorry ass). Next time make sure Tom reads the Junior Goon Squad Handbook
>first & O.K.'s his post first with the Grand Master.
Not sure how I screwed up just because you didn't understand, Art. In
my letter to History Today, written at the same time as my first post,
I finished my comments with "Has [the author] ... never heard of
bisexuality?". I wasn't quite that clear in my posts on this
newsgroup, but I think most people will have understood me. Your
claim, on the other hand, that Oxford only had enough children to
ensure his male heir is demonstrably and laughably false. His child
with Anne Vavasour was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to his
production of an heir and was clearly a result of him engaging in a
little personal pleasure. His liasons with prostitutes, likewise, are
clear evidence that he didn't think of sex with women as some kind of
chore solely relating to the production of a male heir. Who do you
answer to when you screw up, Art? The pixies in your head?
Thomas.
Bob Grumman
Ahem, Arthur, biographies will be written about EVERYONE
who had any contact with ME.
Sincerely yours,
Mr. Bob G.
Neuendorffer
> >Larque screwed up. . . (that's why you're here attempting to save
> >his sorry ass). Next time make sure Tom reads the Junior Goon Squad
> > Handbook first & O.K.'s his post first with the Grand Master.
>
> Not sure how I screwed up just because you didn't understand, Art.
If I didn't understand, Tom, it's because you weren't clear.
> In my letter to History Today,
> written at the same time as my first post,
> I finished my comments with "Has [the author] ... never heard of
> bisexuality?".
Your point being that Shakspere was bisexual or Oxford was?
> I wasn't quite that clear in my posts on this
> newsgroup, but I think most people will have understood me. Your
> claim, on the other hand, that Oxford only had enough children to
> ensure his male heir is demonstrably and laughably false. His child
> with Anne Vavasour was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to his
> production of an heir and was clearly a result of him engaging in a
> little personal pleasure.
His bastard son by Anne Vavasour provided a 'backup heir'.
I stand by my statement.
> His liasons with prostitutes, likewise, are
> clear evidence that he didn't think of sex with women as some kind of
> chore solely relating to the production of a male heir.
If Oxford (a favorite of Elizabeth's & son-in-law to Burghley) was
gay then it probably made sense to spread rumors involving manly
activities: whoring, winning jousting events, etc., etc.
> Who do you answer to when you screw up, Art? The pixies in your head?
That Pict-sidhé in Hanover usually: David Webb.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<The Tuatha Dé Danann (or Dragon Lords of Anu) were masters of the
transcendent Sidhé, and were duly classified as "fates" or "fairies".
Before settling in Ireland (from about 800 BC), they were the world's
most noble race, alongside the early Kings of Egypt, being the Black Sea
Princes of Scythia (now Ukraine). Like the original dynastic Pharaohs,
they traced their descent from the great Pendragons of Mesopotamia; and
from them sprang the kingly lines of the Irish Bruithnigh and the Picts
of Scotland's Caledonia. In Wales they founded the Royal House of
Gwynedd, while in Cornwall in the southwest of England, they were the
sacred gentry known as the Pict-sidhé - from which derives the term
"pixie".>> -- Sir Laurence Gardner
Nexus Magazine, Volume 6, Number 5 (August-September 1999).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(I'm not saying that Dave is necessarily a "fairy".)
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> > > Thomas Larque wrote:
> >
> > > > Shakespeare was the son of a Butcher (!),
> Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > That's what it says in his first biography.
bookburn wrote:
> I understand the Shakespeare's were into wool, sheep, calves,
> etc., and were into making products of the hides, possibly
> including parchment, velum, gloves, etc. There are references to
> dyeing goods in the canon. If something like white gloves for
> the court was involved, this might be a connection Will had with
> benefactors?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Quixote (PART 1) by Cervantes - Translated by John Ormsby
But one thing thou wilt not deny, Sancho; when thou camest close to
her didst thou not perceive a Sabaean odour, an aromatic fragrance, a,
I know not what, delicious, that I cannot find a name for; I mean a
redolence, an exhalation, as if thou wert in the shop of some dainty
glover?"
"All I can say is," said Sancho, "that I did perceive a little odour,
something goaty; it must have been that she was all in a sweat with hard
work."
"It could not be that," said Don Quixote, "but thou must have been
suffering from cold in the head, or must have smelt thyself; for I know
well what would be the scent of that rose among thorns, that lily of the
field, that dissolved amber."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford Gloves
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/project2000/gloves.htm
<<Perfumed gloves were introduced into Britain from Spain in the latter
part of the 16th century. Penetrating perfumes - musk, ambergris and
civet were used. Cervantes in Don Quixote mentions the nauseating
atmosphere in a glover's shop. Such strong essences were believed to
have disinfecting properties. Some people preferred the lighter scented
gloves imported from Cordova, that had been dipped in the essences of
natural flower oils or put in boxes containing scent sachets, or Italian
gloves. The Italians were particularly talented perfumiers. Although
scented gloves arrived relatively late to England, the fashion quickly
gained popularity with royalty and the nobility. One recipe included
treating the gloves with rose water, ground clover, ambergris, musk,
aloeswood, benzoin and carduus aromaticus. These were boiled together
and the brew sieved and the gloves immersed in it and left to dry.
Returning from his travels in Italy the Earl of Oxford brought back
'sweet bags', 'perfumed leather jerkins' and 'a pair of perfumed gloves,
timed only with four tufts of roses in coloured silk' which he presented
to Elizabeth I. Gloves with scent became known as Oxford Gloves even
though they were not necessarily made in Oxford.
Shakespeare mentions perfumed gloves. In A Winter's Tale Autolycus sings
of gloves as sweet as damask roses and in Much Ado About Nothing Hero
says to Beatrice 'these gloves the Count sent me, they are an excellent
perfume'. Some seventeenth-century glovers were also perfumiers, but it
is unlikely that John Shakespeare would have scented his gloves, as this
fashion was introduced at the end of his period as a glover, and was no
doubt confined to the more cosmopolitan centres of the trade.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glove or Fan?
----------------------------------------------------------------
[Henry the Sixth, Part Two (Quarto) 1.3]
Humphrey. The lavv my Lord is this by case, it rests suspitious,
That a day of combat be appointed,
And there to trie each others right or vvrong,
Which shall be on the thirtith of this month,
With Eben staues, and Standbags combatting
In Smythfield, before your Royall Maiestie.
Exet Humphrey.
Armour. And I accept the Combat vvillingly.
Peter. Alasse my Lord, I am not able to fight.
Suffolke. You must either fight sirra or else be hangde:
Go take them hence again to prison.
Exet vvith them.
The Queene lets fall her gloue, and hits the Duches of
Gloster, a boxe on the eare.
Queene. Giue me my gloue. Why Minion can you not see?
She strikes her.
I cry you mercy Madame, I did mistake,
I did not thinke it had bene you.
------------------------------------------------
[Henry the Sixth, Part Two (Folio) 1.3]
Humf. Madame, I am Protector of the Realme, [510]
And at his pleasure will resigne my Place.
Suff. Resigne it then, and leaue thine insolence.
Since thou wert King; as who is King, but thou?
The Common-wealth hath dayly run to wrack,
The Dolphin hath preuayl'd beyond the Seas,
And all the Peeres and Nobles of the Realme
Haue beene as Bond-men to thy Soueraigntie.
Card. The Commons hast thou rackt, the Clergies Bags
Are lanke and leane with thy Extortions.
Som. Thy sumptuous Buildings, and thy Wiues Attyre
Haue cost a masse of publique Treasurie.
Buck. Thy Crueltie in execution
Vpon Offendors, hath exceeded Law,
And left thee to the mercy of the Law.
Queene. Thy sale of Offices and Townes in France,
If they were knowne, as the suspect is great,
Would make thee quickly hop without thy Head.
Exit Humfrey.
Giue me my Fanne: what, Mynion, can ye not?
She giues the Duchesse a box on the eare.
I cry you mercy, Madame: was it you?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nosegay or Fan?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alice’s Adventures Underground
http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Carroll/Alice/Under/alice1.html
<<It was the white rabbit coming back again, splendidly dressed, with a
pair of white kid gloves in one hand, and a nosegay in the other. Alice
was ready to ask help of any one, she felt so desperate, and as the
rabbit passed her, she said, in a low, timid voice, “If you please,
Sir---” the rabbit started violently, looked up once into the roof of
the hall, from which the voice seemed to come, and then dropped the
nosegay and the white kid gloves, and skurried away into the darkness as
hard as it could go. Alice took up the nosegay and gloves, and found the
nosegay so delicious that she kept smelling at it all the time she went
on talking to herself---”dear, dear! how queer everything is today! and
yesterday everything happened just as usual: I wonder if I was changed
in the night? Let me think: was I the same when I got up this morning? I
think I remember feeling rather different. But if I’m not the same, who
in the world am I? Ah, that’s the great puzzle!”>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<It was the White Rabbit returning, splendidly dressed, with a
pair of white kid gloves in one hand and a large fan in the
other: he came trotting along in a great hurry, muttering to
himself as he came, 'Oh! the DUCHESS, the DUCHESS! Oh!
won't she be savage if I've kept her waiting!' Alice felt
so desperate that she was ready to ask help of any one; so, when
the Rabbit came near her, she began, in a low, timid voice, 'If
you please, sir--' The Rabbit started violently, dropped the
white kid gloves and the fan, and skurried away into the darkness
as hard as he could go.
Alice took up the fan and gloves, and, as the hall was very hot,
she kept fanning herself all the time she went on talking: 'Dear,
dear! How queer everything is to-day! And yesterday things went
on just as usual. I wonder if I've been changed in the night? Let
me think: was I the same when I got up this morning? I
almost think I can remember feeling a little different. But if
I'm not the same, the next question is, Who in the world am I?
Ah, that's the great puzzle!'>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Romeo and Juliet Act 2, Scene 4
MERCUTIO Now is he for the numbers that PETRARCH flowed in:
LAURA to his lady was but a KITCHEN-WENCH;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<'He took me for his HOUSEMAID,' [Alice] said to herself as she ran.
'How surprised he'll be when he finds out who I am! But I'd
better take him his FAN and GLOVES--that is, if I can find them.'
As she said this, she came upon a neat little house, on the door of
which was a bright brass plate with the name 'W. RABBIT' engraved
upon it. She went in without knocking, and hurried upstairs,
in great fear lest she should meet THE REAL MARY ANN, and be
turned out of the house before she had found the FAN and GLOVES.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Merry Wives of Windsor Act 2, Scene 2
FALSTAFF ...when Mistress BRIDGET lost the handle of her FAN,
I took't upon mine honour thou hadst it not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Comedy of Errors Act 3, Scene 1
DROMIO OF EPHESUS . . . BRIDGET, MARIAN, CICEL . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------
PETRARCH 1st sets eyes on LAURA : April 6, 1327
PETRARCH's LAURA, dies of plague: April 6, 1348
---------------------------------------------------------
First historical solar eclipse: April 6, 648 BC
Birth of Jesus Christ?: April 6, 6 BC
the Koran descended to Earth: April 6, 610 AD
Richard the Lion-hearted dies: April 6, 1199
Juliet weaned (Kent EARTHQUAKE): April 6, 1580
BRIDGET Vere's birth: April 6, 1584
Sir Francis Walsingham dies: April 6, 1590
Romeo & Juliet performed?: April 6, 1591
Historian John Stow dies: April 6, 1605
---------------------------------------------------------
Romeo and Juliet Act 1, Scene 3
Nurse 'Tis since the EARTHQUAKE now eleven years;
And she was wean'd,--I never shall forget it,--
------------------------------------------------------------
Measure for Measure Act 3, Scene 2
LUCIO Does BRIDGET paint still, Pompey, ha?
------------------------------------------------------------
April 6, 1483 RAPHAEL christened.
April 6, 1520 RAPHAEL dies on his 37th birthday,
leaving his 'Transfiguration' unfinished.
April 6, 1528 DURER dies in Nürnberg
April 6, 1584 BRIDGET CECIL/Vere is born.
April 7, 1614 EL GRECO dies.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://courseweb.edteched.uottawa.ca/ENG2232b/lecture3son.htm
Petrarch (1304-1374):
Most important work is Rime Sparse (scattered verses):
366 poems almost all concerned with his love for Laura.
First two-thirds are concerned with her in life,
last third with in death (as with Dante's Paradiso).
Laura is not really a physical or personal presence (nor is
Beatrice for Dante). Laura only speaks after her death.
Laura exists more as an ideal and as a poetic inspiration:
Laura = l'aura (the air); so the world is filled with Laura,
or at least with that which reminds him of her absence.
Laura = il lauro (laurel, as the reward for poetry); with the
absence of Laura, he creates a world of laurel (of the poetic).
Laura is associated with a classical, more ideal past from
which we are alienated. The past is absent and
unattainale just as Laura is.
"Petrarchan" love came to signal a type of love which is
infinitefor an infinitely desirable and unattainable woman.
The "petrarchan" love sonnet was adapted for English
by Wyatt (1503-42) and Surrey (1517-47).
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
>> written at the same time as my first post,
>> I finished my comments with "Has [the author] ... never heard of
>> bisexuality?".
>
> Your point being that Shakspere was bisexual or Oxford was?
Either could have been. If the Sonnets have homosexuality in them
then Shakespeare (Dark Lady and wife considered) was probably
bisexual. If Oxford was guilty of pederasty then Oxford was probably
bisexual (although buggering boys was not seen in quite the same way
in Renaissance times). I would say that there is more evidence for
Oxford's abusing male children than there is that the author of the
Sonnets was actively homosexual.
>> I wasn't quite that clear in my posts on this
>> newsgroup, but I think most people will have understood me. Your
>> claim, on the other hand, that Oxford only had enough children to
>> ensure his male heir is demonstrably and laughably false. His child
>> with Anne Vavasour was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to his
>> production of an heir and was clearly a result of him engaging in a
>> little personal pleasure.
>
> His bastard son by Anne Vavasour provided a 'backup heir'.
> I stand by my statement.
As I understand it (and I can try to check through my sources if you
like) bastard sons, like Richard I's Bastard in "King John", very
rarely inherited noble titles and/or lands. Unless they were
legitimized, and Oxford ran away from Vavasour and her son and
apparently never even acknowledged them, such children did not count
in the succession of a title, lands or property. This being the case
the Earldom of Oxford would have done exactly what the throne does in
"King John", passed back up the male line until it met a suitable
(legitimate) male heir. In "King John" this was the dead King's
brother. I suppose it might have been one of Oxford's cousins in his
instance, but I'd have to look into it further to be certain.
>> His liasons with prostitutes, likewise, are
>> clear evidence that he didn't think of sex with women as some kind of
>> chore solely relating to the production of a male heir.
>
> If Oxford (a favorite of Elizabeth's & son-in-law to Burghley) was
>gay then it probably made sense to spread rumors involving manly
>activities: whoring, winning jousting events, etc., etc.
In the case of Vavasour they went as far as to have Oxford run for his
life, and closed the ports and roads in front of him. This was
clearly a bit more real than Art might like to be the case.
Unless Elizabeth and Burghley were using agents in Venice to produce
their propaganda about Oxford's manliness by such a subtle matter as
vague allusions to Oxford's prostitute in letters sent back to
England, Sir Stephen Powle's letter to John Chamberlain seems good
evidence that Oxford's whoring was known to those *in Italy* with him.
I know Anti-Stratfordians have to believe that every document in the
historical record, however private and minor, must actually be a
cunning forgery to cover up their man's claim to the Shakespeare
canon, but in reality such documents were straightforward and accurate
most of the time. Neither Burghley nor Elizabeth was able to control
rumours about Oxford *in Italy*.
>> Who do you answer to when you screw up, Art? The pixies in your head?
>
> That Pict-sidhé in Hanover usually: David Webb.
It is nice that you recognise his superiority to you Art.
Thomas.
Neuendorffer
>
> >> In my letter to History Today,
> >> written at the same time as my first post,
> >> I finished my comments with "Has [the author] ... never heard of
> >> bisexuality?".
> >
> > Your point being that Shakspere was bisexual or Oxford was?
>
> Either could have been. If the Sonnets have homosexuality in them
> then Shakespeare (Dark Lady and wife considered) was probably
> bisexual. If Oxford was guilty of pederasty then Oxford was probably
> bisexual (although buggering boys was not seen in quite the same way
> in Renaissance times).
Orazio Cogno was a fairly old boy of ~ 16 at the time his parents
encouraged him to become a page & singer for Oxford. (Had Orazio stayed
at home he may well have died of the plague like his parents did shortly
after he left.) Oxford let everyone in his household live as he wished
("el lassava viver tuti a suo modo"), and Orazio was even allowed to
attend Catholic mass "in the houses of the ambassadors of France (the
famous Michael de Castelnau, Seigneur de Mauvissiere) and of Portugal."
Orazio once sang for and talked with Queen Elizabeth. With all this
free access to the Queen, French & Portuguese ambassadors and later
an Italian court about all Orazio could report on Oxford was that he
ate meat on fast days & spoke "Latin and Italian well."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.eol.ca/~cumulus/ch7.htm
But in December, 1580 [Oxford] found three friends (Lord Henry Howard,
Charles Arundel and Francis Southwell) were involved in yet another
Catholic plot to replace Elizabeth. He severed relations with them and
denounced them to the Queen as conspiring for the Catholic powers.
They were placed under house arrest.
At which point Howard and Arundel wrote letters to the Privy Council
accusing de Vere of:
1) conspiring with the Spanish to overthrow Elizabeth (sedition)
2) being a habitual drunkard and very seldom sober (a drunkard),
3) vowing to punish the Queen for calling him a bastard (treason),
4) swearing that Elizabeth had a miserable singing voice (defamation?),
5) communicating with the dead by magic (necromancy),
6) denying the divinity of Christ (blasphemy),
7) buggering a boy that is his cook (and many other boys) by his own
confession as well as by witnesses - the list including Orazio Cogno
the Venetian boy, some of the boys complaining and weeping.
As for Southwell:
3.6.2 Appended note to Howard, apparently by Francis Southwell:
"I can not particularli | charge my lord with pedication(pederasty)
but with the open lewdnes of his own spechis"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford and Orazio Cogno, the Italian Choirboy
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/ITALY/Orazio.html
<<In 1580-81, in letters directed to members of the Privy Council, Henry
Howard and Charles Arundel accused Oxford, among numerous other crimes
including multiple instances of pederasty, of having sodomized an
Italian servant of his named Auratio or Horatio, who, they reported, had
left Oxford's employ without Oxford's permission, citing sexual abuse as
his reason. The identity of this Italian servant and many details of his
life with Oxford are verified by a deposition which he gave to the
Inquisition on 27 August 1577, shortly after his return to Venice. He
was then seventeen, which means that when Oxford picked him up in early
1576, he was fifteen or sixteen.
The deposition reveals that the servant's full name was Orazio Cogno.
"Millort de Voxfor," who attended the Greek Church in Venice (not a
Greek Orthodox church, but rather a church known as a haven of
unorthodoxy), first noticed Orazio singing at the church of S. Maria
Formosa. Orazio consulted his father (Francisco Cogno) and his mother
about the earl's subsequent invitation to accompany him back to England,
and they advised him to accept. Orazio moved into Oxford's house in
Venice on "Zuoba Grassa," the Thursday before the beginning of Lent,
which in 1576 fell on 1 March; the party left Venice for England on the
following "luni de carneval," or Monday before Ash Wednesday, that is,
on 5 March.
Orazio spent 11 months in England, presumably from April 1576 to March
(or perhaps only February) 1577, living in Oxford's house in London "per
Paggio" (as a page). Since Oxford let everyone in his household live as
he wished ("el lassava viver tuti a suo modo"), Orazio could live as a
Catholic, attending mass "in the houses of the ambassadors of France
(the famous Michael de Castelnau, Seigneur de Mauvissiere) and of
Portugal." In Venice and on the outbound journey through Italy and
France, Oxford's entourage ate fish on Catholic fast days. In England,
Oxford and his household ate meat on fast days, but Orazio was allowed
to eat fish, as were 2 other servants in the household who were
Catholics. (According to Orazio, Oxford "does not live as a Catholic.")
Although Orazio served Oxford officially as a page, he was by profession
a musician. On one occasion he sang before Queen Elizabeth, who urged
him to convert to the reformed religion. In London he made the
acquaintance of "Ambroso da Venetia," "che e musicho della Regina de
ingelterra" (who is a musician to the queen), and with five brothers
from Venice who were "musici della Regina et fano flauti et viole" -
evidently members of the extensive Bassano family. Orazio reported
that Oxford "speaks Latin and Italian well.">>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Damning Testimony against Oxford from the Orse's mouth:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.everreader.com/orazio.htm
On the day of Tuesday 27th of the month of August 1577 in the presence
of most illustrious Master Pasquale Ciconia.
Being summoned to the Holy Inquisition, there appeared Orazio, son
of the late Francesco Cogno, altarist in the church of Santa Marina
and, being asked about his age, he answered, "I am 17 years old".
It was asked him (or He was asked), "Have you been outside this State?".
He answered, "Yes, Sir".
It was asked him, "In which country?". He answered, "In England". Being
asked, he said, "It has been a year and a half, I think, since I left
this town to go to England". Being asked, he said, "I went with an earl,
a relative of the Queen of England, called Milord de Oxford".
It was asked him, "How long did you stay in England?" He answered,
"Eleven months". Being asked, he said, "I have always been at the house
of this earl".
It was asked him, "What job (duty) was yours in his house?" He answered,
"I was a page".
It was asked him, "Have you been with others, besides him?" He answered,
"No Sir, in England".
It was asked him, "How long ago did you leave England?" He answered,
"Seven or eight months".
It was asked him, "How long ago did you arrive here?" He answered, "I
arrived here on the day of the Assumption of Our Lady, just past".
It was asked him, "With whom did you leave England?" He answered,
"Alone, Sir".
He was asked, "Say where you have been and with whom in these seven or
eight months". He answered, "I was in Flanders 4 months with captain
master Zuan Battista da Monte (4) and then I left Antwerp where I had
stayed all that time with the said captain and went down to Burgundy in
transit, from Burgundy to Lorraine in transit and then to Savoy, then to
Cremona, from Cremona to Mantua, from Mantua to Padua, from Padua to
Venice".
It was asked him, "Where did you leave the captain?" He answered, "At
Fontanelli, north of Cremona".
It was asked him, "With whom did you come from Fontanelle to here?" He
answered, "Alone".
It was asked him, "Who set (put) you with the English earl?"
(i.e. at the service of the English earl) He answered, "No one".
It was asked him, "How did it happen that you went with him? (or: "What
made you go with him?). He answered, "He heard me sing in the choir in
Santa Maria Formosa [One of the most famous churches in Venice. It is in
Renaissance style and is situated north of St. Mark's. The name comes
from the Latin 'formosa', 'virtuous and beautiful', an attribute of Our
Lady to whom the church is dedicated. Tradition reports that the Virgin
appeared in that place in the VII century. The church stands in Campo
Santa Maria Formosa, a large square which in the past was, and still is,
one of the liveliest centres of outdoor performances, as theatre plays,
music, tumblers. Stately palaces built in the 15th and 16th century
surround the 'campo'.] and he asked me if I wanted to go to England with
him and so I went".
It was asked him, "Did you ask anyone for advice whether you should go
or not?" He answered, "I asked my father and my mother and both advised
me to go; then they died of plague" [The first few cases of plague
registered in Venice between July 1575 and February 1576 had been kept
secret. The infection broke out violently in the summer of 1576 and went
on until the beginning of 1577. Therefore Carnival celebrations were
allowed to take place in February-March 1576.]).
He was asked, "This earl, where is he now?" He answered, "In England".
He was asked, "Was he used to live (or: Was he living) Catholically?" He
answered, "No Sir".
It was asked him, "After he invited you, in this town, to go with him,
how long did he wait before leaving?" He answered, "On Thursday before
Lent, I went to live (or: I moved to) in his house and we left on the
following Monday of Carnival".
It was asked me, "On the Friday and Saturday following Thursday before
Lent, what food was eaten in his house?" He answered, "Fish".
He was asked, "In England and on the journey to England, what did he eat
for Lent >on the journey< and on fast days?" He answered, "Fish on the
journey because no meat is served in inns".
It was asked him, "And in England, on fast days, Fridays and Saturdays,
what (food) did he eat?" He answered, "Fish and meat".
It was asked him, "Did he let his family eat meat on these days?" He
answered, "No Sir".
It was asked him, "Did he let you have meat on fast days?" He answered,
"No Sir. In his house he also had an attendant and a manservant who were
Catholic".
It was asked him, "Did he ever make (or: let) you listen to sermons of
heretics?" He answered, "No Sir".
It was asked him, "Did you voluntarily go to listen to sermons of
heretics?" He answered, "No Sir, but I used to go to Mass in the house
of the Ambassadors of France and Portugal".
It was asked, "Was there anyone in England who wanted to make you read
prohibited books and to teach you the doctrine of heretics?" He
answered, "Yes Sir".
It was asked him, "Who were these people?" He answered, "A man called
Master Alexandro [Alexander Forlan] , I think he has been banned from
Venice on account of religion. Another one, Ambroso da Venezia who
is a music-player (or: musician) of the Queen of England; he has two
childrren and has got married there, even though, as I have heard, his
wife lives here in Venice and, so they also say, he used to send money
to her. And there are also five Venetian brothers who are musicians of
the Queen and play the flute and the viola; and there is a Venetian
gentlewoman from Ca' Malipiero who has a school and teaches reading
and the Italian language; and I don't know of anyone else".
It was asked him, "Did you ever speak with the Queen?" He answered, "Yes
Sir, and I sang (have sung) in her presence". Being asked, he said, "She
wanted to convert me to her faith". Being asked, he said, "Some
merchants, that is, master Christopholo da Monte, Milanese, told me that
I would be perverted if I stayed here [i.e. in England] and he didn't
want me to stay there any longer and he embarked me for Flanders in
company with other merchants and he gave me 25 ducats to go away
(literally; or: in order that I could leave that place)
It was asked him, "Did you ask the earl for leave?" He answered, "No
Sir, because he wouldn't let me go (or: he wouldn't have let me go)".
It was asked him, "On the journey to Antwerp and other places where you
have been, did you live Catholically?" He answered, "Yes Sir, I have
come with Italian Catholic soldiers".
It was asked him, "After you've come back here, did anyone ask you about
the earl with whom you went?" He answered, "No Sir".
It was asked him, "Who associated with the earl in this town?" He
answered, "No one here from this town. He used to go to Mass at the
Church of the Greeks [San Giorgio dei Greci (The church of St George of
the Greeks) situated east of St Mark's, was and still is the most
important Greek-Orthodox church not only in Renaissance Venice but also
in Italy and Euope. The Greek community officially founded in 1573 was
particularly flourishing at the time of lord Oxford's visit, i.e. two
years after the church had been inaugurated. Its printing-house and
library housing rare incunabula, manuscripts and books had certainly
appeased the earl's thirst for learning. There he also had the
opportunity to practise his Greek. A reason for his attending Mass there
was that the Greek-Orthodox liturgy and doctrine had, in the second half
of 1500, more points of similarity with the Reformed Church
than with Catholicism.] and he was a person (man) who spoke the Latin
and Italian language well".
Being asked whether the earl had ever tried (or: wanted) to convert him
to his faith, he answered, "No Sir. He let everyone (people) live as
they wanted (do at will)".
After this deposition was made, he [i.e. Orazio Cogno] was dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Larque wrote:
>
> I would say that there is more evidence for
> Oxford's abusing male children than there is
> that the author of the Sonnets was actively homosexual.
I can not particularli charge the Goon Squad with pedication but with
the open lewdnes of their own posts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3.6.2 Appended note to Howard, apparently by Francis Southwell:
"I can not particularli | charge my lord with pedication(pederasty)
but with the open lewdnes of his own spechis"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> I wasn't quite that clear in my posts on this
> >> newsgroup, but I think most people will have understood me. Your
> >> claim, on the other hand, that Oxford only had enough children to
> >> ensure his male heir is demonstrably and laughably false. His child
> >> with Anne Vavasour was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to his
> >> production of an heir and was clearly a result of him engaging in a
> >> little personal pleasure.
> >
> > His bastard son by Anne Vavasour provided a 'backup heir'.
> > I stand by my statement.
>
> As I understand it (and I can try to check through my sources if you
> like) bastard sons, like Richard I's Bastard in "King John", very
> rarely inherited noble titles and/or lands. Unless they were
> legitimized, and Oxford ran away from Vavasour and her son and
> apparently never even acknowledged them, such children did not count
> in the succession of a title, lands or property.
That's why bastards son are no more than 'backup heirs'.
> This being the case
> the Earldom of Oxford would have done exactly what the throne does in
> "King John", passed back up the male line until it met a suitable
> (legitimate) male heir. In "King John" this was the dead King's
> brother. I suppose it might have been one of Oxford's cousins in his
> instance, but I'd have to look into it further to be certain.
You be sure to do that, Tom.
> >> His liasons with prostitutes, likewise, are
> >> clear evidence that he didn't think of sex with women as some kind of
> >> chore solely relating to the production of a male heir.
> >
> > If Oxford (a favorite of Elizabeth's & son-in-law to Burghley) was
> >gay then it probably made sense to spread rumors involving manly
> >activities: whoring, winning jousting events, etc., etc.
>
> In the case of Vavasour they went as far as to have Oxford run for his
> life, and closed the ports and roads in front of him. This was
> clearly a bit more real than Art might like to be the case.
All good drama.
> Unless Elizabeth and Burghley were using agents in Venice to produce
> their propaganda about Oxford's manliness by such a subtle matter as
> vague allusions to Oxford's prostitute in letters sent back to
> England, Sir Stephen Powle's letter to John Chamberlain seems good
> evidence that Oxford's whoring was known to those *in Italy* with him.
> I know Anti-Stratfordians have to believe that every document in the
> historical record, however private and minor, must actually be a
> cunning forgery to cover up their man's claim to the Shakespeare
> canon, but in reality such documents were straightforward and accurate
> most of the time. Neither Burghley nor Elizabeth was able to control
> rumours about Oxford *in Italy*.
I believe that most letters back to England were not forgeries but
rather ciphered/coded spy reports.
> >> Who do you answer to when you screw up, Art? The pixies in your head?
> >
> > That Pict-sidhé in Hanover usually: David Webb.
>
> It is nice that you recognise his superiority to you Art.
David Webb is constantly recognizing the superiority of Dave Kathman to
himself. The same Dave Kathman who just wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Richard Kennedy is a poop-head
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:19:15 -0600
From: David Kathman <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: dj...@ix.netcom.com
Organization: University of Chicago
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
I just had to say it.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
So where does that leave us all?
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B577E2A...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
No, Art. Your oft-demonstrated inability to read straightforward
English prose is not my fault, nor Thomas's fault, nor even the Grand
Master's fault. As always, you need to consult the Goof Squad
Handbook.
> > > > You're probably
> > > > making the same moronic mistake made in the article, Art: most likely
> > > > the
> > > > existence of bisexuals is news to you. Perhaps you've neVER heard of
> > > > switch hitters either.
> > > I was initially quite naive
> > The "initially" is quite superfluous, since you appear to repose
> > confidence in Ogburn, Brotherblue, Kersey Graves, Knight and Lomas,
> > and other risibly unreliable sources.
> This phrase is quite supercilious.
But true.
> > > about the prevelance of sensitive
> > > bisexual/homosexual artistic geniuses like
> > > Tchaikovski, Bernstein, Alec Guinness & Derek Jacobi.
> > This phrase is superfluous as well.
> This phrase is supercilious as well.
But true as well.
[...]
> > > > There is some evidence that Oxford was a pederast. If so, this
> > > > circumstance does not mean that he was not heterosexual; rather, it
> > > > simply
> > > > means that he was not above engaging in the sexual abuse of children.
> > > ?Platonic? pederasty with Orazio COGNO
> > > "yet not Alcybiades person, but hys soule,"
> > "Platonic" pederasty is not the offense of which Oxford was accused,
> > Art; indeed, the allegations are quite specific concerning the acts
> > involved.
> So what was the offense Oxford was convicted of?
