subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
Paul, you said: "Believers in strange theories are obliged
to adjust their conception of the world to
match their beliefs.  Huge aspects of it are
just ignored.  Much history become quite
accidental -- strange things happened
just because they happened.    So it was
just 'something in the English air' that
produced the English literary renaissance."

This is consistently your view of how "Strats" (simple-mindedly) treat
the question as to how the phenomenon of the Flowering of English
Literature and Drama in Elizabethan Times occurred.  I consistently
tell you that is is NOT the way they treat it.  I then repeated some
of my own explanations for it.  Whatever low opinion you have them,
they ARE possible explanations.  Others have said similar things.
They thus prove that my side does NOT overlook the question you say we
do.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we as good as overlook it because of the insane
reasons you give at to why what we say is wrong.  But we DO understand
and acknowledge and respond to the question.

What was going on in other countries is irrelevant.  I am telling you
some of what was going on in Elizabethan England that caused the
flowering.

They were exciting new in England, Paul--like the computer in the
modern West.  But, yes, they were being circulated in other countries.

No, Paul, it is why you are insane.  Books discuss other books, Paul.
Also: you only need one other reader to discuss a book.  You don't
have to form a committee of DeVere-tutors (as opposed to 21st-century
professors of literature, who have the brains of caterpillars) do
discuss it.  And you can discuss it with yourself.  Your epistemology
is ridiculous--because you can't learn on your own, so don't
understand how, or that, others can.  Furthermore, it is a matter of
record that there were literate people in Stratford.  There was a
school there that had to be taught by literates, and attended by
children on the way to literacy.

I listed many factors, Paul.  A single one needn't cause a
renaissance.  But I would guess that just about all countries have had
literary renaissances, some comparable to England's, some not.  Some
due to the influence of the Italian Renaissance, some due to something
else--the influence on modern serious music of African music, for
instance.

Baloney.  Compare Chaucer (1400) to Shakespeare (1600); then compare
Wordsworth (1800) to Rowling (2000).  Huge differences between the
first two, hardly any between the second two (except for quality of
writing).

But it did seem also to happen in Italy as Latin became Italian.

In brief (from ON STAGE, a history of the theatre): Henry VIII's court
had very lavish performances of masques, etc..  Schools, encouraged by
this, staged the classic plays they had been teaching (Terence,
Plautus, Seneca) because of that thing called the Italian
Renaissance.  Ralph Roister Doister appeared, the first chool play in
English.  People like plays, so more plays were performed, some at the
Inns of Court in London, notably Gorboduc (1562)--Gammer Gurton's
Needle was performed at Cambridge (c. 1562).  Then Richard Edwards
wrote plays for boys to establish a new court drama (with the backing
of Elizabeth).  Richard Farrant, who took over the boys later,
"conceived the idea of having his boys give their plays before select
audiences after the queen had seen them."  The queen let him use the
great hall at Blackfriars for this.

Meanwhile (in the 1570s) adult companies were performing at London
inns--and the best of their plays were performed also at court.  Ergo,
no wonder that a regular theatre was built in London in 1576, with a
competitor the next year, and that 23 professional acting companies
were performing in London at the height of theatrical popularity.

Something similar was going on in Spain, culminating with Lope de Vega
and Calderon.  In France you had Moliere, Corneille and Racine.
Cervantes wrote plays, too.  All the European countries had a
flowering of theatre.  You consider England's the best, but some
country has to come out the best.

All countries have other flowerings, too, like the flowering of
Impressionism mainly in France, of music in the Germany of Haydn,
Mozart, Beethoven; the Florence of Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael.

No more.  Read up on it yourself, Paul.

So what?

You really are a moron, Paul.  The items on the list and other similar
items that should be on it probably that I've forgotten or don't know
about TAKEN TOGETHER produced the Elizabethan Flowering.

Right.  Often that is the case.

No comment on this?

Or this?

I considered the weather.  I think it was colder then, but I was too
lazy to look it up.  The little Glacier Age or something.  No reason
it might not have contributed.

That Britain is an island had a lot to do with it, too, I'm sure.
England had a perfect balance of nearness to other nations she could
get ideas from and distance from getting ideas too fast.  The English
Channel protected her from too frequent incursions of warmakers, too.

Jim, note how Crowley, unable to answer my specific views, makes
insanely inappropriate analogies for them.  Not one item on my list,
Paul, was something that happened all the time.

Exactly the expected response.  Instead we must believe that Oxford
was born of the proper parents, got the right tutors and the love of
the queen.  Consequently, what?  He told the queen he felt like
inventing human nature, modern drama and poetry, democracy and
whatever else occurred to him while he was doing those things.  She
said that'd be fine, and gave him 2,000 pounds a year.  But told him
his doing these things under his own name would bring shame to nobles
everywhere, and also cause the commoners to rebel because he'd be
sure, as a Demigod to be honest and reveal the flaws of the court.  So
he had to think of a pseudonym to use.  He came up with lots of
pseudonyms and wrote all the consequential Enlish literature and drama
we have from 1560 to 1604, some of it post-dated, the save the
kingdom, and the honor of the aristocracy.

All I know is that they got read, Paul.  If not by commoners, why did
Dante write in their language?

Paul, I've written and self-published a book giving my response to the
question of who wrote Shakespeare.  Why don't you do the same?  And in
it give your ideas on beauty, etc.  Then we will have something to go
to, to pin down what you've said and not said.

I know you won't.  You wouldn't dare to.

The texts don't have fight scenes or standard commedia del arte plots?

You don't know that we have plays by all these writers?

We KNOW that some commoners attended one performance of a play that
was written up.  Do you really think that was an exception?

Don't be ridiculous.  There are all kinds of things in history that
I'd date wrong, and I know a lot more about history than some.

A scenario that's insane because it supposes Shakespeare, like all
other mortals, could make mistakes.

Genealogists have sorted it out, Paul.  Not with complete accuracy,
but close enough.  A John Grumman born 1612 in a town with no known
Grummans but a Grummant family whose head was a John born in 1574 can
show a probable equivalence, for instance.

No, they were like us--sometimes a little slow.  And they didn't have
journalists writing up celebrities.  What's so stupid about not
recognizing the author of Titus as the greatest writer of all time?
Some call Joyce the greatest novelist of all time.  How much
recognition of his contemporaries did he get?  How about van Gogh?

Known, not famous.  But these things don't make him someone everyone
would have been writing in their diaries about, and then making sure
their diaries would be preserved for posterity.

NOW, Paul, if I met an illiterate, I would assume his parents were
literate, because almost everyone is.  All the illiterates I've known
have had literate parents, and I've known some in ordinary life, and
many as a substitute teacher ofter involve with teaching slow
learners.  But we're talking about a DIFFERENT time.  A time when
literacy was not near-universal.  Common sense has to tell a sane
person that there would be lots of literates whose parents were not
literate.  Just as now that a lots of computer-literates whose parents
won't have anything to do with computers.

Oops, the computer wants me to read more, but I'm going to end here.

--Bob G.


author: Tom Reedy

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 21, 7:46 am, "Paul Crowley"
<[email]> wrote:

And their tin mines.

TR


author: Jim KQKnave

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 22, 5:25 am, "Paul Crowley"
<[email]> wrote:

For crying out loud Paul, if I've told you once, I've told you
A THOUSAND TIMES!! - read the info at www.shakespeareauthorship.com!

A couple of excerpts:

http://www.shakespeareauthorship.com/field.html

"First, let me give a little background on Field. He was baptized
on November 16, 1561, and was thus about two and a half years older
than Shakespeare. Richard's father Henry was a tanner, much like
John Shakespeare (who was a glover), and the Fields lived on Bridge
Street, a few hundred yards down the road from the Shakespeares.
Given their similar occupations in a small town, we can reasonably
assume that the two men knew each other, and in fact the documentary
record shows them associated over a period of nearly four decades:
John Shakespeare sued Henry Field over a debt in 1556 (before either
of their sons was born) and helped appraise Henry's goods upon the
latter's death in 1592 (the year before Venus and Adonis was
published). Given all the above, I think we can be virtually
certain that William Shakespeare and Richard Field knew each other
from childhood, and it's entirely reasonable to think that the
relationship continued when they were both living in London. (In
the real world, the fact that Field published Venus and Adonis
counts as evidence of their association in London, but I realize
that that's out of bounds here.)

On September 29, 1579, at the age of 17, Richard Field was
apprenticed  to George Bishop, one of the more prominent stationers
(i.e. printers/publishers) in London, for the normal term of seven
years. However, it was agreed that Richard would spend the first six
of these years under Thomas Vautrollier, a French refugee printer
with an excellent record of printing difficult books, many in foreign
languages. On February 2, 1587, Field was made free of the
Stationer's
Company, and in July of that year, Thomas Vautrollier died. His widow
Jacqueline carried on the business for a few months, but in February
1588 she married Richard Field, who thus took over his former
master's
thriving business at the age of 26. Field inherited not only
Vautrollier's type and devices (which he continued to use), but the
publishing rights to Vautrollier's books as well. This would have
necessarily included at least one copy of each of these books, from
which later editions could be printed as needed (and in fact Field
published further editions of many of the books he inherited from
Vautrollier)."

and

"The connections between Field's publications and the works of
Shakespeare
are many and varied. Field had no known connection with the Earl of
Oxford,
but he had grown up in Stratford down the street from William
Shakespeare.
If I might be allowed a bit of speculation after all the facts I've
just
presented, it's very easy to imagine William Shakespeare, fresh off
the
turnip truck (or whatever vehicle he used to get there), looking up
his
childhood acquaintance Dick Field upon his arrival in London, and
finding
there a library full of books to be devoured. Field's connection to
so
many of the primary sources of Shakespeare's works is no coincidence,
and
it constitutes a series of parallels much more impressive than
anything
Oxfordians are able to muster."

See? There's no problem at all explaining Shakespeare's access to
books!

********************************
http://tinyurl.com/2q7hd9

see also

www.shakespeareauthorship.com

See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html

The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html

Agent Jim


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 20, 10:02 am, "Paul Crowley"
<[email]> wrote:

Point to Farey.

TR


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
Okay, Paul, for possibly the twentieth time let me tell you that you
are either a flat out liar or have the world's worst memory.  Many
authors have considered the question you have raised and given complex
answers, I for one--here on HLAS, many times--directly to you.  We do
not think it was due to "something in the English air."

Minor question: why did Dante write in the vernacular?

