author: Art Neuendorffer

subject: Doctor Who meets Shakespeare?

text:
Patty Winter wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shakespeare_Code
.
<<The Shakespeare Code (From Wikipedia)
Not to be confused with the book of the same name
written by Virginia Fellows.
.
Doctor David Tennant (Tenth Doctor)
Companion Freema Agyeman (Martha Jones)
Writer Gareth Roberts
Director Charles Palmer
Script Editor Simon Winstone
...........................................
. Cast

* The Doctor -- David Tennant(Tenth Doctor)
* Martha Jones -- Freema Agyeman
* William Shakespeare -- Dean Lennox Kelly
* Lilith -- Christina Cole
* Wiggins -- Sam Marks
* Doomfinger -- Amanda Lawrence
* Bloodtide -- Linda Clarke
* Dick -- Jalaal Hartley
* Kempe -- David Westhead
* Dolly Bailey -- Andree Bernard
* Lynley -- Chris Larkin
* Jailer -- Stephen Marcus
* Peter Streete -- Matt King
* Preacher -- Robert Demeger
* Queen Elizabeth I -- Angela Pleasence
...........................................
"The Shakespeare Code" is an episode of the British science fiction
television series Doctor Who. It was broadcast on BBC One on 7 April
2007,[1] and is the second episode of Series 3 of the revived Doctor Who
series. According to the BARB figures this episode was seen by 7.23
million viewers and was the fifth most popular broadcast on British
television in that week. Originally titled "Love's Labour's Won",
the episode was re-titled as a reference to The Da Vinci Code.
...........................................
. Synopsis
.
The Doctor takes Martha on her first trip in the TARDIS. Arriving in
Elizabethan England, they meet William Shakespeare, who is writing his
play Love's Labour's Won. However, evil, witch-like Carrionites plot to
end the world by placing a code in the new play's closing dialogue.
Shakespeare will have to give the performance of his life in order to
save the Earth.
...........................................
. Plot
.
A young woman is serenaded from her balcony by a lute-playing suitor,
Wiggins. She bids him enter the house, but to his shock he finds it full
of witching artefacts. The woman, Lilith, kisses Wiggins -- but, on
pulling away, he finds her transformed into a wrinkled hag. She
introduces her two "mothers", Doomfinger and Bloodtide, who appear,
cackling, and lunge at the screaming youth, apparently devouring him.
.
Meanwhile, the TARDIS lands in Elizabethan London. Martha questions
whether it is safe to walk around in the past, citing such time travel
concepts as the Grandfather paradox and a reference to the Ray Bradbury
short story "A Sound of Thunder"; and also worrying about her reception
as a black woman in a time when slavery still exists. The Doctor tells
her not to worry. He declares that they have arrived in London in 1599
and takes her to a performance at the Globe Theatre. At the end of the
play, Love's Labour's Lost, Shakespeare announces that there will soon
be a sequel called Love's Labour's Won. Lilith, using a poppet,
influences Shakespeare to declare, rashly, that the new play will
premiere the following evening. Martha asks why she has never heard of
Love's Labour's Won. The Doctor knows of the lost play and, curious,
decides to find out more about why it was never published -- and extends
Martha's "one trip".
.
The two go to The Elephant, the inn where William Shakespeare is
staying. They chat with the playwright, who intends to finish writing
the final scene of Love Labour's Won that night. An instantly beguiled
Shakespeare ("Hey nonny nonny!") tries to woo Martha, describing her as
"a queen of Afric" or a "Blackamoor lady", which she finds slightly
offensive. The Doctor claims she comes from 'Freedonia' to explain her
strange clothing and modern attitudes. Shakespeare sees past the
Doctor's psychic paper, which the Doctor cites as proof of the man's genius.
.
Lynley, Master of the Revels, demands to see the script before he allows
the play to proceed. When Shakespeare offers to show him the finished
script in the morning, the official leaves proclaiming that this slight
means he will ensure the play will never be performed. The trio of
'witches' watch the scene in a cauldron. Lilith, who works at the inn,
secretly takes some of Lynley's hair and makes another poppet, which she
plunges into a bucket of water. The Doctor, Martha and Shakespeare hear
a commotion in the street and run out, where they witness Lynley
vomiting water. Lilith stabs the doll in the chest, and Lynley
collapses, dead. The Doctor calmly announces that Lynley has died of an
imbalance of the humours, and privately tells Martha that any other
explanation would lead to panic about witchcraft. When Martha asks what
did kill Lynley, the Doctor responds, "Witchcraft".
.
Martha and the Doctor stay overnight at the inn. The Doctor gives a
disgruntled Martha mixed signals by casually sharing a bed with her only
to then openly bemoan the lack of Rose's insight. Meanwhile, Lilith
entrances Shakespeare and, using a marionette, compels him to write a
strange concluding paragraph to Love's Labour's Won. She is discovered
by the landlady (also the Bard's lover), whom she frightens to death. On
hearing another scream, the Doctor runs in and finds the body. Through
the window, Martha sees a witch fly away on a broomstick.
.
In the morning the Doctor, Martha and Shakespeare proceed to the Globe
Theatre, where the Doctor asks why the theatre has 14 sides. Shakespeare
replies that the architect thought it would make sound carry well and
mentions that he eventually went mad and talked of witches. The three
then visit the architect, Peter Streete, in Bedlam Asylum. The Doctor
helps Streete to emerge from his catatonia for long enough to reveal
that the witches dictated the Globe's design to him. He also tells the
Doctor that the witches were based in All Hallows Street.
.
The witches observe this interview through their cauldron. Doomfinger
teleports to the cell and kills Peter with a touch. She threatens the
other three but the Doctor works out who the 'witches' really are. He
names the creature as a Carrionite, which causes her to disappear. The
Doctor explains that the Carrionites produce their "magic" through an
ancient science based on the power of words.
.
Back at the Elephant, the Doctor deduces that the Carrionites intend to
use the words of a genius -- Shakespeare -- to break their species out of
eternal imprisonment when Love's Labours Won is performed. The Doctor
tells Shakespeare to stop the play whilst he and Martha go to All
Hallows Street to thwart the witches. Shakespeare bursts on to the
Globe's stage to make the announcement, but two of the Carrionites are
already there and use one of their dolls to render him unconscious. The
actors -- thinking Shakespeare has passed out drunk -- carry the
playwright off stage and the performance proceeds.
.
The Doctor and Martha reach All Hallows Street and confront Lilith, who
is expecting them. She confirms the Doctor's suspicions: the three
Carrionites hope to gain entry for the rest of their species, eliminate
the humans, begin a new empire on Earth and spread out from there.
Martha, mimicking the Doctor's actions at Bedlam, tries to neutralise
her by speaking the name Carrionite, but Lilith mocks her, since naming
only works once. Instead, she names Martha Jones, rendering her unconscious.
.
Lilith tries to do the same to the Doctor, but it fails to affect him,
as she is unable to discover his real name. She attempts to weaken him
by naming "Rose", but he assures her that that name keeps him fighting.
Lilith then feigns an attempt at seduction, which brings her close
enough to the Doctor to steal a lock of his hair. Taking flight through
the window, she attaches the hair to a doll -- which the Doctor explains
is essentially a DNA module -- and stabs it in the heart, whereupon the
Doctor collapses. Assuming that he is dead, Lilith flies to the Globe.
Martha wakes, and helps the Doctor restart his left heart before the duo
race to the Globe.
.
The actors have already spoken the last lines of the play, a series of
directions and instructions that have opened a portal allowing the
Carrionites back into the universe. The Doctor tells Shakespeare that
only he can find the words to close the portal. Shakespeare improvises a
short rhyming stanza but is stuck for a final word. Martha comes up with
"Expelliarmus" and the Carrionites -- together with all the extant copies
of Love's Labour's Won -- are sucked back through the closing portal.
Martha, Shakespeare and the actors from the play are left to take the
applause of the audience who believe it all to be special effects. The
Doctor meanwhile finds the three 'witches' trapped, screaming in their
own crystal ball and appropriates it for safe keeping in a "dark attic"
of the TARDIS.
.
In the morning, Shakespeare flirts once more with Martha...and with the
Doctor. He reveals his deduction that the Doctor is not of the Earth and
that Martha is from the future, once again proving his genius. For his
"Dark Lady", he produces the sonnet, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's
day?" in her honour, but is interrupted when two of his actors burst in,
heralding the arrival of the Queen. Queen Elizabeth enters, recognises
the Doctor as her "sworn enemy" and declares, "Off with his head!" The
Doctor is surprised at her outburst, since he says he has not yet met
the Queen, but comments that he is looking forward to finding out what
he will do to offend her. He and Martha flee to the TARDIS, slamming the
door just as an arrow embeds itself in the TARDIS' exterior before
dematerialisation.
-----------------------------
. Continuity
.
* Shakespeare has appeared in Doctor Who before and the Doctor has also
indicated that they have met off screen in the (his) past. The Bard was
previously glimpsed by the Doctor and his companions on the screen of
their Time-Space Visualiser in The Chase; in Planet of Evil, the Fourth
Doctor mentioned having met Shakespeare before; and in City of Death he
claimed that he helped transcribe the original manuscript for Hamlet --
suggesting that he met and again befriended an older Shakespeare in his
earlier incarnation.
.
* Shakespeare has also appeared in the Virgin Missing Adventures novel
The Empire of Glass and in the Big Finish Productions audio drama The
Kingmaker. In another Big Finish drama, The Time of the Daleks, a child
was revealed at the drama's conclusion to be Shakespeare. Finally, the
Bard has also appeared in the Doctor Who Magazine Ninth Doctor comic A
Groatsworth of Wit (also written by Gareth Roberts). One of the Doctor
Who Annual 2007 comic strips implies that the Doctor has met
Shakespeare, and in a Doctor Who Adventures comic, the Doctor apparently
misquotes Shakespeare, but the context implies that he wasn't; Rose
says, "Maybe he was misquoting you." However the canonicity of all
non-television sources is unclear.
.
* In an interview with Lizo Mzimba, Russell T. Davies stated that these
past references to meeting Shakespeare would be neither referenced nor
contradicted in this episode.[3] Similarly, Gareth Roberts told Doctor
Who Magazine that "The Shakespeare Code" "neither confirms nor denies
what's already been said."[4] He also noted that an early draft of "The
Shakespeare Code" contained "a sly reference to City of Death", but it
was removed because "it was so sly it would have been a bit confusing
for fans that recognised it and baffled the bejesus out of everyone
else."[4]
.
* Current scholarship has not reached consensus as to how many sides the
original Globe Theatre had. Written descriptions, contemporary
illustrations, and archaeological evidence do not lead to any agreement.
Gareth Roberts apparently took artistic license to give the Globe 14 sides.
.
* At the end of the episode, the Doctor is recognised by Elizabeth I as
her 'sworn enemy', implying a future meeting with the Queen, presumably
within his current incarnation as she has recognised him. The monarch
also previously appeared in The Chase, seen talking with Shakespeare and
Sir Francis Bacon on the Time-Space Visualiser.
........................................................
. References to other Doctor Who episodes and stories
.
* This episode follows on almost directly from the previous, with the
first Doctor/Martha scene continuing their conversation from the end of
"Smith and Jones".
.
* One of the putative lines of Love's Labour's Won, "the eye should have
contentment where it rests", is taken from episode three of the 1965
serial The Crusade[5] -- a story consciously written in Shakespearean style.
.
* The Carrionites' contribution to Love's Labour's Won is an incantation
that reads:
.
"The light of Shadmock's hollow moon doth shine on to a point in space
betwixt Dravidian Shores and Linear 5930167.02, and strikes the fulsome
grove of Rexel 4; co-radiating crystal activate!"Dravidians were
mentioned in The Brain of Morbius, Solon's servant Condo having been
found in the wreckage of "a Dravidian starship". Rexel 4 was the planet
depicted in the mind-changing pictures in The Tomorrow People episode
"The Blue and the Green". Co-radiating crystals were a vital component
of the teleport in Blake's 7, mentioned in, for example, the episode
"Power".
.
* Lilith refers to the Eternals from Enlightenment, as the Doctor had
previously done in "Army of Ghosts".
.
* The (many) Carrionites flying round the Globe theatre echo Redpath's
Grandmother's Gelth ghost flying round the theatre during Dickens'
recital in "The Unquiet Dead".
.
* The Doctor finds a skull in Shakespeare's prop store that reminds him
of the Sycorax from "The Christmas Invasion". (Shakespeare says that he
will use the name -- a witch named Sycorax is mentioned in The Tempest.)
.
* The Doctor uses his Time Lord psychic abilities to improve Peter
Streete's mental state. This ability was previously seen in "The Girl In
The Fireplace" and "Fear Her".
.
* Gareth Roberts' 1995 New Adventures novel, Zamper, featured
cyber-turtle creatures known as the Chelonians, who described their slug
enemies as "arrionites". According to Roberts, "I always thought it was
a nice word, and I was thinking of the witches as carrion creatures, so
I bunged a C in front of it".[6]
.
* The ending featuring Queen Elizabeth was Russell T. Davies's idea, who
told Roberts to "make it a bit like the ending of The One Doctor, a Big
Finish Productions audio drama also written by Roberts.[7]
...........................................
. References to other works
.
* At one point, Martha says "It's all a bit Harry Potter," which prompts
the Doctor to claim that he has read the final book in the series, not
yet published at the time of broadcast. At the end of the episode,
Shakespeare, the Doctor and Martha cry out "Expelliarmus!" and the
Doctor exclaims "Good old J.K.!".
.
* Martha mentions the possibility of killing her grandfather, an
allusion to the grandfather paradox when she first steps out from the
TARDIS into 1599. The Doctor attempts to explain how history could be
changed with devastating results by referring to the movie Back to the
Future.
.
* The Doctor claims Martha comes from Freedonia, a fictional country in
the Marx Brothers film Duck Soup. (It is also the name of a planet in
the Doctor Who novel Warmonger by Terrance Dicks, but it seems unlikely
that this is a direct reference.)
.
* The Doctor quotes the line, "Rage, rage against the dying of the
light," from "Do not go gentle into that good night" by Dylan Thomas --
but warns Shakespeare he can't use it as it is "somebody else's".
...........................................
. References to Shakespeare's life and works
.
* The episode concerns the "lost" Shakespeare play Love's Labour's Won,
which may be just an alternate title for an extant play. In reality, a
reference to Love's Labour's Won (in Francis Meres's Palladis Tamia,
Wits Treasury, 1598) predates the construction of the Globe Theatre (1599).
.
* Just before the Doctor steps out of the TARDIS, he exclaims "Brave new
world", from Act V Scene I of The Tempest.
.
* The Doctor and Martha make numerous references to Shakespeare's
appearance: Martha wonders why he isn't bald, while the Doctor says he
could make his head bald if he rubs it and later gives him a ruff to
keep (calling it "a neck brace").
.
* In an early scene a sign is glimpsed for an inn named "The Elephant".
This is the name of a recommended hotel in Twelfth Night.
.
* Shakespeare flirts with Martha multiple times during the episode. At
the end, he composes Sonnet 18 for her, calling her his "Dark Lady".
Sonnet 18 is in fact numbered among the Fair Lord sonnets. The Dark Lady
is the subject of sonnets 127-152.
.
* At one point, Shakespeare flirts with the Doctor as well, to which the
Doctor replies, "Fifty-seven academics just punched the air." Most of
Shakespeare's sonnets, including Sonnet 18, are believed by
Shakespearean academics to be addressed to a man, and there is a sizable
body of scholarship on Shakespeare's sexuality.
.
* In a few instances in the episode, the Doctor, apparently creating an
ontological paradox, inspires Shakespeare to steal some phrases that the
Doctor quotes from his plays. Examples of this include the Doctor
telling Shakespeare that "all the world's a stage", which appears in the
famous Act II monologue in the play As You Like It, and also saying "the
play's the thing", a line from Hamlet.
.
* Before heading to visit the Carrionites, the Doctor exclaims "Once
more unto the breach". Shakespeare initially likes the phrase, before
realising it is one of his own from Henry V, which was probably written
in early 1599.
.
* Shakespeare says "To be or not to be" which the Doctor suggests he
write down, although Shakespeare considers it "too pretentious".
.
* Martha makes a joke about Shakespeare entering a pub and being told
"You're barred," punning on his nickname "The Bard". Shakespeare replies
that he has no idea what she is talking about.
.
* The three witches are an allusion to the Three Weird Sisters from
Macbeth. Like those witches, the Carrionites use trochaic tetrameter and
rhyming couplets to cast spells. (Macbeth was written after the setting
of this episode.)
.
* When regressing the architect in Bedlam, The Doctor uses the phrase "A
Winter's Tale".
.
* Lilith credits the Carrionites' escape from the Eternals' banishment
to 'new...glittering' words. Shakespeare is credited with adding two to
three thousand words to the English language including 'assassination',
'eyeball', 'leapfrog' and 'gloomy').
.
* Kempe is William Kempe, a highly regarded comic actor of the era, who
was a member of the Lord Chamberlain's Men along with William
Shakespeare and Richard Burbage.
.
* Wiggins is named after Doctor Martin Wiggins, a Shakespeare academic
and Doctor Who fan. According to writer Gareth Roberts, "if anyone was
gonna trip me after transmission it'd be him, so I thought I'd butter
him up first".>>
----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer


author: Ms. Mouse

subject: Re: Doctor Who meets Shakespeare

text:
On Jun 25, 7:13 pm, [email] (Patty Winter) wrote:

Thanks so much for listing this, Patty.

I think it was really a meditation on authorship--the doctor gave
Shakespeare all his best lines!

Best wishes,
Lynne


subject: Re: Doctor Who meets Shakespeare

text:
On Jun 27, 1:51 pm, Patty Winter <[email]> wrote:

Report back after you've seen it. I wasn't very impressed. :(  I liked
the identification of the Dark Lady, though.

L.


author: Patty Winter

subject: Re: Doctor Who meets Shakespeare

text:
In article <[email]>,
Ms. Mouse <[email]> wrote:

Hah, funny! Sounds like the old Wayne and Shuster routine, "Wipe
the Blood Off My Toga," where the detective investigating Julius
Caesar's murder keeps coming up with bon mots such as "All roads
lead to Rome" that another character decides to use himself. (Or
maybe it's vice versa. Anyway, same principle.)

Anyway, I look forward to seeing the Shakespeare/Who episode.

Patty


author: John the Baker

text:
*Why Stratfordianism rests on a Tautology*:

I've asked, repeatedly, Stratfordians to rally to a credo that will
allow the world to know precisely what it is that they believe.

I've pointed out titans like Swinbrune and Bloom believe Shakespeare
an intellectual giant who invented modern humans and skillfully
revised his texts as his own knowledge matured. Threaders like Bob
Grumman and scholars like Alfred Harbage and Dave Kathman suppose just
the reverse.

So as I have said, the Stratfordian paradigm has room for an
intelligent Sk and an unintelligent Shakespeare, for a conscious and
an unconscious Shakespeare, for an educated Sk and an uneducated Sk,
for a well traveled Sk and an untraveled Sk, for a well connected Sk
and for a poorly connected Shakespeare. It can easily embrace literate
or illiterate daughters, close contacts with the royals or no contacts
with them, and it can even explain revisions made after the death of
the actor.

So what gives here?

It came to me last night that the only article of faith which is
common to all Stratfordians is this simple equation: _the actor equals
the author, the author equals the actor_.

Once that article of faith has been ascribed to, then any
rationalization counts.

It is this underlying (with a pun on lying) tautology that has driven
Stratfordianism for centuries.