There you go again, Art -- your inability to read is exhibited in
nearly eVERy post! Has the reappearance of Mr. Streitz inspired you to
lower the already meager I. Q. of your "Clueless Cretin" persona by an
order of magnitude for parodic purposes? I did not say that Oxford was
*convicted* of anything, but rather that he was *accused* of specific
acts; I wrote: "'Platonic' pederasty is not the offense of which Oxford
was accused, Art; indeed, the allegations are quite specific concerning
the acts involved." You do know what the word "accused" means, don't
you, Art? Well, perhaps you don't. Had Oxford been *convicted* rather
than merely *accused* of sodomy with Cogno, than I would probably have
written that there was *strong* evidence rather than *some* evidence.
> > > http://www.elizreview.com/ogburn.htm
> > >
> > > <<My guess is that it was Horace Vere who,in the year of Oxford's death,
> > > arranged to have Hamlet printed from the author's manuscript (a novelty
> > > in the case of a play of Shakespeare's) with the royal coat of arms of
> > > the PLANTAGENETS on the first page, as befitted the passing of a prince.
> > > It was probably the best he could do to see that his cousin's story
> > > was told.>> - Charlton Ogburn
> > What a charming fantasy! It's a pity that Ogburn furnishes no
> > evidence whateVER for it.
> The 1604 Hamlet second Quarto didn't have the PLANTAGENET royal coat
> of arms on the first page?
And you consider that "evidence" that Horace Vere arranged to have
_Hamlet_ printed from the author's manuscript??!!
> Horace Vere was not called Horatio in the Dictionary of National
> Biography?
>
> Horace Vere was not Edward de Vere's cousin?
See below.
> > In any case, Mr. Streitz just argued (to the extent
> > that it is an argument) that Oxford was the son of the Queen,
> > and if so, Horace Vere would not have been his cousin.
> > Can you suggest a resolution of this paradOX, Art?
> Yes. . . Mr. Streitz is wrong.
In article <hMX47.664$yE1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Mark
Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote (to Mr. Streitz):
> Paul, you will never get more than one or two people on board with you
> using absolutist claims. Rather, you will find many more people jumping
> off the train instead, since the theory you advance is still just a
> theory with no reasonably coherent case that addresses many problems
> raised having yet been made for it.
In article <gAZ47.17254$Fk7.1...@news.indigo.ie>, Paul Crowley
<pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz> wrote:
> PFStreitz <pfst...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010715215113...@ng-mg1.aol.com...
>
> > But from a radical Oxfordian point of view, Bate has hit the nail right on
> > the
> > head. Elizabeth did sleep with her father (step-father, Thomas Seymour) and
> > also with her son, Edward de Vere. This is a road orthodox Oxfordians don't
> > want to go down.
>
> You bet.
>
> When a psychotic gets on the train, I get off.
There seems to be rare unanimity, even among Oxfordians, concerning
Mr. Streitz's inane "argument."
But why hasn't Mr. Crowley's memorable "psychotic" appeared in the
latest edition of Richard Kennedy's Asinine Annals of H.L.A.S. Insults?
> > > http://www.everreader.com/manindep.htm
> > Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Art; it's one of the
> > funniest things I've read in quite some time. I read the novel
> > years ago,
> Mandatory reading from the Grand Master?
I'll give you two choices, Art:
(1) I have read moderately widely, if unsystematically, in the
literature of the nineteenth century, strictly for my own pleasure;
(2) A centuries-old Rosicrucian/Templar/Masonic/Priory of Sion
conspiracy charged with the custodianship and the coVER-up of the
earth-shaking secrets concerning Shakespeare authorship (a conspiracy
that somehow manages simultaneously to disclose by broad hints the VERy
secret it is supposed to conceal) assigned the novel to me as required
reading as part of my training to assume a hereditary office at the
VERy highest echelons of the conspiracy.
Of course, it's clear which of these options would seem most plausible
to any sane person. It's also reasonably clear which of the two is
more likely to appeal to your Petulant Paranoid persona.
> > and of course it has nothing whateVER to do with Edward de Vere,
> > who is scarcely even mentioned therein.
> Then why would the Grand Master have assigned it?
Another paradOX!
> > Especially amusing is the following extract from the article:
> >
> > "At the start of the novel, the author narrator, who is named
> > Beauclerk, meets Mortimer de Vere, the novel's hero, and discovers
> > that they are related. Mortimer de Vere is a direct descendant of
> > Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, and at his country house
> > there is a column on a pedestal with an inscription:
> >
> > Trust in thy own good sword,
> > Rather than Princes' word.
> > Trust e'en in fortune sinister,
> > Rather than Princes' minister.
> > Of either, trust the guile,
> > Rather than woman's smile.
> > But most of all eschew,
> > To trust in Parvenu.
> >
> > The only synonym for 'parvenu' in Webster's unabridged dictionary
> > is 'upstart', as in 'upstart crow'."
> >
> > The author of the article misses a golden opportunity that would appeal
> > to you, Art: "parvenu" is an anagram of "a Ver pun."
> THERSITES He would pun thee into shiVERs with his fist,
> as a sailor breaks a biscuit.
Excellent, Art -- I thought you'd find that. Although you cannot
read what you find, you can generally manage to type a word into a
search engine. But you neglected the word prior to the quotation.
> A letter from Capt. Gulliver, to his Cousin Sympson:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> <<And besides the Fact was altogether false; for to my Knowledge, being
> in England during some Part of her Majesty's Reign, she did govern by a
> chief Minister; nay, even by two successively; the first whereof was the
> Lord of Godolphin, and the second the Lord of OXFORD; SO THAT YOU HAVE
> MADE ME SAY THE THING THAT WAS NOT.>>
>
> << I have now done with all visionary Schemes for EVER.
> April 2, 1727.>>
> E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550
Why not April 1, Art? Wouldn't that have been a more suitable
birthday for Oxford?
You already *said* that, Art. Are you getting as senile as Richard
Kennedy? He can't read either, and he repeats himself about as often
as you do.
> [ http://phanes.com/chewed.html ]
>
> <<_Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae_ was first published in Prague in
> 1598 under the "privilege and protection" of Rudolph II and who stayed
> at the emperor's court as his physician for some time. The work is
> described by Frances Yates as forming "a link between a philosophy
> influenced by Dee and the philosophy of the ROSICRUCIAN manifestos".
> Khunrath met Dee in BREMEN in the same year and was influenced by him>>
>
> [ http://www.levity.com/alchemy/sendi.html ]
"Levity.com," eh? I knew you were trolling, Art.
David Webb
Thomas Larque
>> like) bastard sons, like Richard I's Bastard in "King John", very
>> rarely inherited noble titles and/or lands. Unless they were
>> legitimized, and Oxford ran away from Vavasour and her son and
>> apparently never even acknowledged them, such children did not count
>> in the succession of a title, lands or property.
>
> That's why bastards son are no more than 'backup heirs'.
Do you want to provide evidence of any of these "backup heirs"
inheriting Earldoms during the Elizabethan or Jacobean period, Art? I
don't imagine there were many.
>> This being the case
>> the Earldom of Oxford would have done exactly what the throne does in
>> "King John", passed back up the male line until it met a suitable
>> (legitimate) male heir. In "King John" this was the dead King's
>> brother. I suppose it might have been one of Oxford's cousins in his
>> instance, but I'd have to look into it further to be certain.
>
> You be sure to do that, Tom.
Exactly that seems to have happened when Oxford's son Henry Vere, 18th
Earl of Oxford, died without an heir. The Earldom passed on to one of
his male cousins.
> I believe that most letters back to England were not forgeries but
> rather ciphered/coded spy reports.
Of course nobody could ever just write a letter. Care to offer us a
decryption of one of these "coded spy reports", Art? And while you
are doing it, why don't you post up a few of your personal letters and
we'll see whether they are "coded spy reports" as well. I'm sure
David Webb would love to decypher them for us.
>> >> Who do you answer to when you screw up, Art? The pixies in your head?
>> >
>> > That Pict-sidhé in Hanover usually: David Webb.
>>
>> It is nice that you recognise his superiority to you Art.
>
> David Webb is constantly recognizing the superiority of Dave Kathman to
>himself. The same Dave Kathman who just wrote:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Richard Kennedy is a poop-head
> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:19:15 -0600
> From: David Kathman <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com>
> Reply-To: dj...@ix.netcom.com
> Organization: University of Chicago
> Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
>
>I just had to say it.
>
>Dave Kathman
>dj...@ix.netcom.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------
> So where does that leave us all?
Do you disagree with Kathman's point? If so, where does that leave
you?
Thomas.
Thomas Larque
> April 2, 1727.>>
> E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550
This seems even more pointless than your usual coincidence hunting,
Art, since you have picked THE WRONG DATE!!! Edward de Vere was born
on the 12th April 1550, not the 2nd at all. Unless you have been
infected by the peculiar form of mental distress that makes John Baker
claim that April 8th and April 18th are the same day (because the
Continental and English calendars differ by ten days - Baker doesn't
seem to realise that this doesn't mean that the two days were the same
day by the English Calendar) you have made a rather major error here
and proved that if you pick a completely random date you can find
*exactly the same sort of coincidence* as for the real one.
Besides, here is a coincidence using accurate dates.
E.VERE's death date: 24th June 1604.
Thomas Larque's birth date: 24th June 1973.
You have previously claimed that this coincidence is somehow less
significant than the many that you dredge up because there are quite a
lot of Stratfordians and one of them is bound to have been born on
Vere's death date. This is inaccurate reasoning since in the first
place there are far fewer than 365 prominent Stratfordians on this
newsgroup, and in the second you pick from far more than 365 possible
events in your web-searches for coincidences in date. You pick from
many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of such dates in fact.
In other words the coincidences that you dredge up are completely
worthless as evidence of anything.
Thomas.
Neuendorffer
> > > > > There is some evidence that Oxford was a pederast. If so, this
> > > > > circumstance does not mean that he was not heterosexual;
> > > > > rather, it simply means
> > > > > that he was not above engaging in the sexual abuse of children.
> > > Neuendorffer wrote:
> > > > ?Platonic? pederasty with Orazio COGNO
> > > > "yet not Alcybiades person, but hys soule,"
>
> > > "Platonic" pederasty is not the offense of which Oxford was accused,
> > > Art; indeed, the allegations are quite specific concerning the acts
> > > involved.
>
> > So what was the offense Oxford was convicted of?
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> I did not say that Oxford was
> *convicted* of anything, but rather that he was *accused* of specific
> acts; I wrote: "'Platonic' pederasty is not the offense of which Oxford
> was accused, Art;
Is that what Oxford was formally charged with then?
> indeed, the allegations are quite specific concerning the
> acts involved."
ACTS 24:13 Neither can they prove the things whereof
they now accuse me.
> You do know what the word "accused" means, don't you, Art?
Accuse, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Accused}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Accusing}.] [OF.
acuser, F. accuser, L. accusare, to call to account, accuse; ad + causa
cause, lawsuit. Cf. {Cause}.] 1. To charge with, or declare to have
committed, a crime or offense;
<<Howard and Arundel wrote letters to the Privy Council accusing de Vere
of swearing that Elizabeth had a miserable singing voice.>>
> Had Oxford been *convicted* rather
> than merely *accused* of sodomy with Cogno, than I would probably have
> written that there was *strong* evidence rather than *some* evidence.
Is there *strong* evidence that the Stratman wrote Shake-speare?
> > > > http://www.elizreview.com/ogburn.htm
> > > >
> > > > <<My guess is that it was Horace Vere who,in the year of Oxford's death,
> > > > arranged to have Hamlet printed from the author's manuscript (a novelty
> > > > in the case of a play of Shakespeare's) with the royal coat of arms of
> > > > the PLANTAGENETS on the first page, as befitted the passing of a prince.
> > > > It was probably the best he could do to see that his cousin's story
> > > > was told.>> - Charlton Ogburn
>
> > > What a charming fantasy! It's a pity that Ogburn furnishes no
> > > evidence whateVER for it.
>
> > The 1604 Hamlet second Quarto didn't have the PLANTAGENET royal coat
> > of arms on the first page?
>
> And you consider that "evidence" that Horace Vere arranged to have
> _Hamlet_ printed from the author's manuscript??!!
I consider it "evidence" in support of Ogburn's assumption that
Horace Vere arranged to have _Hamlet_ printed from the author's
manuscript. Mostly, however, I enjoy finding more Planatagenet evidence
in support of:
-------------------------------------------------------------
"plant a G E N E T"
-------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O N L I E B 'raw' probabilities:
E G E T T E R O F T H
E S E I N S V I N G S TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
O N N E T S M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
L H A P I N E S GROTS: 1 in 199
|L] N D T [P] A T E [S| PHEON: 1 in 127
[E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
R [N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
S E [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
R L I [V|I][N][G|P] O E [T]
W I S H [E||T||H] T H [E] (W)
E L L W I [S] H I [N] G(A)
D V E N T [U] R [E] R I(N)
S E T T I [N] [G] F O R(T) H
----------------------------------------------------------
Sidney PHEON = Broom plant
----------------------------------------------------------
> > Horace Vere was not called Horatio in the DNB?
> >
> > Horace Vere was not Edward de Vere's cousin?
> > > > http://www.everreader.com/manindep.htm
>
> > > Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Art; it's one of the
> > > funniest things I've read in quite some time. I read the novel
> > > years ago,
>
> > Mandatory reading from the Grand Master?
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> A centuries-old Rosicrucian/Templar/Masonic/Priory of Sion
> conspiracy charged with the custodianship and the coVER-up of the
> earth-shaking secrets concerning Shakespeare authorship (a conspiracy
> that somehow manages simultaneously to disclose by broad hints the VERy
> secret it is supposed to conceal) assigned the novel to me as required
> reading as part of my training to assume a hereditary office at the
> VERy highest echelons of the conspiracy.
Have you reached the highest echelon yet, Dave?
> > > and of course it has nothing whateVER to do with Edward de Vere,
> > > who is scarcely even mentioned therein.
>
> > Then why would the Grand Master have assigned it?
>
> Another paradOX!
Better than orthodOX.
> > > Especially amusing is the following extract from the article:
> > >
> > > "At the start of the novel, the author narrator, who is named
> > > Beauclerk, meets Mortimer de Vere, the novel's hero, and discovers
> > > that they are related. Mortimer de Vere is a direct descendant of
> > > Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, and at his country house
> > > there is a column on a pedestal with an inscription:
> > >
> > > Trust in thy own good sword,
> > > Rather than Princes' word.
> > > Trust e'en in fortune sinister,
> > > Rather than Princes' minister.
> > > Of either, trust the guile,
> > > Rather than woman's smile.
> > > But most of all eschew,
> > > To trust in Parvenu.
> > >
> > > The only synonym for 'parvenu' in Webster's unabridged dictionary
> > > is 'upstart', as in 'upstart crow'."
> > >
> > > The author of the article misses a golden opportunity that would
> > > appeal to you, Art: "parvenu" is an anagram of "a Ver pun."
>
> > THERSITES He would pun thee into shiVERs with his fist,
> > as a sailor breaks a biscuit.
>
> Excellent, Art -- I thought you'd find that.
I'll try not to make the 'wilderness of monkeys' mistake again.
> Although you cannot
> read what you find, you can generally manage to type a word into a
> search engine. But you neglected the word prior to the quotation.
I didn't have my BiFOCAL on,
CoBLOAF!
Yes:
Said what, Dave?
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> >> As I understand it (and I can try to check through my sources if you
> >> like) bastard sons, like Richard I's Bastard in "King John", very
> >> rarely inherited noble titles and/or lands. Unless they were
> >> legitimized, and Oxford ran away from Vavasour and her son and
> >> apparently never even acknowledged them, such children did not count
> >> in the succession of a title, lands or property.
> >
> > That's why bastards son are no more than 'backup heirs'.
>
> Do you want to provide evidence of any of these "backup heirs"
> inheriting Earldoms during the Elizabethan or Jacobean period, Art?
> I don't imagine there were many.
Edward de Vere himself was accused by his step-sister of being a
bastard. Howard and Arundel wrote letters to the Privy Council accusing
de Vere of vowing to punish the Queen for calling him a bastard
(treason).
> >> This being the case
> >> the Earldom of Oxford would have done exactly what the throne does in
> >> "King John", passed back up the male line until it met a suitable
> >> (legitimate) male heir. In "King John" this was the dead King's
> >> brother. I suppose it might have been one of Oxford's cousins in his
> >> instance, but I'd have to look into it further to be certain.
> >
> > You be sure to do that, Tom.
>
> Exactly that seems to have happened when Oxford's son Henry Vere, 18th
> Earl of Oxford, died without an heir. The Earldom passed on to one of
> his male cousins.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.everreader.com/manindep.htm
http://www.npg.org.uk/search/a-z/sitO.htm
<<A convergence of pictures of "Shakspeare" and of Oxford in the
18th century may someday fit the pattern. At the point of convergence
is Edward Harley, whose library became the Harleian Collection. In 1737
Harley took the engraver George Vertue with him to see Stratford and the
monument in Trinity Church. Vertue sketched the monument but declined to
show the face of the monument's "Shakspeare" in his sketch. Instead, he
substituted a likeness based on the so-called Chandos portrait of
Shakespeare. He also put Harley into his sketch, as a lone spectator of
this bust with a substitute face.
As it happens, Harley was the 2nd earl of Oxford (second creation),
while his wife had connections to the 17th earl of Oxford.
She was the great-great-granddaughter of Oxford's favorite cousin,
the famous Horace de Vere. Also, she had inherited the so-called
Welbeck portrait of the 17th Earl of Oxford, now at the National
Portrait Gallery.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I believe that most letters back to England were not forgeries but
> > rather ciphered/coded spy reports.
>
> Of course nobody could ever just write a letter.
The illiterate Stratford could write a letter.
> Care to offer us a
> decryption of one of these "coded spy reports", Art? And while you
> are doing it, why don't you post up a few of your personal letters and
> we'll see whether they are "coded spy reports" as well. I'm sure
> David Webb would love to decypher them for us.
They are not really mine but:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Reedy wrote:
> My 14-year-old is giving me trouble--the usual ersatz teenage angst. He
> doesn't want to accept his occupation being already chosen for him. I told
> him it was like the Phantom--the ghost who walks--& that it was an honor to
> be born into a family with a 400-year old mission, but he just sulks off &
> gets on the computer. I'm sure he'll come around--we all do, eventually.
>
> Well, that's about it for now. Brenda says to tell the family "hi" & that
> we'll see you all in Stratford in April.
>
> Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> A centuries-old Rosicrucian/Templar/Masonic/Priory of Sion
> conspiracy charged with the custodianship and the coVER-up of the
> earth-shaking secrets concerning Shakespeare authorship (a conspiracy
> that somehow manages simultaneously to disclose by broad hints the VERy
> secret it is supposed to conceal) assigned the novel to me as required
> reading as part of my training to assume a hereditary office at the
> VERy highest echelons of the conspiracy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> Who do you answer to when you screw up, Art? The pixies in your head?
> >> >
> >> > That Pict-sidhé in Hanover usually: David Webb.
> >>
> >> It is nice that you recognise his superiority to you Art.
> >
> > David Webb is constantly recognizing the superiority of Dave Kathman to
> >himself. The same Dave Kathman who just wrote:
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Subject: Richard Kennedy is a poop-head
> > Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:19:15 -0600
> > From: David Kathman <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com>
> > Reply-To: dj...@ix.netcom.com
> > Organization: University of Chicago
> > Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
> >
> >I just had to say it.
> >
> >Dave Kathman
> >dj...@ix.netcom.com
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > So where does that leave us all?
>
> Do you disagree with Kathman's point?
Kathman's point? What exactly is Kathman's point?
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
_Gulliver's Travels_
> ><< I have now done with all visionary Schemes for EVER.
> > April 2, 1727.>>
> > E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550
Thomas Larque wrote:
> This seems even more pointless than your usual coincidence hunting,
> Art, since you have picked THE WRONG DATE!!! Edward de Vere was born
> on the 12th April 1550, not the 2nd at all.
E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550 Julian
April 12, 1550 Gregorian (i.e., true)
> Besides, here is a coincidence using accurate dates.
>
> E.VERE's death date: 24th June 1604.
> Thomas Larque's birth date: 24th June 1973.
Is Baker the only other hlas member over 50 (besides me)?
> You have previously claimed that this coincidence is somehow less
> significant than the many that you dredge up because there are quite a
> lot of Stratfordians and one of them is bound to have been born on
> Vere's death date. This is inaccurate reasoning since in the first
> place there are far fewer than 365 prominent Stratfordians on this
> newsgroup,
Are there *any* prominent Stratfordians on this newsgroup?
[Note: _Hamlet_ is 3650 lines long (in the First Folio)]
> and in the second you pick from far more than 365 possible
> events in your web-searches for coincidences in date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<Now, there were as many as twentynine hedge daughters out
of Benent Saint Berched's national nightschool (for they seemed
to remember how it was still a once-upon-a-four year) learning
their antemeridian lesson of life>> _Finnegans Wake_
----------------------------------------------------------
February 29 Events:
----------------------------------------------------------
468 Death of Pope St. Hilarius
922 Death of Oswald, Archbishop of York
1172 Death of Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd
1288 It was made legal in Scotland for women to propose
marriage to men
1504 Columbus uses a lunar eclipse to frighten
hostile Jamaican Indians
1604 Death of Archbishop John Whitgift
----------------------------------------------------------------
August 6, 1504: Matthew "Nosey" Parker archbishop of Canterbury
November 24 1504: Isabella of Castile, the Catholic queen of Spain,
died at the age of 53 a few weeks after Columbus returns from last
voyage. As queen, she not only sponsored Christopher Columbus and his
naval explorations but also supervised the Inquisition. The Inquisition,
authorized by the Pope in an effort to enforce religious uniformity,
caused the expulsions and killings of millions who did not subscribe to
the Catholic faith. Legend says that right before she died, she farted
and then said, “If I can fart, I still must be alive.” Then she died.
----------------------------------------------------------
> You pick from many hundreds of thousands,
> if not millions, of such dates in fact.
Surely not millions!
> In other words the coincidences that you dredge up
> are completely worthless as evidence of anything.
Surely not completely worthless!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wren's St.Paul's is 366 feet high and
366 Greek cubits (18.2 inches) long
The Washington Monument is about 366 GREEK cubits high.
john_baker
wrote:
I hate to bring up a real point is just a great exchange. But the
fact that William Shakspere wasn't enrolled in his father's business,
but was placed with a local butcher, proves that his father didn't
have much to do.
Marlowe's father enrolled half a dozen boys as apprientices, to take
the place of the son he lost to Cambridge and before that to the
King's School.
So we have good evidence that money was tight in the Shakspere
household when Willy was taken out of the school, if that is, he was
ever in it.
baker
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
"Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B58E226...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
wrote:
> Thomas Larque wrote:
>
> > >> As I understand it (and I can try to check through my sources if you
> > >> like) bastard sons, like Richard I's Bastard in "King John", very
> > >> rarely inherited noble titles and/or lands. Unless they were
> > >> legitimized, and Oxford ran away from Vavasour and her son and
> > >> apparently never even acknowledged them, such children did not count
> > >> in the succession of a title, lands or property.
> > > That's why bastards son are no more than 'backup heirs'.
They're generally not heirs, Art, backup or otherwise.
> > Do you want to provide evidence of any of these "backup heirs"
> > inheriting Earldoms during the Elizabethan or Jacobean period, Art?
> > I don't imagine there were many.
Why would Art want evidence? Evidence is so inconvenient to someone
nursing a fond delusion.
[...]
> > > I believe that most letters back to England were not forgeries but
> > > rather ciphered/coded spy reports.
> > Of course nobody could ever just write a letter.
> The illiterate Stratford [sic!] could write a letter.
Then he definitely has the edge on you, Art.
You certainly don't answer to *me* eVERy time you screw up, Art; I
couldn't even begin to keep up with all your farcical blunders. I do
well to call your attention to a vanishingly small fraction of them.
> > >> It is nice that you recognise his superiority to you Art.
> > > David Webb is constantly recognizing the superiority of Dave Kathman to
> > >himself.
Of course, Art -- Dave Kathman is actually a trained scholar. Terry
Ross also knows *far* more about the literary and cultural history of
the period than I do, as well as far more about classical languages. A
great many other h.l.a.s. participants who (as far as I know) are not
professional scholars are far better informed than I am, among them
KQKnave, Tom Reedy, Thomas Larque, and many others -- you know, the
ones you call "Stratfordians" -- the ones who actually *know*
something, and who prefer reasoning from evidence to just making things
up.
> > > The same Dave Kathman who just wrote:
> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Subject: Richard Kennedy is a poop-head
> > > Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:19:15 -0600
> > > From: David Kathman <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com>
> > > Reply-To: dj...@ix.netcom.com
> > > Organization: University of Chicago
> > > Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
> > >
> > >I just had to say it.
> > >
> > >Dave Kathman
> > >dj...@ix.netcom.com
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > So where does that leave us all?
It leaves you at the bottom of the heap -- or it would if you were
serious. But "Pict-sidhe," with its allusion to the Scottish dynastic
aspects of the conspiracy, was a nice touch, Art.
David Webb
Thomas Larque
>>
>> Do you want to provide evidence of any of these "backup heirs"
>> inheriting Earldoms during the Elizabethan or Jacobean period, Art?
>> I don't imagine there were many.
>
> Edward de Vere himself was accused by his step-sister of being a
>bastard. Howard and Arundel wrote letters to the Privy Council accusing
>de Vere of vowing to punish the Queen for calling him a bastard
>(treason).
Had Edward de Vere been proved a bastard, he would not have been Earl
of Oxford. Q.E.D. Anyway, the suggestion was not that the Earl of
Oxford fathered him on some other woman, but that some other man
fathered him on the Countess. This would have taken him *out* of the
line of succession for the Earldom, and he would certainly not have
been the Earl's "backup heir" if the Earl hadn't fathered him at all.
I take it, then, that you know of no instances in which a title went
to a "backup heir" during the Elizabethan or Jacobean period. This
suggests that your argument is rather poor and should be ignored.
> Kathman's point? What exactly is Kathman's point?
That Richard Kennedy is a poop-head. It seems a perfectly valid point
to be making in a post to HLAS. Do you not think that Richard Kennedy
is a poop-head? I'm sure most other people would agree with that
description of him.
Thomas.
Thomas Larque
>>>
>>> Do you want to provide evidence of any of these "backup heirs"
>>> inheriting Earldoms during the Elizabethan or Jacobean period, Art?
>>> I don't imagine there were many.
>>
>> Edward de Vere himself was accused by his step-sister of being a
>>bastard. Howard and Arundel wrote letters to the Privy Council accusing
>>de Vere of vowing to punish the Queen for calling him a bastard
>>(treason).
>
>Had Edward de Vere been proved a bastard, he would not have been Earl
>of Oxford. Q.E.D. Anyway, the suggestion was not that the Earl of
>Oxford fathered him on some other woman, but that some other man
>fathered him on the Countess. This would have taken him *out* of the
>line of succession for the Earldom, and he would certainly not have
>been the Earl's "backup heir" if the Earl hadn't fathered him at all.
No. I see from Ward that I was wrong here. The suggestion was that
the Earl's marriage to Margery Golding was invalid, and that Edward -
their true son - was therefore illegitimate. However, my main point
stands. Had Oxford been proved a bastard he would have lost his
Earldom. Ward quotes Burghley saying "I preferred his title to the
Earldom, the Lord Windsor attempting to have made him illegitimate"
(p.124). Quite clearly then "his title to the Earldom" depended on
his legitimacy. No "backup heir" here, Art.
Thomas.
Thomas Larque
>>> April 2, 1727.>>
>>> E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550
>>>
>> Art, since you have picked THE WRONG DATE!!! Edward de Vere was born
>> on the 12th April 1550, not the 2nd at all.
>
> E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550 Julian
> April 12, 1550 Gregorian (i.e., true)
Erm ... not really accurate, is it Art? Edward de Vere was born on
12th April by the old English calendar (i.e. - the Julian Calendar)
and 22nd April by the Gregorian which moved *forward* not back by 10
days. And both of the dates that you list, assuming an English source
for your quotation, should be given by the Julian Calendar (the
Gregorian was not introduced in Britain until 1752) so they are
unquestionably ten days apart.
Only by the idiotic Baker system can two days be said to be the same
day when they are ten days apart despite both being recorded using the
same calendar system. Only by the idiotic Baker system does this make
2nd April, 12th April, and 22nd April all the same day, despite the
fact that even the Julian/Gregorian Calendar cheat should only allow
one to move in one direction.
>> Besides, here is a coincidence using accurate dates.
>>
>> E.VERE's death date: 24th June 1604.
>> Thomas Larque's birth date: 24th June 1973.
>
> Is Baker the only other hlas member over 50 (besides me)?
This is one of the reasons that I am so amused when Anti-Strats on
this group claim that Stratfordianism is going to die out with the
older generation. As this newsgroup demonstrates there are many more
young Stratfordians than young Anti-Stratfordians, and if any system
is going to decline into old age it is Oxfordianism (which could well
follow Baconianism into disrepute and unfashionable isolation).
>> You have previously claimed that this coincidence is somehow less
>> significant than the many that you dredge up because there are quite a
>> lot of Stratfordians and one of them is bound to have been born on
>> Vere's death date. This is inaccurate reasoning since in the first
>> place there are far fewer than 365 prominent Stratfordians on this
>> newsgroup,
>
> Are there *any* prominent Stratfordians on this newsgroup?
I meant prominent among the participants to this newsgroup, but there
is - of course - Dave Kathman, who publishes widely on Shakespearean
issues, is one of the foremost Stratfordian commentators on Authorship
issues, and who warrants a footnote in a modern biography of
Shakespeare (see Honan). I'm not prominent in this respect, but my
reviews are published in the "Shakespeare Bulletin" and I am hoping to
get a footnote mention in Gary Taylor's forthcoming edition of John
Fletcher's "The Tamer Tamed", although I may be disappointed.
> [Note: _Hamlet_ is 3650 lines long (in the First Folio)]
Where did you get that from Art? Your source, assuming you are not
just making it up, apparently uses a different counting method from
the Hinman edited Norton Facsimile which counts just over 3900 lines.
>> You pick from many hundreds of thousands,
>> if not millions, of such dates in fact.
>
> Surely not millions!
Quite probably.
>> In other words the coincidences that you dredge up
>> are completely worthless as evidence of anything.
>
> Surely not completely worthless!
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wren's St.Paul's is 366 feet high and
> 366 Greek cubits (18.2 inches) long
>
> The Washington Monument is about 366 GREEK cubits high.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>http://courseweb.edteched.uottawa.ca/ENG2232b/lecture3son.htm
Yes, Art. Utterly worthless.
Thomas.
Neuendorffer
>
> I hate to bring up a real point is just a great exchange. But the
> fact that William Shakspere wasn't enrolled in his father's business,
> but was placed with a local butcher, proves that his father didn't
> have much to do.
http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/timeline/birth.htm
<<William's early education must be the ways of business he would have
learned around his father's shop. Concerning this period, there is a
legend reported in Aubrey's Brief Lives (Aubrey was a seventeenth
century gentleman known as a gossip and raconteur--1681) that "...his
father was a BUTCHER, & I have been told heretofore by some of the
neighbors, that when he was a boy he exercised his father's Trade, but
when he kill'd a Calfe, he would do it in a high style, & make a
Speech.">>
> Marlowe's father enrolled half a dozen boys as apprientices,
Where do you get that piece of info. ?
> So we have good evidence that money was tight in the Shakspere
> household when Willy was taken out of the school, if that is, he was
> ever in it.
If you think money was "tight" you should try filling one of
Marlowe's shoes.
Art N.
Neuendorffer
> >
> > > >> As I understand it (and I can try to check through my sources if you
> > > >> like) bastard sons, like Richard I's Bastard in "King John", very
> > > >> rarely inherited noble titles and/or lands. Unless they were
> > > >> legitimized, and Oxford ran away from Vavasour and her son and
> > > >> apparently never even acknowledged them, such children did not count
> > > >> in the succession of a title, lands or property.
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
> > > > That's why bastards son are no more than 'backup heirs'.
"David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> They're generally not heirs, Art, backup or otherwise.
"Generally?" That's the best you can do, Dave?