You've give a partial answer to this yourself, Paul.  The common
people, assuming they were as stupid as you claim, still were able to
enjoy the nursery rhyme aspects of Shakespeare's plays.  You neglect
the fact that many of the other commercial plays were not so difficult
as Shakespeare's, most of them being as easy for a stupid person to
follow as, well, as the Henry VI plays.    YOu refuse to believe that
someone not stupid although not a noble might have been educated
enough by the Henry VI plays to get the gist of later history plays,
and from them--based on a heritage most commoners knew SOMEthing
about--been able to understand enough of the tragedies to enjoy them.
Possibly because this would have required them to learn on their own,
something you can't allow because you can't do it.

And it doesn't matter how likely it is if it's not impossible since
all the hard evidence says that Shakespeare was Shakespeare--assuming,
of course, that we take as facts all the crap Paul claims about
Shakespeare's family.

He didn't say that, Paul.

If it was crazy, why did Chambers find so many other "William
Shakespeares" who lived during the poet's time?  Why isn't William
Breakspeare a crazy name?  Actually, I don't know that there were any
WIlliam Breakspeares, but there were Breakspeares, and it's probable
one or two at least were Williams.

Paul, try to honest.  It's "absence of any record FROM HIS LIFETIME
THAT REFERS TO HIS PLACE OF BIRTH commenting on the fame of the
Stratford man.  There are few such writers for any writer of that
time.

A sane person would consider it evidence, but look for counter-
evidence.  Actually, of course, he would have counter-evidence
already--his knowledge that spaghetti does not grow on trees.  He
would not have any knowledge that illiterate parents produce non-
writers because he would know that people can learn things their
parents didn't know and apply them.

Accepting something as evidence to be weighed is different from
accepting everything one is told as true, Paul.

Accepting something as evidence to be weighed is different from
accepting everything one is told as true, Paul.  But if I'm shown,
rather than simply told, that the name of a man for whose existence
there are church records is on a number of title-pages, and there is
no evidence against it's referring to him, then I must accept it as
probably his.  I needn't believe it MUST be true.

If your case is so strong, why do you have to misrepresent your
opponents to such an incredibly great extent.  Which of them believes
everything he's ever been told about Shakespeare?

--Bob G.


author: Christian Lanciai

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
Just for your information: He wasn't paid for what he wrote, there was
no publishing business then, being exiled he lived on the charity of
others, and he wrote only for kicks, for "Beatrice". So at least he
was an honest poet.

C(hris)


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 21, 5:10 am, Christian Lanciai <[email]> wrote:

Who was his audience, Chris?

--Bob G.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
Here we go again.

Right.  If I fail to write it all out for the twenty-first time, it
means it doesn't exist.  But here it is again:

When Shakespeare was growing up:

1. Books were being circulated.

2. The Italian Renaisssance was reaching England.

3. The English Language was excitingly not yet established and rich.

4. Theatres were staring to be built

5. Histories of the realm were new.

6. It was a dangerous but exhilirating time in religion: (protestants
versus catholics) which caused an envigorating clash of ideas.

7. England was threatened by Spain and got into wars which made
patriotic plays celebrating the English Past popular, and they were
relatively easy to write because of 1. and 5. above,

8. The New World was enlarging trade, both mercantile and cultural,
and pirated gold from it making England richer than it had been.

9.  A middle class, by whatever name, was forming, and causing new
interactions of ideas and lifestyles, and making money becasue of 8
and other things, money available to spend on entertainment.

10. A couple of talented poets had just gotten the English lyric
tradition fully started with their sonnets and other works after a
lengthy sputter from the time of Chaucer and before.

11. Other poets of greater talent arose, like Sidney and Spenser, the
latter a genuinely major and influential poet.

12.  A few men of genius happened to be attracted the the theatre, and
their influence chain-reacted.

13. Shakespeare himself inspired other writers like Jonson who in turn
inspired him.

There were no doubt other factors I've missed.  Not that it matters.
You will simply dismiss the ones I've given, secure in your belief
that you should be sole judge of the validity of any authorship
argument--not that the above qualify as arguments for anything since
they can't possibly meet with your approval.

As I understand it, he wrote for the common people a couple of
centuries before Shakespeare.

But you said that this accounted for the popularity of Shakespeare's
plays.  Of course, I'm sure the clowns and the fight scenes, and the
standard commedia plots would have drawn even illiterates.

I'm talking about the known plays of Dekker, Marlowe, Peele, Greene,
Nashe, Kyd, Chettle and more than a few others.  I'm not talking about
their being put in print although many were, and were bought, but
about their being stage commercially, as we know they were from many
records including the eye-witness account of the performance of Henry
8 when the Globe burned down.  This account mentions several members
of the audience, all of whom were commoners.  Then, too, there is
Henslowe's book of accounts which detail how much money his theatre
made from plays.  One or two by Shakespeare, if I recall correctly.

Just because I believe they may have been twice as smart as you, Paul,
and thus able to learn all by themselves without highly-paid special
tutors, doesn't mean I think they were geniuses, or even too
intelligent.

Right.  It's impossible for a person to be intelligent and still have
erroneous beliefs.  So Aristotle was stupid, right?  He sure got most
of his science wrong.

Only you are stupid enough to believe that the spelling of names back
then had been regularized.  There's hardly a family name of the time
that didn't have multiple spellings.  My own family name was Gruman,
Gromand, and a dozen or more variants.

You do NOT know that, Paul.  There are many records indicating that he
was NOT considered the world's greatest writer by all or even a great
many of his contemporaries.  For just one instance, consider the poem
(by Heywood?) that lists the playwrights the author prizes.
Shakespeare is among them but certainly doesn't have pride of place.
Other lists leave him out.

Not so.

So you say, Paul, ignoring the counter evidence--and the fact that
literacy is not heriditary.  You are also basing your conclusion on
the misconception that people are slaves to their upbringing simply
because you apparently were.  Those of us with the right genes,
however, will be criven to learn, on our own, everything we need to
regardless of our upbringing.  Chagall, world-class painter, whose
career was vigorouslyopposed by his parents on religious grounds.
Pascal, barred by his father from reading Euclid, worked out a
geometry on his own.  The famous Russian writer David Webb brings up
but whose name I can't remember, and Eric Hoffer, blind for much of
his childhood and adolescence who became a dock-worker and then famous
(and first-rate) writer.

Ah, you are suggesting that people can no more learn things their
parents (or parent surrogates) didn't know and apply them than plane
trees can produce spaghetti?  You must learn not to base what others
can do on the little that you can.

No, it's obvious he believes in it because it makes sense to him, and
because no one questions its validity except cranks.  Evidence counts
more than unsupported speculation, that's what it reduces to, Paul.

Just how is your authorship belief not ten times more of a quasi-
religious belief than ours, Paul?  We have hard evidence from
identified witnesses about a circustance only you and a few others
with no scholarly standing think impossible.  You have nothing but
speculation and a totally nutto conspiracy theory.

According to you.  But your notion that he had the wrong background
for a great writer is mere opinion, as is you idiotic belief that
"Shake-speare" is a wonderful pun for a writer (rather than for a
soldier).

All I can say is no I don't.

Sure didn't seem that way to me.

This one is easy: there are as many different interpretations of
Shakespeare as there are people interpreting him.  From this it
follows that not all of them believes everything he's been told about
Shakespeare.  It's also a matter of record that Shakespeare scholars
dispute things they've been told about Shakespeare.  Some of them were
told about his being a butcher's on, for instance, but decided he was
not.  He was accepted by many as Greene's upstart Crow but others told
he was that came to dispute it.  Etc.

Well, thanks for the updated compendium of of anti-Stratfordian
rigidnikry, Paul.  I do believe it may be the funniest one you've come
up with yet.

--Bob G.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 19, 12:13 pm, "Paul Crowley"
<[email]> wrote:

Surprisingly, I think you're somewhat right that how a thing came
about can be part of its aesthetic value.  I'd even go along with the
belief that one of the reasons for admiring a fine poem or play is in
understanding how it came about--how a poet was able to pull off a
difficult rhyme scheme, for instance, without messing up his meter too
much.  But we don't care WHO about the personality, character,
appearance, biography, etc., of the artist any more than we care about
the personality of the geological process that formed fjords.  We
care, that is, about the process of creativity that produced the poem,
and we care that a human being carried it out, but the specific
identity of the poet is irrelevant.  We will read the same words no
matter who wrote a particular poem.

Another thing you ignore is that we don't include printing processes
in our appreciation of Shakespeare's poems, or paper-making processes,
or binding.  Why not?  Absurd?  Actually not--those things definitely
factor into the appreciation of many kinds of visual arts--and of
visual poetry.  You also miss the fact that we don't care about the
equivalent of gelogical processes unless what they result in are
beautiful for other reasons.

I just thought of something.  Why wouldn't you admire the Sonnets much
more than you now do if you accepted that an illiterate composed
them!?  How glorious the accomplishment!

--Bob G.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 20, 11:46 am, Tom Reedy <[email]> wrote:

What?!  You actually believe "bare ruined choirs" more beautiful an
image than "bare ruined queers," Tom?  Oh, well, I guess it takes all
kinds.

--Bob G.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On 21 Jan, 14:33, "[email]" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
but.net> wrote:

He never was on stage. He had a large audience, though, when he
started off as a poet in Florence among the rich intellectual elite
and became famous early ('Vita nuova') and a crowned 'poet laureate'.
He had just started on his 'Comedy' (later nicknamed 'divine') when he
was driven into exile for the rest of his life. His audience after
that was only private persons and posterity - the last part of the
'Comedy' was not circulated until after his death.

C.


author: lackpurity

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 15, 1:42�pm, "Paul Crowley"
<[email]> wrote:

MM:
Are you discussing your own theories?

MM:
When God manifested himself on earth, then we had the Elizabethan Sat
Gurus.  Nostradamus had prophesied it.

MM:
I doubt it was the first time.  Common people have always supported
the churches or cults of the Masters.  Read the letters of St. Paul,
if you don't believe it.  There is nothing wrong with earning an
honest living, anyway.  The FF came out long after Shakespeare's
death.

MM:
Yes, Masters are much more intelligent than we.  It's a good axiom to
learn, Crowley.

MM:
It is your contention that is unreasonable.

MM:
I think you're leading the witnesses.  The "illiteracy," is merely
your fantasy, because you have nothing else with which to defame the
Strat Man, apparently.

MM:
It was a name period.  You try to make it crazy.

MM:
Groatsworth of Wit, and other evidences have been mentioned.  Have you
been ignoring ALL the evidence?  Incredible.