Given the total lack of contemporary tangible connective evidence for
this claim, and the overwhelming contrary evidence against it, it is
easy to see why Stratfordianism is a faith: its based on a tautology.
This tautology has been ascribed to as an article of faith, while it
has been foisted on to an unsuspecting laity as fact.
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


author: David L. Webb

subject: Re: Why Stratfordianism rests on a Tautology

text:
In article <[email]>, John the Baker
wrote:

   They do not, because real scholars (whom I presume you have in mind
when you allude to "Stratfordians") do not try to fashion "credos," as
they are in the business of investigating history rather than trying to
found a religious cult.  I realize that you have trouble understanding
that simple explanation, as you're engaged in the latter rather than in
the former.

   Nothing "gives" here; there is merely a dearth of information, and
in the absence of complete information, many possible scenarios are
possible, and hence experts may legitimately disagree.

[...]

         David Webb


author: bookburn

text:
<John the Baker> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I see you're pointing out contrasting positions Stratfordians
take on Shakespeare's attributes, but I'm unclear what you mean
my "tautology" in this case, since my dictionary describes it
meaning " . . . a universal truth so framed that it cannot be
denied without inconsistency", viz., that Shakespeare is both an
actor and a writer.

But since you are the one stating the tautology, I wonder about
the form here, whether you should instead try for fallacy
instead.  Here is a list of some fallacies of logic, in case you
need to target someone else's position.

bookburn

Fallacies of Distraction

False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three
options


author: john

text:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:12:28 -0400, "David L. Webb"
<[email]> wrote:

But not me, right?  If I disagree I'm shoved right out of the door and
labeled an aperture...or is that an armature? or amateur?

Ah...but at least you read my epistle...when are we going to chew over
those Fermat steps?  Got any free time?

When we started all this I didn't know you were a mathematician, so I
am very excited to have a mentor who does know this area...even though
you come over as something of an intellectual bully at times....

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:07:02 -0700, "bookburn" <[email]>
wrote:

Thanks, this is quite a list!  I wish I had had it when I was teaching

basic logic....I only used about half of these!!!  They are
humbling...

As for "tautology" my WP 8 gives "circumlocution, digression and
vagueness..."

I've _never_ known it to mean, " universal truth so framed that it
cannot be denied without inconsistency..." !!!

Guess that dates me.

I take it to mean what it meant in Web's Second, "a repetition such as
"audible to the ear..."

john

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


author: Thomas C Lay

text:
bookburn ([email]) wrote:

: <John the Baker> wrote in message
: news:[email]...
: >
: > *Why Stratfordianism rests on a Tautology*:

: I see you're pointing out contrasting positions Stratfordians
: take on Shakespeare's attributes, but I'm unclear what you mean
: my "tautology" in this case, since my dictionary describes it
: meaning " . . . a universal truth so framed that it cannot be
: denied without inconsistency", viz., that Shakespeare is both an
: actor and a writer.

: But since you are the one stating the tautology, I wonder about
: the form here, whether you should instead try for fallacy
: instead.  Here is a list of some fallacies of logic, in case you
: need to target someone else's position.

<snip helpful list>

Yes, for someone who clames to have taught university classes on logic,
Baker sure has a weak grasp of it.  About a year ago, he posted a list of
what were supposed to be syllogisms that showed that Marlowe was
Shakespeare.  Unfortunately, not one of them was valid syllogism - they
were things like:

The entire hilarious list can be found at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22marlovian+syllogisms%22&hl=en&rnum=1&selm=394ed160.36919928%40News.localaccess.com>

Tom


text:
In article <[email]>, john wrote:

   I said that *experts* may legitimately disagree.  You are of course
free to disagree as well -- but since you do not present logical
arguments based upon careful reasoning from available evidence, but
substitute instead incoherent effusions based upon misreadings and
factual errors, it is not surprising that you are not taken seriously
by anyone who actually knows something about the subjects upon which
you hold forth so volubly.

   No, experts like Kathman have answered your questions at length, and
with remarkable patience.  That you are impervious both to evidence and
to reason is presumably the observation that induces the experts to
conclude that you are not worth the bother.

   I'm certainly willing to listen, but you'll have to learn what a
mathematical proof is first; until you do, trying to decipher your
mathematical posts is pointless.  In any case, it's off-topic.

[...]

         David Webb


text:
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
   the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article <9o0iod$eak$[email]>, Thomas C Lay
<[email]> wrote:

[...]

   Yes, I recall those "syllogisms," and they were indeed hilarious.

   Perhaps Baker taught that logic course that Stephanie Caruana claims
to have taken?  Stephanie never has disclosed, despite my having asked,
where she took that course!

         David Webb


author: johnbaker

text:
On 15 Sep 2001 21:55:25 GMT, [email] (Thomas C Lay)
wrote:

snip of inaccurate quotes

along with other hilarious remarks from Thomas, a very logica guy...

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
"Thomas C Lay" <[email]> wrote in message
news:9o0iod$eak$[email]...
mean
an
about
you
on logic,
a list of
was
syllogism - they
they did
the author
charges
causes.
the play
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22marlovian+syllogisms%22&hl=
en&rnum=1&selm=394ed160.36919928%40News.localaccess.com>

Perhaps, like Marlowe, Baker has two identities:  one the behind
the scenes author who assembles hydrogen bombs; the other a
tavern chess player who argues over paying the bill.  Personally,
I think Marlowe and Oxford donned player's cloaks, too; so
there's an end to it.  bookburn


author: baker

text:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:18:21 -0400, "David L. Webb"
<[email]> wrote:

It is not a factual error to point out that Willy didn't start to
write until after Marlowe "died"...though Bate is on record saying
the reverse....

It is not a factual error to point out that Willy's plays base in
Kent, when theyare English,and spring root and branch out of Marlowe's
works.

It is not a factual error to point out that Willy's plays contain
Scottish intelligence that,of the two only, arlowe would have had
access to

It is not a factual error to point out that Willy's plays are
predicated on education, travels, language skills and readings
that only Marlowe commanded (of the two)

It is not a factual error to point out that Marlowe's vocabulary and
his T/tr includes hakespeare's within it.

It is not a factual error to point out that Shakespeare was not
arrested, tortured or killed for witing Richard II;

It is not a factual error to point out that the Queen was quotedin a
rant attributing the play's authorship to someone who had forgotten
god and was suspected of being about to forget his benefactors;

It is not a factual error to point out that Hero and Leander is a
sequel to V &A, yet Marlowe supposedly died before V&A was
published...

It is not a factual error to point out that H&L's publication was
suppressed for five years to give V&A a free run...

It is not a factual error to point out that Othello was modified on
the face of the 1622 quarto;

It is not a factual error to point out that there are 20,000
emendations in an Elizabethan hand to a 1634 edition of the second
Folio;

It is not a factual error to point out that the British Librarian Sir.
Frederic Madsen lied about them and falsely accused Collier and
fabricated evidence against him;

It is not a factual errot to cite the replys of Dewy Ganzel to Freeman
that Kathman did not cite and had not read...

It is not a factual error to point out that the Dering ms. is the
original of Henry IV;

It is not a factual error to point out that the Folger editors of the
Dering ms., lied about what Hardin Craig had to say about it and have
refused to offer a correction;

It is not a lie to point out that a curator of manuscripts for a
museum where a manuscript is house is involved in a breach of
professional ethics to take an opinion on the manuscript's
authenticity;

It is not a factual error to point out that the ms. of H4 contains no
"bridge lines" and thus cannot have been cut from the two part
version;

It is not a factual error to point out that the author of the Timon,
ms., claims to have translated the Elegies, to have been a cobbler's
son, to have lived in Canterbury and Dover, and to have
attended a university in 1580...

It is not a factual error to point out that the tutor to Arbella
Stuart was working for Lord Burghley and was "damnified" by leaving a
university c. 1588 and that of the "Morley" at Universities at the
time only the poet fits...

It is not a factual error to point out that intelligence from his duty
with Arbella ends up in 1H6 and that it was suppressed for 30 years
from publication, evidently to protect that connection;

It is not a factual error to point out that only William Herbert fits
the facts for the Sonnet's pretty boy;

It is not a factual error to point out that the poet alludes to him as
a son...

It is not a factual error to point out that the same boy backs the FF

Or that when that boy's mother died work on the FF came to a stop for
an entire year;

It is not a factual mistake to point out that editions of Sk's quartos
have false publication data on their title pages;

It is not a factual mistake to point out that there are 36 plays in
the FF though its table of content states there are 35;

It is not a factual mistake to point out that only a ad connects the
actor to the author, an ad(s)  that appears in the FF;

It is not a factual mistake to point out that the poems are not in the
FF;

It is not a factual mistake to point out that the life of the poet is
not at all like the life of the actor;

It is not a factual mistake to note that Jonson poems were in his
Folios.

It is not a factual mistake to point out that the actor's daughters
left no letters and that one could not or did not sign her own name;

It is not a factual mistake to point out that there is no evidence
that Willy attended any school;

It is not a factual mistake to point out that he should have left us
written interrogatories for the Mountjoy case;

It is not a factual error to note that Sam Sch. doesn't give readers a
typescript of what the actor says in the Mountjoy deposition;

It is not a factual error to point out that Venus and Adonis and Two
Noble Kinsmen the first and the last works of Shakespeare entered on
the 8/18 April and that the 8/18 April as the birthday of William
Herbert, forty years apart...

It is not a factual error to point out that Edward II opens on 6 July,
the same day it entered history on;

It is not a factual error to point out that Hero and Leander entered
history on the anniversary of the Bradley duel;

Or that 1 H6 entered history on the same day it opens on....

Or that the Jew of Malta entered one year to the day from the date
of Marlowe's final arrest;

Or that 40 years latter it was dedicate to Marlowe classmate from
the King's School and from CC, Cambridge...