> > > Do you want to provide evidence of any of these "backup heirs"
> > > inheriting Earldoms during the Elizabethan or Jacobean period, Art?
> > > I don't imagine there were many.
>
> Why would Art want evidence? Evidence is so inconvenient to someone
> nursing a fond delusion.
<<The Fond du Lac Lutheran Home has operated a skilled
nursing facility in Wisconsin for more than 60 years.>>
> > > > I believe that most letters back to England were not forgeries but
> > > > rather ciphered/coded spy reports.
>
> > > Of course nobody could ever just write a letter.
>
> > The illiterate Stratford [sic!] could write a letter.
>
> Then he definitely has the edge on you, Art.
If only it were true.
You certainly make the Grand Master proud, Dave.
> > > >> It is nice that you recognise his superiority to you Art.
>
> > > > David Webb is constantly recognizing the superiority of Dave Kathman to
> > > >himself.
>
> Of course, Art -- Dave Kathman is actually a trained scholar.
A potty-trained scholar who thinks "poop-head" is funny.
> Terry
> Ross also knows *far* more about the literary and cultural history of
> the period than I do, as well as far more about classical languages. A
> great many other h.l.a.s. participants who (as far as I know) are not
> professional scholars are far better informed than I am, among them
> KQKnave, Tom Reedy, Thomas Larque, and many others -- you know, the
> ones you call "Stratfordians"
Oh. . .you mean the Goon Squad!
> -- the ones who actually *know* something, and who prefer
> reasoning from evidence to just making things up.
So this constitutes "reasoning from evidence":
> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Subject: Richard Kennedy is a poop-head
> > > > Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:19:15 -0600
> > > > From: David Kathman <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com>
> > > > Reply-To: dj...@ix.netcom.com
> > > > Organization: University of Chicago
> > > > Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
> > > >
> > > >I just had to say it.
> > > >
> > > >Dave Kathman
> > > >dj...@ix.netcom.com
> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > So where does that leave us all?
>
> It leaves you at the bottom of the heap --
bottom of the sterquinarium --
---------------------------------------------------------
<<We know that by 1552 John Shakespeare was living on the north-eastern
side of town, in Henley Street, thanks to his ignominious debut in the
town records on 29 April: fined a shilling, along with Humphrey Reynolds
and Adrian Quiney, for making an unauthorised dunghill, sterquinarium,
or midden heap in front of the house of a neighbour, the wheelwright
William Chambers. In those days of the plague, a fine equivalent to two
days' pay for an artisan was a suitably stern judgement on those too
idle to use the communal muck-hill at the rural end of the street. In
a rare defiance of the family tradition (and his own later practice),
John Shakespeare paid his fine promptly.>>
_William Shakespeare: The Man Behind the Genius_ by Anthony Holden
---------------------------------------------------------
Nickolas Nickleby by Charles Dickens
<<No bell or book for me! Throw me on a dunghill,
and let me rot there, to infect the air!'>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Fox's Book of Martyrs ** CHAPTER XV
<<like a butcher he lived, and like a butcher he died,
and lay seven months and more unburied,
and at last like a carrion was buried in a dunghill.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Apocrypha
[The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.]
22:2 A slothful man is compared to the filth of a dunghill:
EVERY man that takes it up WILL SHAKE his hand.
---------------------------------------------------------
> But "Pict-sidhe," with its allusion to the Scottish dynastic
> aspects of the conspiracy, was a nice touch, Art.
Thanks, Dave.
Art N.
Bob Grumman
HLAS! I'll have you know that I have been published in the Spear-Shaker!
What other Stratfordian can make THAT claim!?!? And, until my
recent nervous breakdown, I was fourth in command of the American
Wing of . . . The Trust.
Under-Private Fourth-Class Grumman
Neuendorffer
>
> >> > That's why bastards son are no more than 'backup heirs'.
> >>
> >> Do you want to provide evidence of any of these "backup heirs"
> >> inheriting Earldoms during the Elizabethan or Jacobean period, Art?
> >> I don't imagine there were many.
> >
> > Edward de Vere himself was accused by his step-sister of being a
> >bastard. Howard and Arundel wrote letters to the Privy Council accusing
> >de Vere of vowing to punish the Queen for calling him a bastard
> >(treason).
>
> Had Edward de Vere been proved a bastard,
> he would not have been Earl of Oxford. Q.E.D.
Had Edward de Vere been formally charged & proved a pederast you might
have some grounds for branding him such. Q.E.D.
> Anyway, the suggestion was not that the Earl of
> Oxford fathered him on some other woman, but that some other man
> fathered him on the Countess. This would have taken him *out* of the
> line of succession for the Earldom, and he would certainly not have
> been the Earl's "backup heir" if the Earl hadn't fathered him at all.
>
> I take it, then, that you know of no instances in which a title went
> to a "backup heir" during the Elizabethan or Jacobean period.
Both Elizabeth & James were considered by many to be bastards.
Once someone has made it to office, however,
ways are found to verify their legitimacy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nortexinfo.net/McDaniel/0619.htm
<<King James I, the first king of a United Kingdom of Great Britain, was
born June 19, 1566, the son of Mary Queen of Scots and her husband Henry
Stuart, Lord Darnley. Soon after his birth, his mother had his father
killed by having her minions put gunpowder around the little house he
was living in near Holyrood Castle in Edinburgh and having him blown up.
She was indicted for murder but fled the country. But the fact that she
was very fond of her Italian LUTE-teacher David RIZZO (whom Darnley had
murdered by thugs who literally trampled him to death) and the added
fact that Darnley was gay have led to doubts about King James’
parentage. James was an intelligent though arrogant man.
When James I called together the Hampton Court Conference
to make a new translation of the Bible, he came to have
the nickname “The Solomon of the North.”
One of his critics commented that such was only appropriate,
since he was the son of David the Harp-player.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Take the LUTE & run.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Taming of the Shrew Act 2, Scene 1
BAPTISTA A mighty man of Pisa; by report
I know him well: you are very welcome, sir,
Take you the LUTE, and you the set of books;
You shall go see your pupils presently.
BAPTISTA Why, then thou canst not break her to the LUTE?
HORTENSIO Why, no; for she hath broke the LUTE to me.
I did but tell her she mistook her frets,
And bow'd her hand to teach her fingering;
When, with a most impatient devilish spirit,
'Frets, call you these?' quoth she; 'I'll fume
with them:'
And, with that word, she struck me on the head,
And through the instrument my pate made way;
And there I stood amazed for a while,
As on a pillory, looking through the LUTE;
While she did call me rascal fiddler
And twangling Jack; with twenty such vile terms,
As had she studied to misuse me so.
------------------------------------------------------------
> This
> suggests that your argument is rather poor and should be ignored.
>
> > Kathman's point? What exactly is Kathman's point?
>
> That Richard Kennedy is a poop-head. It seems a perfectly valid point
> to be making in a post to HLAS. Do you not think that Richard Kennedy
> is a poop-head? I'm sure most other people would agree with that
> description of him.
I can't seem to find 'poop-head' in the dictionary.
Art N.
Neuendorffer
> >>> April 2, 1727.>>
> >>> E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550
> >>>
> >> This seems even more pointless than your usual coincidence hunting,
> >> Art, since you have picked THE WRONG DATE!!! Edward de Vere was born
> >> on the 12th April 1550, not the 2nd at all.
> >
> > E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550 Julian
> > April 12, 1550 Gregorian (i.e., true)
Thomas Larque wrote:
>
> Erm ... not really accurate, is it Art? Edward de Vere was born on
> 12th April by the old English calendar (i.e. - the Julian Calendar)
> and 22nd April by the Gregorian which moved *forward* not back by 10
> days.
Charles Ogburn, Jr. argues for this but Michell's book states:
1550 2 April. Born at Earl's Colne, Essex.
My feeling is that April 12 (Gregorian) date was pushed to help
legitimize the Margery Golding marriage situation but that the April 2
date was used later to get Oxford into the House of Lords .
> And both of the dates that you list, assuming an English source
> for your quotation, should be given by the Julian Calendar (the
> Gregorian was not introduced in Britain until 1752) so they are
> unquestionably ten days apart.
Everyone knew what the "true" astronomical date was long before the
Gregorian calendar was accepted. George Washington's Birthday is
celebrated on Feb. 22 even though his was born on Feb. 12.
> Only by the idiotic Baker system can two days be said to be the same
> day when they are ten days apart despite both being recorded using the
> same calendar system. Only by the idiotic Baker system does this make
> 2nd April, 12th April, and 22nd April all the same day, despite the
> fact that even the Julian/Gregorian Calendar cheat should only allow
> one to move in one direction.
Only by the idiotic Baker system can we celebrate Washington's birthday
on Feb. 22 when he was born on Feb. 12.
> >> Besides, here is a coincidence using accurate dates.
> >>
> >> E.VERE's death date: 24th June 1604.
> >> Thomas Larque's birth date: 24th June 1973.
> >
> > Is Baker the only other hlas member over 50 (besides me)?
>
> This is one of the reasons that I am so amused when Anti-Strats on
> this group claim that Stratfordianism is going to die out with the
> older generation. As this newsgroup demonstrates there are many more
> young Stratfordians than young Anti-Stratfordians, and if any system
> is going to decline into old age it is Oxfordianism (which could well
> follow Baconianism into disrepute and unfashionable isolation).
We aint dead yet & the History Today article got published in Britain.
> >> You have previously claimed that this coincidence is somehow less
> >> significant than the many that you dredge up because there are quite a
> >> lot of Stratfordians and one of them is bound to have been born on
> >> Vere's death date. This is inaccurate reasoning since in the first
> >> place there are far fewer than 365 prominent Stratfordians on this
> >> newsgroup,
> >
> > Are there *any* prominent Stratfordians on this newsgroup?
>
> I meant prominent among the participants to this newsgroup, but there
> is - of course - Dave Kathman, who publishes widely on Shakespearean
> issues, is one of the foremost Stratfordian commentators on Authorship
> issues, and who warrants a footnote in a modern biography of
> Shakespeare (see Honan).
A whole footnote!!!!
> I'm not prominent in this respect, but my
> reviews are published in the "Shakespeare Bulletin" and I am hoping to
> get a footnote mention in Gary Taylor's forthcoming edition of John
> Fletcher's "The Tamer Tamed", although I may be disappointed.
A whole footnote!!!!
> > [Note: _Hamlet_ is 3650 lines long (in the First Folio)]
>
> Where did you get that from Art? Your source, assuming you are not
> just making it up, apparently uses a different counting method from
> the Hinman edited Norton Facsimile which counts just over 3900 lines.
Well, even I make mistakes from time to time. :-)
> >> You pick from many hundreds of thousands,
> >> if not millions, of such dates in fact.
> >
> > Surely not millions!
>
> Quite probably.
>
> >> In other words the coincidences that you dredge up
> >> are completely worthless as evidence of anything.
> >
> > Surely not completely worthless!
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Wren's St.Paul's is 366 feet high and
> > 366 Greek cubits (18.2 inches) long
> >
> > The Washington Monument is about 366 GREEK cubits high.
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >http://courseweb.edteched.uottawa.ca/ENG2232b/lecture3son.htm
> > Petrarch (1304-1374):
> > Most important work is Rime Sparse (scattered verses):
> > 366 poems almost all concerned with his love for Laura.
> > First two-thirds are concerned with her in life,
> > last third with in death (as with Dante's Paradiso).
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, Art. Utterly worthless.
utterly adv [Middle English, remote, from Old English utera outer,
comparative adjective from ut out. Date: 15th century] 2: with
sublimity; in a sublime manner; "awaking in me, sublimely unconscious,
interest and energy for tackling these tasks" [syn: {sublimely}]
-----------------------------------------------------
Antony and Cleopatra Act 2, Scene 2
MECAENAS Now Antony must leave her utterly.
-------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
All these ravings by Grumman the Fourth.
Art Neuendorffer
P.S.
"Recent nervous breakdown!" . . .
We all thought you were at poetry camp:
---------------------------------------------
B*b wrote:
> A Letter From Camp
>
> Hello Crowley, Hi Diana,
> Here I am at Camp Grummana.
> Camp is very educating,
> And they say we'll have some fun pontificating.
>
> I went birding with Joe Spism.
> He developed Oxfordianism.
> You remember Leonard Skynyyrd.
> He got vertigo last night just reading Zenner.
>
> All the versers hate the rhymers,
> And we all have some altsheimers.
> And the head nurse wants no sissies,
> So he reads to us from something called Ulysses.
>
> Now I don't know that he's a phony,
> But my bunk mate's reading Looney.
> You remember Rod McKuen
> He's about to organize a barbequin'
>
> Take me home, oh Caruana
> Take me home, I hate Grummana,
> Don't leave me out here in the forest, or
> I might get eaten by The Boar.
>
> Take me home, I promise I will not make spats,
> Or mess the house with other Strats.
> Oh please don't make me stay,
> I've been here one whole day.
>
> Dearest Janice, darling MakBane,
> How's my precious lil' Okay Fine?
> Let me come home if you miss me.
> I would even let Pat Dooley bug and diss me.
>
> Wait a minute, writer's block gone.
> Neologists playing ping pong!
> Learning how to write a filter...
> HLAS, please, kindly disregard this letter!
>
> --B*b
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B597892...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
[...]
> > > > >> >> Who do you answer to when you screw up, Art? The pixies in your
> > > > >> >> head?
> > > > >> > That Pict-sidhé in Hanover usually: David Webb.
> > You certainly don't answer to *me* eVERy time you screw up, Art; I
> > couldn't even begin to keep up with all your farcical blunders. I do
> > well to call your attention to a vanishingly small fraction of them.
> You certainly make the Grand Master proud, Dave.
> > > > >> It is nice that you recognise his superiority to you Art.
Of course Art recognizes effortless superiority -- even his Petulant
Paranoid persona is not *that* delusional.
> > > > > David Webb is constantly recognizing the superiority of Dave Kathman
> > > > > to
> > > > >himself.
> > Of course, Art -- Dave Kathman is actually a trained scholar.
> A potty-trained scholar who thinks "poop-head" is funny.
> > Terry
> > Ross also knows *far* more about the literary and cultural history of
> > the period than I do, as well as far more about classical languages. A
> > great many other h.l.a.s. participants who (as far as I know) are not
> > professional scholars are far better informed than I am, among them
> > KQKnave, Tom Reedy, Thomas Larque, and many others -- you know, the
> > ones you call "Stratfordians"
> Oh. . .you mean the Goon Squad!
The "Goon Squad" is certainly far better informed than the Goof
Squad, the members of which rarely open their mouths without uttering
some farcically funny blunder.
> > -- the ones who actually *know* something, and who prefer
> > reasoning from evidence to just making things up.
> So this constitutes "reasoning from evidence":
>
> > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Subject: Richard Kennedy is a poop-head
> > > > > Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:19:15 -0600
> > > > > From: David Kathman <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com>
> > > > > Reply-To: dj...@ix.netcom.com
> > > > > Organization: University of Chicago
> > > > > Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
> > > > >
> > > > >I just had to say it.
> > > > >
> > > > >Dave Kathman
> > > > >dj...@ix.netcom.com
> > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------
There's copious evidence for that conclusion, Art; where have you
been? Haven't you read Kennedy's posts? Dave Kathman just didn't feel
like repeating it all, since eVERyone (except perhaps you and Kennedy)
remembers it.
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> > You certainly make the Grand Master proud, Dave.
>
> > > > > >> It is nice that you recognise his superiority to you Art.
"David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> Of course Art recognizes effortless superiority --
I recognize effloresce superiority.
Effloresce, i.v., [Latin efflorescere, from ex- + florescere to begin to
blossom Date: 1775] to change to a powder from loss of water of
crystallization b : to form or become covered with a powdery crust
<bricks may effloresce owing to the deposition of soluble salts>
It's nice to see you youngsters effloresce.
> > > Terry
> > > Ross also knows *far* more about the literary and cultural history of
> > > the period than I do, as well as far more about classical languages. A
> > > great many other h.l.a.s. participants who (as far as I know) are not
> > > professional scholars are far better informed than I am, among them
> > > KQKnave, Tom Reedy, Thomas Larque, and many others -- you know, the
> > > ones you call "Stratfordians"
>
> > Oh. . .you mean the Goon Squad!
>
> The "Goon Squad" is certainly far better informed than the Goof
> Squad, the members of which rarely open their mouths without uttering
> some farcically funny blunder.
goof, n. [probably alteration of English dialect GOFF (simpleton)] Date:
1915 1 : a silly or stupid person
---------------------------------------------------------
Ulysses - James Joyce
In his broad bed nuncle Richie, pillowed and blanketed, extends over the
hillock of his knees a sturdy forearm. Cleanchested. He has washed the
upper moiety. -- Morrow, nephew.
He lays aside the lapboard whereon he drafts his bills of costs for the
eyes of Master GOFF and Master Shapland Tandy, filing consents and
common searches and a writ of Duces Tecum.
Never would Richie forget that night. As long as he lived, never.
( Richie Goulding, three ladies' hats pinned on his head, appears
weighted to one side by the black legal bag of Collis and Ward on which
a skull and crossbones are painted in white limewash. He ins it and
shows it full of polonies, kippered, herrings, Findon haddies and
tightpacked pills .)
RICHIE GOULDING ( Bagweighted, passes the door.)
-- In asking you to remember those two noble kinsmen nuncle Richie and
nuncle Edmund, Stephen answered, I feel I am asking too much perhaps.
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
wrote:
>> >>><< I have now done with all visionary Schemes for EVER.
>> >>> April 2, 1727.>>
>> >>> E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550
>> >>>
>> >> This seems even more pointless than your usual coincidence hunting,
>> >> Art, since you have picked THE WRONG DATE!!! Edward de Vere was born
>> >> on the 12th April 1550, not the 2nd at all.
>> >
>> > E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550 Julian
>> > April 12, 1550 Gregorian (i.e., true)
>
>Thomas Larque wrote:
>>
>> Erm ... not really accurate, is it Art? Edward de Vere was born on
>> 12th April by the old English calendar (i.e. - the Julian Calendar)
>> and 22nd April by the Gregorian which moved *forward* not back by 10
>> days.
>
> Charles Ogburn, Jr. argues for this but Michell's book states:
>
> 1550 2 April. Born at Earl's Colne, Essex.
And of course Michell, who has not looked at any original
documentation, is *so* reliable, isn't he Art? That couldn't be a
misprint or typing error by any chance?
> My feeling is that April 12 (Gregorian) date was pushed to help
>legitimize the Margery Golding marriage situation but that the April 2
>date was used later to get Oxford into the House of Lords .
So please provide us with the piece of documentation that Michell used
to justify his "1550 2 April. Born". You'll find that there isn't
one. Nobody in the Renaissance gave Oxford's date of birth as the
2nd. The only record that we have gave it as the 12th, and it was -
of course - an English record using the English Calendar (i.e. - the
Julian one) since the Gregorian Calendar was not to be used in England
for another two hundred years.
>> And both of the dates that you list, assuming an English source
>> for your quotation, should be given by the Julian Calendar (the
>> Gregorian was not introduced in Britain until 1752) so they are
>> unquestionably ten days apart.
>
> Everyone knew what the "true" astronomical date was long before the
>Gregorian calendar was accepted. George Washington's Birthday is
>celebrated on Feb. 22 even though his was born on Feb. 12.
You aren't very bright, are you Art? Washington lived from 1732 to
1799. The English adopted the Gregorian Calendar in 1752 and
presumably took their American Colonies into the new system with them.
This happened when Washington was about 20 years old. At that point,
like many people, he probably switched the celebrations of his
birthday from February 12th (which was never again to occur exactly a
year after his original birthday) to the Gregorian February 22nd so
that he was genuinely celebrating the anniversary of his birth. He
became President in 1787, 35 years after the change to the Gregorian
Calendar, and presumably while in Office only ever celebrated his
birthday on the 22nd February. This, therefore, is the date on which
Washington's birthday is celebrated to this day.
If you think that Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true'
astronomical date" of February 22nd *before* the Calendar changed in
1752, then please post some evidence for this assertion. Otherwise
you are siimply conning yourself into believing nonsense (something
which is a bit of a habit for an Oxfordian, naturally).
>> Only by the idiotic Baker system can two days be said to be the same
>> day when they are ten days apart despite both being recorded using the
>> same calendar system. Only by the idiotic Baker system does this make
>> 2nd April, 12th April, and 22nd April all the same day, despite the
>> fact that even the Julian/Gregorian Calendar cheat should only allow
>> one to move in one direction.
>
> Only by the idiotic Baker system can we celebrate Washington's birthday
>on Feb. 22 when he was born on Feb. 12.
Washington, unlike de Vere, lived through the change in the Calendars,
and after 1752 clearly celebrated his birthday by the Gregorian
Calendar date. Feel free to give us any evidence that you have for
the HSS manuscripts listing Oxford's birthdate as 12th April being
written at a time when England was using the Gregorian Calendar. I'm
sure if Stephanie can move Caxton's life history around by a hundred
years at a time, it won't take much Oxfordian cheating to show that
England used the Gregorian Calendar two hundred years earlier than it
actually did.
>> >> Besides, here is a coincidence using accurate dates.
>> >>
>> >> E.VERE's death date: 24th June 1604.
>> >> Thomas Larque's birth date: 24th June 1973.
>> >
>> > Is Baker the only other hlas member over 50 (besides me)?
>>
>> This is one of the reasons that I am so amused when Anti-Strats on
>> this group claim that Stratfordianism is going to die out with the
>> older generation. As this newsgroup demonstrates there are many more
>> young Stratfordians than young Anti-Stratfordians, and if any system
>> is going to decline into old age it is Oxfordianism (which could well
>> follow Baconianism into disrepute and unfashionable isolation).
>
> We aint dead yet & the History Today article got published in Britain.
The Baconians were getting just as much mainstream publicity a century
ago. Now they are very sadly trailing in the Authorship race.
>> >> You have previously claimed that this coincidence is somehow less
>> >> significant than the many that you dredge up because there are quite a
>> >> lot of Stratfordians and one of them is bound to have been born on
>> >> Vere's death date. This is inaccurate reasoning since in the first
>> >> place there are far fewer than 365 prominent Stratfordians on this
>> >> newsgroup,
>> >
>> > Are there *any* prominent Stratfordians on this newsgroup?
>>
>> I meant prominent among the participants to this newsgroup, but there
>> is - of course - Dave Kathman, who publishes widely on Shakespearean
>> issues, is one of the foremost Stratfordian commentators on Authorship
>> issues, and who warrants a footnote in a modern biography of
>> Shakespeare (see Honan).
>
> A whole footnote!!!!
>
>> I'm not prominent in this respect, but my
>> reviews are published in the "Shakespeare Bulletin" and I am hoping to
>> get a footnote mention in Gary Taylor's forthcoming edition of John
>> Fletcher's "The Tamer Tamed", although I may be disappointed.
>
> A whole footnote!!!!
Let us know when you get mentioned in any Renaissance related texts
published by respected academics, Art. We might have a long wait for
even a footnote.
>> > [Note: _Hamlet_ is 3650 lines long (in the First Folio)]
>>
>> Where did you get that from Art? Your source, assuming you are not
>> just making it up, apparently uses a different counting method from
>> the Hinman edited Norton Facsimile which counts just over 3900 lines.
>
> Well, even I make mistakes from time to time. :-)
Have you ever actually got anything right?
Thomas.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/thomas_larque
Thomas Larque
Just a small additional point, Art. NOBODY used the Gregorian
Calendar at all until 1582 when Pope Gregory first introduced the
Calendar in Catholic Europe. This means that it is completely
impossible that a 1550 record, such as Oxford's birthdate, was written
using a Calendar that HADN'T YET BEEN INVENTED.
Are you really this stupid?
Neuendorffer
> >> >>> April 2, 1727.>>
> >> >>> E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550
> >> >>>
> >> >> This seems even more pointless than your usual coincidence hunting,
> >> >> Art, since you have picked THE WRONG DATE!!! Edward de Vere was born
> >> >> on the 12th April 1550, not the 2nd at all.
> >> >
> >> > E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550 Julian
> >> > April 12, 1550 Gregorian (i.e., true)
> >
> >Thomas Larque wrote:
> >>
> >> Erm ... not really accurate, is it Art? Edward de Vere was born on
> >> 12th April by the old English calendar (i.e. - the Julian Calendar)
> >> and 22nd April by the Gregorian which moved *forward* not back by 10
> >> days.
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > Charles Ogburn, Jr. argues for this but Michell's book states:
> >
> > 1550 2 April. Born at Earl's Colne, Essex.
Thomas Larque wrote:
> And of course Michell, who has not looked at any original
> documentation, is *so* reliable, isn't he Art? That couldn't be a
> misprint or typing error by any chance?
Looney gives April 2 as I recall.
> > My feeling is that April 12 (Gregorian) date was pushed to help
> >legitimize the Margery Golding marriage situation but that the April 2
> >date was used later to get Oxford into the House of Lords .
>
> So please provide us with the piece of documentation that Michell used
> to justify his "1550 2 April. Born". You'll find that there isn't
> one. Nobody in the Renaissance gave Oxford's date of birth as the
> 2nd. The only record that we have gave it as the 12th, and it was -
> of course - an English record using the English Calendar (i.e. - the
> Julian one) since the Gregorian Calendar was not to be used in England
> for another two hundred years.
April 2 is based primarily on the date when Oxford reached majority.
> Just a small additional point, Art. NOBODY used the Gregorian
> Calendar at all until 1582 when Pope Gregory first introduced the
> Calendar in Catholic Europe. This means that it is completely
> impossible that a 1550 record, such as Oxford's birthdate, was written
> using a Calendar that HADN'T YET BEEN INVENTED.
It had been invented, alright - it just hadn't been implemented.
In any event all intelligent people new that the "true" astronomical
calendar was ten days past the legal calendar.
> >> And both of the dates that you list, assuming an English source
> >> for your quotation, should be given by the Julian Calendar (the
> >> Gregorian was not introduced in Britain until 1752) so they are
> >> unquestionably ten days apart.
> >
> > Everyone knew what the "true" astronomical date was long before the
> >Gregorian calendar was accepted. George Washington's Birthday is
> >celebrated on Feb. 22 even though his was born on Feb. 12.
>
> You aren't very bright, are you Art?
In the far infra-red I am.
(I'm well infra-red.)
> Washington lived from 1732 to 1799.
> The English adopted the Gregorian Calendar in 1752 and
> presumably took their American Colonies into the new system with them.
> This happened when Washington was about 20 years old. At that point,
> like many people, he probably switched the celebrations of his
> birthday from February 12th (which was never again to occur exactly a
> year after his original birthday) to the Gregorian February 22nd so
> that he was genuinely celebrating the anniversary of his birth.
<<Actually [Washington] was born February 11, 1732, near Bridges Creek,
on an estate later called Wakefield, in Westmoreland County, Virginia,
about forty miles south of Mount Vernon. The first public celebration
[of Washington's birthday], of which there is record, was at Valley
Forge, February 22, 1778, when Proctor's Continental Artillery band
serenaded Washington. The first public celebration as a holiday was by
order of Comte Rochambeau, February 12, 1781, when the French Army in
Rhode Island was granted a holiday on that day, Monday. February 11th,
1781, Washington's birthday by the Julian Calendar, happened to fall on
Sunday.>> -- http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/faq/
> He
> became President in 1787, 35 years after the change to the Gregorian
> Calendar, and presumably while in Office only ever celebrated his
> birthday on the 22nd February. This, therefore, is the date on which
> Washington's birthday is celebrated to this day.
>
> If you think that Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true'
> astronomical date" of February 22nd *before* the Calendar changed in
> 1752, then please post some evidence for this assertion. Otherwise
> you are siimply conning yourself into believing nonsense (something
> which is a bit of a habit for an Oxfordian, naturally).
Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical date"
of February 22nd both before & after the Calendar changed in 1752. Comte
Rochambeau celebrated his birthday on Monday February 12, 1781.
> >> Only by the idiotic Baker system can two days be said to be the same
> >> day when they are ten days apart despite both being recorded using the
> >> same calendar system. Only by the idiotic Baker system does this make
> >> 2nd April, 12th April, and 22nd April all the same day, despite the
> >> fact that even the Julian/Gregorian Calendar cheat should only allow
> >> one to move in one direction.
> >
> > Only by the idiotic Baker system can we celebrate Washington's birthday
> >on Feb. 22 when he was born on Feb. 12.
>
> Washington, unlike de Vere, lived through the change in the Calendars,
> and after 1752 clearly celebrated his birthday by the Gregorian
> Calendar date.
De Vere lived through the change in the Calendars; it just didn't
occur in England.
> Feel free to give us any evidence that you have for
> the HSS manuscripts listing Oxford's birthdate as 12th April being
> written at a time when England was using the Gregorian Calendar. I'm
> sure if Stephanie can move Caxton's life history around by a hundred
> years at a time, it won't take much Oxfordian cheating to show that
> England used the Gregorian Calendar two hundred years earlier than it
> actually did.
There might well have been good reasons for claiming a late April 12
birthdate some times (such as during the Windsor trial):
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1563, Baron Windsor (husband of Oxford's step sister Catherine)
challenged the validity of John de Vere's (August 1548) marriage to
Edward de Vere's mother (Margery Golding). Windsor lost the legal
battle BUT he did succeed in smearing young EDward's good name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
while claiming an earlier April 2 birthdate at others (assuming
majority).
> >> >> Besides, here is a coincidence using accurate dates.
> >> >>
> >> >> E.VERE's death date: 24th June 1604.
> >> >> Thomas Larque's birth date: 24th June 1973.
> >> >
> >> > Is Baker the only other hlas member over 50 (besides me)?
> >>
> >> This is one of the reasons that I am so amused when Anti-Strats on
> >> this group claim that Stratfordianism is going to die out with the
> >> older generation. As this newsgroup demonstrates there are many more
> >> young Stratfordians than young Anti-Stratfordians, and if any system
> >> is going to decline into old age it is Oxfordianism (which could well
> >> follow Baconianism into disrepute and unfashionable isolation).
> >
> > We aint dead yet & the History Today article got published in Britain.
>
> The Baconians were getting just as much mainstream publicity a century
> ago. Now they are very sadly trailing in the Authorship race.
These things take time, Tom.
> >> >> This is inaccurate reasoning since in the first
> >> >> place there are far fewer than 365 prominent Stratfordians on this
> >> >> newsgroup,
> >> >
> >> > Are there *any* prominent Stratfordians on this newsgroup?
> >>
> >> I meant prominent among the participants to this newsgroup, but there
> >> is - of course - Dave Kathman, who publishes widely on Shakespearean
> >> issues, is one of the foremost Stratfordian commentators on Authorship
> >> issues, and who warrants a footnote in a modern biography of
> >> Shakespeare (see Honan).
> >
> > A whole footnote!!!!
> >
> >> I'm not prominent in this respect, but my
> >> reviews are published in the "Shakespeare Bulletin" and I am hoping to
> >> get a footnote mention in Gary Taylor's forthcoming edition of John
> >> Fletcher's "The Tamer Tamed", although I may be disappointed.
> >
> > A whole footnote!!!!
>
> Let us know when you get mentioned in any Renaissance related texts
> published by respected academics, Art. We might have a long wait for
> even a footnote.
Bob Grumman wrote:
<<In the latest issue of the Oxford Shakespeare Newsletter, Stritmatter
presents a preposterous way of getting the extra "i" into the Henry
Peacham motto that Peter Dickson and other nuts think is an anagram for
"Eddy wuz here," or something, and cites Professor Neuendorffer as a
source of one of his main ideas.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
EDward de Vere's 'coat of arms' includes a silVER STAR
---------------------------------------------------------
Q) What is the brightest star in Draco's "tail"?
A) ALTAIS ["HE-GOAT"] (a.k.a., nodus secundus)
http://www.firstnet.co.uk/users/ray/nconst/Dra.html
http://www.photobooks.com/~horus/texts/starnames.html
--------------------------------------------------------
EDward (deVere) = EDmund & EDgar
EDmund & EDgar
ALtais & ALcor
"he-goat" & "abject"
--------------------------------------------------------
Q) What is the brightest "star" in Ursa Major?