MM:
More leading the witnesses.  It is not just "someone."  All of England
was involved.  All of London.  All of Stratford.  There is no evidence
of the massive cover-up, which you Anti-Strats need to support your
fantasies.  Nobody, even on their deathbeds, ever mentioned a massive
cover-up.

Anti-Stratfordianism didn't even exist, until all the witnesses to the
truth had died.  Then somebody with a wild imagination started all
this nonsense.

MM:
You mean a story such as, "Oxford wrote the canon?"  Give me a break,
Crowley.

MM:
You mean like your stories about Queen Elizabeth and Sir Walter
Raleigh?  LOL

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 15, 5:44�am, "Paul Crowley"
<[email]> wrote:

MM:
Yes, but then we need to include fantasies and Anti-Stratfordianism in
it, also.  Try to broaden your perspective, Crowley.

MM:
Also, they could study wild hypotheses of history, which were proven
to be false.

MM:
You have to prove that Stratfordianism is a mistake.  You're back to
square one, Crowley.  Because other mistakes were made, has nothing to
do with Stratfordianism.

MM:
I think Strats understand that.  That is why they are staunchly behind
Stratfordianism.

MM:
They've already done that, Crowley.  They have concluded that
Stratfordianism makes much more sense then Anti-Stratfordianism.

MM:
This is his jaded leading of the witnesses, and should be struck from
the record.  It is meaningless.

(c) Do I hold my belief merely

MM:
We can question ourselves, of course.  Anti-Strats could question
their beliefs which are based on fantasies, also.  They are a
minority, but the same principle applies.  For example, should I
believe Crowley's theory about Queen Elizabeth and Sir Walter Raleigh
merely because he tells me of it?

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 14, 4:46�am, "Peter F." <[email]> wrote:

MM:
It can be a legitimate academic topic, but that's not going to change
anything, much to the chagrine of Marlovians.  Anti-Strat theories
have been bouncing around now for some 250 years, and nothing worthy
to be caled "evidence," has been produced.

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 17, 5:06�am, "Paul Crowley"
<[email]> wrote:

MM:
Mr. Farey's theory, IMO, not only rips off William Shakespeare, but
makes Christopher Marlowe look deceptive.  That is two swipes at
Perfect Masters.  Does anyone really think that Marlowe would have
done such a thing?  He was a straight shooter.  Read "The Jew of
Malta."  He was brave and told it like it was.  He didn't tiptoe
through the tulips hiding out somewhere in France.  It's so
ridiculous, but anybody can study anything.  That is why I replied
yesterday that one could make his Marlovian theory an academic study,
but in reality, it will not change anything, IMO.  It's just studying
a fantasy.

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 14, 4:46 am, "Peter F." <[email]> wrote:

I, too, fully support its worthiness as a legitimate academic topic.
Why would any human activity be deemed not worthy of academic study?
After all, psychopathology is studied by academics, as are dementia,
sexual perversion, crime and all other forms of deviant behavior and
mental aberration, including many types of literary criticism.

TR


author: Art Neuendorffer

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
.
Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:

We do some mulling and culling from time to time.
.
Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:

Touchstone: Ah, Gregory! Tonight you in for a real treat.
I'm personally going to prepare the history for you and my Audrey.
.
.
Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:

He's not.
.
Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------
____  STRATFORD upon Avon
________ Guild Chapel
_______ white-WASHING
_______ CHAMBERLAIN
________ ALDERMAN/Bailiff
_________________________   /----------------------\
______________ John ----- MARY                  MARgerY Webbe
_____ [wrote his 'marke'] | [wrote her 'marke']__[d. St.Adrian's]
__[bur. St.Adrian's Day]- | [d. St.Adrian's Day]
_________________         |
_______               /---------------\  ___________ [illiterate]
.                MARgerY          Shakspere ------------ Anne
_______________                                       | [b. 1556]
_                                 [BROOK House]       | [only son,
___                            [Shaxpere's Boys]      | b.1584, dies]
___-                           [Shaxpere Gloves]      |
_                    [Cervantes' "lame hand" ]        |
___                            [W. Smith mentor]      |
||||||             [Catholic Relatives persecuted]    |
____                           [Thomas Trussell]      |
_                           [Sweet Swan of Avon]      |
___                         [By ME : WIL(cu)L]        |
____-                         [Bend Spear crest]      |
_______-                      [Golding's 'OVID']      |
__                      [Camden's: 'pregnant witt']   |
______                      [Qu. of Scots Trial]      |
___                          [Yoricke's Scounce]      |
___                           ["Gentleman" poet]      |
_                             [NESTOR reference]      |
||||||||||                     [MERMAID tAVERn]       |
_                          ['For TRUTH is TRUTH']     |
_____-                   [Paul's 'I am that I am']    |
||||||             [Hamlet's 'To Be or not To Be']    |
||||||||||          [stole from Raphael Holinshed]    |
__                           [TINer of AVERland]      |
-                         [1586 deer park poacher]    |
|||||||||||||||||        [pinch-FART penny-FATheR]    |
|||||||||||||||||  [1616 Faust/FAMA Frat. death]      |
||||||||||||||||||   [John Manningham's 1602 diary]   |
_--                     [£1,000/year for 18 years]    |
_                   [- Item, £10 unto the  poore ]    |
|                       [ARD(en) plot/tower/exec.]    |
------___          [7 Year exile for indiscretion]    |
|||||||             [Stephen Bellott dowry: £200]     |
|||||||             [Hothead Gastrell: Esdras 6:9]    |
|||||||||||||||||||   [Anne Cornwaleys book 1588?]    |
||||||||||||||           [not a *COMPANY* keeper ]    |
||||||||||          [Richard Field recognized 1593]   |
|||||||||||||||||    [Meres' Top 10 in comedy 1598]   |
|||||||||||||||||||[Baroness Elizabeth of Abbingdon]  |
|||||||||||||||||||[drunken B.Knell suicide attack]   |
________________                                      |
||||||||||||||||   [falcon w./spear in dexter CLAW]   |
_____        [ Henry Evans >                          |
||||                1608 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.]   |
|||||||||||||||||   dies unnoticed / tomb unmarked    |
|||||                 Church Burial Record "X"ed      |
________________                                      |
_                               Hall M.D. -------- SVSANna
||||||||  [d. on Lope de Vega's 73rd birthday [b.May 26, 1583]
_           3 mo. after Lope dies]   ____    [could write name]
______________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------
_____   STRATFORD atte Bowe
________  Pontius Pilate
______      hand-WASHING
___     GREAT CHAMBERLAIN
_____    EALDORMAN/Bailiff
_______          John ----------- MARgerY
________                   |
___                 /-----------\  ___  m. on OPALIA [Sonneteer]
.                MARY          Oxford ---------------    Anne
________________                                 |    [b. 1556]
-                          [BROOKE House]        |[only son dies
_______                   [Oxford's Boys]        |   b.May 1583]
_______-                  [Oxford Gloves]        |
_                  [Cervantes' "lame hand" ]     |
______                   [T. Smith mentor]       |
||||           [Catholic Relatives persecuted]   |
_____                   [Thomas Trussell]        |
___                    [Sweet Oxford/Ned]        |
___                    [yb NV : DRO(fx)O]        |
______-                [bent Spear crest]        |
_______                [Golding's 'OVID']        |
__              [Golding's 'pregnancy of wit']   |
______               [Qu. of Scots Trial]        |
__-                    [Yorke's Scounces]        |
___                    ["Gentleman" poet]        |
-                      [NESTOR reference]        |
||||||||||||          [MERMAID grand-dam]        |
.                    ['For TRUTH is TRUTH']      |
______            [Paul's 'I am that I am']      |
-           [Hamlet's 'være eller ikke være']    |
||||||||||      [judged by Raphael Holinshed]    |
__                    [TINner of VEREland]       |
_                   [1604 deer park warden]      |
||||||||        [bend-FART quenny-forgetter]     |
|||||||||||||||[1604 Faust/FAMA Frat. death]     |
|||||||||||||| [John Manningham's 1602 diary]    |
___              [£1,000/year for 18 years]      |
__             [- Item, £10 unto a Beggar ]      |
||               [(how)ARD plot/tower/exec.]     |
____-        [7 Year exile for indiscretion]     |
|||||||        [Thomas Bellott dowry: £2,000]    |
||            [Hothead Gastrell: Esdras 6:9]     |
|||||||||| [Anne Cornwaleys book 1588?]  |||     |
||||||||| [denouncing aye the *Company* ] |||||  |
||       [Richard Field recognized 1589] |||     |
||||||||| [Meres' Top 10 in comedy 1598]  |||    |
|||||||| [Baroness Elizabeth of Abingdon] |||    |
||        [drunken B-Knell suicide attack] ||    |
__________________                               |
||||||||||[lion w./broken lance in dexter PAW]|| |
________  [ Henry Evans >                        |
_              1583 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.]   |
||||||||||||   dies unnoticed / tomb unmarked    |
-                Church Burial Record "X"ed      |
__________________                               |
______                  Herbert (Philip) ----- SVSAN
||||||||           [b. St. LONGINUS day]    [b. May 26]
________________________________________
.
Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:
.
We manufacture it right here in this little room?
I don't think so. Why would I do that?
.
Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
<<The next addition to the young Shakespeare's Stratford history comes
easy. The historian builds it out of the surmised deer-steeling, and
the surmised trial before the magistrate, and the surmised vengeance-
prompted satire upon the magistrate in the play: result, the young
Shakespeare was a wild, wild, wild, oh, SUCH a wild young scamp, and
that gratuitous slander is established for all time! It is the very
way Professor Osborn and I built the colossal skeleton brontosaur that
stands fifty- seven feet long and sixteen feet high in the Natural
History Museum, the awe and admiration of all the world, the
stateliest skeleton that exists on the planet. We had nine bones, and
we built the rest of him out of plaster of Paris. We ran short of
plaster of Paris, or we'd have built a brontosaur that could sit down
beside the Stratford Shakespeare and none but an expert could tell
which was biggest or contained the most plaster.
-----------------------------------------------------
Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:

Negative? Oh, my God! WHY! WHY! WHY?

What? What? Negative is good? Oh, yes of course!
How stupid of me. Thank you. Thank you very much.
.
Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
<<"Vandalism" is from the French vandalisme, which originated during
the French revolution. On August 31, 1794, there was an explosion of
the powder mill of Grenelle in Paris. The Abbot Grégoire denounces
vandalism (it is the first time that this term is employed). The term
"vandalism" has come to mean senseless destruction as a result of the
Vandals' sack of Rome under King Geiseric in 455. Historians agree
that the Vandals were no more destructive than other invaders of
ancient times. During the Enlightenment, Rome was idealized, so the
Goths and Vandals were disparaged.