Or that 8 October the date Midsummer Night's Dream entered on is the
same day Athens celebrated Theseus' return...

Or that Othello entered on Southampton's B'Day...

Nor is it an error to point out that Shakespeare's plays depend on
foreign languages sources that had not been translated into English...

Nor to point out that the death of Falstaff parallels the death of
Socrates;

Nor to point out that Falstaff claims to have been Prince Hal's
father!

BS, Kathman doesn't even know an authentic secretary hand when he sees
it...

Think so?  As a matter of fact I'm so pervious to both I'm porous.  I
suspect the problem is I don't buy their basic tautology.

No I don't.  You are the one that wants a proof here...I pointed out
that Fermat does not use that word and what Fermat said was that he
had a "demonstration" or the Latin word for it...that's a bit
different than a proof and part of what I have been talking about...
But I'm looking forward to the conversation...perhaps by e-mail since
it is off subject...did you look at that equation pin pointing the
Fermat steps...did you know they were there...
Do they have a name or can we use my name for them, i.e., "the Fermat
steps..."

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
johnbaker wrote:
: On 15 Sep 2001 21:55:25 GMT, [email] (Thomas C Lay)
: wrote:

: >Yes, for someone who clames to have taught university classes on logic,
: >Baker sure has a weak grasp of it.  About a year ago, he posted a list of
: >what were supposed to be syllogisms that showed that Marlowe was
: >Shakespeare.  Unfortunately, not one of them was valid syllogism

: snip of inaccurate quotes

Excuse me?  There was one quote and a quick look at the link will show
that it was entirely accurate.  Are you saying that you didn't write:

Do you deny that you wrote this?  If you wish to refresh your memory, you
might glance again at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22marlovian+syllogisms%22&hl=en&rnum=1&selm=
394ed160.36919928%40News.localaccess.com>

: >The entire hilarious list can be found at
:
lm=394ed160.36919928%40News.localaccess.com>
: >

: along with other hilarious remarks from Thomas, a very logica guy...

You seem to be having quite a few problems reading today (not to mention
typing).  I did not comment in that thread, but I suppose I can
understand why you might think so - Tom Reedy did give the first
response, and I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern between the two
of us.

Tom


author: KQKnave

text:
In article <[email]>, "bookburn" <[email]>
writes:

Oh he certainly does: Alkibiades ([email]),
[email],
[email], John Baker ([email]),
Alcibiades([email]) and he could be the
"Marc" who posts as "Alkibiades" using the email
[email], but not sure. I think
he is "Elizabeth Weir" as well. Who was the first person
to use the phrase "hempen-homespun" that "Alkibiades"
loves so much? Why, John Baker of course, back on
Jan 19 of this year.

"Alkibiades" or baker post the same bullshit on
humanities.classics, alt.philosophy, alt.music.rush,
alt.fan.naom.chomsky, soc.history.ancient, alt.memetics,
sci.philosophy.tech, sci.philosophy.meta and alt.sufi.
Apparently this sad soul has nothing better to do with his
time but post his insane nonsense all over the web.
Take a look at the thread "Phoinikos tou Phillipou" on
the humanities.classics group. He gets the same response
there that he gets here. For another funny one, check
alt.philosophy. On 9/11/01 he posted a message as
"Alkibiades" that he meant to post here, and then the
next day he apologizes, this time as "Alcibiades", for
sending the message to the wrong group. baker, see
a psychiatrist if you're not already.

Jim


text:
In article <[email]>, baker wrote:

[...]

   _Venus and Adonis_ was registered April 18, 1593; Marlowe died May
30, 1593.  (For those such as yourself who are bad at math, Baker,
that's over a month later.)

   That's a purely subjective assessment.

[...]

   Since you do not *know* what education, travles, linguistic
attainments, etc. Shakespeare may have possessed, there is no ground
for this claim.

   Nor is it especially relevant.  The play had been performed earlier
without incident, so it can scarcely have beeen written for the
occasion.  Surely one would have to be very foolish to imagine that
Elizabeth's security apparatus would believed that a mere middle-class
actor was taken into the confidence of some of the highest-ranking
peers of the realm.

[Snip loads of similar ravings]

   It isn't?  In that case, what is the evidence?

[...]

   That's a purely subjective assessment.

   Where?  Are you seriously suggesting that William Herbert was
Marlowe's *son*?!

   What on earth does that circumstance, even if true, have to do witn
anything?  That would be unremarkable *no matter who* had written the
plays!

[...]

   So?  What does that have to do with Marlowe versus Shakespeare?

[...]

   So?  What does that have to do with Marlowe versus Shakespeare?
Since the First Folio included material to which Shakespeare's fellow
actors had access, it is not at all surprising that the poems were not
included therein.

   Since we know little of the life of the actor, there is no basis for
such a judgment.

[...]

   So?  There is no record that *anyone* attended the Stratford school
at the time in question.

   Why "should" he have done that?  Because you fantasize that he
should?  History is under no obligation to unfold according to your
fantasies and hallucinations, Baker.

[...]

   So?  You must be unacquainted with the birthday "paradox."

   So?  You must be unacquainted with the birthday "paradox."

   So?  You must be unacquainted with the birthday "paradox."

   So?  You must be unacquainted with the birthday "paradox."

   So?  You must be unacquainted with the birthday "paradox."

   So?  You must be unacquainted with the birthday "paradox."

[...]

   You mean, they both ceased breathing?

   So?  What is your point?

[...]

   Fermat used the *same* Latin word that he uses elsewhere to mean
"proof"; indeed, it was the *standard* Latin word used in mathematics
of the period to mean "proof."  The notion that Fermat was not claiming
to proved his "last theorem" is strictly your own invention, Baker.

[...]

         David Webb


text:
On 16 Sep 2001 19:17:00 GMT, [email] (Thomas C Lay)
wrote:

Good.  But it struck me as a paraphrase.

I have not least idea whether or not I wrote it.

It would involve me checking  the original with your link...I didn't
even follow it....

But if you don't like my logic, then try some more of your own.

It supposes a rustic wrote the world's greatest literary canon
without education, travels or an intellectual friendship circle and
wrote it with impunity within sight of the Tower of London when it
was a torture chamber....

You call that sound logic?

And lets stick to the point here Thomas, what is a tautology?

Doesn't Stratfordianism rest on one?  The one I have identified.

Step right up, here's the mike.  Set the record right....I've got all
night...

john

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


author: Alcibiades

text:
On 16 Sep 2001 00:54:56 GMT, [email] (KQKnave) wrote:

Jim,

All I'll say in reply is that I make myself available to the American
People when they call upon me to aid them in their adversity.

Hell, I left a beautiful girl crying so I could get back in comm on
the net.  Yes, hell.  But it ain't a bad place to be.

Those of you who have met me in person, looked me in the eyes, know,
one-hundred percent, that I can, and do, back it up.

And I can make it fun.

I said I can go toe-to-toe, round-for-round with anyone -- but I'm
aware that doesn't mean I necessarily win.  Them's the risks.

There are still a few good men out there.

But there will be fifty, fifty more stars in the night blue sky, like
me, to take up the standard when and where I drop.  (Odds are it won't
be in bed...)

- Alcibiades


text:
On 16 Sep 2001 00:54:56 GMT, [email] (KQKnave) wrote:

Jim,

Common sense has similar faces and Alkibiades wears one them.

We'll let him answer for himself, but the spelling Alkibiades is a
Greek affectation, whereas Alcidiades or Alcibiades is not.

I think he would have answered for himself but as I understand it
this is the night he will be breaking the genitalia off the little
household gods before he goes to the Symposium...

I know this joke will be over your heads, but not his and his youth
and genius is more than apparent in all that he contemplates...and
writes...I would be shocked to discover it otherwise.

As I recall he offered a vita to those who would e-mail him.

I never asked for one...since I stand awe as it is...

Just the other day he let it slip that he had read Fulke Greville's
"biography" of Sidney and thus knew about Fulke burning his
plays...plays with names identical to or very similar to Willy's.

It is my hunch these weren't Greville's plays...just look at the
dates.  Greville's "biography" of Sidney didn't appear until over half
a century after Sidney died!

And a quarter of a century after Fulke died....I don't like it.

Some afternoon when I'm back in the BL I'm going over Fulke's
papers....

In any case if you clowns think that Alki and I are one and the same
its ok by me.

I'd be damn proud to be him.  But as I understand it he's in his 30
and I'm pushing 60.

I don't think he's ever taken apart a hydrogen bomb or climbed trees
for the trill of it...but I don't doubt he could take apart hydrogen
bombs....

baker
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
The following answers Webb's questions in order:

No it isn't.  It isn't a subjective assessment to note that there are
no coral reefs, oceans, waves, promontories, or snow capped mountains
in Warwickshire.  Nor is is a subjective assessment to point out that
the Downs are in Kent, not in Warwickshire.   It is not a subjective
opinion to note that both Mary Sidney Herbert and Venus were blonds,
who rode Spanish horses called Jennets, and both had a perversion for
watching them mate.  It is not subjective assessment to point out that
Marlowe knew Mary and dedicated amorous love poems to her or that they
were both in Canterbury the summer of 1579 when William Herbert was
conceived.  It is not a subjective assessment to point out that her
husband was 30 year or so her senior and had been childless through
several marriages (2) and many affairs (?).  It is not a subjective
assessment to point out that Mary didn't not start to produce children
for her Husband until three years after their marriage.  It is not a
subjective opinion to point out the rival poet, Samuel Daniels
replaced Marlowe with the Sidney Herberts...and does seem to have
had a sexual relationship with Mary...

No.  We know for example _Othello_ bases on Italian texts that had not
been translated into English.  Very obscure Italian texts in the case
of the _Discorso_.

We know where their author lived and where the manuscript were and
where he taught, i.e., at the Unviersity of Ferrara.  We know where
the author of those texts lived and worked, namely Farara, Italty.

We also know there are two allusions to Ferrara in the opening lines
of _Othello_.