A) A visible double star named MIZAR/ALCOR
ALCOR ["the ABJECT"]
http://www.photobooks.com/~horus/texts/starnames.html
ABJECT, n, A person in the lowest and most despicable condition;
a castaway (like Edgar)
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDward de Vere's birthdate : Either April 2 or April 12, 1550.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zenith crossing times for
stars ALtais & ALcor:
ALCOR ALTAIS
------------------- -------------------------
12:00 PM => March 30, 1550 (birth) & June 29, 1549 (conception)
12:15 PM => April 2, 1550 (birth) & July 2, 1549 (conception)
1:00 AM => April 12, 1550 (birth) & July 12, 1549 (conception)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
KING LEAR Act 1, Scene 2
EDmund
This is the excellent foppery of the world, that,
when we are sick in fortune,--often the surfeit
of our own behavior,--we make guilty of our
disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as
if we were villains by necessity; fools by
heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and
treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards,
liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of
planetary influence; and all that we are evil in,
by a divine thrusting on: an admirable evasion
of whoremaster man, to lay HIS GOATish [ALTAIS]
disposition to the charge of a star!
My father compounded with my mother under the
DRAGON'S TAIL; and my nativity was under URSA MAJOR [ALCOR];
so that it follows, I am rough and lecherous.
Tut, I should have been that I am,
had the maidenliest star in the firmament
twinkled on my BASTARDIZING.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"the maidenliest star in the firmament" => ALCOR
---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a interesting story about the binary MIZAR/ALCOR
in Chet Raymo's _365 Starry Nights_:
<<The Pleides in Taurus are often referred to as the "Seven Sisters."
Most people have difficulty seeing more than six stars in this beautiful
cluster. What became of the "Lost Pleiad?" A story relates that the
seventh sister was taken away by MIZAR, one of the seven brothers of the
Big Dipper, and there she remains, little ALCOR, at his side.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fool
Thy asses are gone about 'em. The reason why the
seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason.
KING LEAR
Because they are not eight?
Fool
Yes, indeed: thou wouldst make a good fool.
----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
>> to a "backup heir" during the Elizabethan or Jacobean period.
>
> Both Elizabeth & James were considered by many to be bastards.
> Once someone has made it to office, however,
> ways are found to verify their legitimacy.
Once again, had either of them been *known* to be illegitimate they
would not have inherited their Kingdoms. Besides, no-one questioned
the fact that Elizabeth's mother was married to the King when
Elizabeth was produced and Mary, Queen of Scots, was married to
Darnley (James' father) when she produced James. This is not the same
as Oxford's bastard son being fathered on the unmarried Anne Vavasour
while he was married to Anne Cecil. Vavasour's son was unquestionably
a bastard who had no formal connection between his mother and father
by marriage at all. To view Vavasour's son as a "backup heir" rather
than an unpossessing illegitimate byblow with no claims to the Oxford
lands or title is to go far beyond any evidence of such inheritances
in the Elizabethan and Jacobean period. Again, I ask you to show us
the evidence of any Earldom in the Elizabethan and Jacobean period
being inherited by such a "backup heir" rather than reversing up the
male line of inheritance until it meets a suitable legitimate male
heir.
Neuendorffer
>
> >> I take it, then, that you know of no instances in which a title went
> >> to a "backup heir" during the Elizabethan or Jacobean period.
> >
> > Both Elizabeth & James were considered by many to be bastards.
> > Once someone has made it to office, however,
> > ways are found to verify their legitimacy.
>
> Once again, had either of them been *known* to be illegitimate they
> would not have inherited their Kingdoms. Besides, no-one questioned
> the fact that Elizabeth's mother was married to the King when
> Elizabeth was produced
The Pope, Sir Thomas More, etc., etc. . . .
> and Mary, Queen of Scots, was married to Darnley (James' father)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Darnley James' father?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nortexinfo.net/McDaniel/0619.htm
<< But the fact that she
was very fond of her Italian LUTE-teacher David RIZZO (whom Darnley had
murdered by thugs who literally trampled him to death) and the added
fact that Darnley was gay have led to doubts about King James’
parentage. James was an intelligent though arrogant man.
When James I called together the Hampton Court Conference
to make a new translation of the Bible, he came to have
the nickname “The Solomon of the North.”
One of his critics commented that such was only appropriate,
since he was the son of David the Harp-player.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> when she produced James. This is not the same
> as Oxford's bastard son being fathered on the unmarried Anne Vavasour
> while he was married to Anne Cecil. Vavasour's son was unquestionably
> a bastard who had no formal connection between his mother and father
> by marriage at all.
Oxford was estranged from his wife and possibly seeking an annulment
when Vavasour gave birth.
> To view Vavasour's son as a "backup heir" rather
> than an unpossessing illegitimate byblow with no claims to the Oxford
> lands or title is to go far beyond any evidence of such inheritances
> in the Elizabethan and Jacobean period. Again, I ask you to show us
> the evidence of any Earldom in the Elizabethan and Jacobean period
> being inherited by such a "backup heir" rather than reversing up the
> male line of inheritance until it meets a suitable legitimate male
> heir.
It is hardly a high priority for me.
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <s4cjlt0j44fca2qus...@4ax.com>, Thomas Larque
<thomas...@lineone.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:42:51 -0400, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >>><< I have now done with all visionary Schemes for EVER.
> >> >>> April 2, 1727.>>
> >> >>> E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550
> >> >> This seems even more pointless than your usual coincidence hunting,
> >> >> Art, since you have picked THE WRONG DATE!!! Edward de Vere was born
> >> >> on the 12th April 1550, not the 2nd at all.
> >> > E. VERE's birthdate: April 2, 1550 Julian
> >> > April 12, 1550 Gregorian (i.e., true)
> >Thomas Larque wrote:
> >>
> >> Erm ... not really accurate, is it Art? Edward de Vere was born on
> >> 12th April by the old English calendar (i.e. - the Julian Calendar)
> >> and 22nd April by the Gregorian which moved *forward* not back by 10
> >> days.
You don't expect *Art*, of all people, to be able to keep track of
minutiae like that, do you, Thomas? Art is doing well to figure out
what today's date is, to come in out of the rain, etc.
> > Charles Ogburn, Jr. argues for this but Michell's book states:
> >
> > 1550 2 April. Born at Earl's Colne, Essex.
> And of course Michell, who has not looked at any original
> documentation, is *so* reliable, isn't he Art? That couldn't be a
> misprint or typing error by any chance?
It could have been worse -- Art might have gotten the date from the
Brotherblue site, from Kersey Graves's book, or from any of the
innumerable nutcase New Age sites peddling Hermetic horse manure or
from the fundamentalist sites that Art frequents. Of course, most
prudent readers would have been tipped off concerning Michell's
reliability by the fact that Michell's other books concern Atlantis,
"the mystical sciences of antiquity," sacred geometry, flying saucers,
the Holy Grail, astro-archaeology, etc. -- but not Art!
> > My feeling is that April 12 (Gregorian) date was pushed to help
> >legitimize the Margery Golding marriage situation but that the April 2
> >date was used later to get Oxford into the House of Lords .
> So please provide us with the piece of documentation that Michell used
> to justify his "1550 2 April. Born".
Documentation?! *ART*??!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> You'll find that there isn't
> one. Nobody in the Renaissance gave Oxford's date of birth as the
> 2nd. The only record that we have gave it as the 12th, and it was -
> of course - an English record using the English Calendar (i.e. - the
> Julian one) since the Gregorian Calendar was not to be used in England
> for another two hundred years.
>
> >> And both of the dates that you list, assuming an English source
> >> for your quotation, should be given by the Julian Calendar (the
> >> Gregorian was not introduced in Britain until 1752) so they are
> >> unquestionably ten days apart.
> > Everyone knew what the "true" astronomical date was long before the
> >Gregorian calendar was accepted. George Washington's Birthday is
> >celebrated on Feb. 22 even though his was born on Feb. 12.
> You aren't very bright, are you Art?
I feel sure that Art is actually very intelligent; he just
impersonates an idiot on h.l.a.s. The role is forced on him by the
material he has chosen to parody (furnished by Mr. Streitz and others).
So, has the Idiotic Baker System joined the Idiotic Neuendorffer
Proper Names Criterion as a locution deserving an acronymic
designation?
> Washington, unlike de Vere, lived through the change in the Calendars,
> and after 1752 clearly celebrated his birthday by the Gregorian
> Calendar date. Feel free to give us any evidence that you have for
> the HSS manuscripts listing Oxford's birthdate as 12th April being
> written at a time when England was using the Gregorian Calendar. I'm
> sure if Stephanie can move Caxton's life history around by a hundred
> years at a time, it won't take much Oxfordian cheating to show that
> England used the Gregorian Calendar two hundred years earlier than it
> actually did.
> >> >> Besides, here is a coincidence using accurate dates.
> >> >>
> >> >> E.VERE's death date: 24th June 1604.
> >> >> Thomas Larque's birth date: 24th June 1973.
> >> > Is Baker the only other hlas member over 50 (besides me)?
The real question is: does anyone else (besides Art's "Clueless
Cretin" persona) have an I.Q. under 50?
It's most amusing to read anti-Stratfordians kvetching about how the
present generation will have to die off before The Truth is generally
accepted, when their "Stratfordian" interlocutors are often much
younger than they are! However, Art and Baker both serve as confirming
instances of the old adage: "There's no fool like an old fool."
> >> This is one of the reasons that I am so amused when Anti-Strats on
> >> this group claim that Stratfordianism is going to die out with the
> >> older generation. As this newsgroup demonstrates there are many more
> >> young Stratfordians than young Anti-Stratfordians, and if any system
> >> is going to decline into old age it is Oxfordianism (which could well
> >> follow Baconianism into disrepute and unfashionable isolation).
It's *already* in disrepute. However, there are still enough
Oxfordian hangers-on for what Dave Kathman once characterized as a
"circle jerk on Phaeton."
> > We aint dead yet & the History Today article got published in Britain.
> The Baconians were getting just as much mainstream publicity a century
> ago. Now they are very sadly trailing in the Authorship race.
But Elizabeth Weir is poised to reverse that trend!
> >> >> You have previously claimed that this coincidence is somehow less
> >> >> significant than the many that you dredge up because there are quite a
> >> >> lot of Stratfordians and one of them is bound to have been born on
> >> >> Vere's death date. This is inaccurate reasoning since in the first
> >> >> place there are far fewer than 365 prominent Stratfordians on this
> >> >> newsgroup,
> >> > Are there *any* prominent Stratfordians on this newsgroup?
> >> I meant prominent among the participants to this newsgroup, but there
> >> is - of course - Dave Kathman, who publishes widely on Shakespearean
> >> issues, is one of the foremost Stratfordian commentators on Authorship
> >> issues, and who warrants a footnote in a modern biography of
> >> Shakespeare (see Honan).
> > A whole footnote!!!!
Of course, that's *far* more than Art would ever merit. In any
case, Dave Kathman's contributions to the DNB have been noted
elsewhere.
> >> I'm not prominent in this respect, but my
> >> reviews are published in the "Shakespeare Bulletin" and I am hoping to
> >> get a footnote mention in Gary Taylor's forthcoming edition of John
> >> Fletcher's "The Tamer Tamed", although I may be disappointed.
> > A whole footnote!!!!
Of course, that's *far* more than Art would ever merit -- although
if Martin Gardner had planned to write other books on bizarre
delusions, I had hoped to interest him in a whole chapter on Art.
> Let us know when you get mentioned in any Renaissance related texts
> published by respected academics, Art. We might have a long wait for
> even a footnote.
> >> > [Note: _Hamlet_ is 3650 lines long (in the First Folio)]
> >> Where did you get that from Art? Your source, assuming you are not
> >> just making it up, apparently uses a different counting method from
> >> the Hinman edited Norton Facsimile which counts just over 3900 lines.
> > Well, even I make mistakes from time to time. :-)
*All* the time! Sometimes several in a single sentence.
> Have you ever actually got anything right?
The only such occasion I can recall offhand is that Art realized how
absolutely demented Baker's supposed "solution" of Fermat's Last
Theorem was. However, as though realizing that he had stepped outside
his "Clueless Cretin" persona, Art then returned to character and
demonstrated his own mathematical acumen when he soberly informed us of
the momentous significance of the number 19 -- it seems that 19 is both
the sum of two consecutive integers and the difference of their
squares. Art apparently did not check that *all* odd natural numbers
possess this same mystical property. Art never checks *anything*, so
it's no wonder that he's attracted to the "scholarship" of those who
employ the same methods.
David Webb
AllenGaryK
>> Kathman's point? What exactly is Kathman's point?
>
>That Richard Kennedy is a poop-head. It seems a perfectly valid point
>to be making in a post to HLAS. Do you not think that Richard Kennedy
>is a poop-head? I'm sure most other people would agree with that
>description of him.
>
Rampant poopery
Obvious to all who read
'Las, the Loons lag long
G.
David L. Webb
Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> Hey, Dave Kathman isn't the only prominent Stratfordian posting to
> HLAS!
Sorry, Bob, but you don't qualify: Dr. Stritmatter exposed you over
a year ago as a card-carrying member of the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
(Actually, "card-carrying" may not be strictly accurate -- for all I
know, perhaps the S.O.S. distributes Secret Decoder Rings rather than
membership cards.)
In fact, Dr. Stritmatter fingered you as a spy, who had joined
"...just so he could serve as a 'conduit' to this little group who took
it upon themselves to moniter [sic] cyberspace...." How it is that Dr.
Stritmatter had any insight whatever concerning your motivations he did
not disclose -- paranormal powers, perhaps?
I guess that groups like the SOS and Phaeton are not open to the
curious and open-minded, but are the exclusive turf of the True
BelieVER -- Dr. Stritmatter made it sound as though one would be
unwelcome to join if one were actuated by mere curiosity and the spirit
of inquiry, and that one might first have to affirm (by means of a
loyalty oath of some sort) that one *already* believed the theory that
the SOS is presumably trying to convince people is correct! Of course,
Oxfordians are wise to be chary of scrutiny, a scrutiny that their
"scholarship" does not withstand, so perhaps that circumstance accounts
for their wariness.
> I'll have you know that I have been published in the Spear-Shaker!
> What other Stratfordian can make THAT claim!?!?
Congratulations! Is there a URL for the piece?
> And, until my
> recent nervous breakdown, I was fourth in command of the American
> Wing of . . . The Trust.
Don't feel bad, Bob -- I think that the revenues recovered from the
Trust's recent downsizing have gone into employing people like PWDBard,
Mr. Streitz, Elizabeth Weir, etc. -- people who make anti-Stratfordians
look utterly ridiculous. I feel sure that, after a little retrenching,
the Grand Master will restore you to your formerly exalted status. Now
that Stephanie Caruana is no longer on the payroll, there must surely
be funds available, and you should get that promotion soon.
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> It's most amusing to read anti-Stratfordians kvetching about how the
> present generation will have to die off before The Truth is generally
> accepted, when their "Stratfordian" interlocutors are often much
> younger than they are! However, Art and Baker both serve as confirming
> instances of the old adage: "There's no fool like an old fool."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genial hosts Art & Baker filled viewers requests
for the unusual regardless of what or where it was.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.encorehomevideo.com/tv/variety1.html
YOU ASKED FOR IT Vol.1 #1
1951 ABC. Kinescope. Television's greatest all - time
request show Here is the first ABC Network show from
September 10,1951 in the still primitive days of live TV.
Genial host Art Baker filled viewers requests for the
unusual regardless of what or where it was. He also
admits on the air he is nervous. The Skippy commercials
are unbelievable.
On the show a million dollars is displayed, a pop singer,
Hollywood stuntmen and Jackie Coogan reminiscing
about his movie career.
In show #32, also from 1951, a champion log chopper and
an interview with Lon Chaney Jr. about his famous dad.
YOU ASKED FOR IT VOLUME 2. Television's greatest all time request show,
complete with Skippy Peanut Butter
commercials. Art Baker is your host. In the first selection, watch a man
catch bullet in his teeth, see a monkey & the organ grinder, view a duel
by Japanese Kendo Swordsmen, discover how sound effects are made on the
radio, and watch the founders of the Ice Follies perform their famous
act. The next show features a woman body builder, an authentic Spanish
gypsy dancer, the famous ventriloquist Lester the Great, and cowboy star
Whip Wilson performing his famous whip act.
http://www.classicthemes.com/50sTVThemes/themePages/youAskedForIt.html
[original title: "The Art Baker Show";
re-run title: "You Asked For It Again"]
[this was nearly identical in format to a short-lived NBC series
called "I'd Like To See" (1948 - 1949)]
(DuMont Primetime, 1950 - 1951, with host Art Baker;
ABC Primetime, 1951 - 1959, with hosts Art Baker & Jack Smith;
Syndicated, 1971 - 1977, with host Jack Smith;
Syndicated, 1981 - 1983, with host Rich Little)
YOU ASKED FOR IT - Art Baker hosts this installment of the
fondly remembered Dumont series, in which audience letters
requesting unusual events and stunts were honored each week
before the camera. In this program, a movie stuntman attempts
something never done before, a leap over a house in a car,
which ends in near-disaster as he hits the ramp too fast and
overshoots his mark; caricaturist Jack Lane demonstrates how
the letters in peoples' names (Harry Truman etc.) can be used
in drawings of their faces; the Ravenswood Jumping Jacks, a
team of young gymnasts from Ravenswood, California,
demonstrates their abilities on the trampoline; a judo expert
and a swordsman go hand-to-steel; a team of survival experts
recount their 14-day trek into the wilderness on film; and a man
wrestles a very large chimpanzee. Skippy was the sponsor for
You Asked For It, and is plugged several times during the
show.
> > >> This is one of the reasons that I am so amused when Anti-Strats on
> > >> this group claim that Stratfordianism is going to die out with the
> > >> older generation. As this newsgroup demonstrates there are many more
> > >> young Stratfordians than young Anti-Stratfordians, and if any system
> > >> is going to decline into old age it is Oxfordianism (which could well
> > >> follow Baconianism into disrepute and unfashionable isolation).
>
> It's *already* in disrepute. However, there are still enough
> Oxfordian hangers-on for what Dave Kathman once characterized as a
> "circle jerk on Phaeton."
---------------------------------------------
http://student.vub.ac.be/~tomderay/CIRCLE.HTM
<<The circle jerks are an old school(whatever that may mean) punk band.
I guess they started just after 1977 or something. The members of the
band in 1980 were:
vocals: Keith Morris
guitar: Greg Hetson
drums: Lucky Lehrer
bass: Roger Rogerson
In 1983 or something,the band changed their drummer and John Ingram
joined in.
---------------------------------------------------------
KENT/INQUISITION The witnesses were:
Ingram ffrysar, late of London, Gentleman
Nicholas Skeres, late of London, Gentleman
Robert Poley of London aforesaid, Gentleman
& the said Christopher Morley then lying upon a bed in the room where
they supped, & moved with anger against the said Ingram ffrysar upon the
words aforesaid spoken between them, and the said Ingram then & there
sitting in the room aforesaid with his back towards the bed where the
said Christopher Morley was then lying, sitting near the bed, that is,
*nere the bed*, & with the front part of his body towards the table &
the aforesaid Nicholas Skeres & Robert Poley sitting on either side of
the said Ingram in such a manner that the same Ingram ffrysar in no wise
could take flight;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > We aint dead yet & the History Today article got published in Britain.
>
> > The Baconians were getting just as much mainstream publicity a century
> > ago. Now they are very sadly trailing in the Authorship race.
>
> But Elizabeth Weir is poised to reverse that trend!
> > >> I meant prominent among the participants to this newsgroup, but there
> > >> is - of course - Dave Kathman, who publishes widely on Shakespearean
> > >> issues, is one of the foremost Stratfordian commentators on Authorship
> > >> issues, and who warrants a footnote in a modern biography of
> > >> Shakespeare (see Honan).
>
> > > A whole footnote!!!!
>
> Of course, that's *far* more than Art would ever merit. In any
> case, Dave Kathman's contributions to the DNB have been noted
> elsewhere.
Bob Grumman wrote:
<<In the latest issue of the Oxford Shakespeare Newsletter, Stritmatter
presents a preposterous way of getting the extra "i" into the Henry
Peacham motto that Peter Dickson and other nuts think is an anagram for
"Eddy wuz here," or something, and cites Professor Neuendorffer as a
source of one of his main ideas.>>
> > >> I'm not prominent in this respect, but my
> > >> reviews are published in the "Shakespeare Bulletin" and I am hoping to
> > >> get a footnote mention in Gary Taylor's forthcoming edition of John
> > >> Fletcher's "The Tamer Tamed", although I may be disappointed.
>
> > > A whole footnote!!!!
>
> Of course, that's *far* more than Art would ever merit -- although
> if Martin Gardner had planned to write other books on bizarre
> delusions, I had hoped to interest him in a whole chapter on Art.
Did you ever meet Martin Gardner, Dave?
Whole books have been written on Art.
700 The Arts
710 Civic & landscape art
760 Graphic arts
790 Performing arts & Sports
790 Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
>> And of course Michell, who has not looked at any original
>> documentation, is *so* reliable, isn't he Art? That couldn't be a
>> misprint or typing error by any chance?
>
> Looney gives April 2 as I recall.
You don't recall all that well, Art. Looney's only reference to
Oxford's birth that I can find in my accurate copy of his original
edition (as opposed to the various editions published by an Oxfordian,
was it Eva Turner Clarke?, who heavily rewrote Oxford's material
without acknowledgement of the fact) does not give a month or day at
all. Simply:
"Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, was born at Earl's Colne
in Essex, in the year 1550 ..." (p. 190).
You really aren't doing very well on accuracy at the moment Art.
>> > My feeling is that April 12 (Gregorian) date was pushed to help
>> >legitimize the Margery Golding marriage situation
Margery Golding married John de Vere on 1st August 1548. A full year
and eight months before Edward de Vere was born. This being the case
how would the suggestion that they had sex ten days later than they
actually did help to "legitimise the Margery Golding marriage
situation"? Even if ten days made a difference to the legitimacy of
the de Vere marriage, which it doesn't, this would do nothing to prove
that de Vere had not married "Mistress Dorothy" in 1547, when he had
the Banns called twice in preparation for marriage to her.
Furthermore a ten day premature baby could survive even in the
Renaissance period, and nobody would have been impressed by the fact
that a baby had been born ten days earlier - which would prove nothing
about when the de Vere's conceived the child, when they married, or
any other issue regarding de Vere's legitimacy. Finally, why give a
false date based on a fantasy Calendar system that nobody was to use
for another thirty years in order to lose ten days, when you can
simply lie and thereby lose thirty, fifty, or a hundred days pretty
much as you feel like it? Your theory is rather desperate horse
manure, Art. However much you wriggle it should be obvious to
everybody else that a) you got de Vere's birthdate wrong and b) you
have no idea about the Gregorian Calendar, when it was introduced or
how it worked.
>> > but that the April 2
>> >date was used later to get Oxford into the House of Lords .
He was so impatient that he couldn't wait an extra ten days? I know a
week is supposed to be a long time in politics, but that is getting
ridiculous. Besides, Michell's rather obvious misprint aside you have
not presented any evidence at all that Oxford or anybody connected to
him ever claimed that his birthdate was April 2nd at all. Sheer
fantasy may be enough for a lunatic Oxfordian, but it isn't enough for
anybody who expects history to be based on the historical record.
>> So please provide us with the piece of documentation that Michell used
>> to justify his "1550 2 April. Born". You'll find that there isn't
>> one. Nobody in the Renaissance gave Oxford's date of birth as the
>> 2nd. The only record that we have gave it as the 12th, and it was -
>> of course - an English record using the English Calendar (i.e. - the
>> Julian one) since the Gregorian Calendar was not to be used in England
>> for another two hundred years.
>
> April 2 is based primarily on the date when Oxford reached majority.
From Ward: "He took his seat on April 2nd, 1571, when Parliament was
opened by the Queen, although he did not actually come of age till
April 12th" (p. 351).
>> Just a small additional point, Art. NOBODY used the Gregorian
>> Calendar at all until 1582 when Pope Gregory first introduced the
>> Calendar in Catholic Europe. This means that it is completely
>> impossible that a 1550 record, such as Oxford's birthdate, was written
>> using a Calendar that HADN'T YET BEEN INVENTED.
>
> It had been invented, alright - it just hadn't been implemented.
Erm ... no, actually Art. Pope Gregory was offered a variety of
Calendar options. The one he chose was invented by Christopherus
Clavius who was *born* in 1537 or 1538, and was thus about twelve
years old when Oxford was born. Rather obviously he had not devised
the Gregorian Calendar by this time.
> In any event all intelligent people new that the "true" astronomical
>calendar was ten days past the legal calendar.
Want to show us an example of somebody celebrating their birthday on
the " 'true' astronomical calendar" date (ten days away from their
real birthday, using the right date with the wrong calendar or
alternatively the wrong date with the right calendar) prior to the
introduction of the Gregorian Calendar, Art? Of course I realise
looking for evidence is not nearly as much fun as talking crap, so you
won't bother.
Anybody dating their birth by either system would celebrate it on the
*same day* anyway, but would call it by different names. Only the
idiotic Baker system suggests that if a date is 12th April by the
Julian system and 22nd April by the Gregorian system then that person
can celebrate their birthday on any of the Julian dates 2nd April,
12th April, 22nd April, or all three simultaneously. In the real
world people used one Calendar or the other not a weird random
combination of the two.
>> >> And both of the dates that you list, assuming an English source
>> >> for your quotation, should be given by the Julian Calendar (the
>> >> Gregorian was not introduced in Britain until 1752) so they are
>> >> unquestionably ten days apart.
>> >
>> > Everyone knew what the "true" astronomical date was long before the
>> >Gregorian calendar was accepted. George Washington's Birthday is
>> >celebrated on Feb. 22 even though his was born on Feb. 12.
>>
>> You aren't very bright, are you Art?
>
> In the far infra-red I am.
> (I'm well infra-red.)
>
>> Washington lived from 1732 to 1799.
>> The English adopted the Gregorian Calendar in 1752 and
>> presumably took their American Colonies into the new system with them.
>> This happened when Washington was about 20 years old. At that point,
>> like many people, he probably switched the celebrations of his
>> birthday from February 12th (which was never again to occur exactly a
>> year after his original birthday) to the Gregorian February 22nd so
>> that he was genuinely celebrating the anniversary of his birth.
>
><<Actually [Washington] was born February 11, 1732, near Bridges Creek,
So you got it wrong AGAIN, Art. You seem to be making a habit of
this. Of course, by the time the English adopted the Gregorian
Calendar another day had gone missing so they moved forward by 11
days, rather than the original 10.
>on an estate later called Wakefield, in Westmoreland County, Virginia,
>about forty miles south of Mount Vernon. The first public celebration
>[of Washington's birthday], of which there is record, was at Valley
>Forge, February 22, 1778, when Proctor's Continental Artillery band
>serenaded Washington. The first public celebration as a holiday was by
>order of Comte Rochambeau, February 12, 1781, when the French Army in
>Rhode Island was granted a holiday on that day, Monday. February 11th,
>1781, Washington's birthday by the Julian Calendar, happened to fall on
>Sunday.>> -- http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/faq/
Which meshes fairly well with what I said. Washington celebrated his
birthday on the Gregorian date because the Gregorian Calendar had come
in. He did not celebrate his birthday on Julian date February 22nd
*before* this happened.
>> He
>> became President in 1787, 35 years after the change to the Gregorian
>> Calendar, and presumably while in Office only ever celebrated his
>> birthday on the 22nd February. This, therefore, is the date on which
>> Washington's birthday is celebrated to this day.
>>
>> If you think that Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true'
>> astronomical date" of February 22nd *before* the Calendar changed in
>> 1752, then please post some evidence for this assertion. Otherwise
>> you are siimply conning yourself into believing nonsense (something
>> which is a bit of a habit for an Oxfordian, naturally).
>
> Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical date"
>of February 22nd both before & after the Calendar changed in 1752. Comte
>Rochambeau celebrated his birthday on Monday February 12, 1781.
Oh look, no evidence for the proposition that Washington celebrated
his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical date" of (Julian) February
22nd before the Gregorian Calendar was introduced. Keep up the bad
work, Art. Otherwise people might mistake you for somebody with a
real argument.
>> >> Only by the idiotic Baker system can two days be said to be the same
>> >> day when they are ten days apart despite both being recorded using the
>> >> same calendar system. Only by the idiotic Baker system does this make
>> >> 2nd April, 12th April, and 22nd April all the same day, despite the
>> >> fact that even the Julian/Gregorian Calendar cheat should only allow
>> >> one to move in one direction.
>> >
>> > Only by the idiotic Baker system can we celebrate Washington's birthday
>> >on Feb. 22 when he was born on Feb. 12.
>>
>> Washington, unlike de Vere, lived through the change in the Calendars,
>> and after 1752 clearly celebrated his birthday by the Gregorian
>> Calendar date.
>
> De Vere lived through the change in the Calendars; it just didn't
>occur in England.
And so did not affect the recording of English dates in English
records. Anyway, Oxford was thirty-two when Catholic Europe began to
adopt the Gregorian Calendar. By this time he had entered the House
of Lords (1571) and fought off the claim of his illegitimacy (last
mentioned in the Earl's lifetime in 1576 by Burghley). Thus the two
events that you claim motivated his foolish and dishonest misuse of
the Gregorian Calendar to pretend that he had been born ten days early
happened *before* the Gregorian Calendar existed.
>> Feel free to give us any evidence that you have for
>> the HSS manuscripts listing Oxford's birthdate as 12th April being
>> written at a time when England was using the Gregorian Calendar. I'm
>> sure if Stephanie can move Caxton's life history around by a hundred
>> years at a time, it won't take much Oxfordian cheating to show that
>> England used the Gregorian Calendar two hundred years earlier than it
>> actually did.
>
> There might well have been good reasons for claiming a late April 12
>birthdate some times (such as during the Windsor trial):
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>In 1563, Baron Windsor (husband of Oxford's step sister Catherine)
>challenged the validity of John de Vere's (August 1548) marriage to
>Edward de Vere's mother (Margery Golding). Windsor lost the legal
>battle BUT he did succeed in smearing young EDward's good name.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
As I've pointed out, this marriage took place a year and eight months
before Oxford was born. Having had sex ten days later would not
exactly prove anything about the legitimacy of the marriage or of
Oxford himself, even if you pretend that the exact date of conception
can be unerringly worked out from the date of the birth in any case.
>while claiming an earlier April 2 birthdate at others (assuming
>majority).
And nobody pointed out that the Earl's birthday kept shifting
backwards and forwards. I wonder why.
>> The Baconians were getting just as much mainstream publicity a century
>> ago. Now they are very sadly trailing in the Authorship race.
>
> These things take time, Tom.
Time you haven't got, Mr. Neundorffer.
>> Let us know when you get mentioned in any Renaissance related texts
>> published by respected academics, Art. We might have a long wait for
>> even a footnote.
>
>Bob Grumman wrote:
>
><<In the latest issue of the Oxford Shakespeare Newsletter, Stritmatter
>presents a preposterous way of getting the extra "i" into the Henry
>Peacham motto that Peter Dickson and other nuts think is an anagram for
>"Eddy wuz here," or something, and cites Professor Neuendorffer as a
>source of one of his main ideas.>>
Looks like you missed the "respected academic" bit, Art. Besides both
Dave Kathman and myself have our *own* work published in journals.
You, apparently, just warrant a "cite" in a rather insignificant and
non-academic magazine. Of course I forgot to mention that Dave is
Assistant Editor of the Variorum Poems. Something else that makes him
quite a prominent Shakespearean.
Thomas.
P.S - My spellcheck wanted me to use "Neanderthal" rather than
Neundorffer. I rather like that suggestion.
Thomas Larque
>> as Oxford's bastard son being fathered on the unmarried Anne Vavasour
>> while he was married to Anne Cecil. Vavasour's son was unquestionably
>> a bastard who had no formal connection between his mother and father
>> by marriage at all.
>
> Oxford was estranged from his wife and possibly seeking an annulment
>when Vavasour gave birth.
And what does that change, Art? Vavasour's son still had no
legitimate father and was obviously and unquestionably a bastard.