John Dryden writes  (1694):
Till Goths, and Vandals, a rude Northern race,
Did all the matchless Monuments deface.

The word "goth" has gained architectural and other associations since
Dryden's time, but "vandal" has not.
 ..
* Stephen Lawhead's book, Pendragon, which recasts the medieval King
Arthur fable in 5th-6th Century Celtic Britain, finds the Vandals
invading Britain, having just been expelled from Carthage.>>
--------------------------------------
Art Vandaley Neuendorffer


author: Peter F.

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
Greg Reynolds wrote:

Greg, the works are indeed beautifu l-- you have no
monopoly in recognizing that fact, believe me. And if
I thought for a moment that my challenging the received
wisdom concerning exactly who was responsible for them
would damage that beauty in any way I would immediately
stop doing so.

In my essay "Hoffman and the Authorship" (the one that
shared the prize) I said that "its purpose is simply to
convince the reader that the basic idea behind Hoffman's
beliefs should have the status of a legitimate academic
topic, rather than being automatically thought of as
just another crackpot conspiracy theory, as it certain-
ly has been up until now."

I believe I managed to succeed in this by concentrating
solely upon (a) the reasons why I think Marlowe survived
1593, and (b) what evidence I think there is for his
having played a major part in writing the works. Not
once in the whole 22 thousand words did I give any reason
at all for doubting that Shakespeare *could* have done it.

My own view is that those who drafted the *Declaration*
would have done better to separate the statement of its
objectives from the alleged reasons for doubt, and for
people to be invited to sign the former without necess-
arily implying an acceptance of the latter - which in
my case has little relevance to my believing what I do.

In fact, whilst I have signed the thing, it was only after
a fairly heated 'discussion' with John Shahan (one of the
main people behind it) pointing out those bits I couldn't
accept, and by squeezing the following into the 160 char-
acters of comment permitted:

  "Whilst not accepting all that's argued in the Declara-
  tion, I fully support its objective that the authorship
  question be considered a legitimate academic topic."

And despite the Hoffman prize adjudicator in private ref-
erring to my "infuriating, horrible, unfair, scandalous
essay"*, it seems that I may have persuaded him that--for
the Marlovian argument at least--it should.

Peter F.
<[email]>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>

*I find it interesting that in the only two cases where
a Marlovian entry has won the prize, they've included a
fairly strong criticism of views published by the adjud-
icator himself. Worth remembering, that!


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Peter F." <[email]> wrote:

THE adjudicator?

There is only one (and the same one each year)?

Do you know and can you reveal who it is?

Art ( [I]nfuriating [S]candalous...[U]nfair [H]orrible...) Neuendorffer


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
In article
<[email]>,
 Art Neuendorffer <[email]>

([email]) wrote:

   Of course, Art -- what did you expect?!

   The Grand Master, of course -- whom did you expect, Art?


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 14, 4:35 pm, nordicskiv2 <[email]> wrote:
Members of the Goon Squad are pretty much clones/clowns.
At least I make an attempt to reorder for readability.

Dr. Stephen Neuendorffer's father.


author: Peter Groves

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Greg Reynolds" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Jan 13, 5:10 pm, [email] wrote:

This would mislead a weak mind which doesn't know there are millions
of actors and professors who accept the historical account as reliable
and unquestioned.

This would mislead a weak mind which doesn't know there are thousands
of programs and universities which accept the historical account as
reliable and unquestioned.

In fact, Cambridge University sent my daughter a brochure to their
Shakespeare studies which included a trip to Shakespeare's birthplace
Stratford upon Avon, and I'm guessing if Marlowe were Shakespeare,
Cambridge would be smart enough to promote it.

Same question, why doesn't Oxford claim Shakespeare (de Vere) as alum?
Hmmm, Oxfordians? Notice any universities opposed to your whimsy?

It's just that you forgot the big picture.

I bet that by sheer honesty I could be expelled from
Concordia's"program." I would just ask my twenty questions that could
choke an ox(fordian professor).

William Shakespeare's father John spelled his name 'Shakespeare" so it
is very silly for these so-called reasonable doubters to deface the
name with what they consider to be rustic.

Oxford spelled his name Oxenford so he is equally illiterate.

Again, shabby stabs instead of a legitimate case.

I tried to sign up as "Gladys Overwith" but they busted me. I guess
pseudonyms aren't what they used to be.

**I signed up a couple of months ago as "Dimwit K. Stupid" and got a
machine-generated letter back to "Dear Dimwit", though I note that Mr Stupid
doesn't appear on their Roll of Dishonour, where he belongs.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:

William Shakespeare's father John drew a compass for his name.
.
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:

Oxford spelled his name "Edward de Vere" .

Art Neuendorffer


author: Greg Reynolds

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 13, 9:09 pm, Art Neuendorffer's research established that:

Yet another work misatttributed by an Oxfordian!


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
.
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:

Millions?

.
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:

It is certainly unquestioned.
-------------------------------------------------
.       Outbreak (1995)
.
Sam Daniels: "Alarmingly high fatality. All localized within
.  a three-mile radius... incubation period short... appears contained."
.
.     Alarming! Casey, you didn't put "alarming".

Casey Schuler: It's an adverb, Sam. It's a lazy tool of a weak mind.
------------------------------------------------------
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists  of lies which finally turn into truths."
.         -- Jean Maurice Eugène Cocteau
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:

But it does: http://tinyurl.com/2lyovk
.
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:
-----------------------------------------------
*WHIMSEY* : A whim; a freak; a capricious notion; as the whimseys of
poets.
.
*WHIM* , n. [Cf. Icel. hwima to wander with the eyes, vim giddiness,
Norw. kvima to whisk or flutter about, to trifle, Dan. vimse to skip,
whisk, jump from one thing to another, dial. Sw. hvimsa to be
unsteady, dizzy, W. chwimio to move briskly.] Properly, a sudden turn
or start of the mind; a freak; a fancy; a capricious notion. We say,
EVERy man has his whims.
-----------------------------------------------
From London to Land's End (1888)
And Two Letters from the Journey through England by a Gentleman.

<<I shall sing you no songs here of the river in the first person of a
water-nymph, a goddess, and I know not what, according to the humour
of the ancient poets; I shall talk nothing of the marriage of old
Isis, the male river, with the beautiful Thame, the female river (a
*WHIMSEY* as simple as the subject was empty); but I shall speak of
the river as occasion presents, as it really is made glorious by the
splendour of its shores, gilded with noble palaces, strong
fortifications, large hospitals, and public buildings; with the
greatest bridge, and the greatest city in the world, made famous by
the opulence of its merchants, the increase and extensiveness of its
commerce; by its invincible navies, and by the innumerable fleets of
ships sailing upon it to and from all parts of the world.>>
-----------------------------------------------
William Makepeace Thackeray
Barry Lyndon (1844) Chapter 19

She always had an inordinate passion for dress, and, as she was never
thwarted in any *WHIMSEY* she had of this kind (for I spared no money
to gratify her, and among my debts are milliners' bills to the amount
of many thousands), boxes used to pass continually to and fro from
Dublin, with all sorts of dresses, caps, flounces, and furbelows, as
her fancy dictated. With these would come letters from her milliner,
in answer to numerous similar injunctions from my Lady; all of which
passed through my hands, without the least suspicion, for some time.
And yet in these very papers, by the easy means of sympathetic ink,
were contained all her Ladyship's correspondence; and Heaven knows
(for it was some time, as I have said, before I discovered the trick)
what charges against me.
-------------------------------------------
.
<<The Big Picture was a documentary television program which ran on
the American Broadcasting Company from 1953 to 1959. The program
consisted of documentary films produced by the United States Army
Signal Corps Army Pictorial Service, showing weaponry, battles, and
biographies of famous soldiers.>>

Art Neuendorffer (United States Army Signal Corps, ret.)


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
In article
<[email]>,
 Art Neuendorffer <[email]>

([email]) wrote:

   No he didn't; the text that you quote was written by Greg
Reynolds.  Can't you eVER get even the simplest attributions right,
Art?!

   Stephen Neuendorffer's father uses a comicass for his ISP (or
perhaps a comp[lete]ass).

   No, he didn't; Greg Reynolds did.  Can't you eVER get even the
simplest attributions right, Art?!  Incidentally, Art, take careful
note of Peter's putative ISP: whatever.org.  What?!  E. Ver?!


author: Paul Crowley

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

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

When your side comes out with empty guff
(and it can do no other) that is much the
same as saying it was 'something in the
English air'.

A completely absurd proposition -- and
a good demonstration that Strats must
necessarily be ignorant.

Where do you get this 'suddenly' from?
You can, at times (1580s?), point to
an expansion in the numbers of printed
titles.  But they were invariably small
print runs, and would have been sold,
almost entirely, to Londoners.  A few
might have gone to provincial cities --
but the 'book trade' was effectively non-
existent outside of London before ~1570.
There simply wasn't a big enough market.

See below where?

You seem to have forgotten.

You need both. That's why schools and
universities provide both. The Strat
line of "He got it all from books" is
the purest absurdity, forced upon them
by their idiotic theory.  They silently
acknowledge that there was no one in
Stratford who would have been any use
to a young poet, but they forget that
(a) he would have needed at least one
person (and preferably more) to provide
guides to those books; and (b) that, in
fact, there would have been no books --
or almost no books in such a town.

Sure.  Non-readers would have been a
great help in literary matters.

Lots?  Give some names.  For the few:
they were (a) much later, (b) had special
help (e.g. Johnson's father being in the
book trade), and (c) they got out as
quickly as they could.  All unlike the
Stratman.

Of course, to become a great writer,
they almost necessarily grew beyond it.
But they had to experience it first --
to learn the basics.  The Stratman
would never have got that opportunity.

I think we could agree on a score of 1
for the Stratman and his background, with
99 for that of Oxford.

What a joke!  You have obviously never
lived in a village, or small town.
While in the 1570s the vicar, the teacher
and the doctor were probably literate,
they were certainly not 'an intellectual
elite'.

With your firm grasp of language, you
will probably want to extend concepts like
'intellectual elite' to every collection
of entities.  So pigs might be the
'intellectual elite' of the farmyard,and
blue and green might be the 'intellectual
elite' of colours.

Sure, he mastered the whole intellectual
world without any help -- just by nature.

Most people are capable of reflection.
Somehow that does not help them produce
great works of literature.  Although,
I can see why you would want to believe
the Stratman was the unique exception
to the rule.