Emilia is the Author's name for Iago's wife and is the see or province
of Ferrara.

The second allusion concerns your area of study.

The opening lines allude to a great mathematician:  "forsooth a great
arithmetician..."

 Now there was a great Italian arithmetician living about that time
associated with the university of Ferrara by name, i.e., Lodovico
Ferrara.  (I am sure you will recall he solved the biquadratic
equation.) He taught at Malan, the scene and allusional destination of
several of the plays, and, later, at Bologna, his native city, where
he died.

So we are surrounded with allusions to Ferrara and thus to source of
the _Discorso_.  You can read about the Author's use of the Discorso
in Wilson account of _Othello_ in the New Cambridge Edition.  That
account explains why it is 100% certain that he read the original
story in the Italian, the case turning on the use of the word "ocular"
in the phrase "show me the ocular proof."  It is the only time the
Author uses the word, i.e., it's a coinage or neologism, and it
appears there in the Italian, but not in the French. Wilson cites
several other Italian works that are also drawn upon in _Othello_ and
I remind you that the bulk of the action takes place in
Malta the scene of Marowe play, the _Jew of Malta_.

I'm not following what you mean here, David.

There is no evidence whatsoever that _Richard II_ had been "performed
earlier without incidence."   We do have a period account of a
performance at the Globe in the notes of Simon Forman, but these
detailed notes indicate another play altogether.  Richard II was
published, but the infamous deposition scene didn't appear until 1623!
Kathman once went to the mat over this with me...because there are
editions with some sort of "garbled"  version of the deposition scene
in them, Q4...I think it was [yes, 1608]...but the real one didn't
surface until 1623 and there is good bibliographic evidence it was
written into the text of Q5,
1615) edition.  There is similar evidence that the changes for Othello
were written onto the
face of the 1622 edition.  Go figure.

See my essay on this in Notes and Queries September 1998.

Wrong again.  As Boas has pointed out the "only" person who fits the
facts in William Herbert. And Sir E. K. Chambers came to agree.

I am indeed.  Are you seriously suggesting this is the first time you
have noticed this?  The poet calls him his "sun" which in any aural
tradition is the same as "son" and it is only the meaning
of "son" that makes any since here.  I've explained all this a couple
of time on my webpages
just take gander...

Just to help out a bit...it is only a son that does not age while the
father ages...if you catch my meaning here.  The pretty boy stays
young while the poet ages....go figure...

No.  You aren't following the line here.  The family that backs the
publication of the FF is unexpectedly devastated by the death of the
woman who may be editing the text.  She died of smallpox.  Her dead
seems to have interrupted its publication.  Many Stratfordians have
remarked about it as well.  So don't go jumping on my back.  Jump on
Greg's back or Chambers or Boas...

Webb the point is that if the plays were written as a unit, i.e., as
"whole and complete in their numbers" by the Author then they were
intentional...they are part of an intentional canon, not a random
canon.  And the evidence is they were intentional and the evidence is
that the intention was hidden even in the table of contents...

Because the life of the poet = the life of Marlowe and not
Shakespeare.

Total and complete nonsense.  The poems had all been published
individually.  Indeed Edward Alleyn (who was a famous "rival" actor
and theater manger of the time) bought a copy of the Sonnets and
recorded it in his account books...I've a scan of it on my pages.

Keep in mind that Jonson's folio had his poems in it and that they
increased it literary value.

More dribble.  We do know he didn't travel internationally, loose his
name to a hidden shame, have illegitimate children, particularly among
the peerage with the initials W. H.

So?

No David, because that is now the law works.  Those who can answer
interrogatories in writing do so.  In one of my infamous divorce cases
if left a hundred page written interrogatory in the local record and a
four hundred page oral one....go figure.

Not likely.  Consider MND, etc.  It's a pattern.

Come on Webb you said you were a statistician but this is stretching
it.

Nothing to same about this one eh?

No I mean they both died from the legs up "upwards and upwards"...
after many, many additional allusions suggesting Falstaff as a
Socratic figure, including the marvelous  phrase "I'll take say of
thee..."

My point is that the Strats have never touched it!!!

Webb, you are wrong here, or so I suppose.  But I can't put my hand on
his text at this moment.  I can and have put it on Cassell's Latin
Dictionary, the standard Latin word for proof is "tentamen" or
"probatio".  Fermat, I _know_ used the term "demonstratio" which
means, according to Cassell's, "a pointing out by hand."

Fermat knew more Latin than either you or I, not to mention, math, so
I suspect he used that word intentionally.  And I suspect he could
point this out by hand, just I can, but the pointing
out does not fit into the margin of a book, whereas a "proof" or
"tentamen" or "probatio" would or might.

Let us take just one of my simple insights.  These numbers, i.e., the
solutions to the powers, can be shown to be number and not
multidimensional objects by the simple fact that when they are
multiples of the cubes they suddenly become three dimensional objects
again....that's a pretty good proof that they aren't flicker back and
forth between three dimensions and more.  If you can follow this
without the hand motions.  Or the math....

Now I know you are going into orbit here...but lets take an hour or
two and go over this "by hand" you and Art and I and Alcibiades, toe
to toe.  I'm looking forward to it.  Meanwhile take roll by the empty
desk method and if you find them empty either flunk them out or give
them a Directed Individual Study...

Looking forward to it.

PS, I noticed you snipped out my hard ones.  But I can answer them as
well.

Baker
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:34:19 -0400, "David L. Webb"
<[email]> wrote:

See Webb if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that
_Venus and Adonis_ didn't have Shakespeare's name on it when it was
entered for publication.

A thesis point in the Marlovian camp.

You'd also know that the dedication page, which does have his name on
it,  was _added_ after the text was published.

The way you can see or "prove" this is to look at a copy of _Rape of
Lucrece_ (Q1) and note that the dedication page has on its verso the
argument, so it is _embedded_ the text, where as in V&A there is
_nothing_ on the verso of the dedication page, showing or proving
bibliographically it was _added_ to the text after it was printed.

Another thesis point.

It is dedicated to Southampton who overlapped at Cambridge with
Marlowe.

Another thesis point.

It is published by Burghley's printer, Richard Field,

etc.,

It was authorized for print by Marlowe's Archbishop.

etc.

It is set in Kent and features Mary Sidney Herbert as Venus.

It stipulates, in line, that the poet will have a patron in the form a
young boy born during the quakes of 1580.  Actually born on 8/18 April
1580.

In case you can't add, that means the poem entered on his13th birthday
in 1593, while Marlowe was alive and well. And in London. (Othello
would enter on Southampton's birthday, long after Willy died).

William Herbert's initials grace the Sonnets, wherein he is supposed
the poet's "sun" andhe does publish the FF where he is said to have
looked with favor on the poets "trifles" in the past.  We know he
backed Edward II...or rather than this father backed it, because the
title  page says so. And if it had been false Herbert would have
objected.

To review.  Shakespeare's name does not appear in print until
_after_ Marlowe's official date of death.

I'm on the fly not and will get to the rest of these ASAP.  Looking
forward to the exchange.  Keep you caculator dry.

baker
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


author: Hyperopic

text:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 03:35:33 GMT, baker wrote:

As I understand the modern use of it, a tautology is a statement that
appears to lead to new information (A therefore B), but on analysis
can be shown to merely assert the premise (A therefore A).  B,
whatever it is, is necessarily determined by A.

"Shakespeare the author is Shakespeare the actor" isn't a logical
tautology if it permits new inferences.  Here's a silly
purely-for-demonstration example:

Elizabethan authors could not necessarily read (they might have
recited their creations and had someone else write them down).
However, all Elizabethan actors could read (a requirement for learning
their parts).
Shakespeare was an author.
Therefore he may not have been able to read.
But if Shakespeare-the-author was Shakespeare-the-actor, we know
Shakespeare-the-author could read, because all actors could read.
This is non-tautologous information about S-the-author.

In real life, the logic isn't likely to work out so neatly.  But one
can make non-trivial hypotheses from the premise that Shakespeare was
both author and actor, for example "Shakespeare is unlikely to make
mistakes that a writer without stage practice might, e.g. writing
'doubled' roles without allowing enough time for a costume change."
Or "the disappearance of the Fool in King Lear is not an authorial
blunder, it reflects the actor's knowledge that there wasn't anyone
else available to fill the role of Cordelia."  Or if one found an
unattributed dramatic work whose staging requirements were largely
different from the capabilities of the King's Men, one could use that
fact to argue that it was not Shakespeare's work.

If I'm not being clear, my conclusion is--there is no tautology.
Everyone agrees there was an author named Shakespeare, and also an
actor named Shakespeare.  Stratfordians believe they have grounds to
conclude that the actor and the author were the same man (you
disagreeon a factual basis, but I don't think you say that their
position is _logically_ impossible).  They believe that information
about one profession gives them insight into the other, and don't find
that the identification actor=author leads them into logical
self-contradiction (though they may disagree on whether particular
insights are valid).


text:
baker wrote:
: On 16 Sep 2001 19:17:00 GMT, [email] (Thomas C Lay)
: wrote:

: >johnbaker wrote:
: >: On 15 Sep 2001 21:55:25 GMT, [email] (Thomas C Lay)
: >: wrote:
: >
: >: >Yes, for someone who clames to have taught university classes on logic,
: >: >Baker sure has a weak grasp of it.  About a year ago, he posted a list of
: >: >what were supposed to be syllogisms that showed that Marlowe was
: >: >Shakespeare.  Unfortunately, not one of them was valid syllogism
: >
: >: snip of inaccurate quotes
: >
: >Excuse me?  There was one quote and a quick look at the link will show
: >that it was entirely accurate.

: Good.  But it struck me as a paraphrase.

: I have not least idea whether or not I wrote it.

So you deny it without checking.  I don't know why I'm not surprised.

: It would involve me checking  the original with your link...I didn't
: even follow it....