>> To view Vavasour's son as a "backup heir" rather
>> than an unpossessing illegitimate byblow with no claims to the Oxford
>> lands or title is to go far beyond any evidence of such inheritances
>> in the Elizabethan and Jacobean period. Again, I ask you to show us
>> the evidence of any Earldom in the Elizabethan and Jacobean period
>> being inherited by such a "backup heir" rather than reversing up the
>> male line of inheritance until it meets a suitable legitimate male
>> heir.
>
> It is hardly a high priority for me.
Yes. I can imagine. It is much more fun for you to make false
statements without justification than to look things up, right Art?
Thomas Larque
>>> than an unpossessing illegitimate byblow with no claims to the Oxford
>>> lands or title is to go far beyond any evidence of such inheritances
>>> in the Elizabethan and Jacobean period. Again, I ask you to show us
>>> the evidence of any Earldom in the Elizabethan and Jacobean period
>>> being inherited by such a "backup heir" rather than reversing up the
>>> male line of inheritance until it meets a suitable legitimate male
>>> heir.
>>
>> It is hardly a high priority for me.
>
>Yes. I can imagine. It is much more fun for you to make false
>statements without justification than to look things up, right Art?
Doing the research that Art should be doing for himself, the nearest
that I can come up with to the bastard son of an Earl inheriting the
Earl's title is the story of Sir Robert Dudley, son of Robert Dudley -
Earl of Leicester.
The younger Robert Dudley was the son of an "unacknowledged marriage"
between his father and Lady Douglas Sheffield. At least some
historians consider both this marriage and Robert himself to have been
legitimate. However:
"As for his illegitimate son Sir Robert Dudley, he called him his
'base son', and didn't mention him in his will either. Letitia finally
gave him a legitimate son, also named Robert, but he died before his
first birthday.
Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, never left England. He died in
Warwick England on 4 September 1588, and was buried there. Upon his
death, his illegitimate son Sir Robert petitioned for his fathers'
property and rights, but was refused."
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/8388/robdesc.html
This looks like the perfect opportunity for a "backup heir" to inherit
his father's title. But no. Leicester did not mention his, possibly
legitimate, son in his will, and because Robert Dudley was considered
illegitimate he was refused his father's title. It looks like there
were no suitable legitimate male heirs as the title promptly went
extinct.
Looks like Art's "backup heirs" are nothing more than a fantasy.
Neuendorffer
>
> >> So please provide us with the piece of documentation that Michell used
> >> to justify his "1550 2 April. Born". You'll find that there isn't
> >> one. Nobody in the Renaissance gave Oxford's date of birth as the
> >> 2nd. The only record that we have gave it as the 12th, and it was -
> >> of course - an English record using the English Calendar (i.e. - the
> >> Julian one) since the Gregorian Calendar was not to be used in England
> >> for another two hundred years.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > April 2 is based primarily on the date when Oxford reached majority.
Larque wrote:
> From Ward: "He took his seat on April 2nd, 1571, when Parliament was
> opened by the Queen, although he did not actually come of age till
> April 12th" (p. 351).
Well there you go! Would you prefer:
---------------------------------------------------------------
A letter from Capt. Gulliver, to his Cousin Sympson:
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<And besides the Fact was altogether false; for to my Knowledge, being
in England during some Part of her Majesty's Reign, she did govern by a
chief Minister; nay, even by two successively; the first whereof was the
Lord of Godolphin, and the second the Lord of OXFORD; SO THAT YOU HAVE
MADE ME SAY THE THING THAT WAS NOT.>>
<< I have now done with all visionary Schemes for EVER.
April 2, 1727.>>
Oxford took his seat in Parliament: April 2, 1571
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Just a small additional point, Art. NOBODY used the Gregorian
> >> Calendar at all until 1582 when Pope Gregory first introduced the
> >> Calendar in Catholic Europe. This means that it is completely
> >> impossible that a 1550 record, such as Oxford's birthdate, was
> >> written using a Calendar that HADN'T YET BEEN INVENTED.
> >
> > It had been invented, alright - it just hadn't been implemented.
>
> Erm ... no, actually Art. Pope Gregory was offered a variety of
> Calendar options. The one he chose was invented by Christopherus
> Clavius who was *born* in 1537 or 1538, and was thus about twelve
> years old when Oxford was born. Rather obviously he had not devised
> the Gregorian Calendar by this time.
Ideas for correcting the calendar went back to Roger Bacon's day;
surely Clavius simply adopted a calendar that had already been thought
up long before then. In any event:
> > all intelligent people new that the "true" astronomical
> > calendar was ten days past the legal calendar.
>
> Want to show us an example of somebody celebrating their birthday on
> the " 'true' astronomical calendar" date (ten days away from their
> real birthday, using the right date with the wrong calendar or
> alternatively the wrong date with the right calendar) prior to the
> introduction of the Gregorian Calendar, Art?
Oxford was my example.
> Anybody dating their birth by either system would celebrate it on the
> *same day* anyway, but would call it by different names. Only the
> idiotic Baker system suggests that if a date is 12th April by the
> Julian system and 22nd April by the Gregorian system then that person
> can celebrate their birthday on any of the Julian dates 2nd April,
> 12th April, 22nd April, or all three simultaneously. In the real
> world people used one Calendar or the other not a weird random
> combination of the two.
The real world used a weird combination of calendars right up to the
20th Century. They didn't even know when to celebrate the 21st Century.
> >> Washington lived from 1732 to 1799.
> >> The English adopted the Gregorian Calendar in 1752 and
> >> presumably took their American Colonies into the new system with them.
> >> This happened when Washington was about 20 years old. At that point,
> >> like many people, he probably switched the celebrations of his
> >> birthday from February 12th (which was never again to occur exactly a
> >> year after his original birthday) to the Gregorian February 22nd so
> >> that he was genuinely celebrating the anniversary of his birth.
> >
> ><<Actually [Washington] was born February 11, 1732, near Bridges Creek,
>
> So you got it wrong AGAIN, Art.
So you missed a golden opportunity to catch me at it, Tom.
> >on an estate later called Wakefield, in Westmoreland County, Virginia,
> >about forty miles south of Mount Vernon. The first public celebration
> >[of Washington's birthday], of which there is record, was at Valley
> >Forge, February 22, 1778, when Proctor's Continental Artillery band
> >serenaded Washington. The first public celebration as a holiday was by
> >order of Comte Rochambeau, February 12, 1781, when the French Army in
> >Rhode Island was granted a holiday on that day, Monday. February 11th,
> >1781, Washington's birthday by the Julian Calendar, happened to fall on
> >Sunday.>> -- http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/faq/
>
> Which meshes fairly well with what I said. Washington celebrated his
> birthday on the Gregorian date because the Gregorian Calendar had come
> in. He did not celebrate his birthday on Julian date February 22nd
> *before* this happened.
Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical
calendar" date - he didn't much care if it was called February 11 or
February 22.
Oxford celebrated his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical calendar"
date - he didn't much care if it was called February 2 or February 12.
> >> He
> >> became President in 1787, 35 years after the change to the Gregorian
> >> Calendar, and presumably while in Office only ever celebrated his
> >> birthday on the 22nd February. This, therefore, is the date on which
> >> Washington's birthday is celebrated to this day.
> >>
> >> If you think that Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true'
> >> astronomical date" of February 22nd *before* the Calendar changed in
> >> 1752, then please post some evidence for this assertion. Otherwise
> >> you are siimply conning yourself into believing nonsense (something
> >> which is a bit of a habit for an Oxfordian, naturally).
> >
> > Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical date"
> >of February 22nd both before & after the Calendar changed in 1752. Comte
> >Rochambeau celebrated his birthday on Monday February 12, 1781.
>
> Oh look, no evidence for the proposition that Washington celebrated
> his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical date" of (Julian) February
> 22nd before the Gregorian Calendar was introduced. Keep up the bad
> work, Art. Otherwise people might mistake you for somebody with a
> real argument.
I never said he celebrated his birthday on Feb. 22 (Julian) - just
that if it was convenient he could always claim that he was born on
February 22 without lying. Just like Jonson & Digges could insinuate
that the Stratman was author of Shake-speare without actually lying.
> >> Washington, unlike de Vere, lived through the change in the Calendars,
> >> and after 1752 clearly celebrated his birthday by the Gregorian
> >> Calendar date.
> >
> > De Vere lived through the change in the Calendars; it just didn't
> >occur in England.
>
> And so did not affect the recording of English dates in English
> records.
I affected the recording of Shakespeare's death: April 23, 1616
(Gregorian) - same as Cervantes.
> Anyway, Oxford was thirty-two when Catholic Europe began to
> adopt the Gregorian Calendar. By this time he had entered the House
> of Lords (1571) and fought off the claim of his illegitimacy (last
> mentioned in the Earl's lifetime in 1576 by Burghley). Thus the two
> events that you claim motivated his foolish and dishonest misuse of
> the Gregorian Calendar to pretend that he had been born ten days early
> happened *before* the Gregorian Calendar existed.
He wasn't dishonest about the House of Lords; that was April 2, 1571
(Julian) [his 21st birthday in my opinion].
> >> Feel free to give us any evidence that you have for
> >> the HSS manuscripts listing Oxford's birthdate as 12th April being
> >> written at a time when England was using the Gregorian Calendar. I'm
> >> sure if Stephanie can move Caxton's life history around by a hundred
> >> years at a time, it won't take much Oxfordian cheating to show that
> >> England used the Gregorian Calendar two hundred years earlier than it
> >> actually did.
> >
> > There might well have been good reasons for claiming a late April 12
> >birthdate some times (such as during the Windsor trial):
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >In 1563, Baron Windsor (husband of Oxford's step sister Catherine)
> >challenged the validity of John de Vere's (August 1548) marriage to
> >Edward de Vere's mother (Margery Golding). Windsor lost the legal
> >battle BUT he did succeed in smearing young EDward's good name.
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As I've pointed out, this marriage took place a year and eight months
> before Oxford was born. Having had sex ten days later would not
> exactly prove anything about the legitimacy of the marriage or of
> Oxford himself, even if you pretend that the exact date of conception
> can be unerringly worked out from the date of the birth in any case.
I could be wrong about this - I wasn't personally there.
> >while claiming an earlier April 2 birthdate at others (assuming
> >majority).
>
> And nobody pointed out that the Earl's birthday kept shifting
> backwards and forwards. I wonder why.
Where are Howard & Arundel when you really need them.
> >> The Baconians were getting just as much mainstream publicity a century
> >> ago. Now they are very sadly trailing in the Authorship race.
> >
> > These things take time, Tom.
>
> Time you haven't got, Mr. Neundorffer.
Is that a threat, Mr. Larque?
Tom Reedy's comment (i.e., "It pains me to see someone waste their
*remaining years* in this manner.") has made me a little nervous.
> >> Let us know when you get mentioned in any Renaissance related texts
> >> published by respected academics, Art. We might have a long wait for
> >> even a footnote.
> >
> >Bob Grumman wrote:
> >
> ><<In the latest issue of the Oxford Shakespeare Newsletter, Stritmatter
> >presents a preposterous way of getting the extra "i" into the Henry
> >Peacham motto that Peter Dickson and other nuts think is an anagram for
> >"Eddy wuz here," or something, and cites Professor Neuendorffer as a
> >source of one of his main ideas.>>
>
> Looks like you missed the "respected academic" bit, Art.
When I aim at a "respected academic" I usually don't miss.
> Besides both
> Dave Kathman and myself have our *own* work published in journals.
> You, apparently, just warrant a "cite" in a rather insignificant and
> non-academic magazine. Of course I forgot to mention that Dave is
> Assistant Editor of the Variorum Poems.
Well that explains how he got published.
> P.S - My spellcheck wanted me to use "Neanderthal" rather than
> Neundorffer. I rather like that suggestion.
Me too:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Who Were the Neandertals? by Shireen Gonzaga
http://earthsky.com/Features/Articles/neandertals.html
<<The Neandertals were a people who lived in Europe and the
Middle East from 230,000 to 30,000 years ago. Some were
cave dwellers, while others lived in open-air camps. They
used fire, and made primitive tools from stone and wood.
For food, they foraged for edible plants and hunted
animals. Neandertals lived in small communities where they
cared for their young, old, and infirm; upon death, some
were buried by their surviving kin in graves.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/fl-compl.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~kebara/referencelinks.html
NEANDERTHAL FLUTE
Oldest Musical Instrument's 4 Notes
Matches 4 of Do, Re, Mi Scale
<<These three notes on the Neanderthal bone flute are inescapably
diatonic and will sound like a near-perfect fit within ANY kind of
standard diatonic scale, modern or antique. We simply cannot conceive of
it being otherwise, unless we deny it is a flute at all.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/shakes/beth.htm
<<Soon after undertaking his quest for the true author of
Shakespeare's works, Looney turned to the Dictionary of
National Biography, where he read:
"Oxford, despite his violent and perverse temper,
his eccentric taste in dress, and his reckless waste
of his substance, evinced a genuine interest in
music, and wrote verses of much lyric beauty.
Puttenham and Meres reckon him among 'the
best for comedy' in his day; but, although he was
a patron of players, no specimens of his dramatic
productions survive." - Sir Sidney Lee
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
>
> >> So please provide us with the piece of documentation that Michell used
> >> to justify his "1550 2 April. Born". You'll find that there isn't
> >> one. Nobody in the Renaissance gave Oxford's date of birth as the
> >> 2nd. The only record that we have gave it as the 12th, and it was -
> >> of course - an English record using the English Calendar (i.e. - the
> >> Julian one) since the Gregorian Calendar was not to be used in England
> >> for another two hundred years.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > April 2 is based primarily on the date when Oxford reached majority.
Larque wrote:
> From Ward: "He took his seat on April 2nd, 1571, when Parliament was
> opened by the Queen, although he did not actually come of age till
> April 12th" (p. 351).
Well there you go! Would you prefer:
---------------------------------------------------------------
A letter from Capt. Gulliver, to his Cousin Sympson:
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<And besides the Fact was altogether false; for to my Knowledge, being
in England during some Part of her Majesty's Reign, she did govern by a
chief Minister; nay, even by two successively; the first whereof was the
Lord of Godolphin, and the second the Lord of OXFORD; SO THAT YOU HAVE
MADE ME SAY THE THING THAT WAS NOT.>>
<< I have now done with all visionary Schemes for EVER.
April 2, 1727.>>
Oxford took his seat in Parliament: April 2, 1571
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Just a small additional point, Art. NOBODY used the Gregorian
> >> Calendar at all until 1582 when Pope Gregory first introduced the
> >> Calendar in Catholic Europe. This means that it is completely
> >> impossible that a 1550 record, such as Oxford's birthdate, was
> >> written using a Calendar that HADN'T YET BEEN INVENTED.
> >
> > It had been invented, alright - it just hadn't been implemented.
>
> Erm ... no, actually Art. Pope Gregory was offered a variety of
> Calendar options. The one he chose was invented by Christopherus
> Clavius who was *born* in 1537 or 1538, and was thus about twelve
> years old when Oxford was born. Rather obviously he had not devised
> the Gregorian Calendar by this time.
Ideas for correcting the calendar went back to Roger Bacon's day;
surely Clavius simply adopted a calendar that had already been thought
up long before then. In any event:
> > all intelligent people knew that the "true" astronomical
> > calendar was ten days past the legal calendar.
>
> Want to show us an example of somebody celebrating their birthday on
> the " 'true' astronomical calendar" date (ten days away from their
> real birthday, using the right date with the wrong calendar or
> alternatively the wrong date with the right calendar) prior to the
> introduction of the Gregorian Calendar, Art?
Oxford was my example.
But now that we have established that he took his seat in Parliament
on April 2, 1571 (Julian) that is OK too. It doesn't have to be his
birthday.
> Anybody dating their birth by either system would celebrate it on the
> *same day* anyway, but would call it by different names. Only the
> idiotic Baker system suggests that if a date is 12th April by the
> Julian system and 22nd April by the Gregorian system then that person
> can celebrate their birthday on any of the Julian dates 2nd April,
> 12th April, 22nd April, or all three simultaneously. In the real
> world people used one Calendar or the other not a weird random
> combination of the two.
The real world used a weird combination of calendars right up to the
20th Century. They didn't even know when to celebrate the 21st Century.
> >> Washington lived from 1732 to 1799.
> >> The English adopted the Gregorian Calendar in 1752 and
> >> presumably took their American Colonies into the new system with them.
> >> This happened when Washington was about 20 years old. At that point,
> >> like many people, he probably switched the celebrations of his
> >> birthday from February 12th (which was never again to occur exactly a
> >> year after his original birthday) to the Gregorian February 22nd so
> >> that he was genuinely celebrating the anniversary of his birth.
> >
> ><<Actually [Washington] was born February 11, 1732, near Bridges Creek,
>
> So you got it wrong AGAIN, Art.
So you missed a golden opportunity to catch me at it, Tom.
> >on an estate later called Wakefield, in Westmoreland County, Virginia,
> >about forty miles south of Mount Vernon. The first public celebration
> >[of Washington's birthday], of which there is record, was at Valley
> >Forge, February 22, 1778, when Proctor's Continental Artillery band
> >serenaded Washington. The first public celebration as a holiday was by
> >order of Comte Rochambeau, February 12, 1781, when the French Army in
> >Rhode Island was granted a holiday on that day, Monday. February 11th,
> >1781, Washington's birthday by the Julian Calendar, happened to fall on
> >Sunday.>> -- http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/faq/
>
> Which meshes fairly well with what I said. Washington celebrated his
> birthday on the Gregorian date because the Gregorian Calendar had come
> in. He did not celebrate his birthday on Julian date February 22nd
> *before* this happened.
Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical
calendar" date - he didn't much care if it was called February 11 or
February 22.
Oxford celebrated his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical calendar"
date - he didn't much care if it was called February 2 or February 12.
> >> He
> >> became President in 1787, 35 years after the change to the Gregorian
> >> Calendar, and presumably while in Office only ever celebrated his
> >> birthday on the 22nd February. This, therefore, is the date on which
> >> Washington's birthday is celebrated to this day.
> >>
> >> If you think that Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true'
> >> astronomical date" of February 22nd *before* the Calendar changed in
> >> 1752, then please post some evidence for this assertion. Otherwise
> >> you are siimply conning yourself into believing nonsense (something
> >> which is a bit of a habit for an Oxfordian, naturally).
> >
> > Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical date"
> >of February 22nd both before & after the Calendar changed in 1752. Comte
> >Rochambeau celebrated his birthday on Monday February 12, 1781.
>
> Oh look, no evidence for the proposition that Washington celebrated
> his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical date" of (Julian) February
> 22nd before the Gregorian Calendar was introduced. Keep up the bad
> work, Art. Otherwise people might mistake you for somebody with a
> real argument.
I never said he celebrated his birthday on Feb. 22 (Julian) - just
that if it was convenient he could always claim that he was born on
February 22 without lying. Just like Jonson & Digges could insinuate
that the Stratman was author of Shake-speare without actually lying.
> >> Washington, unlike de Vere, lived through the change in the Calendars,
> >> and after 1752 clearly celebrated his birthday by the Gregorian
> >> Calendar date.
> >
> > De Vere lived through the change in the Calendars; it just didn't
> >occur in England.
>
> And so did not affect the recording of English dates in English
> records.
It affected the recording of Shakespeare's death:
April 23, 1616 (Gregorian) - same as Cervantes.
> Anyway, Oxford was thirty-two when Catholic Europe began to
> adopt the Gregorian Calendar. By this time he had entered the House
> of Lords (1571) and fought off the claim of his illegitimacy (last
> mentioned in the Earl's lifetime in 1576 by Burghley). Thus the two
> events that you claim motivated his foolish and dishonest misuse of
> the Gregorian Calendar to pretend that he had been born ten days early
> happened *before* the Gregorian Calendar existed.
He wasn't dishonest about the House of Lords; that was
April 2, 1571 (Julian) [his 21st birthday in my opinion].
> >> Feel free to give us any evidence that you have for
> >> the HSS manuscripts listing Oxford's birthdate as 12th April being
> >> written at a time when England was using the Gregorian Calendar. I'm
> >> sure if Stephanie can move Caxton's life history around by a hundred
> >> years at a time, it won't take much Oxfordian cheating to show that
> >> England used the Gregorian Calendar two hundred years earlier than it
> >> actually did.
> >
> > There might well have been good reasons for claiming a late April 12
> >birthdate some times (such as during the Windsor trial):
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >In 1563, Baron Windsor (husband of Oxford's step sister Catherine)
> >challenged the validity of John de Vere's (August 1548) marriage to
> >Edward de Vere's mother (Margery Golding). Windsor lost the legal
> >battle BUT he did succeed in smearing young EDward's good name.
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As I've pointed out, this marriage took place a year and eight months
> before Oxford was born. Having had sex ten days later would not
> exactly prove anything about the legitimacy of the marriage or of
> Oxford himself, even if you pretend that the exact date of conception
> can be unerringly worked out from the date of the birth in any case.
I could be wrong about this - I wasn't personally there.
> >while claiming an earlier April 2 birthdate at others (assuming
> >majority).
>
> And nobody pointed out that the Earl's birthday kept shifting
> backwards and forwards. I wonder why.
Where are Howard & Arundel when you really need them.
> >> The Baconians were getting just as much mainstream publicity a century
> >> ago. Now they are very sadly trailing in the Authorship race.
> >
> > These things take time, Tom.
>
> Time you haven't got, Mr. Neundorffer.
Is that a threat, Mr. Larque?
Tom Reedy's comment (i.e., "It pains me to see someone waste their
*remaining years* in this manner.") has made me a little nervous.
> >> Let us know when you get mentioned in any Renaissance related texts
> >> published by respected academics, Art. We might have a long wait for
> >> even a footnote.
> >
> >Bob Grumman wrote:
> >
> ><<In the latest issue of the Oxford Shakespeare Newsletter, Stritmatter
> >presents a preposterous way of getting the extra "i" into the Henry
> >Peacham motto that Peter Dickson and other nuts think is an anagram for
> >"Eddy wuz here," or something, and cites Professor Neuendorffer as a
> >source of one of his main ideas.>>
>
> Looks like you missed the "respected academic" bit, Art.
When I aim at a "respected academic" I usually don't miss.
> Besides both
> Dave Kathman and myself have our *own* work published in journals.
> You, apparently, just warrant a "cite" in a rather insignificant and
> non-academic magazine. Of course I forgot to mention that Dave is
> Assistant Editor of the Variorum Poems.
Well that explains how he got published.
> P.S - My spellcheck wanted me to use "Neanderthal" rather than
> Neundorffer. I rather like that suggestion.
Me too:
Thomas Larque
>>
>> >> So please provide us with the piece of documentation that Michell used
>> >> to justify his "1550 2 April. Born". You'll find that there isn't
>> >> one. Nobody in the Renaissance gave Oxford's date of birth as the
>> >> 2nd. The only record that we have gave it as the 12th, and it was -
>> >> of course - an English record using the English Calendar (i.e. - the
>> >> Julian one) since the Gregorian Calendar was not to be used in England
>> >> for another two hundred years.
>
>> Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>> > April 2 is based primarily on the date when Oxford reached majority.
>
> Larque wrote:
>
>> From Ward: "He took his seat on April 2nd, 1571, when Parliament was
>> opened by the Queen, although he did not actually come of age till
>> April 12th" (p. 351).
>
> Well there you go! Would you prefer:
It is worth pointing out that the reason that Oxford took his seat in
the House of Lords for the first time on April 2nd, 1571 is because
that is when Elizabeth opened Parliament. She clearly did not open
Parliament on that specific day in order to allow the Earl of Oxford
to take up his seat on the very day of his birthday. Even if we
believe your false suggestion that taking his seat on April 2nd proves
that Oxford had reached his majority (and his 21st Birthday) then it
would suggest that he had done so at any time *before* he took his
seat. It would do nothing whatever to suggest that his birthday took
place on the actual day.
But Gregory was offered a range of different Calendars and nobody
could have known thirty years beforehand which he was going to pick,
nor - in fact - that a formal Calendar change would happen at all.
>In any event:
>
>> > all intelligent people new that the "true" astronomical
>> > calendar was ten days past the legal calendar.
>>
>> Want to show us an example of somebody celebrating their birthday on
>> the " 'true' astronomical calendar" date (ten days away from their
>> real birthday, using the right date with the wrong calendar or
>> alternatively the wrong date with the right calendar) prior to the
>> introduction of the Gregorian Calendar, Art?
>
> Oxford was my example.
Now, Art. You must really deep down in that old declining grey matter
of yours have some idea of the working of proof for Literary and
Historical theories. If your theory has no grounds in established
facts - as, for example, the suggestion that Oxford was born on 2nd
April (Julian - although his birthday was never recorded on this date)
but his birthdate was recorded by the Gregorian Calendar thirty years
before this Calendar was invented and two hundred years before it was
adopted in England - then you can only support this argument by
bringing up parallel examples of such things *actually* happening to
other people. Since you have no evidence that such a thing happened
to Oxford, and no evidence that anybody else, anywhere, ever, used the
Gregorian Calendar to record dates thirty years before the Gregorian
Calendar was invented, you have no argument and are simply speaking
out of your backside.
>> Anybody dating their birth by either system would celebrate it on the
>> *same day* anyway, but would call it by different names. Only the
>> idiotic Baker system suggests that if a date is 12th April by the
>> Julian system and 22nd April by the Gregorian system then that person
>> can celebrate their birthday on any of the Julian dates 2nd April,
>> 12th April, 22nd April, or all three simultaneously. In the real
>> world people used one Calendar or the other not a weird random
>> combination of the two.
>
> The real world used a weird combination of calendars right up to the
>20th Century. They didn't even know when to celebrate the 21st Century.
Which other Calendar were they using, Art? Just because people aren't
bothered by little things like whether there was a year 0 (because
people aren't too bothered by scientific accuracy when planning a big
party) doesn't mean that they celebrated the Millenium ten days before
January 1st 2000, ten days afterwards and on the day itself. Nobody
ever celebrated an event on 12th April (Julian) because that event
took place on 12th April (Gregorian), even *after* the Gregorian
Calendar actually came into existence.
>> >> Washington lived from 1732 to 1799.
>> >> The English adopted the Gregorian Calendar in 1752 and
>> >> presumably took their American Colonies into the new system with them.
>> >> This happened when Washington was about 20 years old. At that point,
>> >> like many people, he probably switched the celebrations of his
>> >> birthday from February 12th (which was never again to occur exactly a
>> >> year after his original birthday) to the Gregorian February 22nd so
>> >> that he was genuinely celebrating the anniversary of his birth.
>> >
>> ><<Actually [Washington] was born February 11, 1732, near Bridges Creek,
>>
>> So you got it wrong AGAIN, Art.
>
> So you missed a golden opportunity to catch me at it, Tom.
Doesn't look like you noticed even when you copied the source out,
Art. Do you read the things you post?
>> >on an estate later called Wakefield, in Westmoreland County, Virginia,
>> >about forty miles south of Mount Vernon. The first public celebration
>> >[of Washington's birthday], of which there is record, was at Valley
>> >Forge, February 22, 1778, when Proctor's Continental Artillery band
>> >serenaded Washington. The first public celebration as a holiday was by
>> >order of Comte Rochambeau, February 12, 1781, when the French Army in
>> >Rhode Island was granted a holiday on that day, Monday. February 11th,
>> >1781, Washington's birthday by the Julian Calendar, happened to fall on
>> >Sunday.>> -- http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/faq/
>>
>> Which meshes fairly well with what I said. Washington celebrated his
>> birthday on the Gregorian date because the Gregorian Calendar had come
>> in. He did not celebrate his birthday on Julian date February 22nd
>> *before* this happened.
>
>Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical
>calendar" date - he didn't much care if it was called February 11 or
>February 22.
If what you call the " 'true' astronomical date" was the corrected
Calendar, then this simply isn't true. Before the Gregorian Calendar
came into existence Washington rather obviously celebrated his
birthday on February 11th (Julian). After the Gregorian Calendar was
introduced it was sometimes celebrated *by other people* on the "
'true' astronomical date" of February 11th (Julian) / February 22nd
(Gregorian) and sometimes on the date that *sounds* right, February
11th (Gregorian) / January 31st (Julian) (although February 11th was
no longer the true anniversary of his birth). This is a rather
obvious reaction to the fact that the Calendars changed in the middle
of Washington's life.
Not once, however, did he celebrate his birthday on the farcical
February 22nd (Julian) / March 2nd (Gregorian) on the thorougly stupid
Bakerish (and now Artish) reasoning that he was born on 22nd February
(Gregorian) and might as well switch this date to the English Calendar
even though he *was not born* on 22nd February (Julian) at all.
>Oxford celebrated his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical calendar"
>date - he didn't much care if it was called February 2 or February 12.
>
>> >> He
>> >> became President in 1787, 35 years after the change to the Gregorian
>> >> Calendar, and presumably while in Office only ever celebrated his
>> >> birthday on the 22nd February. This, therefore, is the date on which
>> >> Washington's birthday is celebrated to this day.
>> >>
>> >> If you think that Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true'
>> >> astronomical date" of February 22nd *before* the Calendar changed in
>> >> 1752, then please post some evidence for this assertion. Otherwise
>> >> you are siimply conning yourself into believing nonsense (something
>> >> which is a bit of a habit for an Oxfordian, naturally).
>> >
>> > Washington celebrated his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical date"
>> >of February 22nd both before & after the Calendar changed in 1752. Comte
>> >Rochambeau celebrated his birthday on Monday February 12, 1781.
>>
>> Oh look, no evidence for the proposition that Washington celebrated
>> his birthday on the " 'true' astronomical date" of (Julian) February
>> 22nd before the Gregorian Calendar was introduced. Keep up the bad
>> work, Art. Otherwise people might mistake you for somebody with a
>> real argument.
>
> I never said he celebrated his birthday on Feb. 22 (Julian) - just
>that if it was convenient he could always claim that he was born on
>February 22 without lying.
Not before the change in Calendars occurred. And in Oxford's case the
Gregorian Calendar did not even *exist*, when you claim that this
happened so he would quite clearly have been lying.
> Just like Jonson & Digges could insinuate
>that the Stratman was author of Shake-speare without actually lying.
>
>> >> Washington, unlike de Vere, lived through the change in the Calendars,
>> >> and after 1752 clearly celebrated his birthday by the Gregorian
>> >> Calendar date.
>> >
>> > De Vere lived through the change in the Calendars; it just didn't
>> >occur in England.
>>
>> And so did not affect the recording of English dates in English
>> records.
>
> I affected the recording of Shakespeare's death: April 23, 1616
>(Gregorian) - same as Cervantes.
The two men died ten days apart, Art. Shakespeare's death was
recorded by the Julian Calendar and Cervantes by the Gregorian. Again
just telling us tall tales because it suits your fantasies doesn't
actually constitute reasoned argument or evidence.
>> Anyway, Oxford was thirty-two when Catholic Europe began to
>> adopt the Gregorian Calendar. By this time he had entered the House
>> of Lords (1571) and fought off the claim of his illegitimacy (last
>> mentioned in the Earl's lifetime in 1576 by Burghley). Thus the two
>> events that you claim motivated his foolish and dishonest misuse of
>> the Gregorian Calendar to pretend that he had been born ten days early
>> happened *before* the Gregorian Calendar existed.
>
> He wasn't dishonest about the House of Lords; that was April 2, 1571
>(Julian) [his 21st birthday in my opinion].
As I've pointed out, this was the first time that Parliament met that
year, so it proves *nothing* about Oxford's birthday. If you insist
that he couldn't have sat in the House of Lords until he was exactly
twenty-one then he could have been born on any day before April 2nd,
but it is no evidence that he was born on April 2nd.
If I have a chance I'll check to see whether any other Lords got to
sit in the House shortly before their twenty-first birthday, although
that might be difficult information to track down.
>> >> Feel free to give us any evidence that you have for
>> >> the HSS manuscripts listing Oxford's birthdate as 12th April being
>> >> written at a time when England was using the Gregorian Calendar. I'm
>> >> sure if Stephanie can move Caxton's life history around by a hundred
>> >> years at a time, it won't take much Oxfordian cheating to show that
>> >> England used the Gregorian Calendar two hundred years earlier than it
>> >> actually did.