The corpse is still standing.  It needs
a little push, and it will fall.

He lived in the Stratman's house from 1601.
He was clearly a government agent sent to
keep a watch.  He became Town Clerk (i.e.
town boss) and ran the place until the
Stratman died, when he went back to London
to resume his legal career.  He became the
top barrister in his Inn (Middle Temple).

Absolute rulers can readily stop literary
efforts (and they nearly always do -- and
did), but they can't start one without a
lot of help.  Elizabeth was lucky in having
such a great poet in her intimate circle.
But she was also very much to be admired
in tolerating him, protecting him, and
(directly or indirectly) encouraging others
to follow.

Another excellent example of Stratfordian
idiocy.  So you can explain any great
artistic work (or set of works) by saying
'someone has to be top'?

Of course I deny it.  You list a few
superficial, and largely irrelevant
events, as though they constituted
an 'explanation'.  In no way did your
silly list 'contradict' anything I've
said.

Lope de Vega did not have the intellectual
strength of Shake-speare, thinking, for
example, that the neo-Aristotelians knew
what they were talking about. So, in this
respect and many others, he fell into all
kinds of pits.  An important factor was
that he was not writing primarily for a
court audience, so he started from a
dumbed-down basis, which he was happy to
do. He wrote on a commission basis --
paid for each play as he delivered it.

He is exactly what we would expect of a
commercial playwright, and he represents
just what Shakespeare would have been --
IF Stratfordian theory had any reality.

The standard of living rose steadily
(except during the worst years of the
war with Spain, when some particularly
bad harvests made things even worse.
The worst years were 1590-1604 -- which
is exactly when idiot Strats have the
poet developing his career, becoming
a great writer, and making a lot of
money).  However, the general improvement
had nothing to do with Spanish gold.
That was a curse -- in much the same
way as having huge reserves of oil has
turned out to be.

There were a LOT of Puritans in London
around 1600.  Who do you think that they
were?  Illiterate workers?

Only someone who had been brought up with
an intimate familiarity with the theatre
could have acquired such a complete
mastery of it.

It is not necessary. Even you can
see it.

There is nothing special about this.
The performance took place some 40
or 50 years after it was written.

Sure. Dey was diferen den -- reel,
reel stoopid. Dey new nuttin.

IF what you said was true, some
contemporary would have reported it
or remarked upon it.  I can quote a
comment by Elizabeth, in conference
with her bishops and Burghley, about
the desperate shortage of people who
could be appointed vicars.  They were
not looking for learned peopled (i.e.
with Latin) but for some who could
read and write.

The kids might tell you if their
parents are illiterate (or the parents
of other school-kids) -- or you might
learn from other teachers, police or
social workers. You might know some
illiterate cleaners, house-maids and
the like, who have children at school.

"Intelligence" is, for you, everything.
But a bright young near-peasant in
Early Modern England did NOT bother
about reading.  He acquired some skill
-- perhaps carpentry (if he could get an
apprenticeship) or did something that
would make him money.

Of course, you had books, comics
and magazines, written to entertain
people of your age and class.  The
Stratman would have had nothing --
not even books wholly unsuitable for
his age and class.

You think reading religious tracts
would have been a 'wonderful experience'
for the Stratman?  That's about all that
might have been available to him.

Pure nonsense.  The Romans were reading,
as were the monks and priests and literate
classes (gentlemen and above) of Medieval
England.

Paul.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

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

The "just something in the English air"
is a "possible explanation" in these terms.
It's no more worthless than your guff.

They don't consider it seriously.  The
'answers' they provide would disgrace
a child.

Utter nonsense. If literary renaissances
were common, then your answers could be
very different.

You are spouting rubbish -- and that's very
easy to see.

There is no comparison with modern
computers.  Books had been around for
millenia.  After 1477 they began to be
printed. But they were still very expensive,
as print runs were small, and it was a
slow and difficult business. Literacy rates
continued to be low, right up the 20th
century.

So why was there a literary renaissance
in England and not in those countries?

So Strats would happily abolish schools
and universities?   Everyone could rely
solely on books. No personal contact is
ever needed?

Where does that reader get his information?

All this is perfectly absurd -- as you well
know. The "level of discussion" of literary
texts in small provincial towns was -- almost
always -- close to zero. That's one reason
literary types HATE the provinces. Strats
can do two things here (a) Pretend that
somehow Stratford-upon-Avon was a shining
exception to all other small market towns, or
(b)Hide their heads in the sands.

Most Strats are like you, and prefer the latter.

In cities there are 'literary circles' that
discuss such things -- at great length.
The author of the canon was clearly
part of one, and had also gone beyond
them.  But he had to have one, and early
in his life.

Yeah. That makes sense.

You know Stratfordianism is finished
when its advocates have to use this
kind of 'argument'.

There were a few literate people.
But there would have been no literARY
people.  There would have been no one
who could help a young poet, IF --
through some most unusual circumstances
-- one was to be found in the town.

You have not the faintest idea what
'causes' a literary renaissance.  Nor
-- even worse -- do you have any idea
what might make one impossible.

Define 'literary renaissance' to mean
something ridiculous, like say "a drop
of rain", and you would be right.

The growth in literary, and development
of printing often acted to regularise
language. BUT no other country had a
literary renaissance comparable to
England's.

All European courts entertained themselves
with plays.

[..]

And that's it?  Some country . . . ?  One
of the worst features of Stratfordianism
is that it fosters ignorance of this kind
and scale.  Apparently for educated Strats
politics is entirely irrelevant to life.
[..]

I missed it in the general slime.  You
actually think that the introduction of
more gold made Europe richer?  Is Zimbabwe
is a rich country, since everybody is paid
in millions of Zimbabwean dollars?

Another miss. There were too many
distracting targets.  The 'middle
class' was mostly Puritan and did
not spend money on entertainment.
They banned it whenever they could.
When they failed to achieve these
ends, they emigrated in disgust to
America.
[..]

Also, his parents (and his grandparents)
had their own theatre company in their
own house to be entertained over the
winter months. Oxford really was borne
on the back of Yorick a thousand times,
delighting in his infinite jest.

She recognised his talent, and allowed
him to publish under other names, such
as 'Arthur Golding' and 'Will Painter',
encouraged his writing in all manner of
ways, and protected his persona and his
anonymity.

Isn't it interesting how wrong you
can go when you can't get the basics?

There was only a small proportion of
commoners who could read. Of course,
almost all of those would be high-status,
and some near-nobility.
[..]

Your use of 'commoners' is misleading.
To which performance are you referring?

Would you date them wrong, and would they
stay in the text as wrong, if they were to
be in a published play, with a large number
of actors, performed many times to an
audience with many educated people?

Since most were illiterate, that is
necessarily true.  But among the
educated, non-Puritan classes his
works soon became famous.

Only in your neck of the woods.  Go
to Africa, India, China, Latin America.

Most children under five will be illiterate.
But 'slow learners' nearly always eventually
reach the level of their parents -- absent
mental defects.

The 1570s and 1580s were NO different
(in this matter) from all the other decades
between ~1100 and ~1870. There was no
unusual push for literacy in those years.
If Strats had decent evidence (other than
the anecdotal) that they were, we would
see it -- often.

You should VERY OFTEN meet
Latinos (Mexicans, Columbians,
Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Jamaicans,
etc., etc.) whose parents were illiterate.
Generational shifts are occurring right
now. You should have such children
of such illiterate parents in your school.
How come you don't meet them?  There
are probably two reasons: (a) the rate
of change is still slow -- within each
family, even if historically it was never
faster; and (b) there are big differences
between 'barely literate', 'moderately
literate' and 'highly literate' -- which
invariably take generations to complete.

So even if the Stratman was literate
(very unlikely IMO) he would only
have been 'barely literate' and would
never have read books for pleasure,
or anything like that.

That's an absurd analogy. It's almost
entirely to do with age. Computers are
new, and many people over about 50
have never made the effort to learn.
There was nothing new about books
in the 1570s -- insofar as any reached
Stratford-upon-Avon.

Paul.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

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

Your memory has gone too.  You can't
remember any of those answers.

I know little about Dante, who paid him for
his work, or whom he was trying to impress.

I would never claim that.  You don't go to
a play to hear that kind of poetry, and
neither did illiterate (and poorly literate)
Londoners.

What other 'commercial plays'? Do you
think that the 16th-century equivalent of
TV-reality shows, or TV-soaps, were put
into print and survived?

I don't believe that 'Dey woz awl
geeniusses den."   This is typical of
the kind of 'explanations' that Strats
routinely pull from their rear ends.
The next sentence (about e.g. their
lack of historical sense) is invariably
"Dey woz awl reel stoopid den" comes
from the same source.  Most Strat
history consists of little more than
these statements being repeated,
more-or-less randomly.

Rigidniks (and Strats) have this written
on their hearts.

You mean "since our faith is so absolute".

He claimed to have "a grasp of logic".
I was merely filling in the gaps.

He probably had a very broad concept of
what could count as "Shakespeare" -- all
the Shagsbers, Shaxherds, Shaggespe,
etc., etc.
[..]

Shakespeare was nationally famous
long before the Stratman died.  No other
writer matched his stature.  Yet if you were
to enquire into any of the backgrounds of
fairly comparable  ones (e.g. Drayton),
you'd usually find plenty.

We have a comparable fact regarding
Shakes-speare:  Illiterate families do
not produce writers.

And ordinary plane trees can, under
special conditions, produce spaghetti.
Everyone knows that.  They are like
the 'sago' trees of S.E. Asia.

I would not expect this Stratfordian dolt
to believe _everything_ he is told -- only
everything which he is told at school and
which those around him do not question.

That's what he regards as "proper historical
methodology".

Not for those with religious or quasi-
religious beliefs (such as Strats).

The evidence against it referring to him
is massive and overwhelming.

If you're a Strat, then you must believe.

You are misreading.  I was merely showing
his application of 'logic', 'proper historical
methodology, and so on.

How do you distinguish?  You can't
claim that you apply common sense
anywhere in this issue

Paul.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Christian Lanciai" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Art (of all kinds) was about patronage
-- as it has been since it began and as
it remained for the next many hundreds
of years.

It's the literary world with which we are
all so familiar -- where there is no interest
in money, power, status or influence,
where petty rivalry is banished, and where
everyone (or almost everyone) has only
one concern -- their dedication to their art.

Paul.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

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

These items are supposed to explain why
English Literary Renaissance occurred in
England in Elizabeth's reign -- against the
background of why there was no comparable
event at that time, nor at any other time, in
other countries.