Yes, the time and energy it takes to click a hyperlink!  So much easier
just to deny whatever it is.

: But if you don't like my logic, then try some more of your own.

While your logic is definitely bad, the point of my post was that it
seems odd that a person who claimed to have taught university-level
classes on logic would be so ignorant of the rudimentary terminolgy of
logic and that he would remember terms but use them in ways that bear
little resemblance to their meanings.

: It supposes a rustic wrote the world's greatest literary canon
: without education, travels or an intellectual friendship circle and
: wrote it with impunity within sight of the Tower of London when it
: was a torture chamber....

It's pretty sad that Baker thinks that the same old rhetoric is
persuasive time and again.

: You call that sound logic?

: And lets stick to the point here Thomas, what is a tautology?

As I understand the term (and I don't have a strong grounding in logic),
it's a statement whose veracity is supposed to be proven from the
statement itself, e.g., "This statement is true."

: Doesn't Stratfordianism rest on one?  The one I have identified.

Which one would that be?  Do you still think you have identified a
tautology after Bookburn has explained to you what the term means?

: Step right up, here's the mike.  Set the record right....I've got all
: night...

I thought I did that.  If you still think you didn't write that list of
"syllogisms", then I can only pity you that you so suffer from Richard
Kennedy Syndrome.

Tom


text:
In article <[email]>, baker wrote:

[...]

   I never said *anything* about Shakespeare's name; I merely said that
the poem was *registered* on April 18, 1593.  In any case, are you
actually suggesting that the Stationers' Register entry refers to a
*different poem* entitled _Venus and Adonis_ by a *different poet*?!
If not, what *is* your point?

[...]

   As I asked, are you seriously suggesting that the poem entitled
_Venus and Adonis_ that was registered by the Stationers on April 18,
1593 was something *other than* the Shakespeare poem by that name?!  If
so, what poem was it?

   If you agree that the poem registered then was indeed the _Venus and
Adonis_ attributed to Shakespeare, then it makes *no difference*
whether Shakespeare's name was on it or not: your assertion was (and I
quote) was: "Willy didn't start to write until after Marlowe 'died'" --
if by "Willy" you mean "the author of _Venus and Adonis_," then clearly
that author *did* begin to write prior to Marlowe's death, because his
poem was registered a full month prior to that event.

   That circumstance does not "prove" anything of the kind.  This is
mere conjecture.

   So?  Are you seriously suggesting that a dedicatee of a literary
work must perforce have been a college contemporary of the work's
author?!

   What do you mean by "Burghley's printer"?

[...]

   What on earth do you mean by "Marlowe's Archbishop"?  Are you
unaware that the Archbishop of Canterbury was the highest ranking
churchman in the realm?  Marlowe scarcely enjoyed sole possession of
the man.

[...]

   Where does it say that Mary Sidney Herbert was Venus?

   Where does it "stipulate" that?

   So?  You still seem to be blissfully ignorant of the birthday
"paradox."

   So?  You still seem to be blissfully ignorant of the birthday
"paradox."

   The initials "W.H." do not identify any one person uniquely.

   So what?  Are you seriously suggesting that a bountiful patron can
only patronize *one writer*?!  You mean, all those artistic projects
funded by the Rockefeller Foundation are the work of the *same
artist*?!

   That is not what you said.  You wrote: "Willy didn't start to write
until after Marlowe 'died'".

   I have no calculator.

            David Webb


author: John W. Kennedy

text:
Hyperopic wrote:

That's what it means in rhetoric, where a tautology is "bad".  In logic,
it is roughly equivalent to "theorem", and is "good".

In Wackyland, of course, it means "something I wish to throw mud at".


author: Janice Miller

text:
In article <[email]>, Hyperopic wrote:

I've used the word "tautology" on Usenet in something like this sense
(actually a slightly less standard one), but Hyperopic's paragraph, above,
is correct.

The logical formula (please don't jump on me for using these terms
incorrectly), "Every A is an A," is a tautology because no matter what you
substitute for "A," the formula evaluates to true.  "Every A is a B," is
not a tautology, because it's true if you substitute A=cat and B=mammal,
but not if you substitute A=stuffed-dog and B=pretzel (even if I happen to
have a stuffed dog named Pretzel).

I think I've used the term "tautology," somewhat incorrectly, to refer to
a statement that is not actually logically tautologous, but where there is
such a broad range of possible substitutions that the statement is
basically useless.  An example is
     An X person is more Y than a Z person.
     Therefore the average Y-ness of this group of X people is probably
higher than the average Y-ness of this other group of Z people.

You can get a good syllogism by X=Y=tall and Z=short, or X=Y=fat and
Z=skinny.  That kind of thing is usually only a problem, though, with
writers who are more than usually ironic or oblique.

Agreed: the following is not a tautology:
     WS-1 names the-author.
     WS-2 names the-actor.
     WS-1 and WS-2 name the same person.

although the following is:
     WS and WS name the same person.

The following, fwiw, is also a tautology (whether or not the premisses are
true; I don't think they are except for a small group of people):
     Shakspere is the name we use to name WS when we're excluding all the
facts about his having written plays, having nothing whatsoever to do with
how the name is spelled in the actual evidence we're examining.
     Shakespeare is the name we use to name WS when we're talking about
the actual person who wrote the plays, having nothing whatsoever etc..
     Therefore there is no evidence that Shakspere was Shakespeare.

The conclusion forms part of the premisses, which may have expressly
chosen in order to split up a set of evidence, which ordinarily would have
been seen as one big thing, into "WS evidence of the Shakspere type" and
"WS evidence of the Shakespeare type."

I disagree here, though.  Arguments that rely implicitly on probability,
in my opinion, often harbor hidden tautologies.

Many of the arguments that use the plays to draw conclusions about the
author contain the hidden premiss that
     Experts are less likely to deviate from "the rules" than apprentices are.

The argument becomes
     It is unlikely that [sigh] an educated man would have had Caesar
wearing a jerkin.
     Shakespeare has a character give Caesar a jerkin.
     Therefore Shakespeare was not educated.

That's not a tautology, unless you replace the conclusion with
     Therefore, either Shakespeare was not educated, or Shakespeare was an
exception to the rule, or I'm using a different definition of "educated"
than you are, or I think that line was an interpolation, or I know
something that you don't know.

If you're being "clear," you're almost certainly committing a tautology,
so I'll assume that was a joke.

-- Janice


text:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:23:07 GMT, Hyperopic wrote:

I take this point to here.  But have, as have said above used the
word to mean a redundancy such as "audible to the ear."

If and that is a big IF the identity between them led to knew
knowledge it would not be a tautology, but 400 years has proven
that it doesn't lead to new knowledge...we know less about the
writer because we have supposed him the actor...rather than
more.  Less is not more.

But here the point is that the basic foundation of Stratfordianism is
a simple tautology that equates the actor and the author...as we
have seen beyond that _any_  finding is allowed and congregation
members can sit side by side believing him educated or not educated,
traveled or not traveled, revising or not revising....protected or not
protected...having literate daughter or having illiterate ones....

So the entire thing can be reduced to one simple equation, an
equation that is a tautology that A = A, that Actor equals Author.

It is given as a statement of fact but is ascribed to as a statement
of belief...

It cannot and has not been proven.

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


author: Paul Crowley (apply ROT13

text:
<Hyperopic> wrote in message news:[email]...

<snip of nice account of 'tautology'.

Yes.

No.

A man was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564 into a family of
illiterates.   The sole facts known about him before around 1597
(when he'd have been 33) are that he married at 18 (on a shot-
gun basis) and had three kids by the age of 21.  This person
MAY have been a player of small parts -- OR the few documents
indicating that may have been contrived, or be misleading in
other ways.   He certainly came into money and seems to have
become a sharer in the theatrical company.   My own belief is
that he was illiterate.   His signatures indicate that;  so does the
illiteracy of his daughters, so does the complete absence of
anything in writing from his own hand -- even though his house
remained in the possession of the family for some 50 years
after his death;   so does the absence of any reference to him as
a learned, educated or even literate person in the copious records
of the time.

Paul.


text:
On 17 Sep 2001 13:34:29 GMT, [email] (Thomas C Lay)
wrote:

Thomas this is a context drop... I didn't deny anything and I
explained that to check it I would have to look not just at the link
but at the originals....that takes time...I have already discussed why
my statements were logical...if you don't buy it...that's ok by me
stick with your fallacies...

too bad...again this is just your opinion here Thomas...I don't claim
to have taught logic...I did teach it...I don't claim to have used
logic I do use it...

It is obvious that logic doesn't work on you

see no answer...this isn't rhetoric old or otherwise...it is what
you guys ascribe to and it doesn't make any sense...

here, here, lets put that into bold letters...

That is one of the meanings of it, but as I have done above I've cited

the more generalized meaning "redundancy" as "audible to the ear"
from Web. Second.

Bookburn hasn't explained to me what the term means, he's quoted some
dictionary version that is frankly wrong...your version comes
closer...but
then as you've said logic isn't your strong suit...why am I not
surprised.

More BS Tom, you are changing the subject.  Reverting back to my
list of syllogisms that support the Marlowe point of view...you can
use the diagrams on them...they work...we don't have that format
here...I don't remember if I drew diagrams and posted them or not..
but I can...maybe I will...

But here the point is that the basic foundation of Stratfordianism is
a simple tautology that equates the actor and the author...as we
have seen beyond that _any_  finding is allowed and congregation
members can sit side by side believing him education or not educated,
traveled or not traveled, revising or not revising....protected or not
protect...

Its BS Thomas, pure and simple.

You guys are the laughing stock of the thinking world...

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:05:21 -0400, "David L. Webb"
<[email]> wrote:

Webb you can't be this dense.

No I'm not suggesting that it was a different poem.

This is not true.  You should be able to think better than this ...