>> >
>> > There might well have been good reasons for claiming a late April 12
>> >birthdate some times (such as during the Windsor trial):
>> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >In 1563, Baron Windsor (husband of Oxford's step sister Catherine)
>> >challenged the validity of John de Vere's (August 1548) marriage to
>> >Edward de Vere's mother (Margery Golding). Windsor lost the legal
>> >battle BUT he did succeed in smearing young EDward's good name.
>> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> As I've pointed out, this marriage took place a year and eight months
>> before Oxford was born. Having had sex ten days later would not
>> exactly prove anything about the legitimacy of the marriage or of
>> Oxford himself, even if you pretend that the exact date of conception
>> can be unerringly worked out from the date of the birth in any case.
>
> I could be wrong about this - I wasn't personally there.
You *are* wrong about this. There is no possible benefit in claiming
that Oxford was born ten days later, so there is no reason why this
should have been done (whether by simple lies or by the farcical
system of using a Calendar that was not invented until thirty years
later) and it would not have been done. Therefore you have no reason
to question the validity of the only record that we have of Oxford's
birthdate, on 12th April (Julian).
>> >while claiming an earlier April 2 birthdate at others (assuming
>> >majority).
>>
>> And nobody pointed out that the Earl's birthday kept shifting
>> backwards and forwards. I wonder why.
>
> Where are Howard & Arundel when you really need them.
>
>> >> The Baconians were getting just as much mainstream publicity a century
>> >> ago. Now they are very sadly trailing in the Authorship race.
>> >
>> > These things take time, Tom.
>>
>> Time you haven't got, Mr. Neundorffer.
>
> Is that a threat, Mr. Larque?
No Art. Simplay a reference to your advancing years. Now if David
Webb had written it, you might have to worry.
> Tom Reedy's comment (i.e., "It pains me to see someone waste their
>*remaining years* in this manner.") has made me a little nervous.
Are you breaking the great old Oxfordian tradition of calling Tom
Reedy "Terry Ross", Art? Shame on you.
Anyway, at least he says "remaining years" Art, just think of the
implications if he had said "remaining days" or hours, minutes, or
seconds. Is that squeaking floorboard a murderous Mason creeping up
on you, Art? You never know.
Thomas.
Neuendorffer
> >>
> >> >> So please provide us with the piece of documentation that Michell used
> >> >> to justify his "1550 2 April. Born". You'll find that there isn't
> >> >> one. Nobody in the Renaissance gave Oxford's date of birth as the
> >> >> 2nd. The only record that we have gave it as the 12th, and it was -
> >> >> of course - an English record using the English Calendar (i.e. - the
> >> >> Julian one) since the Gregorian Calendar was not to be used in England
> >> >> for another two hundred years.
> >
> >> Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> >> > April 2 is based primarily on the date when Oxford reached majority.
> >
> > Larque wrote:
> >
> >> From Ward: "He took his seat on April 2nd, 1571, when Parliament was
> >> opened by the Queen, although he did not actually come of age till
> >> April 12th" (p. 351).
> >
> > Well there you go! Would you prefer:
Thomas Larque wrote:
>
> It is worth pointing out that the reason that Oxford took his seat in
> the House of Lords for the first time on April 2nd, 1571 is because
> that is when Elizabeth opened Parliament. She clearly did not open
> Parliament on that specific day in order to allow the Earl of Oxford
> to take up his seat on the very day of his birthday. Even if we
> believe your false suggestion that taking his seat on April 2nd proves
> that Oxford had reached his majority (and his 21st Birthday) then it
> would suggest that he had done so at any time *before* he took his
> seat. It would do nothing whatever to suggest that his birthday took
> place on the actual day.
I understood what you were saying and it is an excellent point.
Nevertheless, it does connect Oxford with the date April 2:
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > A letter from Capt. Gulliver, to his Cousin Sympson:
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> ><<And besides the Fact was altogether false; for to my Knowledge, being
> >in England during some Part of her Majesty's Reign, she did govern by a
> >chief Minister; nay, even by two successively; the first whereof was the
> >Lord of Godolphin, and the second the Lord of OXFORD; SO THAT YOU HAVE
> >MADE ME SAY THE THING THAT WAS NOT.>>
> >
> ><< I have now done with all visionary Schemes for EVER.
> > April 2, 1727.>>
> > Oxford took his seat in Parliament: April 2, 1571
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >> >> Washington, unlike de Vere, lived through the change in the Calendars,
> >> >> and after 1752 clearly celebrated his birthday by the Gregorian
> >> >> Calendar date.
> >> >
> >> > De Vere lived through the change in the Calendars; it just didn't
> >> >occur in England.
> >>
> >> And so did not affect the recording of English dates in English
> >> records.
> >
> > It affected the recording of Shakespeare's death: April 23, 1616
> > (Gregorian) - same as Cervantes.
>
> The two men died ten days apart, Art.
The two men never died at all, Tom, being as they were fabrications.
Shakespeare's death was
> If I have a chance I'll check to see whether any other Lords got to
> sit in the House shortly before their twenty-first birthday, although
> that might be difficult information to track down.
That would be most kind of you, Tom.
> >> As I've pointed out, this marriage took place a year and eight months
> >> before Oxford was born. Having had sex ten days later would not
> >> exactly prove anything about the legitimacy of the marriage or of
> >> Oxford himself, even if you pretend that the exact date of conception
> >> can be unerringly worked out from the date of the birth in any case.
> >
> > I could be wrong about this - I wasn't personally there.
>
> You *are* wrong about this.
I *was* there! I had totally forgoten.
> There is no possible benefit in claiming
> that Oxford was born ten days later, so there is no reason why this
> should have been done (whether by simple lies or by the farcical
> system of using a Calendar that was not invented until thirty years
> later) and it would not have been done. Therefore you have no reason
> to question the validity of the only record that we have of Oxford's
> birthdate, on 12th April (Julian).
But I question everything.
> >> >> The Baconians were getting just as much mainstream publicity a century
> >> >> ago. Now they are very sadly trailing in the Authorship race.
> >> >
> >> > These things take time, Tom.
> >>
> >> Time you haven't got, Mr. Neundorffer.
> >
> > Is that a threat, Mr. Larque?
>
> No Art. Simplay a reference to your advancing years. Now if David
> Webb had written it, you might have to worry.
So Webb is the Luca Brazzi of the Goon Squad?
> > Tom Reedy's comment (i.e., "It pains me to see someone waste their
> >*remaining years* in this manner.") has made me a little nervous.
>
> Are you breaking the great old Oxfordian tradition of calling Tom
> Reedy "Terry Ross", Art? Shame on you.
Tom & Brenda are dear friends.
> Anyway, at least he says "remaining years" Art, just think of the
> implications if he had said "remaining days" or hours, minutes, or
> seconds. Is that squeaking floorboard a murderous Mason creeping up
> on you, Art? You never know.
Do my guts hang low?
Do they wobble to and fro?
Can you tie 'em in a knot?
Can you tie 'em in a bow?
Can you throw 'em over my shoulder
Like a continental soldier?
Do my guts hang low?
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> > I was initially quite naive
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> The "initially" is quite superfluous. . .
>
> > about the prevelance of sensitive
> > bisexual/homosexual artistic geniuses like Tchaikovski, Bernstein,
> > Alec Guinness & Derek Jacobi.
>
> This phrase is superfluous as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert/Sullivan - ( UTOPIA LIMITED )
A complicated gentleman allow to present,
Of all the arts and faculties the TERSE embodiment,
He's a great arithmetician who can demonstrate with ease
That two and two are three or five or anything you please;
An eminent Logician who can make it clear to you
That black is white--when looked at from the proper point of view;
A marvelous Philologist who'll undertake to show
That "yes" is but another and a neater form of "no."
------------------------------------------------------------
TERSE, a. [L. tersus, p. p. of tergere to rub or wipe off. Date: 1601]
1. Appearing as if rubbed or wiped off; rubbed; smooth; polished. 2.
devoid of superfluity.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert/Sullivan - ( THE YEOMEN OF THE GUARD )
POINT Oh! a private buffoon is a light-hearted loon,
If you listen to popular rumour;
From morning to night he's so joyous and bright,
And he bubbles with wit and good humour!
He's so quaint and so TERSE,
Both in prose and in verse;
Yet though people forgive his transgression,
There are one or two rules that all family fools
Must observe, if they love their profession.
There are one or two rules,
Half-a-dozen, maybe,
That all family fools,
Of whatever degree,
Must observe if they love their profession.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plato - Dialogues translated by Benjamin Jowett ** ( PROTAGORAS )
<<And hereby you may know that I am right in attributing to the
Lacedaemonians this excellence in philosophy and speculation: If a man
converses with the most ordinary Lacedaemonian, he will find him seldom
good for much in general conversation, but at any point in the discourse
he will be darting out some notable saying, TERSE and full of meaning,
with unerring aim; and the person with whom he is talking seems to be
like a child in his hands.>>
-----------------------------------------------
Sherlock Holmes, COMPLETE WORKS COMBINED - Doyle, A. Conan ** ( The
"Gloria Scott"
"And then in an instant the key of the riddle was in my hands, and I saw
that every third word, beginning with the first, would give a message
which might well drive old Trevor to despair. "It was short and TERSE,
the warning, as I now read it to my companion. . .
-----------------------------------------------
THE VALLEY OF FEAR
The vocabulary of Bradshaw is nervous and TERSE, but limited. The
selection of words would hardly lend itself to the sending of general
messages. We will eliminate Bradshaw. The dictionary is, I fear,
inadmissible for the same reason. What then is left?"
"An almanac!"
-----------------------------------------------
Tristram Shandy - Laurence Sterne
<<I maintain it, the conceits of a rough-bearded man, are seven years
more TERSE and juvenile for one single operation; and if they did not
run a risk of being quite shaved away, might be carried up by continual
shavings, to the highest pitch of sublimity--How Homer could write with
so long a beard, I don't know--and as it makes against my hypothesis, I
as little care--But let us return to the Toilet.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<TERCE: 9:00am A Latin term for third hour, is prayed
at mid-morning. It is a shorter prayer referred to as one of the
little hours. Traditionally it is dedicated to the coming of the Holy
Spirit which took place at mid-morning in the account found in the
Acts of the Apostles. One prays for light and strength as the day
waxes strong and one's work begins.>>
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/francisx/hours.html
-----------------------------------------------
> PFStreitz wrote:
> >
> > Did Shakespeare make a mistake?
> >
> > BRUTUS: Peace! Count the clock.
> > CASSIUS: The clock hath stricken three.
--------------------------------------------------
David Kathman wrote:
>
> Yes.
---------------------------------------------------
Clocke strikes.
Bru. Peace, count the Clocke.
Cas. The Clocke hath stricken three.
Treb. 'Tis time to part.
Cass. But it is doubtfull yet,
Whether Caesar will come forth to day, or no:
-----------------------------------------------------------
<<Benedict as the hours the monks would observe the daily offices: three
(terce--the third hour of the morning; sext, the sixth hour, around
noon; and nones--the ninth hour, in the afternoon) were the publicly
announced changing of the Roman guards; and four (matins--the dawning
sky; prime--sunrise; vespers--sunset; and compline--complete darkness)
were tied to nature. bells at these hours to call the monks to prayer;
those in towns or near a monastery would doubtless be familiar with
them. You will note that it is possible to tell time in a medieval
manner at Pennsic, even on a cloudy day: the "canonical hours" consist
of the thrice-daily cry of the camp at 10 am, 1 pm, and 4 pm, along with
the medieval hours of lightening sky, dawn, sunset, and complete
darkness.>>
http://members.nbci.com/nicolaa/time.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
<<Timekeeping was important to any monastic community where the
canonical hours of prayer, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline
and Matins were observed. These were originally intended to be said at
the first hour of the day, then at the third, sixth, ninth and eleventh
hours, with Compline after dark and Matins just before dawn. The daytime
offices correspond to the times when the owner of the vineyard in
Matthew's gospel, ch.20, went in search of labourers, though this
probably only reflects the fact that the start of the day, mid-morning,
midday, mid-afternoon, and the end of the day are obvious times to which
a significance can be attached, and may even have been conventional
points for the division of the daylight hours in first-century
Palestine.
Although the canonical hours were originally based on the twelve hours
of the day, as used during Roman times, they themselves had become the
main reference point for popular time measurement by the middle mediæval
period. One of the effects of this change was to enable None to be
displaced from its original place at the ninth hour of the day (3 pm in
modern terms) to midday, and the disappearance of Sext as an office.
Bilfinger convincingly demonstrates this process in action in his
selection of descriptions of a solar eclipse on 3 June 1239, described
in the records of some Italian monasteries as happening at Sext and by
others as happening at None. Not every monastery did move None to
midday; the beginning and end of the working day at Florence were
signalled in Dante's time (first decades of the 14th century) by the
bell of the 11th century Badia sounding for Terce and None respectively.
But the practice seems to have been almost universal in Northern Europe,
giving the English language the word noon.
After the invention of the clock, we even see the two systems in tandem;
the birth of the future Richard II of England is said variously to have
occurred "à heure de tierche" and "sus le point de dix heures"; a battle
takes place "à tierche toutte hautte. Bien estoit largement onze
heures". The French and English counted their unequal hours from
midnight; the Italians from the previous nightfall (not sunset but the
onset of darkness), so that a Florentine army could set out on 21st June
1362, "sonato Terza, alla duodecima hora del dí" - after Terce had
sounded, at the twelfth hour of the day.>>
http://explorers.whyte.com/hours.htm
---------------------------------------------------
Hours and Unequal Hours by Nicholas Whyte
"Gooth now youre wey", quod he, "al stille and softe,
And lat us dyne as soone as that ye may,
For by my chilyndre it is pryme of day
Gooth now, and beeth as trewe as I shal be" [1]
In the fourteenth century the ownership of time, the control of
time-keeping, passed from the Church to the merchant classes. It is
usually thought that this transition is linked to the change from
measuring time in unequal hours, also called seasonal or temporal hours,
which divided both day and night into twelve, to the practice of
dividing the whole day and night into twenty-four equal parts (or two
sets of twelve equal parts). This essay will argue that the introduction
of equal hours in the 13th-14th centuries was not so much a replacement
of unequal hours as a reflection of the new importance of the
measurement of time.
Although it is certain that the unequal hour system as outlined above
was used in the Roman empire (according to a disputed fragment of
Herodotus, it was adopted by the Greeks from the Babylonians), the
evidence for the popular use of unequal hours as the basis of
time-keeping in the early to mid-mediæval period is unconvincing; it
seems much more probable that time was measured with reference to the
nearest canonical 'hour' of prayer. Although some of these were named
for the unequal hours for which they had been originally intended, by
the period in question (13th-14th centuries) this correspondence had
partly broken down.
I shall start by looking at the instruments most closely associated with
the "measurement" of unequal hours, the astrolabe, the old quadrant or
quadrans vetus, and of course the sundial, and then consider the
literary evidence from the period in question.
Chaucer's Tretise of the Astrelabie, perhaps the first scientific
treatise written in the English language, deals with many uses of the
instrument including finding the time. He first explains how to
calculate the angular length of "the arch of the day, that some folk
callen the day artificiall, fro sonne arisyng tyl it go to reste"
(Conclusioun 7) and then moves onto "the day vulgar, that is to seyn fro
spryng of the day unto verrey night" (Conclusioun 9). To work out the
length of the relevant hours in degrees, one divides the "arch of the
day" by twelve. Then he moves on to his favoured method of counting
hours:
Conclusioun 11: To know the quantite of houres equales.
The quantite of houres equales, that is to seyn the houres of the
clokke, ben departed [divided] by 15 degrees alredy in the bordure of
thin Astrelaby, as wel by night as by day, generaly for evere. What
nedith more declaracioun? Wherfore whan thou list to knowe hou many
houres of the clokke ben passed, or eny part of eny of these houres that
ben passed, or ellis how many houres or parties of houres ben to come
fro such a tyme by day or by night, know the degre of thy sonne, and ley
thy label [alidade] on it. Turne thy ryet [rete] aboute jointly with thy
label, and with the poynt of it rekne in the bordure fro the sonne arise
unto that same place there thou desirest, by day as by night.
Chaucer does not include the necessary next step, to divide the angular
distance travelled by the sun since its rising or setting by the length
in degrees of the hours one wishes to measure. The method is cumbersome
unless one is using equal hours, which are always 15 degrees long.
Chaucer cannot have been at all serious about counting
time by unequal hours, since they can easily be read off directly from
the astrolabe itself by simply setting the rete ("know the degre of thy
sonne") and then checking where
the Sun (or its nadir) is with respect to the unequal hour lines.
By 1390, when Chaucer was probably writing, it is generally agreed that
unequal hours were on their way out. The unequal hour lines had been
included on astrolabes in use in Arabic countries (which did use the
seasonal hours, much less unequal in lower latitudes), and continued to
be used on astrolabes manufactured in Europe until the modern period, by
which time equal hours were in general use. However, Chaucer was drawing
from a corpus of earlier writings attributed to Messahala. It seems
probable that the major use of the unequal hour lines was not in fact to
find the time (particularly if most people without astrolabes were
measuring time from morning twilight to evening twilight rather than
from sunrise to sunset, but to calculate the boundaries of the twelve
mundane houses for astrological purposes.
Outside the community of scholars, the most common instrument for
telling the time by the sun was the sundial. Early mediæval sundials had
vertical, semi-circular, south-facing 'dials' and horizontal gnomons;
the days of Vitruvius' sixteen different elaborate designs had long
passed. These dials started to appear in northern Europe from the eighth
and ninth centuries, and usually only marked the times when particular
offices should be said; Green found it very difficult to evaluate any of
the church dials in his exhaustive survey as indicators of the time in
hours.
Closely related to the sundial was the chilindrum of Chaucer's monk, a
portable cylindrical dial with a rotating cap from which a stylus
projected, and a barrel with graduated lines for the unequal (or equal)
hours. Different positions of the cap were needed for different times of
year; the length of the stylus' shadow corresponded to the time. Like
the quadrant, the cylinder and the pillar sundial measure time from the
Sun's altitude; unlike the quadrant, they are only useful at one
latitude, so the name 'traveller's cylinder' is not entirely
appropriate.
The earliest treatise on the astrolabe, quadrant and chilindrum in Latin
was written by Hermann the Lame, a monk of Reichenau in Germany in the
middle of the 11th century. Timekeeping was important to any monastic
community where the canonical hours of prayer, Prime, Terce, Sext, None,
Vespers, Compline and Matins were observed. These were originally
intended to be said at the first hour of the day, then at the third,
sixth, ninth and eleventh hours, with Compline after dark and Matins
just before dawn. The daytime offices correspond to the times when the
owner of the vineyard in Matthew's gospel, ch.20,.went in search of
labourers, though this probably only reflects the fact that the start of
the day, mid-morning, midday, mid-afternoon, and the end of the day are
obvious times to which a significance can be attached, and may even have
been conventional points for the division of the daylight hours in
first-century Palestine.
The monastic community would be summoned by bells for the recitation of
prayers; easy enough to judge the time in the daylight hours, and to
watch until it was dark enough for Compline; but staying awake to
determine the right time for Matins presented problems. Gregory of
Tours, writing in the 570's, included another night-time office,
Nocturns, recited just after midnight, and gave detailed instructions
for time-keeping including watching for the rising of certain stars and
measuring the passage of time by chanting psalms.
Although the canonical hours were originally based on the twelve hours
of the day, as used during Roman times, they themselves had become the
main reference point for popular time measurement by the middle mediæval
period. One of the effects of this change was to enable None to be
displaced from its original place at the ninth hour of the day (3 pm in
modern terms) to midday, and the disappearance of Sext as an office.
Bilfinger convincingly demonstrates this process in action in his
selection of descriptions of a solar eclipse on 3 June 1239, described
in the records of some Italian monasteries as happening at Sext and by
others as happening at None.
Not every monastery did move None to midday; the beginning and end of
the working day at Florence were signalled in Dante's time (first
decades of the 14th century) by the bell of the 11th century Badia
sounding for Terce and None respectively. But the practice seems to have
been almost universal in Northern Europe, giving the English language
the word noon. Bilfinger attributes 'das Verschiebung der Non' to the
hunger of monks, fasting until after it had been said. Le Goff 15 is
more doubtful, and suggests that the economic need to introduce the
practice of working half-days, perhaps from Terce to None, was an
important pressure for change. He does not make it clear why half-days
from Terce to Sext would not have served equally well.
None of the extensive contemporary literature quoted by Bilfinger
supports the idea that time was measured in the early mediæval period by
unequal hours rather than by reference to the hours of prayer. Indeed,
he makes a very good case for a time system widespread across Western
Europe in which Terce (also called undren or undernoon in English) was
equivalent to mid-morning, None midday and Vespers mid-afternoon, with
expressions such as mezza terza or haute tierce, meaning 'about halfway
between Terce and Noon'.
Equal hours had of course been known to astronomers for centuries.
Al-Marrakushi had designed sundials measuring time in equal hours; even
earlier, Claudius Ptolemy had expressed the length of day and night at
different latitudes in equal hours, a practice copied by the
manufacturers of astrolabe plates. Abbot Hildemar of Basle, commenting
in about 850 on St Benedict's Rule that monks should rise for Nocturns
at the eighth hour of the night, noted that in winter the night was
eighteen hours long (a slight exaggeration for the latitude of Basle).
He seems not to have been familiar with the concept of unequal hours,
which is usually supposed to have been widespread at that time, and
reinvented them to suit his own local conditions.
After the invention of the clock, we even see the two systems in tandem;
the birth of the future Richard II of England is said variously to have
occurred "à heure de tierche" and "sus le point de dix heures"; a battle
takes place "à tierche toutte hautte. Bien estoit largement onze
heures". The French and English counted their unequal hours from
midnight; the Italians from the previous nightfall (not sunset but the
onset of darkness), so that a Florentine army could set out on 21st June
1362, "sonato Terza, alla duodecima hora del dí" - after Terce had
sounded, at the twelfth hour of the day.
The economic revival of the 12th century had brought a social pressure
for more accurate time-keeping from both merchants and employees.
Sundials in public places (such as those on the walls of churches) would
have been a common means of keeping track of how much of the day was
left; John of Garland in the early 13th century despised the rustics who
could only tell the time by the sound of church bells. As labour time in
the cities and towns became more important to business, its regulation
became ever more essential. All the clocks on Beeson's list of those
erected in England between 1280 and 1330 are dedicated to ecclesiastical
timekeeping, but Le Goff's clocks and work-bells erected in Flanders and
other parts of Northern Europe between 1320 and 1370 are all secular,
and concerned with the start and end of the working day. The latter list
includes a work bell set up to regulate work on York Minster in the
1350s, supplanting the function of the Church's bells. The regulation of
time by the civil rather than the religious authorities demonstrated
where the control over the lives of ordinary people now lay. In 1370,
Charles IV of France decreed that all clocks in Paris should follow that
of the Palais Royal.
The mechanical clock, invented in the 1270s, brought accurate
large-scale time-keepers into the realms of possibility for every large
town. The hours that it measured were equal hours; but the relationship
between equal hours and the ancient Roman system of seasonal hours on
which the ecclesiastical day had originally been based was no more than
a matter of theoretical interest to astronomers. It may have been
astronomers, whose convention was to count days from midnight to
midnight, who were responsible for ensuring that this system was adopted
in England and France; the famous astronomical clock of Richard of
Wallingford was designed to strike the equal hours from 1 to 24.
The importance of the introduction of equal hours and the invention of
the mechanical clock was not so much that unequal hours went out of
fashion - this essay has argued that they had been out of fashion in
Western Europe since the collapse of the Roman Empire - but that a more
precise framework for the measurement of time was introduced. This was
of commercial benefit to those who lived in cities and needed to mark
business arrangements accurately; but it was also the cause a shift in
society's perception of the progression of time.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
news:3B5A5884...@erols.com...
<snip>
>
> Tom Reedy's comment (i.e., "It pains me to see someone waste their
> *remaining years* in this manner.") has made me a little nervous.
>
But apparently not nervous enough, Art. I had hopes that the sound of time's
winged chariot hurrying nigh behind you would cause you to reconsider how
you spend your days, but alas, it apparently is not to be.
I can at least understand becoming a fool for Christ, even though I might
not care to join in, but it is painful to see someone becoming a fool for a
discredited fringe belief.
On the other hand, it is amusing to watch others, such as Stritmatter,
Alexander and Kaplan, do it, because their attitudes prove that they richly
deserve it. Your attitude doesn't, Art.
TR
Neuendorffer
> >
> > Tom Reedy's comment (i.e., "It pains me to see someone waste their
> > *remaining years* in this manner.") has made me a little nervous.
> >
>
> But apparently not nervous enough, Art. I had hopes that the sound of time's
> winged chariot hurrying nigh behind you would cause you to reconsider how
> you spend your days, but alas, it apparently is not to be.
2Ki 2:11
And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold,
there appeared a CHARIOT of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them
both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the CHARIOT of
Israel, and the horsemen thereof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.webcom.com/hermit/page/gematria.htm
Aleph 1 OX The Fool(0) Power Air
C-HETH 8 FENCE The CHARIOT (7) Receptivity Water
----------------------------------------------------------------
<= 33 =>
TOT [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
ONN [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE
RNI [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
WIS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN SETTINGFORTH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/chariotser.html
<<Look at some of the symbolic elements in the Waite Chariot Card—
OK, what about that canopy thing with the stars? Now, what's actually
being represented by this canopy is what the Freemasons called the
'Covering of the Lodge', otherwise known as the 'clouded' or
(according to some sources) 'celestial' canopy.
The 'Covering of the Lodge' is a Masonic tradition that says that
ancient brothers of Masonry met under a 'clouded canopy or starry-decked
heaven', that is, in the open air. Also, the whole world is understood
to be a Mason's lodge with heaven its canopy.
This symbolism also comes into consideration in the first degree
initiation ceremony of Freemasonry—some authorities suggest this means
that the mason has the 'universe' as his highest aspiration but others
say that the symbol merely refers to the area of Masonic utility—that
is, that a Mason's responsibilities extend to everything under the
universal sky.
Levi describes this as the 'starry drapery'. Waite says nothing at all.
Crowley, restating the idea says—"the canopy of the Chariot is the
night-blue sky of Binah."
So what does any of this mean, in terms of the card?
The canopy should be viewed in context of the the whole chariot,
including, as you can see, a Charioteer who is NOT riding in the
Chariot, but is set in the cubic stone of the Chariot. The stone and
the 8-pointed star on the Charioteer's head refer to the same idea—
the cube is 2 'cubed' or 8 = and that is the number of C-HETH,
the kabbalistic number of this card but also refers to the Masonic
'ashlar' or the 'perfect ashlar'.
In Speculative Masonry an 'ashlar' is freestone as it comes out of the
quarry. So, a 'rough ashlar' is a stone in its 'rude and unpolished'
condition—that is—ignorant, uncultivated and vicious man.
But after one is 'smoothed and polished' by education and one learns to
restrain (or 'temper') ones passions, he is represented by the 'Perfect
Ashlar', the smoothed and squared stone, fitted into its place in the
building (the temple). Or in the Chariot.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.srmason-sj.org/council/temple/booklet/HOUSE.HTM
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc54.htm
<<One of the most unusual buildings in the eclectic Sixteenth Street
Historic District is the Temple of the Scottish Rite at 1733 16th
Street. The building, designed by John Russell Pope who also designed
the National Archives and the Jefferson Memorial, was constructed
between 1911 and 1915. It was built to headquarter the Supreme Council
of the Southern Jurisdiction of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and
Accepted Rite of Freemasonry. Pope used the tomb of King Mausolus at
Halicarnassus, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, as his
model for the Temple. Outside, guarding the temple doors, is a pair
of monumental sphinxes that represent wisdom and power.>>
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/mausoleum.html
http://www.unmuseum.org/maus.htm
<<The roof [of the tomb of King Mausolus at Halicarnassus], which
comprised most of the final third of the height, was in the form of a
stepped pyramid. Perched on top was the tomb's penultimate work of
sculpture:
Four massive horses pulling a CHARIOT in which
images of Mausolus and Artemisia rode.>>
<<The Mausoleum overlooked the city of Halicarnassus for many centuries.
It was untouched when the city fell to Alexander the Great in 334 B.C.
and still undamaged after attacks by pirates in 62 and 58 B.C.. It stood
above the city ruins for some 17 centuries. Then a series of earthquakes
shattered the columns sending the stone chariot crashing to the
ground.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I can at least understand becoming a fool for Christ, even though I might
> not care to join in, but it is painful to see someone becoming a fool for
> a discredited fringe belief.
It is painful to see someone becoming a fool for a discredited
orthodox belief.
> On the other hand, it is amusing to watch others, such as Stritmatter,
> Alexander and Kaplan, do it, because their attitudes prove that they
> richly deserve it. Your attitude doesn't, Art.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions, Tom.
Art N.
Neuendorffer
> > > Terry
> > > Ross also knows *far* more about the literary and cultural history of
> > > the period than I do, as well as far more about classical languages. A
> > > great many other h.l.a.s. participants who (as far as I know) are not
> > > professional scholars are far better informed than I am, among them
> > > KQKnave, Tom Reedy, Thomas Larque, and many others -- you know, the
> > > ones you call "Stratfordians"
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
> > Oh. . .you mean the Goon Squad!
"David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> The "Goon Squad" is certainly far better informed than the
> Goof Squad, the members of which rarely open their mouths
> without uttering some farcically funny blunder.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Q2 : "OBLIVION, OR SOME CRAVEN SCRUPLE OF THINKING"
V E R O N I L V E R I U S
L
E
N
K
C
N
I
R
B
S
A
M
O
G O O F C H O P I N
T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
V E R O N I L V E R I U S
A L
G E
A N
B K
O C
N N
[D] I
R
B
S
A
M
O
H
T
Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
Genesis 4:14 from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive
and a VAGABOND in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one
that findeth me shall slay me.
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is *extremely* difficult to find the 28 letters of
a "VERONILVERIUS/THOMAS BRINCKNELL" cross
V E R O N I L V E R I U S
L
E
N
K
C
N
I
R
B
S
A
M
O
H
T
in a string of less than 39 letters:
My 3 Million letter literary data base
included just one 38 letter string containing the
"VERONILVERIUS/THOMAS BRINCKNELL" cross:
1) "va lives that bluediorn and storridge can mak" (Finnegans Wake)
_Moby Dick_ requires a 39 letter string:
2) "ventually invested Moby Dick with new terrors"
----------------------------------------------------------------
However, _Hamlet_ (Q2 Act 4) has not just one but
TWO such strings less than 36 letters:
"BLIVION, OR SOME CRAVEN SCRUPLE OF THINK" 33 letters
"CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE" 35 letters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated probability of finding the
"VERONILVERIUS/THOMAS BRINCKNELL" cross
in a given string of:
33 letters { "BLIVION, OR SOME CRAVEN SCRUPLE OF THINK" }
~ 1/1,000,000,000
35 letters {"CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"}
~ 1/50,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated probability of finding two such strings
in a single act of Shakespeare :
~ 1/3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
"a BEAST, no more"
-------------------------------------------------------
Libels Part 3. Henry Howard contra Oxford:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/LIBELS/libel3.html
<<(sideways in left margin) my good¬ lord, the lye of the Biche I told
yow and Mr Charles to see what a best [=BEAST] my lord was, and how I¬
kept him from de<struction>¬ being with so Infinite faultes loden>>
Libels Part 4. Charles Arundel contra Oxford:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/LIBELS/libel4.html
<<in his drunken fittes, he is no man but a BEAST disposest of all
temperance, modestie, and reason and rvnes [=runs] as one posest with a
wicked spright in to all actes of cruelltie, inyurye, and villonye>>
------------------------------------------------------
HAMLET How all occasions do inform against me,
And spur my dull revenge! What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? a BEAST, no more.