So there is no sense to listing matters which
would have been present in other countries
at the same or other times.  Yet, in fact, that
is exactly what you do.

So books were never circulated in any other
country, nor at any other time?

But -- as far as Stratford-upon-Avon goes
in the 1570s -- this is untrue. The Stratman
would have had immense difficulties getting
the books which we know Shakespeare read.
It is quite out of the question that he could
have managed it -- assuming he would have
wanted to.

And, even if we assume that he got them,
how was he to make sense of them?  Books
have to be placed in context, and it can't
be done without a community of readers
who discuss them.  There was no such
thing in Stratford-upon-Avon.

While the Stratfordian theory is insane
in any event, this item is enough -- on its
own -- to demonstrate its falsity.

It reached other countries, including Italy.
Was there a literary renaissance when it
reached (say) Mexico or (say) Poland?

3. The English Language was excitingly not yet established and rich.

Pure nonsense. This kind of thing could
be said about almost every language at
almost every stage.

A classic arse-wise Stratfordian 'explanation'.
You don't explain a phenomenon by describing
its parts. The purpose is to say WHY theatres
were being built (in London, while scarcely at
all in other European and non-European
cities).

The same applied to all other countries
(at the same and at different times).

Yawn.  That must be why the clash of the
Shias and Sunnis over the past 1,000
years has produced so much great
literature.

You could pick the political events of ANY
era in ANY country and claim that they
should have given rise to its Literary
Renaissance.

[..]

You left out the weather -- both the
frequent appearance of rain and showers,
and the changing of the seasons.  Also,
of course, we must not forget that the
moon went around the earth every month.
And in every 24 hours there occurred both
day and night.

Even a child can see that your 'arguments'
don't stand up.  You are not even grasping
at straws.  You are just pretending to.

Sure -- the common people paid for the
books he wrote in manuscript -- which
were copied for them by 'factories' of
scribes.

I've never said any such thing.

We can only talk about the things we
see -- the texts.  Like all other Strats,
you will imagine whatever you takes
your fancy.

If they weren't put into print, we don't know
what they were like.

There are exceedingly few records.
So we 'know' little, and guess a lot.

[..]

The supposed (and extremely curious)
inability of Elizabethans to realise that
one event came before another is entirely
a product of modern 'scholarly' imagination
(a) unable to conceive that people in the
past had a sense of humour, and
(b) too stupid (and too 'scholarly') to
possess one themselves.

The principal erroneous beliefs are the
strange conceptions forced on Strats by
their insane scenario.

Such spellings do present major difficulties.
Which of them should count as 'Grumman'
and which shouldn't?  Undoubtedly many
"Gromonds" were not related to the 'true
Grummans' at all.

Sure.  Dey woz awl reel stoopid den.
Strats should have two buttons for their
'explanations' of what went on at the time.
They could make different rude noises.
Or on printed texts (and newsgroups like
this), you could have two rude icons.
It would save huge amounts of typing.

The works of the poet 'Shake-speare'
were famous among a certain class of
people: literate, but not Puritan.  People
did buy the quartos, and later, the Folio.
The plays were put on.  We know of one
being performed on a ship going to
India in 1607.

We've had this discussion before.  In effect,
literacy IS heriditary -- much more so than
most genetic traits.  Find a literate person,
and you KNOW -- almost without any doubt
-- that his or her parents were literate.  Find
an illiterate person, and you KNOW -- almost
without any doubt -- that his or her parents
were illiterate. (Of course, here we are talking
of those who provided the parental care,
rather than the genetic material.)

It is a common observation.  It is much
more the rule in England than it is in the
US (for all kinds of historical and cultural
reasons).  And it was EVEN MORE the
rule in Early Modern England than it was
in the last 100 years or so.

Stratfordian fantasies.

(a) It's a belief in the irrational -- see above
for all your nonsense about Chagall, Pascal,
etc.,
(b) You rule out the need for evidence.
(This guy was truly exceptional -- but no
one -- including himself -- ever commented
upon the fact.)
(c) You see no need to integrate it with any
other facts of history -- so you have no
explanation of the English Literary
Renaissance, nor of the one example of
'Great Art paid for by the Common
People".
(d) You discard common sense.  You'd
never think to put your own child in the
circumstances you claim did so much
for Shake-speare (illiterate household,
one-teacher school in one-horse town,
no university, etc.)
(e) You invent a public made up of "Dey
woz reel geeeniusses den".
(f) You pile on top of all this an insane
'career' for the Stratman.  Leaving his wife
and three kids about the age of 23-24, he
goes to London, reaches enormous heights
(with nobody  noticing) and retires at the age
of 48.
(g) That's besides the quite crazy writing
sequence, with *Richard 3* being written
just after *Titus Andr*., and at about the
same time as *Lucrece*.
(h) You have crazy schemes for the Sonnets
-- typically a homosexual poet is paid by the
family of a young and beautiful noble scion
to write him homosexual love poems, in
order to persuade him to marry so that he
can pass on his beauty while he still has it
to pass on.

You have no 'hard evidence'.

Sure -- and the Church astronomers had
both the Bible and Aristotle.  What a fool
Galileo was to think he had a chance of
being right against them.

There is nothing in the least nutty about our
theory.  The Queen had a child-literary-genius
on her hands, who was also her premier earl.
Obviously he had to publish, but could not do
so under his true name.  Everything else
followed from that first 'deception'.

'Mere opinion'?  You cannot name another
writer who was brought up in a household
of illiterates (except for special cases like
Mario Puzo -- brought up in New York by
Italian-speaking parents).

If you were honest, you would admit that
the Stratman's home circumstances were
extremely unfavourable for the development
of a literary talent.  Of course, you have
never seen an admission like that from
any Strat -- neither in the "learned" tomes,
nor from an ordinary Strat in a newsgroup
like this.

Why?  The answer is only too clear.
Stratfordianism is incompatible with
honesty.

I am not going to explain this to a pun-
blind yank.
[..]

That is not an answer.

I can tell you what the answer is, and
it has nothing to do with common sense.
You opt for one rather than the other on
the basis of hunch. There is never any
logic -- nor significant reference to
evidence.  There can't be in this field.

Of course, there is nothing remarkably
unusual about a "form of thought", or
even of an 'academic discipline', based
largely on hunch.  I'm sure we can all
think of many examples.

Paul.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Tom Reedy" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

In an ideal world, every university degree
course would commence with a module on
"Sceptical Thinking --  Why you should
not believe what you are told by your
professors and your textbooks".

Students would be taken through a set
of representative examples from typical
syllabuses over previous centuries (e.g.
from medicine, or cosmology) shown
what their predecessors were asked to
believe as matters of obvious fact, and
warned that nothing fundamental had
changed.

But, in reality, it is very difficult to learn
from the mistakes of the past.  Each error
is so different, that each time we will be
fooled.  What is worse, is that each time,
we will regard those who question that
belief as insane, or at the very least, as
disruptive fools who should be locked
away.

Of course, that is not to say that there
aren't always plenty of insane people and
disruptive fools who should be locked
away.  The trick is to distinguish when
such types might possibly be right.

For Stratfordians, this should be easy.
Just ask yourselves:  (a) Does my belief
make ordinary sense in the real world?
(b) Is it likely that the greatest writer of
all time had illiterate parents, an illiterate
wife, illiterate siblings and illiterate
children?  (c) Do I hold my belief merely
because I was told it at school, and
because the great bulk of ordinary
folk also believe it?

Paul.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Peter F." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Also:

I fully sympathise with Greg's point of
view and I deplore that of the 'authorship
coalition', as well as Peter's form of support
for it.  Both are fundamentally dishonest.

So who wrote the works makes NO
DIFFERENCE to the way in which they
are perceived?   What a waste of time,
then is your entire enterprise.  Which
other author (with his works) fits this
category?  "War and Peace"might just
as well have been written by Thomas
Hardy?  Ulysses by Mark Twain?
'De Revolutionibus' by Groucho Marx?

Anyone who supports a particle of the
coalition's effort (or of Peter's) is a classic
quasi-Strat.  It's "change-the-T-shirt" time,
"we're now supporting another team --
they're identical in every significant respect,
of course, and it makes no difference, but
who is going to be bothered?"

And THIS is your big worry-- what
Stratfordian professors will think of you.
You have nothing worth saying, and
you know it.  You have nothing worth
fighting for -- and putting at risk your
reputation, such as it is.

Naturally you were very careful to avoid
the hard questions -- being fearful that a
reader might become aware of them,

Sure, and if Marlowe wrote them all, then
the Stratman could well have done so too
-- possibly at the same time, even at
another desk in the same room.   And you
are actually proud of this dishonesty.
[..]

The proposal is nuts. Imagine applying
the same 'reasoning' to any of the other
great debates of recent centuries.  For
you are NOT proposing anything positive.
You are merely pretending to cast 'doubt'
on current orthodoxy.   So Galileo would
have said:
"I fully support the objective that whether
the universe moves around the earth
be considered as a legitimate academic
topic";

Darwin would have argued:
"I fully support the objective that whether
or not Noah could have put two members
of every species into his Ark be considered
as a legitimate academic topic";

Wegener:
"I fully support the objective that a not so
stable earth be considered as a legitimate
academic topic".

Agassiz:
"I fully support the objective that the
world-wide nature of the Biblical Flood
be considered as a legitimate academic
topic".

The gulf between the Stratfordian story
and the (genuine) anti-Strat case is huge.
One side is telling a story that is (almost
literally) insane. To suggest to academics
that "it is a legitimate academic topic" that
their conception of their subject is next-to-
insane is merely to insult them.  It is also
a declaration of your own foolishness.
It shows that you do not have the faintest
grasp of the issue.

No chance. That adjudicator was right.
You are never honest with us, and you
weren't in your paper.  He could sense
that -- and that is what he meant.

Paul.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Art Neuendorffer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Oh no he didn't!


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Art Neuendorffer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
.
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:

Oh no he didn't (did, he children?)

Millions?

.
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:

Oh no he didn't!

It is certainly unquestioned.
-------------------------------------------------
.       Outbreak (1995)
.
Sam Daniels: "Alarmingly high fatality. All localized within
.  a three-mile radius... incubation period short... appears contained."
.
.     Alarming! Casey, you didn't put "alarming".

Casey Schuler: It's an adverb, Sam. It's a lazy tool of a weak mind.
------------------------------------------------------
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:

Oh no he didn't!

-------------------------------------------------------------
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists  of lies which finally turn into truths."
.         -- Jean Maurice Eugï¿½ne Cocteau
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:

Oh no he didn't!