Not so.  When Marlowe's poem V&A entered it entered without his name
on it, as many works did.  It was, at that time, supposed that it
would be published with his name on it.  But something happened in
May 1593 before the public could be published and at that point his
name was changed to Willy's.

Now is that clear?

This cannot be proven, but it cannot be proven that Willy's name was
on the work when it went to the SR, either.  So the only proof that we
have regarding the appearance of the name William Shakespeare begins,
not on 18 of April 1593, but sometime in June 1593 when the book hit
the streets.  And if you can't follow this you must be sleeping.

On you're part?   Not on my part.  I've seen the original at Oxford,
I've looked at the binding.  I have posted scans of it on my webpages.

You know Webb you are getting tiresome.  I'm saying there is a
connection between Marlowe and Southampton whereas there isn't
one between Willy and Southampton...

See A.E.M. Kirwood, "Richard Field, Printer, 1589-1624," the Library,
vol. XII, 1, London.  Its explained there.  But it means that Field
published works for Burghley...

Webb you are off your rocker, boy.  Get a grip!!  The AC was Marlowe's
Archbishop and Marlowe had attended Cambridge on a fullride
scholarship of Mathew Parker, the former AC...he was a lot more
Marlowe's Archbishop than the other ones....he is the bishop over
Marlowe local bishop...don't you know anything about the chain of
command here?

Very funny Webb

You have to read to poem to see it four times the quakes are mentioned

Not me brother...

Not me brother.

They do when they are a member of the peerage.

Off the subject...

Same thing David.  There is no evidence that Willy was writing before
Marlowe's death...the evidence for Shakespeare begins with the
publication, not the registration of V&A...

If this wasn't clear it should now be.

make that "now"  thank, you!  did you notice you mistake above?
"beeen"  I left it alone

Good to know.  Then keep you computer dry.

baker

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:35:43 GMT, [email] (Janice
Miller) wrote:

I like this you must be back on your meds....

Defined as: clear thinking and nicely said.

john
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


author: Okay Fine

text:
Janice Miller wrote:

'tautology'.  It's not circular reasoning or begging the question, which
would seem to be the use Hyperopic is aiming for.  However, I don't find
the case he cites as a tautology even by his definition.

Tautology is sometimes used as a criticism because it names a statment
that lacks content.  P or not-P is another good example of a tautology.
It's true, of course, but it doesn't get you anywhere.

OF.


text:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:55:17 GMT, baker wrote:

I don't know the history of the word, but I wouldn't be surprised if
tautology started out as a rhetorical criticism of lines like "Black
Bart is yellow-bellied; what's more, he's a coward."

No one ever argued that the identification is a complete key to the
life and mind of Shakespeare.  Since you reject the identification so
"cap-a-pie", I don't think you're fairly assessing its value.

Suppose it had been "common knowledge" for four centuries that Marlowe
wrote Shakespeare and survived till the 1640s, though with no better
facts to support it than you have today.  Then libraries would be
filled with tomes arguing on the one hand that Marlowe suffered from
crippling writer's block after 1615, on the other that he broke new
ground under the pen-name John Donne.  Or the conspiracy of
concealment was a life-and-death struggle of commoners against the
state--no, it was a literary joke that half the country knew about.
Why didn't Marlowe leave us a better text of Dr. Faustus--a) he lost
it and forgot about it, b) he liked it the way it was, c) it was never
his to begin with.  There would be contradictions galore.  Would you
regard them as tending to falsify the Marlovian hypothesis?  If not,
why not?

I disagree, but if your characterization were correct, how would you
respond to the charge "tu quoque"?  Does your website have a page
listing the evidentiary gaps and thorny problems in the Marlovian
hypothesis?

(This is actually a specimen of a rhetorical tautology, since "cannot
be" is more emphatic than "has not been" and commonly means that the
matter never could have been proven.)


author: Greg Reynolds

text:
Paul Crowley wrote:

Paul, you're now caught in a dilemma.
WHEN or WHERE was Oxford or anyone except
Shakespeare named Shakespeare?  The very heart
of your case is a mistake you constantly foist but
never explain. If you cannot show someone "named"
Shakespeare, then you cannot be speaking of anyone
other than Shakespeare. To call the historical account
a mistake, and having no explanation to justify your
thought, makes it obvious that you are mistaken, not
the historical record.

You are claiming there was an author named Shakespeare
but your evidence is of a man named Oxford, so you are
not even speaking on the same subject.

In other words, Oxford is not Shakespeare, and the proof
is that Paul Crowley still cannot link them EVEN though
Paul Crowley has tried relentlessly. [That Paul won't give
up and admit he is the one mistaken is about Paul's
sportsmanship, not his grasp of English literature.]

Please prove me wrong, Paul.
Finish this sentence:
I know Oxford is Shakespeare because...

I truly feel your answer can only factually be:
...because I want him to be.

That is all you have.

Paul, you're mistaken here, of course.
James NAMED Shakespeare as a member of his
acting troupe. Not of his grain merchant brigade or
his real estate guild.

Your lies, Paul, are immensely obvious and you
cannot expect anyone to fall for these two
right in a row.

Were you just wrong or just lying?

I DARE you to substantiate this.
You know that the best you can do is guess.

Your mean motives are blaringly evident, Paul.
What could a hurried marriage contribute to a man's
writing credentials in light of the baggage your
ridiculous "candidate" lugs around? If this were
some character evaluation, Oxford would be laughed
out entirely--as he was in his lifetime.

By 20 years, 9 months, and 17 days.
Meaning that....

Why would anyone believe YOU over King James?

Are you one of the few people in creation unfamiliar
with the King's Men, Paul? Give us the real reason
James called Shakespeare an actor.

Just admit that Shakespeare was an actor, Paul.
Otherwise, history has stared you down. You're
simply wrong to act like he wasn't an actor.

Your contempt for the man is so apparent as you
relent that he "MAY have been a player of small parts"
which shows that even though you are without any
knowledge of the actor's parts, you must minimize
them at all costs. Paul, your outbound unjustified
wrath against the man is your problem. You have
never connected the hand of Oxford to the pen of
Shakespeare.

Why "seems?" It is so.
Too bad your contempt rules your every thought of the man.

You never substantiate this weird concept that
makes the man illiterate, Paul. It is just your
leakage and you never clean it up.

Does risking your own credibility and revealing
your mean spirit really make this all worth it?

They indicate the opposite--that he wrote.

Greater thinkers than yourself, especially
Price and Dooley have tripped all over themselves
trying to establish this. To no avail.

Those who pretend Susanna was illiterate go
'poof' when asked to verify it.

Your worthless opinions are helping destroy
your case. You have never shown Susanna to
be illiterate. You just keep harping that she was
while the facts refuse to cooperate with you.

Hilarious as usual, Paul. You ignore the fact
that Oxford has no one but guessers as support!
No evidence, many wishes. What a poor case you
have presented, especially the lies and bonehead
conclusions.

Why DO you bother?

Please don't respond without verifying
all the slop you have asserted here.

Greg Reynolds


text:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:16:45 +0100, "Paul Crowley"
<[email] (apply ROT13)> wrote:

Here, here.  And this is the man Strats connect to the work!!!

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
John,
Thanks for clarifying these very important points about the V&A
publication.  David is really slowing the conversation with his numb
objections, but unless your facts are wrong he simply lost the point and
failed to account for the publication history properly.

Thanks again,

OF.baker wrote:


text:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:06:15 GMT, Hyperopic wrote:

But I am.  You establish the identity and then I'll work on it.

yes this might happen...but more than likely, since this is a very hot
trail new evidence would have turned up...and in the alternative the
authorship mantel would have had a solid foundation and so would the
political and diplomatic problems of the time...so we would have a
better understanding of all

Half is too large a number here and you know it.

Is this intended to be a thoughtful question?  Writers don't have to
leave good texts.  And there isn't anything wrong with those we do
have.   It takes time to make a text good and a generative writer
loses interest in an older work....the Tempest is a better text of
Faustus than the A text or even the B text.

Happy to consider any contradiction.  I've offered a life line that is
free of many of them...but not all, of course.  Bring them on.

It could, but it would better for some skeptic to broach them...more
of a chore for me....you broach them I'll post them
and answer them there.

Much of my web site is devoted to showing that there are _far
stronger_ links between the proposition Marlowe = Shakespeare than The
Rustic = Shakespeare.

There are no problems then about where and how he learned to write,
who his friends were and how he knew these things, there are
no problems about how he knew James VI or went to Scotland....or how
he knew so much about Italy...the guy was translating the Civil Wars
of Rome when he switched identities....he traveled Europe.

So we answer this question by saying that the case that Marlowe became
Shakespeare is stronger than the case that the Rustic was
Shakespeare...its not a proven deal...just a
stronger...I've said this over and over...have you missed it?

No. Two things are being stated here.

One is historical: it has never been proven.

The other is a statement of opinion: it cannot be proven.

We can not know this larger opinion to be true so it hangs....

We can know the former to be true so it is proven, so the former was
offered as support of the other, and inserted because the writer knew
the to be written phrase "It cannot be proven" needed support...and
the insertion happened at high speed at the keyboard so it all came
out in the phrase you read, but did not quite understand fully.

Fair enough?

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote in message news:3bad6f4f$0$1519$[email]...

There are numerous books, letters and other documents that
have been published over a pseudonym where the author is
NOT known.   What's so tough about that?

In this case, there was a little vague pointing at a man
from a provincial village, who was so unsuitable that
anyone can see he could not possibly have been the
author.

What is the matter with you?  I could ascribe to a 'Greg
Reynolds' (of Hicksville or wherever you live) some work
which you could not have written.  If you and I then died,
and no one else had any evidence one way or the other,
then the name of 'Greg Reynolds of Hicksville' would
be attached to it for eternity.

It's more than a 'mistake'.

The historical record tells us that the Stratman could
NOT possibly have been the author.  When a person
has 70 contemporaneous personal records and not
one of them indicates a literary connection, then that
person could NOT possibly have been an author.