Sure, he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust in us unused. Now, whether it be
Bestial OBLIVION, OR SOME CRAVEN SCRUPLE
OF THINKING too precisely on the event,
A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward, I do not know
Why yet I live to say 'This thing's to do;'
Sith I have cause and will and strength and means
To do't. Examples gross as earth exhort me:
Witness this army of such mass and charge
Led by a delicate and tender prince,
Whose spirit with divine ambition puff'd
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death and danger dare,
Even for an egg-shell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honour's at the stake. How stand I then,
That have a father kill'd, a mother stain'd,
Excitements of my reason and my blood,
And let all sleep? while, to my shame, I see
The imminent death of twenty thousand men,
That, for a fantasy and trick of fame,
Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot
Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,
Which is not tomb enough and continent
To hide the slain? O, from this time forth,
My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!
john_baker
Its nice to see that at some of the readers now know how to use the
two calendars.
Any educated person who lived under teh onl English system knew that
he or she had two birthdays.
One owas correct and one was incorrect.
Washington and Jefferson were not fools and both I'm sure tracked
their Bdays both ways.
If you need evidence of this it should be out there.
And Dave, you were going to tell me what the Fermat Steps are called
...
baker
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
"Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur
john_baker
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
Webb,
In case the typos in that first reply make it impossible to decipher
here's a version without them...
Its nice to see that at some of the readers now know how to use the
two calendars.
Any educated person who lived under THE OLD English system knew that
he or she had two birthdays.
One was correct and one was incorrect.
Washington and Jefferson were no fools and both, I'm sure, tracked
their Bdays both ways.
If you need evidence of this it should be out there.
And Dave, you were going to tell me what the Fermat Steps are called
..you know the corss over point where the sum of the first two terms
becomes larger than the third.
baker
j
Thomas Larque
>two calendars.
>
>Any educated person who lived under teh onl English system knew that
>he or she had two birthdays.
>
>One owas correct and one was incorrect.
>
>Washington and Jefferson were not fools and both I'm sure tracked
>their Bdays both ways.
>
>If you need evidence of this it should be out there.
Then produce it. Claiming that evidence exists without having it is
the sign of a non-argument. Art has been unable to show that
Washington ever celebrated his birthday on 22nd February (Julian)
before the change of Calendars. I'm betting you have no proof for
this either, and that is because no such proof exists.
The only reason for anybody to be confused about the date of their
birthday is if they lived under the *new* Gregorian system, but had
been born before it came into effect, and therefore had to decide
whether to celebrate their birthday on the actual anniversary (now
named as a different date) or on the original named date, which was no
longer really the anniversary of their birth. This did not apply to
either Marlowe or to Oxford, neither of whom lived under the Gregorian
system at all.
Furthermore NOBODY ever celebrated their birthday on the wrong date by
both name and actual day. That is to say, nobody born on 2nd April
(Julian) celebrated their birthday on 12th April (Julian) / 22nd April
(Gregorian). Since both Baker's claims for the registration dates and
Art's claims for Oxford's birthday are based on this nonsensical
assumption, both can be rejected out of hand.
Neuendorffer
> >two calendars.
> >
> >Any educated person who lived under teh onl English system knew that
> >he or she had two birthdays.
> >
> >One owas correct and one was incorrect.
> >
> >Washington and Jefferson were not fools and both I'm sure tracked
> >their Bdays both ways.
> >
> >If you need evidence of this it should be out there.
Thomas Larque wrote:
>
> Then produce it. Claiming that evidence exists without having it is
> the sign of a non-argument. Art has been unable to show that
> Washington ever celebrated his birthday on 22nd February (Julian)
> before the change of Calendars. I'm betting you have no proof for
> this either, and that is because no such proof exists.
There is no reason for Washington to celebrate his birthday on 22nd
February (Julian). However, there might have been some reason for
Washington to claim his birthday was February 22; given the option he
clearly celebrated it on February 22 (Gregorian) after the calendar
change.
The only real issue is whether Oxford had a reason for (honestly)
claiming his birthday was April 12 though he was actually born on April
2 (Julian). This now seems unlikely to me but I wouldn't discount it.
Art N.
Thomas Larque
>February (Julian). However, there might have been some reason for
>Washington to claim his birthday was February 22; given the option he
>clearly celebrated it on February 22 (Gregorian) after the calendar
>change.
>
> The only real issue is whether Oxford had a reason for (honestly)
>claiming his birthday was April 12 though he was actually born on April
>2 (Julian). This now seems unlikely to me but I wouldn't discount it.
>
>Art N.
And again, Art. It wouldn't have been honest because:
a) He wasn't born on April 12th (Julian) and therefore could not
honestly have claimed to have been born on April 12th (Julian) and in
England nobody used the Gregorian system.
... and ...
b) The Gregorian system did not come into effect anywhere until thirty
years after Oxford's birthdate is recorded as April 12th (Julian) and
did not come into effect in England for two hundred years after that.
A claim to have been born on April 12th (Julian) if he had actually
been born on April 2nd (Julian) would therefore have been a simple and
straightforward lie since the Calendar you claimed he was using simply
did not exist.
Thomas Larque
wrote:
>Hey, Dave Kathman isn't the only prominent Stratfordian posting to
>HLAS! I'll have you know that I have been published in the Spear-Shaker!
>What other Stratfordian can make THAT claim!?!? And, until my
>recent nervous breakdown, I was fourth in command of the American
>Wing of . . . The Trust.
>
> Under-Private Fourth-Class Grumman
And that essay is enough for Bob Grumman's name to appear in the
"World Shakespeare Bibliography". What more fame could one ask for?
Thomas Larque
>
>a) He wasn't born on April 12th (Julian) and therefore could not
>honestly have claimed to have been born on April 12th (Julian) and in
>England nobody used the Gregorian system.
I should point out, of course, that I am accepting Art's major claim
here for the sake of argument. In fact Edward de Vere *was* born on
April 12th (Julian) as the only record of his birth attests.
john_baker
wrote:
>john, baker wrote:
>>
>> I hate to bring up a real point is just a great exchange. But the
>> fact that William Shakspere wasn't enrolled in his father's business,
>> but was placed with a local butcher, proves that his father didn't
>> have much to do.
>
> http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/timeline/birth.htm
>
><<William's early education must be the ways of business he would have
>learned around his father's shop. Concerning this period, there is a
>legend reported in Aubrey's Brief Lives (Aubrey was a seventeenth
>century gentleman known as a gossip and raconteur--1681) that "...his
>father was a BUTCHER, & I have been told heretofore by some of the
>neighbors, that when he was a boy he exercised his father's Trade, but
>when he kill'd a Calfe, he would do it in a high style, & make a
>Speech.">>
>
>> Marlowe's father enrolled half a dozen boys as apprientices,
>
> Where do you get that piece of info. ?
>
From William Urry's Marlowe and Canterbury. He lists the ones that
made the lists and tells us of John Marlowe's attack on young
Lactantius Presson, an attack which happened when Marlwoe was 13,
and thus at home.
I said at least half a dozen boys, because there must have been many
that didn't make the lists.
Here, as Sexton of Greenwood, I've had at least that number than
didn't make the list and never once signed a Burial Permit, only Susan
Olsen has signed in my place a hundred or more times...though I can
count the services she actually witnessed on one hand...but she was
at my desk when the paper work was being processed and signed for
me...in any case I suspect John Marlowe must have had at least twice
the number of lads helping him in the shop as lads who became
apprientices...what do you suppose?
And you see, I take it, my point that John Shakspere had fallen into
hard times otherwise William would have helped at home.
john
>> So we have good evidence that money was tight in the Shakspere
>> household when Willy was taken out of the school, if that is, he was
>> ever in it.
>
> If you think money was "tight" you should try filling one of
>Marlowe's shoes.
>
I like this Art...but actually we both could fit into one of his shoes
and there's still be room enough for Davids Webbs and Kathman...
john
>Art N.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B5AB68C...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
wrote:
> > >> > Thomas Larque wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> So please provide us with the piece of documentation that Michell used
> > >> >> to justify his "1550 2 April. Born". You'll find that there isn't
> > >> >> one. Nobody in the Renaissance gave Oxford's date of birth as the
> > >> >> 2nd. The only record that we have gave it as the 12th, and it was -
> > >> >> of course - an English record using the English Calendar (i.e. - the
> > >> >> Julian one) since the Gregorian Calendar was not to be used in England
> > >> >> for another two hundred years.
> > >> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > >
> > >> > April 2 is based primarily on the date when Oxford reached majority.
What a vague, bizarre locution! April 2 is "based primarily on" the
date when Oxford reached his majority?! You were claiming that April 2
was his birth date until Thomas Larque showed that you were wrong, as
always.
> > > Larque wrote:
> > >
> > >> From Ward: "He took his seat on April 2nd, 1571, when Parliament was
> > >> opened by the Queen, although he did not actually come of age till
> > >> April 12th" (p. 351).
> > > Well there you go! Would you prefer:
> Thomas Larque wrote:
> >
> > It is worth pointing out that the reason that Oxford took his seat in
> > the House of Lords for the first time on April 2nd, 1571 is because
> > that is when Elizabeth opened Parliament. She clearly did not open
> > Parliament on that specific day in order to allow the Earl of Oxford
> > to take up his seat on the very day of his birthday. Even if we
> > believe your false suggestion that taking his seat on April 2nd proves
> > that Oxford had reached his majority (and his 21st Birthday) then it
> > would suggest that he had done so at any time *before* he took his
> > seat. It would do nothing whatever to suggest that his birthday took
> > place on the actual day.
> I understood what you were saying and it is an excellent point.
>
> Nevertheless, it does connect Oxford with the date April 2:
Given your idea of what constitutes a "connection," eVERything and
eVERybody is "connected" to eVERything else and eVERybody else.
[Idiotic, oft-repeated nonsense about _Gulliver's Travels deleted]
> > >> >> Washington, unlike de Vere, lived through the change in the Calendars,
> > >> >> and after 1752 clearly celebrated his birthday by the Gregorian
> > >> >> Calendar date.
> > >> > De Vere lived through the change in the Calendars; it just didn't
> > >> >occur in England.
> > >> And so did not affect the recording of English dates in English
> > >> records.
> > > It affected the recording of Shakespeare's death: April 23, 1616
> > > (Gregorian) - same as Cervantes.
> > The two men died ten days apart, Art.
> The two men never died at all, Tom, being as they were fabrications.
>
> Shakespeare's death was [sic]
Shakespeare's death was what, Art? Are you so far gone that you
can't you even remember what you were saying long enough to complete
your sentence? I fear that you're getting senile. Of course, I
realize that your parody of Richard Kennedy's practically nonexistent
memory forces you to ridiculous extremes, Art, but you're pushing the
envelope here.
[...]
> > >> As I've pointed out, this marriage took place a year and eight months
> > >> before Oxford was born. Having had sex ten days later would not
> > >> exactly prove anything about the legitimacy of the marriage or of
> > >> Oxford himself, even if you pretend that the exact date of conception
> > >> can be unerringly worked out from the date of the birth in any case.
> > > I could be wrong about this - I wasn't personally there.
> > You *are* wrong about this.
> I *was* there! I had totally forgoten.
I *told* you that you were getting senile, Art!
> > There is no possible benefit in claiming
> > that Oxford was born ten days later, so there is no reason why this
> > should have been done (whether by simple lies or by the farcical
> > system of using a Calendar that was not invented until thirty years
> > later) and it would not have been done. Therefore you have no reason
> > to question the validity of the only record that we have of Oxford's
> > birthdate, on 12th April (Julian).
> But I question everything.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I know you've said this before, Art, and it's one of your funniest
lines eVER, so even your penchant for tediously repeating your
inanities hasn't spoiled *this* joke yet! You certainly didn't
question Michell, despite his notoriety as author of books on Atlantis,
flying saucers, the Holy Grail, etc. -- you just accepted his errors at
face value. You certainly didn't question the delusions of Kersey
Graves -- you just adopted them as delusions of your own, despite the
warning accompanying them at the web site you grepped. And so on.
> > >> >> The Baconians were getting just as much mainstream publicity a century
> > >> >> ago. Now they are very sadly trailing in the Authorship race.
> > >> > These things take time, Tom.
> > >> Time you haven't got, Mr. Neundorffer.
> > > Is that a threat, Mr. Larque?
> > No Art. Simplay a reference to your advancing years. Now if David
> > Webb had written it, you might have to worry.
> So Webb is the Luca Brazzi of the Goon Squad?
With the Goof Squad displaying such farcical incompetence, no
strong-arm measures will eVER be necessary.
> > > Tom Reedy's comment (i.e., "It pains me to see someone waste their
> > >*remaining years* in this manner.") has made me a little nervous.
Then you've reVERted to your Petulant Paranoid persona, Art?
> > Are you breaking the great old Oxfordian tradition of calling Tom
> > Reedy "Terry Ross", Art? Shame on you.
It's about as venerable a tradition as calling Paul Crowley a
"novice woman," a "student," etc. The error has been pointed out about
as often as well, but most Oxfordians neVER learn.
David Webb
john_baker
<thomas...@lineone.net> wrote:
>>Its nice to see that at some of the readers now know how to use the
>>two calendars.
>>
>>Any educated person who lived under teh onl English system knew that
>>he or she had two birthdays.
>>
>>One owas correct and one was incorrect.
>>
>>Washington and Jefferson were not fools and both I'm sure tracked
>>their Bdays both ways.
>>
>>If you need evidence of this it should be out there.
>
>Then produce it.
Thomas,
I've been down this road before and I did produce this evidence.
Elizabethans tracked their birthday in four ways. The day of the
week/ week of the month as we do Thanksgiving; by the phase of the
moon as we do Easter; by the actual English calendar date and by the
corrected calendar date.
Thus we have correspondence from Vaughan about Christopher Marlowe
poised to return to England dated at Pisa 4/14 July 1602...the double
date is in the actual dispatch. Many of these dispatches from Europe
bore both dates.
If you know anything about astrology and the Author knew a lot about
it, you'll know that the birth dates had to be corrected to get the
proper "reading."
These people weren't fools, Thomas. They knew what the right date
was, and now to correct for it.
I suppose the matter may have been over the heads of rustics from
Stratford but anyone with a real education or who had traveled beyond
the seas knew the days were different just a few miles away in France!
And they knew why they were different.
So bit the bullet. Proof has been offered.
baker
> Claiming that evidence exists without having it is
>the sign of a non-argument. Art has been unable to show that
>Washington ever celebrated his birthday on 22nd February (Julian)
>before the change of Calendars. I'm betting you have no proof for
>this either, and that is because no such proof exists.
>
>The only reason for anybody to be confused about the date of their
>birthday is if they lived under the *new* Gregorian system, but had
>been born before it came into effect, and therefore had to decide
>whether to celebrate their birthday on the actual anniversary (now
>named as a different date) or on the original named date, which was no
>longer really the anniversary of their birth. This did not apply to
>either Marlowe or to Oxford, neither of whom lived under the Gregorian
>system at all.
>
>Furthermore NOBODY ever celebrated their birthday on the wrong date by
>both name and actual day. That is to say, nobody born on 2nd April
>(Julian) celebrated their birthday on 12th April (Julian) / 22nd April
>(Gregorian). Since both Baker's claims for the registration dates and
>Art's claims for Oxford's birthday are based on this nonsensical
>assumption, both can be rejected out of hand.
>
>Thomas.
>
>"Shakespeare and His Critics"
>http://ds.dial.pipex.com/thomas_larque
John Baker
Thomas Larque
4th July (Julian) / 14th July (Gregorian) was the *same day*, John.
Obviously somebody who was English but writing from continental Europe
might well record the date by the Gregorian Calender (which was in use
in Catholic Europe). Nobody English, on the other hand, would record
the Gregorian date in an English record unless they had some specific
reason for using the Gregorian Calendar. Even if we pretend that the
English routinely used the Gregorian Calendar and Julian Calendar
together, this does not prove your nonsensical claim that a
registration on 18th April (Julian) can be a celebration of an
anniversary of an event which took place on 8th April (Julian) - a
completely different day. You have no evidence for anybody ever doing
this and have provided no such evidence for the simple reason that
nobody ever did it.
You have also, by the way, never offered the slightest shred of
evidence for somebody celebrating the anniversary of their birth on
(say) the third Saturday in June, even though they were born on the
16th June (Julian) and the day they celebrated was the 20th June
(Julian). Again you cannot offer any evidence for this happening
because it did not happen and you are simply living in fantasy land.
People only had one birthday, which could be expressed as one of two
dates (as in 8th April (Julian) / 18th April (Gregorian) ) this
referred to the *same day* and not to four entirely different days as
you foolishly pretend.
In addition to this you have never satisfactorily answered the point
that a statistical analysis of your "registration dates" shows that,
since you accept any of four days as the "same day" (ten days before,
ten days after, same day of the week, same actual date), a purely
random selection of dates would get as many matches with the
Shakespeare/Marlowe/Apocryphal registration dates as you get in your
analysis. As I've shown, one in three randomly selected dates
(including one in three of the dates recorded in the biography of
William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon) matches up with one of the
registration dates you refer to (and I didn't count all of the records
that you now have on your website, so in fact there will be *more*
random matches now).
Can you prove that *many* *MANY* more than one in three of Marlowe's
dates matches up to the registration dates? If not, then the
correalation that you have noticed is clearly nothing more than random
coincidence. I have looked for a chronological list of Marlowe's
biographical dates, taken from records, similar to the ones provided
by many people for Shakespeare - but have not found one. If we do
find one, or if you can suggest one (please post it up for us if you
can), then we could look to see whether the correlation with the
registration dates is about one-in-three or purely random.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B59D19A...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
[...]
> > Again, I ask you to show us
> > the evidence of any Earldom in the Elizabethan and Jacobean period
> > being inherited by such a "backup heir" rather than reversing up the
> > male line of inheritance until it meets a suitable legitimate male
> > heir.
> It is hardly a high priority for me.
Finding evidence to support your bizarre, delusional claims is neVER
a "high priority" for you, is it, Art? You'd rather just make up
stuff. Oh, I understand that your parody of Stephanie Caruana's and
Elizabeth Weir's consummate displays of wholesale, farcical invention
unaccompanied by any supporting evidence force you to ridiculous
extremes, Art, but once again you're oVERdoing your burlesque here.
The people whom you're parodying *claim* that there is evidence and
that they will produce it shortly -- they just neVER get around to it.
David Webb
john_baker
<thomas...@lineone.net> wrote:
I see we are on line at the same time. I'm bushed from my climb and
the snow storm...and my son is here for a few more hours before
leaving...but I've a moment or two....
This isn't true.
>Even if we pretend that the
>English routinely used the Gregorian Calendar and Julian Calendar
>together, this does not prove your nonsensical claim that a
>registration on 18th April (Julian) can be a celebration of an
>anniversary of an event which took place on 8th April (Julian) - a
>completely different day. You have no evidence for anybody ever doing
>this and have provided no such evidence for the simple reason that
>nobody ever did it.
BS. I've been very clear as to why this is the sort of thing that
went on. Its like a pun, Thomas, it created an area of vaugeness.
If the poet were too explicit William Herbert lost his titles. So
there had to be a grey area. All I have said is that the 18 April was
or is William Herbert's real birthday. That's a fact, Tom.
The poet and Herbert knew it. hat too is a fact. And thus a
registration on it was or could be a private secret between them.
>
>You have also, by the way, never offered the slightest shred of
>evidence for somebody celebrating the anniversary of their birth on
>(say) the third Saturday in June, even though they were born on the
>16th June (Julian) and the day they celebrated was the 20th June
>(Julian). Again you cannot offer any evidence for this happening
>because it did not happen and you are simply living in fantasy land.
\
Yes I did. I cited a letter from Arbella Stuart that showed it.
>People only had one birthday, which could be expressed as one of two
>dates (as in 8th April (Julian) / 18th April (Gregorian) ) this
>referred to the *same day* and not to four entirely different days as
>you foolishly pretend.
Tom, get off your high horse, you look like a fool up there. I've
clearly explained that there are four ways to track one's B'day.
By the two calendar dates; by the day of the week and the week of the
month, so the first monday of june or the second monday of june and by
the phase of the moon.
Like it or not that's a fact.
Bite the bullet and give up.
>
>In addition to this you have never satisfactorily answered the point
>that a statistical analysis of your "registration dates" shows that,
>since you accept any of four days as the "same day" (ten days before,
>ten days after, same day of the week, same actual date), a purely
>random selection of dates would get as many matches with the
>Shakespeare/Marlowe/Apocryphal registration dates as you get in your
>analysis. As I've shown, one in three randomly selected dates
>(including one in three of the dates recorded in the biography of
>William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon) matches up with one of the
>registration dates you refer to (and I didn't count all of the records
>that you now have on your website, so in fact there will be *more*
>random matches now).
Again Tom you are off on a wild goose chase here. I don't take any of
the four days. If you look at my date trail you will see that 90 to
95% of them are on the same days Julian calendars. The registration
of Venus and Adonis is the only one that uses the new calendar.
And I've explained that. I've also pointed out the office wasn't
always open and the Author was certain about getting a work registered
on the same day.
Now lets take a deeeeeep breath and focus in on the registration of
MND.
That's on October 8 right? I hiked 16 milies with a 50lb pack and
slept in a blizzard at 11,333 ft this weekend, gaining 6,000 vertical
feet, so I'm not certain, but I think it was the 8th.
Now if you look in Plutrach you will see that that's Theseus' day.
I say the registration was intentional.
I say that the application of statistics to individual human actions,
is foolish in the extreme.
We are dealing here with intention. I've seen the intention, I've
explained it. If you disagree and think the registration of the works
were unintentional...its ok by me.
Pericles, A&C and the Sonnets all showed up on 20 May.
I've suggested why. You don't have to buy into it.
The Jew of Malta turned up on 17 May 1594 or one year to the day from
the date of Marlowe's arrest. Do you doubt it? Check the calendar
yourself.
Edward II appeared on the same day Edward II became the defacto king,
as described in the opening line.
Dito for Edward II...
these are facts Tom, like them or not.
baker
>
>Can you prove that *many* *MANY* more than one in three of Marlowe's
>dates matches up to the registration dates? If not, then the
>correalation that you have noticed is clearly nothing more than random
>coincidence. I have looked for a chronological list of Marlowe's
>biographical dates, taken from records, similar to the ones provided
>by many people for Shakespeare - but have not found one. If we do
>find one, or if you can suggest one (please post it up for us if you
>can), then we could look to see whether the correlation with the
>registration dates is about one-in-three or purely random.
>
>Thomas.
>
>
>"Shakespeare and His Critics"
>http://ds.dial.pipex.com/thomas_larque
John Baker
Thomas Larque
>that a statistical analysis of your "registration dates" shows that,
>since you accept any of four days as the "same day" (ten days before,
>ten days after, same day of the week, same actual date), a purely
>random selection of dates would get as many matches with the
>Shakespeare/Marlowe/Apocryphal registration dates as you get in your
>analysis. As I've shown, one in three randomly selected dates
>(including one in three of the dates recorded in the biography of
>William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon) matches up with one of the
>registration dates you refer to (and I didn't count all of the records
>that you now have on your website, so in fact there will be *more*
>random matches now).
In addition to the 47 Shakespeare/Marlowe/Apocryphal works that I
listed in my previous postings on the statistical chance of matching
registration dates at random, John has added five new dates (see his
webpage).
Maiden's Holiday - 8th April 1664 (Second Friday)
The Woman Hater - 20th May 1607 (Third Wednesday)
Jew of Malta & Oenone & Paris - 17th May 1594 (Third Friday)
Jew of Malta (Henslowe's Diary) - 27th February 1591 (Third Thursday)
Dutch Church Libels - 2nd May 1593 (First Wednesday)
I am trusting John to have given accurate dates and not to have
falsified the Julian / Gregorian dates by subtracting ten days when he
should be adding them.
This gives a total of 52 dates of registration. Of these 43 are
distinct dates and 9 share dates but are on different weekdays. Two
have different dates but share the same weekday (Jew of Malta/Onenone
and Paris and Pericles/Antony and Cleopatra were registered on the
Third Friday in May).
The 43 distinct dates have four different dates to match each (ten
days before, ten days after, same weekday of the month, exact same
date). Making a total of 43 x 4 = 172 chances of a hit.
The 9 sharing dates, but on different weekdates add one extra chance
of a hit each (by weekdate). 9 x 1 = 9.
We have to take off one, since Jew of Malta/Onenone and Paris and
Pericles/Antony and Cleopatra share the weekday.
Total chances of a hit. 172+9-1 = 180.
Chances of picking a random date and matching another random date =
1/365 = 0.0027397260 (snip remaining decimals).
But we have 180 dates to match with our random date. This is the
equivalent to buying 180 lottery cards with each card having
0.0027397260 chance of winning.
The equation for this sort of probability is:
1- (1-p) ^ n
With p=probability of a hit (our 1/365) and n = number of tries (180).
The answer is 0.3897139 or 38.97139% chance of a random match.
Well over one in three (just less than one in two-and-a-half) chances
of a registration date matching with a randomly selected date.
I'm sure the mathematicians on the group will correct me if I have
made a mistake in my calculations (quite possible, since I'm no
mathematician).
Thomas Larque
>>Obviously somebody who was English but writing from continental Europe
>>might well record the date by the Gregorian Calender (which was in use
>>in Catholic Europe). Nobody English, on the other hand, would record
>>the Gregorian date in an English record unless they had some specific
>>reason for using the Gregorian Calendar.
>
>This isn't true.
So give us a genuine proven example of an English record written by an
Englishman in England (not a Catholic Priest, for example, who might
use the Catholic Calendar for religious reasons) who as a matter of
historical record used an exclusively Gregorian date without saying
so.
You have never given us an example of this kind. I would suggest that
this is because you have never heard of such a thing. Your "This
isn't true", therefore, is a false statement based on ignorance.
>>Even if we pretend that the
>>English routinely used the Gregorian Calendar and Julian Calendar
>>together, this does not prove your nonsensical claim that a
>>registration on 18th April (Julian) can be a celebration of an
>>anniversary of an event which took place on 8th April (Julian) - a
>>completely different day. You have no evidence for anybody ever doing
>>this and have provided no such evidence for the simple reason that
>>nobody ever did it.
>
>BS. I've been very clear as to why this is the sort of thing that
>went on. Its like a pun, Thomas, it created an area of vaugeness.
>If the poet were too explicit William Herbert lost his titles. So
>there had to be a grey area. All I have said is that the 18 April was
>or is William Herbert's real birthday. That's a fact, Tom.
The only reason such a thing went on in your mind, John, is that it
allows you to cheat with the Calendar dates and fantasise about
significant registrations that didn't exist.
>The poet and Herbert knew it. hat too is a fact. And thus a
>registration on it was or could be a private secret between them.
>
>
>>
>>You have also, by the way, never offered the slightest shred of
>>evidence for somebody celebrating the anniversary of their birth on
>>(say) the third Saturday in June, even though they were born on the
>>16th June (Julian) and the day they celebrated was the 20th June
>>(Julian). Again you cannot offer any evidence for this happening
>>because it did not happen and you are simply living in fantasy land.
>\
>
>Yes I did. I cited a letter from Arbella Stuart that showed it.
No, you didn't John. You seem to be getting confused. The post you
are presumably referring to gave Arbella Stuart as an example of
dating by the moon (""I have send your Laydhsip, the endes of my
heare which were cutt the sixt day of the moone, on saturday
laste...") with no reference to Birthdays or anniversaries at all.
The example you used for dating by weekdays was Pembroke's record of
his son's birth ("Be it remembered that at the Eight Day of April 1580
on Friday before twelve of the Clock at Night of the Same Day was Born
William Lord Hebert of Cardiff first Child of...."). You might notice
that in neither instance is there any reference to celebrating an
anniversary or birthday on "the sixt day of the moone" or on "Friday"
every year - so you clearly haven't proved what you pretend to have
done.
You don't seem to be able to get your mind around the fact that saying
that your birthday took place on a Saturday or even on the Third
Saturday of June (a simple statement of fact) is not the same as
celebrating the anniversary of that birthday *every* Third Saturday in
June, even when the date is different from your birthdate, and the day
therefore is *not* the anniversary of your birth.
My birthday was Sunday 24th June (Gregorian) - the Fourth Sunday in
June. My recording these facts does *not* indicate that I celebrate
my birthday on a Sunday every year. If I added that my birthday was
(something like) 12th June (Julian), that would not be the same as
saying that I celebrated my birthday on 12th June (Gregorian). You
have given examples of people recording dates by various systems, you
have *never* shown them celebrating their birthday on the wrong day
(not the anniversary of their birth) using one of these systems or the
peculiar Baker-ish combination of them.
>>People only had one birthday, which could be expressed as one of two
>>dates (as in 8th April (Julian) / 18th April (Gregorian) ) this
>>referred to the *same day* and not to four entirely different days as
>>you foolishly pretend.
>
>Tom, get off your high horse, you look like a fool up there. I've
>clearly explained that there are four ways to track one's B'day.
>By the two calendar dates;
Which both refer to the same day. NOBODY celebrated their birthday on
28th April (Julian) because they were born on 18th April (Julian) /
28th April (Gregorian).
>by the day of the week and the week of the
>month, so the first monday of june or the second monday of june
Again, you could say "today is the third Saturday in June", but NOBODY
then celebrated their birthday on the same day of the week but on
completely different dates every year - and you have offered no
evidence of anybody having done so, because no such evidence exists.
>and by
>the phase of the moon.
And again, the phase of the moon might date the present moment, but
NOBODY said "today is the first full moon in June, therefore it is my
birthday and I am 21 years old today, even though I was born on 12th
June 1580 and it is now 3rd June 1601". If you had any examples of
this you should post them, you have none because it never happened.
>Like it or not that's a fact.
No, John. It is a foolish fiction based on ignorance.
>Bite the bullet and give up.
>>
>>In addition to this you have never satisfactorily answered the point
>>that a statistical analysis of your "registration dates" shows that,
>>since you accept any of four days as the "same day" (ten days before,
>>ten days after, same day of the week, same actual date), a purely
>>random selection of dates would get as many matches with the
>>Shakespeare/Marlowe/Apocryphal registration dates as you get in your
>>analysis. As I've shown, one in three randomly selected dates
>>(including one in three of the dates recorded in the biography of
>>William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon) matches up with one of the
>>registration dates you refer to (and I didn't count all of the records
>>that you now have on your website, so in fact there will be *more*
>>random matches now).
>
>
>Again Tom you are off on a wild goose chase here. I don't take any of
>the four days. If you look at my date trail you will see that 90 to
>95% of them are on the same days Julian calendars.
Let's test this claim by looking at the "registration dates"
coincidences specific to Marlowe himself - the only way you link this
theory to the Authorship question. You give six - "final appaearance,
and/or death", "saved by Dr. Thomas Watson", "Marlowe's final arrest",
"Marlowe's arrest in Shoreditch", "Marlowe christened", "Marlowe's
college mentor burnt alive for atheism".
Of these you have:
Marlowe's Death : ten days after registration date.
Saved by Watson : ten days before registration date.
Marlowe's Final Arrest : same weekday, different date
Marlowe Christened : same weekday, different date
Marlowe's College Mentor : same weekday, different date
This leaves precisely one which doesn't use any of your fake Calendar
fixes and reflects a genuine anniversary. Actually Marlowe wasn't
arrested on this date in Shoreditch, but bound over to keep the peace,
so it seems you even get this factually wrong on your page.
It should be fairly clear, therefore, that you use *all* of your
Calendar cheats in order to link Marlowe to the registration dates.
This means that we can use all of the same cheats to link the
registration dates to Shakespeare, and I've shown 32 links between the
registration dates and dates in Shakespeare's Biography. This rather
dwarfs the six you've found for Marlowe using the same method.
>The registration
>of Venus and Adonis is the only one that uses the new calendar.
>And I've explained that. I've also pointed out the office wasn't
>always open
That was a false statement, though, wasn't it John? You claimed the
Stationers Office was never open on Sunday so that a particular
registration would have to take place on a Friday. I pointed out that
not only could they have registered it on Saturday (nearer to the
date), but that they could also register it on Sunday as a number of
Shakespeare's plays were registered on this day. So your explanation
for this two day lag was blatantly wrong, and your continuing claim
for this nonsense is blatantly dishonest.
>and the Author was certain about getting a work registered
>on the same day.
>
>Now lets take a deeeeeep breath and focus in on the registration of
>MND.
>
>That's on October 8 right? I hiked 16 milies with a 50lb pack and
>slept in a blizzard at 11,333 ft this weekend, gaining 6,000 vertical
>feet, so I'm not certain, but I think it was the 8th.
>
>Now if you look in Plutrach you will see that that's Theseus' day.
>
>I say the registration was intentional.
>
>I say that the application of statistics to individual human actions,
>is foolish in the extreme.
However using statistics to examine arguments that are probably
produced by nothing more than random chance is perfectly normal
behaviour for anybody who isn't irrationally attracted to such
arguments.
>We are dealing here with intention. I've seen the intention, I've
>explained it. If you disagree and think the registration of the works
>were unintentional...its ok by me.
>
>Pericles, A&C and the Sonnets all showed up on 20 May.
>
>I've suggested why. You don't have to buy into it.
>
>The Jew of Malta turned up on 17 May 1594 or one year to the day from
>the date of Marlowe's arrest. Do you doubt it? Check the calendar
>yourself.
>
>Edward II appeared on the same day Edward II became the defacto king,
>as described in the opening line.
>
>Dito for Edward II...
>
>these are facts Tom, like them or not.
>
>baker
Anybody who wants to see my comments on these "coincidences" can look
back into Google under the thread "For Peter Farley". Actually the
Theseus link with "Midsummer Night's Dream" is the first time that
you've come up with a link that doesn't rapidly disappear when your
argument is compared to the text and the real dates. That isn't a
very good percentage of hits.
john_baker
Tom,
I find it difficult to believe that a guy supposedly as sharp as you
doesn't understand beans about the statistical application to human
action.
You could use statistics to prove that there is no such thing as
intentional human action. It wouldn't mean beas, because there is
such as thing as intentional human action.
Suppose your figures showed that none of the works of Marlowe or
Shakespeare were intentionally registered. Now suppose they were.
Where would your figures have taken you?
Into nonsense and error.
If these plays were intentionally registered they were intentionally
registered.
Midsummer Night's Dream is a perfect example of intention. The date
has been right there all along and it wasn't noticed.
I'm too tired to bicker any more tonight, but if you have time why
don't you address the registration date of MND?
Or of MND, E2, E3, H6, and H5 (+AYLI and MA).
Here's the problem. What are the odds that all 7 of these plays
appeared on dates of importance to them.
I would say that its 1 in 365 for any one, but the odds increase for
each one, so by the time we get to 7 the odds are indeed high.
And thus favor intention. But I don't care about the odds. If the
plays were registered intentionally (and the poems too) the odds don't
matter one bit.
We should add Hamlet to that list as well, that makes it 8.
Do you know what Hamlet and Marlowe have in common? Hint: 25 July.
Now ( can almost hear you squeeling from here, but the office was
closed on Sunday 25 July 1602, so Monday 26 July was as close as you
could get to 25 July.
Second hint: it is a double saint day:
Give up?
Answer: Christopher & James
I like it. Rather marvelous.
john
Hyperopic
<thomas...@lineone.net> wrote:
>...Actually the
>Theseus link with "Midsummer Night's Dream" is the first time that
>you've come up with a link that doesn't rapidly disappear when your
>argument is compared to the text and the real dates.
Bear with me, I'm trying to catch up on the argument of this thread.
Mr. Baker's webpage says "Theseus' Day or Athens' Democracy Begins: 8
October, cited by Plutarch." But classical Athens used a lunar
calendar for its religious festivals, so the dates don't match well to
our solar calendar. What date in Plutarch is being referred to? Is
it "Theseus, after the funeral of his father, paid his vows to Apollo
the seventh day of Pyanepsion"? (Dryden/Modern Library translation).
It seems Pyanepsion could begin any time between mid-September and
mid-October. What Elizabethan source nails it to 8 October?
Hyperopic
<thomas...@lineone.net> wrote:
>The 43 distinct dates have four different dates to match each (ten
>days before, ten days after, same weekday of the month, exact same
>date). Making a total of 43 x 4 = 172 chances of a hit.
To be "exact" you'd have to check for duplicates, e.g. May 2 + 10 =
May 22 - 10.
>Total chances of a hit. 172+9-1 = 180.
>
>Chances of picking a random date and matching another random date =
>1/365 = 0.0027397260 (snip remaining decimals).
>
>But we have 180 dates to match with our random date. This is the
>equivalent to buying 180 lottery cards with each card having
>0.0027397260 chance of winning.
>
>The equation for this sort of probability is:
>1- (1-p) ^ n
>
>With p=probability of a hit (our 1/365) and n = number of tries (180).
>
>The answer is 0.3897139 or 38.97139% chance of a random match.
I think this is viewing the problem backwards. It's more like a bowl
filled with 180 white marbles and 185 red marbles. Stick your hand in
and pick a marble; what are the odds that it's white? The math in
your lotto cards example is correct only if one assumes that the lotto
draws are independent and may repeat, which is a bad premise for the
problem at hand. (Warning, my pronouncements on math are subject to
revision!)
Then one gets into the problem of "how many times do I get to stick my
hand in the bowl," or "what is a Significant Marlovian Date [SMD]?"
From Mr. Baker's webpage, it seems the candidates include birthdays,
death days, fair days, saint's days, coronation days, earthquake days,
street fight days, etc. If one doesn't know the criteria for defining
SMDs, one fears that the list simply grows until it covers all
required dates. For example, if one of the registrations had occured
on Agincourt Day, Agincourt Day would become an SMD--famous battles,
sure, they're significant. And royal weddings, and solar eclipses,
and whatever else it takes.
Bob Grumman
way of reasoning be thought to connect to Shakespeare that is
NOT related, significantly, to the question of who he "really" was?
Now, thanks to Baker, a corollary: did Shakespeare (or his
intimates) ever do anything . . . for no particular reason? That
is, was everything he or they ever did some kind of clue to something
important in his life?
Rigidniks much more than people with functional minds are apt to
answer no to both questions, or lean noticeably in that direction.
--Bob G.
Thomas Larque
>
>I find it difficult to believe that a guy supposedly as sharp as you
>doesn't understand beans about the statistical application to human
>action.
>
>You could use statistics to prove that there is no such thing as
>intentional human action. It wouldn't mean beas, because there is
>such as thing as intentional human action.
I'm *not* surprised, John, that somebody as obviously incapable of
contact with the real world as you is convinced that if he buys 180
tickets every day for a 365 ticket raffle, enters the raffle for five
hundred days in a row, and wins six times it is due to the fact that
he has a lucky rabbit foot and *nothing* to do with chance.
Quite obviously we are dealing here with chances that can be
statistically accessed, and which - if they were really to show
evidence of "intentional human action" - should show a much better
hit-rate than a purely random selection of dates. The only reason
that you are squawling about this is because the statistics prove you
a gullible fool. I'm willing to bet that you have checked just about
every date connected with Marlowe by several degrees of separation -
his being bound over in Shoreditch, the Saint day with his name, and
his supposed acquaintance being burned are hardly the most prominent
dated references in most Marlowe Biographies - if you have checked
quite so many dates then six matches is a PITIFUL number of hits,
given that you should be matching about 40% of dates by chance alone.
As I've pointed out, and you are pretending not to notice, Shakespeare
of Stratford's biography does *much* better, scoring 32 hits from a
little over 77 dates, and even this can be shown to be the product of
random chance.
>Suppose your figures showed that none of the works of Marlowe or
>Shakespeare were intentionally registered. Now suppose they were.
>Where would your figures have taken you?
>
>Into nonsense and error.
Well let's suppose the opposite. Suppose that nobody picked the
registration days to coincide with Marlowe's Biography or anything
else. Suppose that your lies about how people celebrated
anniversaries and birthdates on five different days (ten days before,
ten days after, weekday of the month, phase of the moon, exact same
date) is the rather obviously dishonest crap that it seems to be,
since it is based on no historical record whatever. Where would
*ignoring* the obvious statistical proof that your system is
meaningless take you? Into Baker-fantasy-land, "nonsense and error".
You seem to think that because you want to believe something so very
hard, nobody should use normal rational tests to disprove its
existence. Presumably you told your parents never to use science to
explain why the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus couldn't exist - because
Science can't be applied to MAGIC.
>If these plays were intentionally registered they were intentionally
>registered.
And if they weren't they weren't. It just so happens that the
evidence is against your fantasy. Closing your eyes and sobbing "IT
MUST BE TRUE! IT MUST BE TRUE!" isn't going to make it real.
>Midsummer Night's Dream is a perfect example of intention. The date
>has been right there all along and it wasn't noticed.
>
>I'm too tired to bicker any more tonight, but if you have time why
>don't you address the registration date of MND?
I've already pointed out, in fact, that coincidences of this kind do
happen. The first performance of "A Man for All Seasons" about Thomas
More's trial and execution took place on one of only two dates in the
small Biography of More that I had to hand - the day that More was
brought to trial (a major event in the play). Exactly the same sort
of coincidence that you jump up and down about with the registration
dates. This was the first and only text that I checked for
comparison. The chance of a match was 1 in 365 (or 2 in 365 if you
want to take into account the fact that I had two dates to check
against). It happened. Why don't you address "A Man for All
Seasons"?
>Or of MND, E2, E3, H6, and H5 (+AYLI and MA).
First it is fairly obvious that you tried all sorts of dates within
each play before finding a supposed "match". Each King's birth and
death dates, their coronation dates, the dates that modern historians
mention as significant in their reigns, festivals set up by them etc.
etc. This should make it obvious that the chance is *not* 1 in 365,
but [however many dates you looked at] in 365 which would be quite a
high figure, I imagine.
Secondly we can scratch out "Edward III" and "Hamlet" straight away,
because these don't match the registration dates by *any* of your
dishonest Calendar cheats and you have to whine about the Stationers
Office being closed on Sundays, which it wasn't. Two of Shakespeare's
plays were registered on Sundays. Even if the "closed on Sundays" lie
were true then your system allows Marlowe to register ten days before
the day, ten days after the day, or on the same weekday but a
different date, as well as on the actual date itself which means that
he would *never* find that the Stationers Office was closed on all
four days. This means that you have no excuse for pretending that
dates which don't match the registration dates by any of your four
systems were "intentionally registered" but just on the wrong day,
because ... well ... the Stationers Office was shut.
If I wanted to waste my time I could work out the statistical chances
of finding a match with a registration date using any of your four
systems *and* two days on either side just in case the Stationers
Office was shut. This should have a random hit-rate of over 50%.
Better chances than tossing a coin.
Of the remaining, you claim that the play "Edward II" started on the
day of Edward I's death. This isn't true. It starts on the day that
Gaveston arrives in London, by which time he has been sent a letter,
received it in France, sailed from France to England and walked to
London (since he has no horses). This would have taken days or weeks,
hence the start of the play has no connection to the date that you
claim as your significant registration date.
You claim that "Henry VI - part 1" starts on 8 November, but this
isn't true either. It starts with Henry V's funeral - which took
place on November 7th. You claim that, in Shakespeare's play, Henry
VI was "proclaimed King" (which you mistake as a reference to his
coronation, actually he was proclaimed King of England and France
immediately his father died, long before his coronation) on November
8th, but the text does not suggest a day's delay at all. Gloucester
says "I'll to the Tower with all the haste I can / To view
th'artillery and munition; / And then I will proclaim young Henry
king" which suggests no delay and would have the proclamation happen
on the same day as the funeral, November 7th. In fact, however, the
proclamation date is definitively stated in Holinshed as "yong prince
Henry ... being of the age of ix. monethes or there about with the
sound of trumpettes openly to be proclaimed kyng of Englande and of
Fraunce the xxx. daie of August, in the yere of our lorde. M. cccc.
xxii" (see Bullough III.45). So your case rests on Marlowe preferring
the fantasy date within his own play to the real historical date (30th
August) for his registration, and on Gloucester - in Shakespeare's
play - taking more than a day to reach the Tower from Westminster,
when it is in fact only a short ride and he is making "all the haste I
can". So you've got this one wrong as well.
Quite obviously "Henry V" makes no reference to a Canterbury festival
that was started by Henry VI, so your claim for a connection between
the events in the play and the registration date is tenuous to say the
least, and once again it becomes obvious that you are checking
hundreds of possible dates for each play - every date with even a tiny
connection to the Kings concerned, etc. etc. - thus making your
chances of a random match that much greater.
"As You Like It" and "Much Ado" clearly have no connection with Henry
V or Henry VI or their festival and should, therefore, not be on this
list. The chances of matching a random date to a random play - as you
do here, and as you do with Marlowe's Biographical dates - have been
examined in my earlier posting and turn out to be rather a bit over
one-in-three.
>Here's the problem. What are the odds that all 7 of these plays
>appeared on dates of importance to them.
>
>I would say that its 1 in 365 for any one, but the odds increase for
>each one, so by the time we get to 7 the odds are indeed high.
>
>And thus favor intention. But I don't care about the odds. If the
>plays were registered intentionally (and the poems too) the odds don't
>matter one bit.
>
>We should add Hamlet to that list as well, that makes it 8.
>
>Do you know what Hamlet and Marlowe have in common? Hint: 25 July.
>
>Now ( can almost hear you squeeling from here, but the office was
>closed on Sunday 25 July 1602, so Monday 26 July was as close as you
>could get to 25 July.
Not true, John. How many times do I have to tell you? The Stationers
Office accepted registrations on Sundays, since "Troilus and Cressida"
(Sunday January 28th 1609) and "Henry IV (part 1)" (Sunday 25th
February 1598) were both registered on this day. Besides, by the
Idiotic Baker System Marlowe could commemmorate 25th July in 1602
(avoiding the Sunday) by registering on Thursday 15th July 1602, or
Wednesday 4th August 1602 using your Calendar Cheats. The Stationers
Office was open on both days (and, in fact, on all three days) so this
was perfectly possible, and having supposedly invented such a flexible
system (allowing him to register on any one of four days to celebrate
one day) he would certainly not have had to cheat even further by
sometimes missing the registration by a day or two. Again the idiocy
of your claims is made abundantly clear.
>Second hint: it is a double saint day:
>
>Give up?
>
>
>Answer: Christopher & James
Also "Hamlet" has nothing to do with James outside essays by some
academics. Shakespeare never made the connection.
>I like it. Rather marvelous.
You would. Rather stupid.
It is also worth pointing out that your favourite examples (listed
above) have *nothing* to do with Christopher Marlowe, and could have
been noticed and recorded by *any* of the Authorship candidates.
I am amused to see that you have still not responded to the fact that
I have found six times as many links in the "registration trail" to
Shakespeare of Stratford's Biography as you have found to Marlowe's.
By your own argument, therefore, Shakespeare of Stratford is six times
more likely to have been the Author of the plays (although in truth
the coincidences with both men's biographies can be put down to pure
random chance). Can you answer this? I guess not.
john_baker
I awoke thinking about you. A bad sign. Astrological pun intended.
Didn't we discuss, in our earlier rounds, why
statistics does not apply to human action?
You seem to keep track of these discussions. Did you miss this
important point?
In any event I would suggest you read Murray N. Rthobard's _Man
Economy and State_ or his mentor's earlier _Human Action_ (Ludwig
von Mises) both of which are thousand page works. The sections you
need are much smaller of course.
Lets take single car "accidents."
Statistically speaking we can tell about how many there will be in any
given year and, based on data from previous follow up studies, we can
extrapolate about how many of those were accidents and how many were
suicides.
But no statistical method will predict which one was which.
Human action is either rational or irrational and statistics simply
isn't designed to follow it.
If an author chooses to register works on dates that are important to
him or her and complicates this by also choosing to register works on
dates that are important to the works, there are simply too many
factors to be considered to be treated statistically.
Your attempt yields a reference frame. With it you can tell us how
many "hits" we might expect inside a given system. For example "days
of importantce o Marlowe." Or "days important to the histories." Or
in the case of MND, to the comedies. Or days of importance to his
patrons.
As with the single car accidents, we don't know in advance which of
the three types may be used. Its possible more types were used.
Dates important to Saints. Dates important to Philosophers. Dates
important to Statisticians.
However the problem is that this statistical framework does not
address human intention and action, nor can it take into account
either its diversity or even the slight diversity caused by
availability or access to the registration office. Some days it was
open some days it was not.
You are right to note that his pattern also does not obey our fetch
for preciseness.
However as I hove pointed out, and proven, Elizabethans were not as
particular with dates as we tend to be. There is ample proof of this
in the plays. The nurse doesn't track Juliet's birth from a calendar
date. She remembers it's conjunction with the year of the quakes and
with Lamas Eve.
Falstaff's brush with death, came as Art and I have shown, on the same
day that Marlowe got it, but again no calendar date is given.
On Wed, 30 May 2001 122623 -0400, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote
>-------------------------------------------------------
> A Stellar Date For 2 Henry 4
>-------------------------------------------------------
>PRINCE HENRY
>
> Saturn and Venus this year in conjunction! what
> says the almanac to that?
>
>> A triple Almanacke for the yeere of our Lorde God. 1591. being the
>>thirde from the Leape yeere. Wherein is conteyned, not onely the common
>>accompt, which in this our Realme is vsed, with the Romane Kalender
>>according to the late correction of Gregoriebut also, the true
>>computation and reduction of the monethes to their first & auncient
>>seates Christmas day being at the Sunnes entrance into Capricorne,
>> or shortest daywhereby ..... By I.D. [Iohn Dee?]
>
>POINS
> And look, whether the fiery Trigon, his man, be not
> lisping to his master's old tables, his note-book,
> his counsel-keeper.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>1) The Saturn/Venus conjunction on May 30, 1593 (Gregorian)
>
>2) in Leo (Fiery Trigon)
>
>3) during a partial solar eclipse
>
>4) close to the 'seven stars'/Pleiades.
>
>PISTOL
> Sweet knight, I kiss thy neaf what!
> we have seen the seven stars.
>
> *******************************
>
>5) When both Shakspere & Marlowe were 29 years old.
>
>MISTRESS QUICKLY
> Well, fare thee wellI have known thee these
> twenty-nine years, come peascod-time; but an
> honester and truer-hearted man,--well, fare thee well.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
> At about 1 PM on May 30, 1593 (Gregorian) London experienced a
> partial eclipse of the sun while Venus was in conjunction with Saturn.
> The path of the total eclipse started in South America, passed over
> the Sahara and ended in Arabia. Barely a year later (May 20, 1594
> {Gregorian}) another total eclipse rose (Phoenix like) out of Arabia
> (between Mecca to Medina) and passed over the former
> empires of Tamerlane and Nebuchadnezzar.
> -
snip
> But was it on Sunday May 30, 1593 (Gregorian)
> or WhitWednesday May 30, 1593 (Julian)?
>
>MISTRESS QUICKLY
> Thou didst swear to me upon a
> parcel-gilt goblet, sitting in my Dolphin-chamber,
> at the round table, by a sea-coal fire, upon
> WEDNESDAY in WHEESON WEEK, when the prince BROKE
> THY HEAD head for liking his father to a singing-man of
> Windsor, thou didst swear to me then, as I was
> washing THY WOUND, to marry me and make me my lady
> thy wife. Canst thou deny it? Did not goodwife
> Keech, the BUTCHER's wife, come in then and call me
> gossip Quickly?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>Professor Art Neuendorffer
Clearly this isn't the kind of dating system we are use to. I have
quoted other sources to prove that Elizabethans tracked dates by 1)
phases of the moon; 2) weekdays; and by 3) both calendar dates.
This tracking is not unlike the way we track Easter, Thanksgiving and
calendar dates. So it should not be too odd or difficult to grap.
(I suspect you just don't want to understand it.)
I don't have any influence over or knowledge of the Author's
intention.
I've simply proven that the registration of the works follows what
looks like an intentional pattern.
I have suggested the patter three fold: dates of importance to
Marlowe. Dates of importance to his patrons. Dates of importance to
the works.
I think such a pattern is entirely natural. Hamlet is a good one.
It is obviously important to King James. It was also a very personal
play. And it goes down on St. Christopher and St. James day...or as
close to it as one could get, given that the office was not open on
Sunday.
It may be "numerology" on my part, but it can not be proven false by
the use of statistics.
You are welcome to "invent" another system that might explain these
dates or to suppose that they were simply random. It doesn't matter
to me.
I'm dealing with people who understand that humans do have intention
and that their intention is frequently reflected in their actions.
If you'd like to use statistics to disprove that go right ahead, knock
yourself out.
john
john_baker
A good question and a good point.
In North's translation, know to be the source for many of the author's
trips into Greek times, North writes "The greatest and most solemn
sacrafice they do unto him is on the eight day of October, in which he
returned from Crete, with the other young children of Athens."
Its at the very end of his discussion on Theseus.
baker
john_baker
wrote:
>Is there, as I've asked before, any detail that can by some
of course Bob they did things for no particular reason, but the
registration of MND on 8 October shows they registered plays on
dates importance to the plays.
baker
john_baker
Thomas,
You really must be on some trip! Can I go with you?
I'll post my answer to your ramblings again. If you don't understand
it, just understand that this is an area you and I will not agree on.
We must have other similar areas. I think, for example, that
Shakspere didn't write Shakespeare, whereas you suppose he did.
We aren't going to agree on that either.
john
Thomas,
john
john_baker
Right you are. And I'm saying that Thomas' statistical analysis will
not work. It worse than foolish. But this does not mean that the
works were not intentionally entered.
I have limited the categories to three: dates of importance to
Marlowe; dates of importance to his patrons and dates of importance to
the plays or poems.
I wouldn't want anyone to suppose that the trail is proof that Marlowe
survived or even proof of intention.
But I do suspect that objective and disinterested parties (like
yourself) will understand what I'm getting at.
The works may well have been intentionally registered. And such an
intention is to be expected on the part of an author who dips into
these affairs so deeply, i.e., a historically minded chap, who works
by an outline or plan and who produces works inside a plan.
thanks for taking a peek at this material,
john
Thomas Larque
>
>Thomas,
>
>You really must be on some trip! Can I go with you?
>
>I'll post my answer to your ramblings again. If you don't understand
>it, just understand that this is an area you and I will not agree on.
>We must have other similar areas. I think, for example, that
>Shakspere didn't write Shakespeare, whereas you suppose he did.
>We aren't going to agree on that either.
>
>john
Stop wasting bandwidth, Baker. You only need to post the self-same
stuff once.
Thomas Larque
>
>I awoke thinking about you. A bad sign. Astrological pun intended.
>
>Didn't we discuss, in our earlier rounds, why
>statistics does not apply to human action?
You might have done, John, but you didn't give us any good reasons for
thinking so.
>You seem to keep track of these discussions. Did you miss this
>important point?
>
>In any event I would suggest you read Murray N. Rthobard's _Man
>Economy and State_ or his mentor's earlier _Human Action_ (Ludwig
>von Mises) both of which are thousand page works. The sections you
>need are much smaller of course.
>
>Lets take single car "accidents."
>
>Statistically speaking we can tell about how many there will be in any
>given year and, based on data from previous follow up studies, we can
>extrapolate about how many of those were accidents and how many were
>suicides.
>
>But no statistical method will predict which one was which.
On the other hand, if you claim that one particular checkable thing is
*causing* car-crashes, say a new brand of car with headlights that
never switch off which you say distracts drivers and causes them to
crash into it, then obviously statistics become relevant. If that car
has *fewer* crashes than all other cars selected at random then your
theory is obviously garbage.
Even using every Calendar Cheat that you have come up with, and after
presumably checking every date even vaguely connected to Christopher
Marlowe, you have only come up with six occasions on which his
personal dates link up with the registration dates. I can do far
better for Shakespeare (I got 32) and I can show that randomly
selected dates would do better as well. Despite your whining (above)
about statistics not being applicable to human intentions, it is quite
clear that all that you are picking up is random noise and not
significant data at all. I also see that you are too scared to deal
with the fact that Shakespeare of Stratford has a better match with
the registration dates than Marlowe, something that is not
statistical, but simply factual.
>Human action is either rational or irrational and statistics simply
>isn't designed to follow it.
>
>If an author chooses to register works on dates that are important to
>him or her and complicates this by also choosing to register works on
>dates that are important to the works, there are simply too many
>factors to be considered to be treated statistically.
>
>Your attempt yields a reference frame. With it you can tell us how
>many "hits" we might expect inside a given system. For example "days
>of importantce o Marlowe." Or "days important to the histories." Or
>in the case of MND, to the comedies. Or days of importance to his
>patrons.
>
>As with the single car accidents, we don't know in advance which of
>the three types may be used. Its possible more types were used.
>Dates important to Saints. Dates important to Philosophers. Dates
>important to Statisticians.
So ignore the rest and answer the point on the basis of what, to you,
is the most important of your categories - dates relating to Marlowe.
Shakespeare does better than Marlowe. Random chance does better than
Marlowe. Now tell us why you think Marlowe's dates are somehow more
significant than Shakespeare's or random chances when both of these
better him by some way.
>However the problem is that this statistical framework does not
>address human intention and action, nor can it take into account
>either its diversity or even the slight diversity caused by
>availability or access to the registration office. Some days it was
>open some days it was not.
>
>You are right to note that his pattern also does not obey our fetch
>for preciseness.
>
>However as I hove pointed out, and proven, Elizabethans were not as
>particular with dates as we tend to be. There is ample proof of this
>in the plays. The nurse doesn't track Juliet's birth from a calendar
>date. She remembers it's conjunction with the year of the quakes and
>with Lamas Eve.
So? She doesn't then celebrate Juliet's birthday on *the wrong day*,
as your various Calendar Cheats would.
>Falstaff's brush with death, came as Art and I have shown, on the same
>day that Marlowe got it, but again no calendar date is given.
You didn't read Art's posting very carefully. It says (quite clearly,
I thought) the Conjunction took place "on May 30, 1593 (Gregorian)".
You are surely not so stuck into your Idiotic Baker System that you do
not realise that Marlowe's death took place on May 30th, 1593 (Julian)
or June 9th, 1593 (Gregorian) and that therefore there was *no*
conjunction of Venus and Saturn on that day. Besides, the reference
to "Venus and Saturn" in "Henry IV - 2" is not connected to Falstaff's
death or even Falstaff's fake death, but with his groping a Prostitute
in a tavern.
>Clearly this isn't the kind of dating system we are use to. I have
>quoted other sources to prove that Elizabethans tracked dates by 1)
>phases of the moon; 2) weekdays; and by 3) both calendar dates.
Well, your source for the weekdays was a record that mentioned
"Friday" which clearly wasn't tracking by the weekday at all, but
simply mentioning it, just as modern records often do.
In addition to this you have never provided any evidence to support
your foolish fantasy that Elizabethans could celebrate an April 18th
(Julian) birthday on April 8th (Julian), April 18th (Julian) or April
28th (Julian), and on April 16th (Julian) if that happens to be a
Friday. This is all nonsense, you have no historical evidence for
such a system because it never existed, and your whole theory is -
therefore - utter rubbish.
>This tracking is not unlike the way we track Easter, Thanksgiving and
>calendar dates. So it should not be too odd or difficult to grap.
>
>(I suspect you just don't want to understand it.)
I suspect that *you* don't want to understand it, John. That's why
you simply lie about how the Elizabethans tracked anniversaries.
>I don't have any influence over or knowledge of the Author's
>intention.
>
>I've simply proven that the registration of the works follows what
>looks like an intentional pattern.
A pattern that you have invented, and which Marlowe nor Shakespeare
knew anything about.
>I have suggested the patter three fold: dates of importance to
>Marlowe. Dates of importance to his patrons. Dates of importance to
>the works.
So let's take the first of these. Do you admit that if you picked a
date at random you would stand a better than one in three chance of
matching it to the registration dates? Do you admit that you tried
more than three times as many dates, for comparison, in order to find
the six that you list on your website? If you admit both of these
then you have just shown that you are working on a worse than random
selection of dates.
>I think such a pattern is entirely natural. Hamlet is a good one.
>It is obviously important to King James. It was also a very personal
>play. And it goes down on St. Christopher and St. James day...or as
>close to it as one could get, given that the office was not open on
>Sunday.
Stop lying, John. I find it hysterically funny that you just ignore
evidence and lie your head off. Do you agree that two of
Shakespeare's plays were registered on Sunday? If not, then show how
I am wrong in suggesting this. If you also find that these plays were
registered on Sunday, then why do you keep dishonestly pretending that
the Stationers Office was closed on Sundays? Are you stupid, or do
you just hope that everybody who reads your posts will be?
And again, using the system that you pretend (dishonestly again) that
Marlowe was using, Marlowe could have registered ten days earlier or
ten days later to commemmorate the Saints Day. Your suggestion that
he *still* couldn't register them on the right day, despite having
four days to choose from, is hysterically funny and obviously not
true.
>It may be "numerology" on my part, but it can not be proven false by
>the use of statistics.
Just like the idiot Baconian cypher-mongering, it can, John, you just
won't admit it. After all, you wouldn't be an idiot cypher-monger if
you stopped and checked the statistical basis of what you were doing.
>You are welcome to "invent" another system that might explain these
>dates or to suppose that they were simply random. It doesn't matter
>to me.
>
>I'm dealing with people who understand that humans do have intention
>and that their intention is frequently reflected in their actions.
>
>If you'd like to use statistics to disprove that go right ahead, knock
>yourself out.
Forget the statistics for a moment then John, since you are so upset
by the fact that they prove you a fool, and tell us why Shakespeare's
Biography scores a better match with the registration dates than
Marlowe's. If we use your system we can prove that Shakespeare is
more likely to have written and registered the plays than Marlowe is.
If you can't answer this - and you seem completely unable to - then
your ridiculous system is more Stratfordian in its conclusions than
Marlovian. I imagine that would upset you rather a lot.
Alisa Beaton
> Thomas Larque wrote:
> >
> > The popular British History magazine, History Today, has as its cover
> > story this month (August 2001) "Who Was Shakespeare?". "William
> > Rubinstein continues his survey of topics of enduring popular debate".
> > Although I'm a regular subscriber to the magazine, I don't remember
> > offhand what the other articles in this series were about, so don't
> > know what they are comparing the Authorship debate with. The article
> > is strongly sympathetic to the Oxfordians in particular, and takes the
> > Baconians claims reasonably seriously but (no doubt to the horror of
> > Peter Farey and his friends) rejects the Marlovian theory out of hand
> > saying that "Calvin Hoffman ... argued, without a shred of evidence,
> > that Marlowe was not in fact killed in a tavern brawl ... but survived
> > surreptitiously to write Shakespeare's plays".
> >
> > The article is full of the usual Anti-Stratfordian errors (Shakespeare
> > can't have been homosexual because he was married and had children,
> > but Oxford was - what about Oxford's two wives and children?
>
> Oxford had the minimum number of wives & children required to assure
> him of a male heir.
>
> > Shakespeare's daughters were iliterate,
>
> Didn't they mention his wife & parents?
>
> > Shakespeare was the son of a Butcher (!),
>
> That's what it says in his first biography.
>
> > the hyphen in Shakespeare's name means that it was a pseudonym,
>
> The hyphen in Shake-speare's name means that it was a pseudonym.
>
> > "ever-living" was only applied to dead people)
>
> "Ever-living" was almost always applied only to dead people.
>>"Ever-living" applied to God. To characterize a mortal as
"ever-living" would have been considered blasphemy.
>
> > and the
> > Bibliography at the end does not include any Stratfordian arguments
> > specifically about the authorship (but it does include Diana Price's
> > book, congratulations Diana) except for Schoenbaum's "Shakespeare's
> > Lives" which only briefly makes any sort of Stratfordian response to
> > the Anti-Stratfordians. I'll be writing a letter to History Today
> > recommending Dave and Terry's site and Matus.
>
> You do that, Tom.
>
> Art Neuendorffer
Alisa Beaton
> >> The article is full of the usual Anti-Stratfordian errors (Shakespeare
> >> can't have been homosexual because he was married and had children,
> >> but Oxford was - what about Oxford's two wives and children?
> >
> > Oxford had the minimum number of wives & children required to assure
> >him of a male heir.
>
> Shakespeare failed to produce a male heir to survive him.
So Hamnet was a girl?
>
> As for Oxford, he also seems to have had at least one mistress and
> probably also a connection with an Italian prostitute. Both instances
> suggest that he had sex with women for fun.
>
> Thomas.