But it does: http://tinyurl.com/2lyovk
.
"Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:

Oh no he didn't!  Your attributional skills, Art, are just what I'd expect
from an Oxfraudian.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:19:30 -0000, "Paul Crowley"
<[email]> wrote:

The bit of info I have about the effect of printing on the uses of
language in Shakespeare's era comes from what I remember getting at
college Shakespeare class.  The instructor, Dr. Jones, in his first
year out of UCal-Davis, I think, told us that during Shakespeare's
time 1) printing presses were publishing a lot of reading matter for
public consumption; 2) the material tended to be religious and
educational tracts, practical advice on rules of etiquette, and
tradecraft information; and 3) a noble benefactor from the private
sector was largely responsible for supplying a lot of such reading
material to schools, including at Stratford, and there was no shortage
of such.  I don't know if it was circulating, disposable, or what.
bookburn


author: John W. Kennedy

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubtdante/dante

text:
Paul Crowley wrote:

He made a point of writing his masterpiece in language that "non tantum
viri sed etiam mulieres et parvuli" understood.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Paul Crowley" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Wwjlj.24229$[email]...

Crowley must know that he is hideously ignorant -- witness his recent
stupidity re Dante -- but it doesn't seem to stop him talking bollocks.  How
can this be, I wonder?

Peter G.

Shakespeare?


author: Ignoto

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
Paul Crowley wrote:

And such a module would, of course, necessarily entail sceptical doubt
about the foundations of scepticism itself. The dog is chasing its tail.

Proper historical methodology has not much changed in 2000 years, (nor
has its' antithesis).

Yes, absolutely.

Strawthing.

(c) Do I hold my belief merely

No, I hold it because I
(a) Have some grasp of logic
(b) Have some understanding of the nature of evidence
(c) Have some understanding of proper historical methodology
(d) Have some knowledge of the evidence as it concerns Shakespeare.


author: Peter Farey

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
Paul Crowley wrote:

Paul, for many years you have demonstrated almost daily
that the concept of Shakespeare's works having any sort
of *beauty* is completely beyond you. I therefore suppose
it is inevitable that you would find it impossible to
comprehend what I meant by the above, and also fruitless
for me to try explaining it to you.

<snip>

No Paul, that was not what he meant. Had he thought this
he would not have awarded it a share of the prize. It was
a jest (although many a true word may be spoken therein)
and was referring mainly to the fact that, despite its
content being entirely Marlovian, it made him *think*,
and--as I said--that it also contained criticism of some
of his own ideas.

Peter F.
<[email]>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Ignoto" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Nu1jj.3328$[email]...

Believers in strange theories are obliged
to adjust their conception of the world to
match their beliefs.  Huge aspects of it are
just ignored.  Much history become quite
accidental -- strange things happened
just because they happened.    So it was
just 'something in the English air' that
produced the English literary renaissance.

The remarkable nature of the supposed
phenomena are simply ignored.  For
example, Stratfordians never notice that
(in their scenario) it was the first time in
history that great art had been produced
for a commercial market, financed entirely
from the pockets of the common people.

Occasionally -- and very briefly -- peculiar
aspects are noticed.  But they are quickly
passed over with some 'explanation'.  The
ability of ordinary people to appreciate
such long words, complex verse, classical
references, and recondite allusions, all
within the space of a two-hour play, is
'explained' by the observation that they
must have been much more intelligent
then.

Objections to the belief must be rejected
-- and any grounds will do -- no matter
how unreasonable.

Sure.  A person's illiteracy is no obstacle
to his being the greatest writer of all time.

His crazy name, with all its wonderful
punning potential is, of course, entirely
a coincidence.

The absence of any natural record
commenting on the fame of the Stratford
man is merely an accident.

If someone told you that they had
a good harvest from their spaghetti
trees last year, you'd regard their
telling of it as incontrovertible
evidence?

Any story you're told -- no matter
how unlikely -- must be true?

Any story you're told about the
poet and the Stratman -- no matter
how unlikely -- must be true?

Paul.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Peter Farey" <[email]> wrote in message
news:fmsa2i$nuv$1$[email]...

If you could quote counter-examples then
you would.  There is no other form of art where
a change of this magnitude would leave it
being viewed in the same way.  The general
principle applies to all things of beauty.
When we understand the geological processes
that created the Norwegian fiords, do we have
a different view of them and their beauty?
Of course, we do.  Animals are often beautiful.
Does an intimate understanding of their biology,
anatomy and evolution change our view of them?
Of course, it does. We will usually still see them
as beautiful, but in a quite different way.  Does
a modern astronomer look at the night sky in a
different way from one a thousand years ago?
Of course he does, and he sees a very different
kind of beauty.  Can a child's vision of Santa
Claus be beautiful?  If so, does he suffer a
loss on growing up?  Of course, he does.

Greg's view of Shake-speare is probably
similar to a child's view of Santa.  It can't
last and, no doubt, both you and he will
think that sad.  Fairy stories have to end
but only those who are determined to
remain children who cannot see that there
is something better.

Paul.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
Paul Crowley wrote:

You see? You don't have the slightest idea of what we
mean when we talk of a work's "beauty", do you?

If we took a hundred people who are reasonably familiar
with the Sonnets, for example, and asked them which ones
they found the most beautiful, I would guess that number
18 ("Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"), number
73 ("That time of year thou dost in me behold"), and
number 116 ("Let me not to the marriage of true minds")
would figure quite high in most of their lists.

And if we asked them just *why* they found them beauti-
ful, we can be fairly confident that it would have some-
thing to do both with the exquisite language Shakespeare
uses and that the words have some *personal* significance
for them. What Shakespeare *really* meant, just who he
was addressing, and even whether they really were written
by the man from Stratford himself would make no differ-
ence at all to the beauty of *that* sonnet as experienced
by *that* person.

Now, although I examine the words used in the sonnets
to see if they offer biographical clues as to their author-
ship, and try to see if well-known cruxes can be better
explained by a different authorship scenario, these things
have nothing to do with each sonnet's intrinsic beauty, or
the way in which either I or others experience it.

You, on the other hand, invest the sonnets with meanings
which seem deliberately concocted to *destroy* any beauty
to be found in them. Sonnet 18 is about events in Scot-
land pre-1566 and concerns Mary Stuart, Ruthven, Riccio
and Darnley; Sonnet 73 is about "bare ruined queers"(!),
referring to the French courtiers in Alencon's party,
hanging around London in the winter of 1581/2; and 116
goes back to your gruesome Queen/Oxford/Ralegh triangle,
yet again with copious references to genitalia.

Ugly, ugly, ugly! Can you really not see why so few
people *want* to discuss such obscenities with you? I
feel sorry for you, Paul. I really do.

Peter F.
<[email]>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
"Peter Farey" <[email]> wrote in message
news:fmvciu$dcl$1$[email]...

This 'conclusion' is not based on anything
I say, but comes entirely from your own
strange (and wishful) thinking.

Indeed, but if you were to ask them why
they found that language exquisite, their
'explanation' would be circular.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Art
that you love will 'touch' you.  But do
you mean any more?

Sure.  This applies to most works of art.
Think of some music you love.  It is not
to say that the work should not be
studied, nor that it cannot be enjoyed
by others in many other different ways.

You obviously can't explain, let alone
define, "each sonnet's intrinsic beauty"
-- and, given that inability, your have
no right to set down rules about how
or when or where or by whom it can be
appreciated.

Secondly, YOUR investigations into, or
explanations of, a sonnet (or other work
of art) may well be quite irrelevant to the
rest of the world, but that is not to say
that others might be both more ambitious
and more successful.  I'm sure that you
have heard many accounts of other works
of art (e.g. of music) which have changed
-- broadened and deepened your enjoyment
of them.  (Perhaps also you have heard
some which have weakened or destroyed
your pleasure in some works.)

This may well be how such accounts
appear to you.  Many children would say
exactly the same about the historical
explanation of 'Humpty Dumpty'.  Does
that mean it should be censored?  Or
deplored?  We would not want to tell a
four-year old about it.  Perhaps I should
not tell you about the Sonnets -- not at
least until you are more mature.

However, the historical background to
'Humpty Dumpty' should not interfere
with our ability to enjoy it as a nursery
rhyme.  Those who composed it may
(or may not) have realised its power in
that respect.  But our poet knew exactly
what he was doing in each sonnet.  He
was fully aware of its power as a quasi-
nursery-rhyme.

You cannot appreciate the greatness
of his achievement unless you have
some grasp of how he managed it.
The 'mystery' of the words arises from
his use of ambiguity, with an intensity
of meaning available only to a great
poet commenting upon great events.

Sure.  And 'Humpty Dumpty' is about
a canon on a Colchester castle wall.
We don't have to remember that every
time we recite it, and we would not tell
our children that when we first teach
them the rhyme.

Whether (in each instance) they do or do
not relate to those events is a matter of
historical fact.  The truth or falsity of the
claim is to be established in the usual way,
and is very easy to do.

Many rhymes (and many now ordinary
words) have bawdy or scatological origins.
The Victorians would have hidden such
facts, especially from 'innocent' minds.
I can see where you stand on such issues.

A notably unreliable 'argument'.  Dr
Bowdler and his ilk would have often
used such words about the plays -- by
the same author, lest you forget.

I would also have thought that they
(and you) might like to disprove such
possibilities.  It would be very easy, if
there were any basis to your position.

You sound exactly like some religious
'saved' friends, who are also creationists.
They feel very sorry for me too, for not
knowing the Love of Jesus.  They regard
Evolution as a hideous perversion, getting
in the way of an appreciation of the wonder
of God's Creation and of His power and
magnificence.  Like you, they will never
discuss particulars, uttering words like::
"Ugly, ugly, ugly! Can you really not see
why so few people *want* to discuss
such obscenities with you? "

Paul.


author: Paul Wharton

subject: Defining the enemy

text:
The war against "terror" should never have been fought.  According to
Microsoft's Encarta Dictionary, terror is defined as "intense fear".
It is bad enough that America has declared its political system as
being at odds with a human emotion.  But, militarily, war is hell, and
in a battle there is always much intense fear on both sides of the
conflict.  With the Bush administration's policy premise set as
America's "War on Terror", we have ignored history, and the common
sense that military science teaches us, by conducting a war in which
America tries to avoid engagement.  Why?  Because to fight any battles
that may be necessarily bloody, would cause "intense fear".

So, how does America make amends to the error of its ways?  I think
the first step is to define the enemy.  Declaring war against
"statelessly" based individuals is impractical.  Every terrorist must
train somewhere.  And, the nations that do not police these groups in
their own borders are responsible for causing terrorism.

What America needs is a clear definition of the enemy.  The best I
have seen is a declaration of war against "islamic totalitarianism".
I propose focusing the non-military efforts that we have been
exercising in Iraq towards destroying "islamic totalitarianism" in
that country.  Then, at the same time, America and its allies could
use Iraq as a military base to do what a military is supposed to do--
that is kill the enemy peoples, and break the things that they
control.

Paul Wharton
American Objectivist


author: amandaF

subject: Re: Defining the enemy

text:
Malrassic Park wrote:

Speak the whole truth. That Pakistani Allies did exactly what he was
told.   Osama is boogey man; he is needed to be alive so that this
charade of "War on Terror" can continue.
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

c
c
c
c
c
c
c


author: Malrassic Park

subject: Re: Defining the enemy

text:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:12:52 -0700, amandaF <[email]>
wrote:

Blah blah.


subject: Re: Defining the enemy

text:
On Aug 4, 9:15 am, Malrassic Park <[email]> wrote:

Of course, blah..blha to you but who gave Musharraf the power to
charge Imran Khan on "anti-terror" charges just because he tried to
get the students revolt to a dictator?   What a joke that US sits and
watch  Musharraf securing another  term at the expense of the people
of pakistan striving for  democracy.  What else is new about US always
creating puppet regimes while loud mouthing about human rights,
democracy, and blah.,.blah.?

And you people continued to act surprised that the Muslims don't do
more to deter Islamic terrorism that they do not get any help form US
government to deter. Hypocrites!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-493253/I-fear-life-says-jailed-Imran
-Khan.html

What good is it to sit and talk about philosophy while turning a blind
eye to injustices thought the world help created by those who  act
like they are th good guy just because they can hide their dirty hand?
I am going to puke now.


subject: Re: Defining the enemy

text:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:35:02 -0700, amandaF <[email]>
wrote:
..
..
..
..
..
Then GO HOME!


subject: Re: Defining the enemy

text:
On Aug 4, 4:44 pm, Malrassic Park <[email]> wrote:

I am home idiot. You know planet earth?  I can't breathe on other
planets w/o oxygen supply.  May be you can. You probably came from
Mar.
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c


subject: Re: Defining the enemy

text:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:35:47 -0700, Agent Cooper
<[email]> wrote:

It should be common knowledge by now that bin Laden is actually in
Islamabad, hidden and protected by our Pakistani "allies" while the
Paki government pretends to be engaged in a hunt for Osama along its
border with Afghanistan.


author: Ray

subject: Re: Defining the enemy

text:
"Agent Cooper" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Well, how 'bout an enemy that's closer  to home?

http://tinyurl.com/5qvkpf

Ray of Light


subject: Re: Defining the enemy

text:
"Agent Cooper" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

[Ray of Light wakes up]
Can't think of any clever response, it's too hot and humid.
[Ray of Light goes back to snoozing]


author: Rex Caeser

subject: Recommend a English -> Greek dictionary

text:
I recently heard of a reliable English to Greek (which includes a Greek to
English) dictionary.  I love my Liddle and Scott, but I need a referance for
some English to Greek.  Can anyone make a recommendation?   thanks
Q~


author: David Turrell

subject: Re: Recommend a English -> Greek dictionary

text:
On 15 Jul 2002 04:29:09 GMT
[email] (Rex Caeser) wrote:

Follett's.


author: Sharon Toerpe

text:
There is a very reliable and extensive English to Greek Dictionary I
remember from college days (20 years back).  I believe it was published in
the 1930s, in Britain I think.  It was much more extensive than what's in
Folletts, which looks like a reprint of an 18th-century glossary -- e.g., it
includes I & J together as the same letter (in the English!).

I'm sorry I can't remember the details, but I think the intro caused a
little controversy, making the claim that only the later Attic writers like
Lysias should be the basis for the vocabulary, not the Ionicizing of, say,
the tragedians, Thucydides, and the expatriate Xenophon.


author: Michael Paine

text:
In article <ahcp0n$lp4$[email]>, David Turrell
<[email]> wrote:

I would like one also, But, I suspect Follett's is contemporary Greek;
is it not?

-M.P.


text:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 21:11:26 GMT
Michael Paine <[email]> wrote:
[. . .]

The Follett's I'm referring is classic Greek.  Googling found a
1995 sci.classics thread that said Follett's was out-of-print;
available second-hand only.  Another suggestion from that thread,
in-print but expensive ($50-60), was for Wodehouse.


author: Nick V.

subject: Homeric Question

text:
Hello,
I'm doing a research paper on the Homeric Question, and I was wondering if
anybody could point me in the direction of some good websites and books. I
found "In Search of the Trojan War" by Michael Wood to be helpful, but I
still need more info.

Thanks in advance,
Nick


author: Raymond Brisebois

subject: Re: Homeric Question

text:
"Nick V." <[email]> wrote in message news:<0oxg8.18777$[email]>...

Nick,

As promised, here is information about Geddes' book which I mentioned
in a previous post ...

"The Problem of the Homeric Poems"  William D.Geddes, MacMillan And
Co., London 1878.

Chapter Headings:

I           Introduction
II          The Wolfian Theory
III         A 'Via Media'
IV        The two Epics Compared
V          Outline of New Grouping
VI         Failure of old Chorizontic Grouping
VII       Criterion as to Geographical Knowledge
VIII      Criterion as to Humour and Pathos
IX        Criterion as to Conjucal Honour and Affection
X         Ulysses
XI        Latent Sympathies and Antipathies
XII      Archaica -- Religion and Mythology
XIII     Archaica -- Psychology and Ethics
XIV     Manners and Customs and Social Appliances
XV      Personal Idiosyncracies -- Attitude to the Horse
XVI           "              "              "  Attitude to the Dog
XVII    Epilogue as to Horse and Dog
XVIII   Local Mint-marks -- Achilleid
XIX     Objections and Difficulties considered
XX      Local Mint-marks -- Ulyssean Cantos
XXI     Local Mint-marks -- Odyssey
XXII    Glimpses of a Personal Homer
XXIII   Symmetry in Ethical Purpose
XXIV   Conclusion

Six appendices and two indexes

In the preface, Geddes writes:

"As a result of the investigation, I have been led,  by the pure force
of the evidence, and not at all in accordance with my own early
prepossessions, to accept Mr. Grote's view regarding the composite
structure if the Iliad as the only one scientifically tenable.  That
there is a double authorship in that poem, an Achilleid within the
Iliad, forming its kernel, and by a different author from that of the
surrounding _integumenta_, I believe the facts not only indicate but
demonstrate, and I may claim to have brought out new confirmations of
the soundness of Mr. Grote's views and of the acuteness of his
critical divination.*

In pursuing the subject beyond the initial stage at which it was left
by Mr. Grote, I have found a close connection to subsist between the
Odyssey and the non-Achillean books of the Iliad, and a remarkable
convergence of the evidence to associate both of these with the one
personal Homer of tradition.

If I have succeeded in my proof, the result is not only that a Homer
is revealed to us with his personal surroundings more clearly traced
out than has till now been possible, but that glimpses are obtained
into an earlier period of Poetry, and we can see beyond Homer into a
Prehomeric age ... The argument, as developed, is of course a
cumulative argument.  Its force depends not on one or two or several
coincidences, which might be set aside as accidents, but upon the
united force and weight of those that are far reaching, comprehensive,
and decisive.  Those that seem to me to carry most weight, and to
deserve the most attention are the following:

1.  The dual representation of Ulysses (sic).
2.  The dual representation of Hector.
3.  The dual representation of Helen.
4.  The difference as to hieratic Epithets.
5.  The contract as to 'Boasting over the Dead.'
6.  The contrast as to Olympus.
7.  The contrast as to local mint-marks.
8.  The presence of the Ionian local mint-marks in one continuous
series throughout the non-Achillean Books, and their limitation to
that area of the Iliad.
9.  The consonance of Ethical purpose discernible in the Odyssey,
discernible also as a leading element in the structure of the
non-Achillean books of the Iliad."

* [Geddes' footnote] 'Dr. J.W. Donaldson, in his notes to K.O.
Mueller's 'History of Greek Literature,' claims the
duplex-structure-theory as being properly and originally that of Karl
O. Mueller, and gives his own adhesion to 'Mr. Grote's modification of
the views of Mueller' in the following words: "Mueller's distinction
between the two parts of the Iliad, namely, an original part referring
,mainly to the Achilles and a superinduced part embracing the exploits
of the other heroes and the general conduct of the war, has been
enforced and extended by Mr. Grote in his  'History of Greece', vol.ii
ch.xxi.  He has shown that the Iliad was originally an _Achilleis_,
built on a narrower plan, and then enlarged; that from the second book
to the seventh Achilles is scarcely alluded to; that the Greeks no
only do not miss his absence, but that Diomedes is exalted to a pitch
of glory, in his contests with the gods, which Achilles never obtains,
and is even placed above Achilles by the Trojan Helenus; consequently,
that the primitive _Achilleis_ included only Books I, VIII, XI-XXII.'

rB


subject: Re: Homeric Question

text:
"Nick V." <[email]> wrote in message news:<0oxg8.18777$[email]>...

I've a book, long out of print, which I found in a Kingston, Ontario
bookshop about thirteen years ago and is one of my Homeric treasures
-- "The Problem of the Homeric Poems" by William Geddes.  I don't have
it at hand, but I believe it was printed in the late 19th century and
contains a rich commentary on "the homeric problem" (which, despite
the claims of the second poster in this thread is still VERY much a
lively scholary pursuit) as explored by the great German scholars of
the 18th and 19th (Wolf, Shoemann, Grote and Schubarth, among others)
and also features sections on common themes throughout Homer's poems
... if you're interested I could get you the complete bibliographical
information (sans ISBN #, of course) in about 2 weeks when I'm home
the next time ...

rB


author: Edwin Menes

subject: Re: Homeric Question

text:
Have you looked at the Homer entry and bibliography in the *Oxford
Classical Dictionary* (3rd edition)?  After that, find a copy of *The
New Companion to Homer*, edited by Barry Powell and others.  There
should be an essay in it which summarizes the question and gives some
bibliography.

The Homeric Question, though, as originally posed by F.A. Wolf, is
something of a dead issue.  Current research on the composition of the
Homeric poems focuses on the workings of oral composition and the oral
tradition.  Very recent is John Miles Foley, *Homer's Traditional Art*
(University Park: Penn. State U. Press, 1999).  There are other takes on
the material, but this is a good example.