He is the only person alive at the time who could possibly
have written those works.   As just one example (from
thousands) line 7 of Sonnet 107
     "Incertainties now crown themselves assured"
could only have been written by Oxford about March
1582.  No one else shared that opinion at that time,
or had those attitudes, or was capable of expressing
such a complex idea so succinctly.

There are letters patent of 19 May 1603 naming 'William
Shakespeare' (2nd in list followed by Burbage, Phillips,
Heminges,  Condell and 3 others).  Is that the Stratman?
I doubt it.   But even if it is he, I don't believe he was an
actor.  He'd hardly have had illiterate daughters and left
nothing at all in writing, other than those signatures.

Paul.


author: Bob Grumman

text:
Well, it's not really that strong an argument; after all, there is
no reference to Paul Crowley as a very stupid man yet we know
beyond reasonable doubt that he is.  (The references to someone
named "Paul Crowley," of course, don't count.)  And you're
defdining "the time" with Pricean obtuseness since the First
Folio and the monument were from what any sane person would agree
was Shakespeare's time.

                    John Baker

It's "hear, hear," John.  To be a pedant (because you persistently
make this mistake and I have to admit that it bugs me).

                                                     --Bob G.


text:
<Hyperopic> wrote in message news:[email]...

A very good question.  There is also the matter of HOW
they appeared in his cast lists -- at the very top . . .  before
Burbage, Kemp, Heminge, Condel, Augustine Phillips,
etc.   That list occurs in only one place -- Jonson's Folio
(of his own plays) published in 1616.

 No one can pretend that he should have been at the
head of such a list on the basis of his acting merits,
experience or status.  So what is the story?

God knows what it was -- but it's not a simple logical
one that we can take at face value.  Jonson must have
had a quite peculiar motivation.

Paul.


text:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:32:05 GMT, Okay Fine <[email]> wrote:

I think so.  As I've pointed out a lot of Strats have gone to the mat
over this J. Bate is in the new doc on Marlowe, by Rubbo, which will
be on BBC soon, caught saying that it had Willy's name on it at the
time of its registration.

Clearly this is just a mistake on Bate's part and a minor one, given
his over all knowledge level. But it is telling.

V&A entered while Marlowe was alive without his or any author's name
on it at the SR and did not appear in print until after Marlowe's
debacle....

At which time it was dedicated to a guy Marlowe could have known,
and very likely who he tutored as he tutored Arbella Stuart..both of
whom were wards of Burghley...

The dedication page, which is an inserted bifolium prove the point
that the name "Shakespeare" was not on the book when it was printed
and was only added to it after it was printed.

Webb will get the point, sooner or later....he's bright, just a bit
too opinionated.  I'm looking foward to having lunch with him and
showing him a few of my favorite trees on campus...I'll do us both
some good...

baker

baker wrote:

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
No, he won the argument which was that Shakespeare was writing
before Marlowe's real or faked death in Deptford.  That's because
we KNOW that Shakespeare, whoever he was, wrote Venus and Adonis,
and the stationers' records show that Venus and Adonis existed
before Marlowe's real or faked death in Deptford.

It is, however, a very minor point.  A stronger version of the
same argument is that Greene almost definitely wrote of Shakespeare
as a playwright many months before Marlowe's putative death, and
he pretty clearly referred in the same text to Marlowe as a different
person, as did Chettle in a later text.

Interestingly, we have no direct concrete evidence that Marlowe was
writing prior to the date that the direct concrete evidence shows
that Shakespeare was.  Should we not then assume that Shakespeare
wrote Marlowe?  That's always been one of my theories: Marlowe hired
Shakespeare to make him look like a literateur.  This was after
Shakespeare went through Cambridge taking Marlowe's exams for him.

                                               --Bob G.

                                                --Bob G.


text:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:11:27 GMT, baker wrote:

Sorry, it's my hypothetical and one condition is that the evidence is
what we have today, no more, no less.  The difference is that
"orthodoxy", persuaded by some past historian, has opted for
Marlovianism.  That leaves decades of Marlowe's life to account for,
and since he masterminded one brilliant conspiracy of silence up to
the death of Shakespeare-of-Avon, someone would certainly argue that
he must have found a new cover after that untimely event.

It _is_ my hypothetical, but since you're offended I hereby change it
to "everyone who worked in the theatre and half the playgoing public
of London."  See "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography" for details.

Thank you, a fine example of my point.  Some people think Marlowe
spent his old age writing 20,000 corrections into a copy of the
folio--that would be the obsessive-compulsive perfectionist Marlowe.
You plump for the free-spirited ever-fecund Marlowe, who prefers
creating new works to repairing the old, who dismisses the excellent
works that first brought him fame.  Big difference.  When you see
differences like that in the Shakespearian "congregation", you
denounce them for having nothing but a blinkered quasi-religious faith
that the actor and the author were the same person.  But attach
Marlowe's name to a proposition, and no amount of dissonance will warn
you away from it.  To use your inaccurate terminology, "Marlowe equals
Shakespeare" is a "tautology"--"postulate" or "axiom" is better--which
forgives any number of contradictory beliefs.  That axiom is your
quasi-religion, and any fact which doesn't fit neatly into the
theology is kicked around until it becomes further proof of Marlowe's
limitless genius, or dismissed as being unimportant.  But no fact is
permitted to threaten the essential axiom.  You are what you say the
Stratfordians are.

At the speed you write it shouldn't take you more than a day to come
up with a goodly list.  But why do you say you'll "answer" them?  That
sounds like you've made up your mind already--as if "Marlowe equals
Shakespeare" is axiomatic.  You'll "consider" contradictions--why
won't you raise them yourself?

This sounds good, I hope you practice it.  But when you start using
terms like "the Rustic" I start to disbelieve in your professions of
disinterested scholarship.  In your theory, "the Rustic" risked his
life by publishing "dangerous" plays, and took his secret to the
grave.  He ought to be a hero to you, but all I hear is contempt.


author: Roundtable

text:
"Paul Crowley" <[email] (apply ROT13)> wrote in message news:<nOlr7.1494$[email]>...

Why couldn't they see it then, at the time...why didn't they all point
the finger of ridicule at the publishers when the collected works were
printed in 1623, and when the monument was erected?

Roundtable


text:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:56:02 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
<[email]> wrote:

Good, so from now on we'll compromise:

Hear, here!

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 01:52:18 +0100, "Paul Crowley"
<[email] (apply ROT13)> wrote:

Could it not have been a simple tribute to "il migglior fabbro"?


text:
Paul Crowley wrote:

I don't think you can simply deny the evidence in this way, unless you
have good reasons to think that Shakspere of Stratford was not an actor.
By similar reasoning as you use we might say that you don't really
believe that de Vere was Shakespeare but simply assert it for some
mysterious reason.

OF.


text:
Bob Grumman wrote:

Bob, that's dense.  What is the last possible date on which the
attribution to Shakespeare could have been made?  Clearly there is
nothing in the documentary record to support your wishful proposition
that Shakespeare was writing before Marlowe's death.  This is so obvious
I'm embarrassed to point it out: Marlowe may have written V&A and
decided after he faked his death to attribute it elsewhere.  Is it
possible that this possibility was blocked from entering your
consciousness?

I mean, you're not stupid even if not particularly honest, so how do we
explain this kind of lapse?  The fact remains that all of Shakespeare
occurs after all of Marlowe -- a coincidence that aroused my curiosity
long before I found out how shot with holes the Stratford case is.

False.  If you could demonstrate otherwise you'd nearly bury Marlowe =
Shakespeare.  That's why you're trying, and that's why it's quite
significant that you can't.

You mean "Groatsworth's..."?  Any assertion that there is a clear
reference to anyone there is nothing but the most tendentious reading
imaginable.  That text is a mess.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that Shakespeare and Marlowe are the same
writer.  If you can make the case that it's Shakspere, state your
reasons.

OF.


text:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 22:07:29 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
<[email]> wrote:

Grueman,

This is a near perfect example of the sort of error that I describe in
a separate post that leads one to be trapped by his (almost) very own
thinking in a wet paper bag... without a fight, no less!

It's nothing but raw logic, with no connection to the facts.  That's
what a computer does.  That's why we say computers are not men and
women, even if we dress them up in one of those artificial bodies
Howard Stern is so fond of.

How ironic is it that you go doing it again, time after time after
time...

- Alcibiades, Guest-Friend


text:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 22:07:29 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
<[email]> wrote:

No, OkFine is right and Bob you and David are wrong.

BS total and complete lunancy.

"Know" what do you mean by this Bob...you only "Know" that the name
Shakespeare was on the title page.  Its not in the FF, so it was never
authenticated...need to look up that work Bob....

The status of V&A and all the poems is equal (=) to the status of
Yorkshire Tragedy.  Actualy since YT was said Willy's both at the SR
and on its title page, YT is more likely his than V&A...

More SOS or shit on a shingle as we GIs call it.  Greene most
definitely did not write about Shakespeare....produce any proof of
this you can but it doesn't even get off the ground.

Shake-scene, shake bags, player hides, tiger hearts....these aren't
Willy's name.  And Henry VI is thought to be almost entirely
Marlowe's.

Urry, life long archivist for Canterbury, (PhD, Cambridge) said as far
as he was concerned only someone who grew up in Kent could have
written h6....Jack Cade...you know all about Jack Cade right?

Bull shit.  The Timon, ms. dates to 1580....Tamburlaine opens with a
conjuction of the planets on stage that has been dated prior to 1593,
etc., etc.  What do you suppose Bob, Marlowe wrote after the died...

A good theory Bob...stay with it.  It makes you and Kathman look like
geniuses.

But sadly it was one of the first theories, it appeared back in the
early 1800s.  Proposed that Marlowe was a pen name for Willy while
Willy was learning to write...then it turned out Marlowe had a life
that matched his works...but Willy didn't...

So sad.

j

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler