text:
"David Ryan" <[email]> wrote:

Precious little, actually. A few Objectivists may have a lot to say,
though. Me, for one...

Ayn Rand's theory was not adequate. She saw rights as moral-legal sanctions
to act, which they are, and as conditions of existence needed by man for
his proper survival, which they also are. But she neglected important
aspects about how rights are acquired and by whom, treating them instead as
if they were intrinsic traits of humankind, as Jefferson did (and which they
are not). Infants and toddlers do not have rights. Rights are acquired as a
child acquires the capacity to reason and, specifically, as the child
apprehends, affirms and adheres to the moral principle that is the
foundation of rights, a kind of "social contract," if you will.

I've just had some nice long correspondence with a dear friend on this very
subject. Too detailed for this forum, I'm afraid. Here, I'll just extract
the key points, and perhaps we'll have some discussion.

An interest, like a value, is a thing or a condition believed to benefit a
conscious living being, and for which it strives in consequence of its
belief. A moral interest is an interest in accord with the values and
principles of a moral code suited to a reason-guided being's proper purpose,
happiness. The moral interests of men -- to say nothing of their immoral
ones! -- can conflict with one another if they have not chosen to cooperate
with each other in the pursuit of those interests. Even just morally
speaking, they certainly ought to choose such cooperation, because the
inevitable result of failure to choose it is a deadly cycle of force,
retaliation and violence.

A valid moral interest is a moral interest that is in accord with the terms
of an agreement among men.

But men are imperfect. They make mistakes. They interpret agreements
differently. They violate the terms agreed to, sometimes knowingly,
sometimes carelessly or inadvertently. For these reasons agreement itself,
while certainly necessary, is nowhere near sufficient to eliminate the
destructive cycle of force, retaliation and violence. In order to eliminate
that cycle it is necessary to eliminate retaliation as an option by placing
the use of force in the hands of objective authority for the purpose of
adjudication and enforcement.

And so, finally, here it is: A RIGHT is a valid moral interest for which
legal protection has been duly established.

The source of rights is one's participation in a society founded to protect
the three "inalienable" (unwaiverable) rights of life, liberty and property.
It's called a "free" society. To be precise, the source of rights is an
unwritten commitment, implicit in the act of doing business with one's
fellow men and women, that you will submit your disputes to resolution by
objective law, that you will comply with all laws -- the just and the
unjust alike; the ones you agree with and the ones you despise -- so long as
those laws are constitutional, tolerable and of a free society, and that you
will cooperate with objective authority in the enforcement of law. Only
human beings possess rights, and, even among human beings, rights are
possessed only by those who are capable of making that moral commitment,
and who do in fact make and abide by it.

Infants and toddlers -- and sociopaths -- are completely without rights. But
this does not mean they are without legal protection. Like any natural value
they are protected (at least, the infants and the toddlers are!) by the laws
which protect the rights of every man and woman who has a valid moral
interest in their well being. When it comes to natural values (when it comes
to things existing in nature and divvied up by the law among society's
participants for moral purposes such as production or development), there is
never any such thing as a right to wantonly harm or to destroy, and there is
always a right to protect these precious things from wanton harm or
destruction.. Infants and toddlers need protection. They are not "entitled"
to protection. Rather, men and women, exercising their rights -- exercising
their protected valid moral interests -- are entitled to protect them.

Best Wishes,
Jim P.


author: Robert J. Kolker

subject: Re: How do children fit into Objectivism?

text:
David Ryan wrote:

Infants are weak and witless. That will change in fairly quick order.

Is it? It depends on -whose- children are dying. I have no problem with
hundreds of millions of Moslem children dying on the streets, perhaps
with our help.

Duing the late second world war, Gen. Curtiss Lemay had absolutely no
problem with hundreds of thousands of Jap kids dying on the streets. We
even helped them along. Think fire raid on Tokyo, A-bombs on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.

The fact of the matter is that the children of the enemy do not matter a
bit. The fewer of them, the better.

Bob Kolker


author: Nimesh Gajjar

subject: Question about Format of Samskrit Word

text:
Hello

Is there any rule for format of samskrit word
to be specific,
    what are the rules about
    combination of
1 Shortvowel
2 Londvowel
3 Supportvowel
4 Gutterals Consonants
5 Palatal Consonants
6 Cerebrals Consonants
7 Dentals Consonants
8 Labials Consonants
9 Semivowels
10 Sibilants
11 Aspirate
12 other Consonants

for the purpose of formation of a word

Is there any book that gives this information ?

Thanks

Nimesh Gajjar
[email]


author: Eddie Hadley

subject: Re: Question about Format of Samskrit Word

text:
Nimesh,

You might want to take a look at the http://www.sanskrit-sanscrito.com.ar/
web site. It probably has just what you are looking for.

Eddie

"Nimesh Gajjar" <[email]> wrote in message
news:xt5Ia.982029$OV.1081931@rwcrnsc54...


author: Phillip Ernest

text:
"Nimesh Gajjar" <[email]> wrote in message news:<xt5Ia.982029$OV.1081931@rwcrnsc54>...

Panini's Astadhyaya.

P


author: Amethyst

subject: Passion Of The Christ

text:
Hey all... I'm just curious...what did you all think of this movie?

**Amethyst**


author: HPO Jury = America

subject: Re: Passion Of The Christ

text:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:01:24 +0000 (UTC), Amethyst
<[email]> wrote:

I didn't go see it because it is anti-intellectual, emotionalistic
garbage. Hollywood tear-jerkers are a dime a dozen, but people spend
billions of dollars a year to get emotional over illusions projected
onto a screen.


author: Charles Novins

subject: Re: Passion Of The Christ

text:
Try this instead.  Exactly the same theme, but this one decries ignorance
instead of spreading it:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065491/

"Amethyst" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: robert j. kolker

subject: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Let us suppose that the Kerry-nator and his army (circa 20,000) vulture
lawyers managed to seize Ohio's electoral votes puting the Kerry-nator
over the top. This in the face of Dubya's 51% popular vote count, the
highest since his Dad won in 1988 and the first majority president since
Bush I (Clinton never got a majority in either the 1992 or 1996 election).

Now combine this with the fact that -both- houses of Congress are
solidly Republican. How could Kerry governn? And the answer is very
humbly. It would be ironic to see the charge of "election stealing" hung
arround Kerry's neck, with absolute mathematical proof that it is true.

Could this be bad for the country. Not necessarily. Given that Kerry
could not rescind the tax cuts (the House won't let him) nor could he
impose any of his crack-brain socialized medicine schemes on the
country, he could only occupy the bully pulpit.

Meanwhile, the business community is damned will pleased with notion of
a Bush victory (the overnight stock markets went up on  news of a likely
Bush win). Kerry cannot hobble these folks. Who knows, we may have
another economic flowering, similar to that of the Clinto
administration. Once the Clintons gave up on Hillary-Care the only thing
they could is let the market do its thing. A forced win by Kerry could
bring about a repetition.

On the other hand, the way in which the War Against Islamofascism is
fought would still be in the hands of the President. Kerry and Edwards
would keep their vow of hunting down terrorist, finding them and suing
the pants off of them. If Kerry steals this election, both he and UBL
will be happy scouts. A force-win by Kerry will sour the country against
Democrats and that will pretty well finish HillaryBitch in 2008.

Bob Kolker


author: David Buchner

subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
R Lawrence <[email]> wrote:

All true, and also all wrong.

But of course, I'm not concerned with the overall flow from one
population to another. I'm specifically and narrowly pissed off about
the flow from ME to the Magical Yellow Toy Train in Minneapolis, or
whatever else.

I'm not a farmer, on a military base, poor, or even electrified.  ;-)


author: R Lawrence

subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Matt Barrow <[email]> wrote:

Please try to keep the context of the thread. When I referred to the "general
proposition," I was talking about the claims you and Ken made earlier in this
thread, about tax money flowing from "red" areas into "blue" areas. These
claims did not specify federal revenue, and they were discussing counties, not
states. Thus, the disposition of non-federal taxes would be relevant. However,
there aren't any readily available reports on inter-county tax flows -- just
interstate ones. IOW, there is no proof one way or another of whether your
claims are correct.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Matt Barrow <[email]> wrote:

Even if all these claims were true, it does not follow that the location of
the greatest economic productivity is also the location of the least support
for Democrats. You might wish to think so -- and it might even be true -- but
zero evidence has been offered to indicate that it is true.


author: Matt Barrow

subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
"R Lawrence" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cmtvil$hfu$[email]...
"general
this

The Tax Foundation web site referred to federal flows from into an our of
states.

You're grasping.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
"R Lawrence" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cmtvi1$hfu$[email]...
proper:
asset
is
of
support

I didn't say that was the case, but as with other things, political support,
crime, productivity, etc, the areas shift within a short range.

The map that was broken down by states, or the ones broken down by county,
or even city leve, can be very misleading.

Please don't put words in my mouth; it sounds like you're grasping to make a
point.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Matt Barrow <[email]> wrote:

That was Dan, BTW, not Ken. My bad.

You were the one who wanted to imply things about tax money flowing from rural
areas into urban ones, in the context of a discussion of the "red/blue" county
maps. You offered zero evidence to suggest the net flow actually goes in that
direction. I checked to see if there was any real information available on the
subject, and the best I could find was the Tax Foundation material. I said
quite explicitly when I referenced it that it doesn't show counties and
doesn't include non-federal tax/spend information, so it is at best just
suggestive.

Since I don't claim to know what the net tax flow is, I don't know what I
would be "grasping" for. If you have any real information about relative
distribution of taxes and spending, please offer it. Otherwise, I don't see
much point in responding to silly accusations and context-dropping replies.


author: Nat Turner

subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Matt Barrow <[email]> wrote:

You meant Byrd, not Dodd.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
"R Lawrence" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cmpacu$qe1$[email]...
the

Quite so...but as a corollary, look at crime statistics; in any city proper:
90% of crime is situated in less than 10% of a "city proper". I dare asset
that productivity is similarly situated. So too, the Democrats main base is
the inner cities, with much less support in the suburbs.

Near me, Denver has a similar shift once outside the inner city and
progresses very noticeably as one moves out TOWARDS the 'burbs. In the
southwestern states such as Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona, the only
democratic base is inner cities and Indian Reservations. Even in Arizona,
Apache and Navaho counties were BLUE.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
"R Lawrence" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cmpacu$qe1$[email]...

If the report examines INTERSTATE tax revenue flow, the only viable
conclusion is that the flow is of FEDERAL taxes and spending.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
"R Lawrence" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cmpacu$qe1$[email]...
flowing
data.

True enough; my basis is not based on data at hand, but merely information
I've seen from many sources over the years.

point to
Bush
invested
of

And that is true of the article in general; it is statistical data that
leaves much (if not all) to inference as it does not provide explanatory
detail. Having done a lot of business in North Dakota (the state with the
widest disparity) is misleading given the nature of ND population and their
economy. As I mentioned, the Air Force is a major (the major ??) factor in
the ND economy, in a state that is neither populous, nor holding a large
economic base.

The article in question, though, provides a lot of food for though. Well, at
least an appetizer.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

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

Supposedly the top ten blue states have a negative tax dollar flow, and the
top ten red states have a positive flow. This was being portrayed that red
states were the "real welfare queens" during the election.

Thing is, the red states federal funding is usually military bases, Indian
tribes, Federal land management, etc. States such as ND and Mississippi have
such a low dollar level of federal funds in BOTH directions, the whole
argument is deliberately misleading. In blue states, I'd reckon, the inflow
is to non-productive in inner cities, and the outflow is from the productive
in suburbs. Just a "guess".


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
"R Lawrence" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cmoa17$cus$[email]...
paid
for

That would be the suburbs, not the cities. Once outside the city proper, the
red-blue shift is noticeable.

sales
Which are local taxes, not federal.

The idea of "rural welfare" is not without merit. The biggest is farm
subsidies, but with only 2% of the population, that would be significant in
terms of dollar volume to targeted interests.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
"R Lawrence" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cmobsl$fk1$[email]...
paid
of
votes
"blue."

A the article states:
--------------
What affects the rankings?

One factor affecting rankings is that federal spending on defense and other
procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful members of
congress. Also, state governments can grab more federal grant money by
manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.

Another factor is demography. States with more residents on Social Security,
Medicare and other federal entitlements tend to rank high. Similarly, high
spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are
explained by the predominance of federal employees.

Finally, states with higher incomes per capitasuch as Connecticutpay
higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the income tax's progressive
structure, which increases federal taxes per dollar of federal spending
received in return.
------------
One thing I do notice is states such as OK, NM, SD, ND, AK, in which the
biggest federal dollar flow (I believe) is to the Indian Reservations and
Federal Lands, National Parks, military bases. The USAF in ND is supposedly
half of the state economy(??).

Also, #6, WV, has ex-KKK Grand Dragon Dodd running the lard bucket. Only in
2000 and 2004 has the state voted RED, and locally, they are very BLUE.

One of the fastest growing is Iowa, under the tutelage of Harkin and
Grassley -- both big spenders for farm subsidies.

Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Matt Barrow <[email]> wrote:

Perhaps, but some definition would have to be given to "city proper," and
corresponding statistics provided. The readily available electoral maps are
for states and counties, and my own (admittedly brief) review of the economic
statistics reinforces my belief that the majority of residents in heavily
urbanized counties are middle class. (Personal experience suggests that this
is also true of the majority of residents within the city limits of large
cities, but I have not looked into specific statistics.) Poverty rates are
typically worst in rural counties, not urban ones. The headquarters of AT&T,
Citigroup, Microsoft, Amazon, eBay, and many other companies are in highly
urban "blue" counties, not rural "red" counties. (Note, BTW, that red and blue
does correspond precisely to rural and urban. There are blue rural counties
and red urban ones. However, the association does tend to be the other way
more frequently.)

The situation of suburbs -- whether they are in the same or different counties
from their "core" city -- varies from place to place. A truly detailed
understanding of how taxes and spending move demographically among urban,
suburban and rural areas would require a much more detailed breakdown --
probably to the precinct level if you wanted to compare it to electoral
statistics. I haven't found anything like that on the internet, and I suspect
that even if I did the volume of data would preclude any meanful armchair
analysis.

Sales taxes are generally state and local. Excise taxes are federal.
Corporations are taxed at all levels of government. However, the general
proposition did not specify *federal* taxes. When looking at the county level,
intra-state transfers could be significant. But the only data I've found thus
far are for federal taxes/spending, and represent states, not counties.

Your other message speculates as to the possible causes for more money flowing
into some states, but doesn't offer anything new in the way of objective data.
So I will not address it further. Please note that I have no partisan point to
score here, and I am not interested in spin or political jockeying. Both Bush
and Kerry disgust me, I didn't vote for either of them, and I am not invested
in proving that the pigs on the "other side" are sucking up the greater
portion of the slop. I am simply curious as to the statistical realities of
where the money comes from and where it goes.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Dan Lind <[email]> wrote:

That's my favorite map. My state, Minnesota, which "always votes for the
Democrat," is actually mostly red by land area. The blue parts are
almost exclusively areas of concentrated population. And yes, people in
rural areas do have some taxes extracted from them which eventually end
up, one way or another, paying for stadiums and mass transit and bike
paths and crack whore counseling for the metro areas.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
robert j. kolker <[email]> wrote:

[db]

Okay, not a description. A metaphor or parallel or something. A friend
of mine visited the Ukraine a few years ago, and had bitter old farmers
tell him about all the production being drained off to feed Moscow, and
anybody who was too successful being intimidated or shipped off to
Siberia so they wouldn't make waves.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
David Buchner <[email]> wrote:

Don't forget the farm subsidies and "electrification" for rural areas, plus
the military bases, welfare for the rural poor, etc.

I suspect that on the whole, the numbers for taxes extracted vs. monies paid
could go either way. Despite the dreadful reputation of large urban areas for
crime and poverty, the majority of their populations are middle class, and
therefore pay large amounts of taxes. Cities are also the home of a great deal
of commercial activity, thus accounting for large amounts of corporate, sales
and excise taxes.

Does anyone reading have good numbers on this, as opposed to speculation?


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
R Lawrence wrote:

As a self-follow-up, I found the following info regarding federal taxes paid
vs. federal spending at the state level:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/taxingspendingupdate.html

It doesn't answer for counties, but the upshot, as discussed in a number of
blogs, is that the top ten net recipient states are all "red" (electoral votes
went to Bush in this election). Eight of the top ten net payers are "blue."
(If you include the District of Columbia, which is deep blue, it heads the
recipient list. However, as the seat of the federal government it is an
obvious abberation.)


author: Dan Lind

subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Chris Cathcart <[email]> wrote in message news:<auWid.1
416$[email]>...

There's a district by district red/blue map showing which voted
Democrat and which Republican.  It's far more revealing than the state
by state map.

Wouldn't it be interesting to know what percentage of taxes is
extracted from red districts and what percentage of taxes
redistributed goes into blue districts.

Dan


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
"robert j. kolker" <[email]> wrote in message news:<Qh5id.40126
$HA.25548@attbi_s01>...

...

If it weren't for the "Islamofacism" the scenario you paint is enough
to make my mouth water.

But for me terror trumped everything.

Dan


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Chris Cathcart <[email]> wrote in message news:<co7id.1
7185$[email]>...

...

You go, Chris!

Dan


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Dan Lind wrote:

Paint makes your mouth water? You are wierd.

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

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

CHARLES NOVINS:
It would be interesting.

In my area, we have one of the world's lowest bacteria, Senator Chuck
Schumer, the socialist from NY.  Hilary is the right-wing Senator from New
York - by a wide margin.

In addition to the sea of lies and theft in which he swims (and he won last
week by the largest landslide in the nation,) he advertises his prowess in
getting money for his district, as all politicians do.

But it's well known that NY (and most of the tri-state area) is a huge
net-loser in the federal money shell game.  IOW, NY pays a lot more into the
federal treasury than it gets back.  Secession from the union would make NY
about 20% or many billions richer in a heartbeat.

So it pisses me off two ways; the vile, open lying of our local insect, and
the wild innumeracy of my fellow countrymen


author: Chris Cathcart

subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

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

As an inhabitant of a suburb near a large city where everything is in the
hands of Dems, and government is its basic industry, I can tell you that the
place is a 200-square-mile wasteland.

The Bryan Caplan article, posted here within the last couple days by Charles
Novins, appears spot-on.  If the HillaryDems turned the entire country into
such a prosperity black hole, consuming capital to throw money at the
wasteland sections, what "suburb" could the rest of the country run to?


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Chris Cathcart <[email]> wrote:

Jeepers.

I just realized how well that doubles as a description of the Soviet
Union.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
David Buchner wrote:

That is a bit superficial. We do not have a Gulag in the United States.
Proving, once again, that not all government are equally bad. None are
good, but some are worse than others.

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
robert j. kolker <[email]> wrote:

Right -- but they're from the Several States, not the union at large, is
what I was getting at. No less than Hillary C. was muttering about doing
away with the Electoral College four years ago. And that would mean that
New York, LA, and maybe Miami or someplace would decide the President
and the rest of us would have to reason to bother paying any attention
at all.

Well, I would *expect* that it was. Then. We're talking about a geologic
time frame, there.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Chris Cathcart <[email]> wrote:

Right: THE STATES ELECT THE PRESIDENT. That's all people would need to
know, and none of this nonsense would ever come up. Why isn't this
taught in some kind of civics class or something? I swear we never got
that in my school.


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
David Buchner wrote:

Actually it is the Electors, who are empowered under State law that
elect the President. And it is taught. At least it was taught when I was
a kid. Our founders thought that democracy was ka ka, but autocracy was
ka ka ka.

Bob Kolker


author: Agent Cooper

subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
"robert j. kolker" <[email]> wrote in message news:<Ut7id.45911
3$mD.279466@attbi_s02>...

A classic quote, but it's better in the original:

'Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain' - Schiller


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
"robert j. kolker" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Qh5id.40126$HA.25548@attbi_s01...

No.  The Founding Fathers were smart.  Every President since Bush I has been
a majority President, in the only sense in which it's meaningful to talk
about a majority in this context: the majority of electors.  It matters not
a good god damn what the nationwide popular vote is.

The hordes of anti-Electoral College idiots out there ought to be consistent
and simply do away with the current Senate format.  Fuck the States, after
all; it's "the majority" that's supposed to rule, and it ain't fair that
Wyoming gets as many votes there as California does.  The "United States of
America" should be done away with in the name of "The Majority of America."

Christ, the stupidity of people....


subject: Re: Worst Case Scenario

text:
Chris Cathcart wrote:

I can see it now. Voting for the best 100 from an "at large" nationwise
list. How big do you think the list will be. 1000? 2000?

Before the stupidity of man, even the Gods are helpless.

Bob Kolker


subject: Erudition Progress Report

text:
In an earlier message I cited "Commentaries On the Law in Shakespeare" by Edw.
J. White, a Stratfordian, as evidence that Shakespeare had extensive knowledge
of arcane legal cases of his time. Before I move on to the next subject in my
search for evidence that Shakespeare was erudite I draw attention to the views
of three prominent 19th century English jurists:
Lord Chief Justice Campbell: Shakespeare had "deep technical knowledge of the
law"
Richard Grant White "Legal phrases flow from his pen as part of his vocabulary,
and parcel of his thought"
Lord Penzance: "At every turn and point at which the author required a
metaphor, simile, or illustration, his mind turned ever to the law"

Now let's turn to Shakespeare' s knowledge of the classics. I started my study
with T.W. Baldwin's "Little Latin and Less Greek" which I imagine every
Stratfordian is familiar with and which I was not other than Charlton Ogburn's
dismissive treatment of it in "The Mysterious Wiliam Shakespeare." Opening the
first volume I got a clue as to how tough proving Shakespeare's erudition to
Stratfordians is going to be. Opposite the  preface Baldwin says, "Whatever
critics do, I hope they will not use the term "erudite" either of Shakespeare's
work or mine upon it; neither is anything of the kind." He then proceeds into
1500 pages of the most amazing display of mastery of a subject I cam imagine.
Wow, he is great!  After spending a couple of days with Baldwin's treatise and
"Shakespeare  and the Classics" by J.A.K. Thomson I am convinced that they are
essentially correct in saying that Shakespeare displays the knowledge of Latin
of a graduate of a good Elizabethan grammar school. I have heavy reservations
about what "good" means and Thomson says he cannot go along with Baldwin's view
that Shakspere  progressed in school through the entire 6 or 8 forms prescribed
for the Grammar school curriculum of that time. But that shouldn't concern us
here. I accept their judgment that Shakespeare showed master of the precribed
Grammar school curriculum.
Baldwin made makes a couple of interesting points regarding other Elizabethan
authors' knowledge of the classics. First of all he says Jonson, who he said
was "pendantic", and Marlowe weren't all that learned compared with John Lyly.
Lyly in turn wasn't classically trained compared with a couple of other writers
of that period who wrote exclussively in Latin.
Shakespeare according to Baldwin and Thomson derived 90% of his mythology
allusions from Ovid. V & A is based on Ovid's Metamorphoses and R of L on
Ovid's Fasti and the plays display many other allusions from Ovid, particularly
Metamorphoses. Baldwin say Shakespeare shows clear evidence of reading
Metamorphoses both in the Latin original and Golding's translation. Baldwin
goes further, saying page 677 vol. 2 "Ovid Shakespeare absorbed, and imitated
not by rule, but by exudation."
That set me to thinking: Where would I find a man of that period who was so
familair with Ovid, particularly Metamorphoses, that he would exude that
familiarity?
But, of course, the Earl of Oxford! When Oxford was a teenager he lived with
his uncle, Arthur Golding, in William Cecil's household at the time Golding was
translating Metamorphoses into English. And, Oxfordians have long suspected
that young Oxford had participated in the translation, may even have been the
author exclusively. Even Stratfordians have identified phrases in the Golding
translation that are suggested sources for Shakespeare.

Truepenny


author: Nicholas Whyte

subject: Re: Erudition Progress Report

text:
On 25 Jul 2002 16:31:16 GMT, [email] (Truepenny25) wrote:

Exactly what most people think: not the same as erudition.

Displaying your own ludicrous lack of familiarity with the classics.
Ovid's Metamorphoses was *the* best known and most widely taught work
in Latin at the time. It's a bit like proving someone's identity now
based on their familiarity with Shakespeare!

Nicholas


subject: Re: Erudition Progress Report

text:
Dear Nicholas: I am merely reporting where my study leads me.

Truepenny


subject: Re: Erudition Progress Report

text:
On 27 Jul 2002 11:19:19 GMT, [email] (Truepenny25) wrote:

Well, in that case I do suggest you also study the extent to which
Ovid influenced almost any writer of the Middle Ages or Renaissance!

So far your research has convinced you that Shakespeare had "the
knowledge of Latin of a graduate of a good Elizabethan grammar
school." That's actually quite a long way from the expert knowledge of
the classics that is claimed for him both by Bardolators who want
Shakespeare to be perfect and by anti-Strats who want to shoe-horn him
in to their ideas of what their favoured candidate knew. The fact is
that any candidate for the authorship of the plays can be expected to
have been familiar with Golding's translation, so it's not in the
least helpful in terms of deciding who the author was.

Nicholas


subject: Re: Erudition Progress Report

text:
I am not drawing the conclusion that knowing Ovid well makes one "erudite". I
am struck, however, by the fact that of the Latin authors studied in
Elizabethan grammar schools (Seneca, Cicero, Virgil, Tully, Caesar, etc.) Ovid,
particularly Ovid's Metamorphoses, is Shakespeare's favorite. Baldwin in
"LIttle Latin and Less Greek" says, "Ovid Shakespeare absorbed, and imitated,
not by rule, but by exudation."
That is a significant statement. J.A.K. Thomson says 90% of Shakesepare's
allusions from mythology are from Ovid, mostly from Metamorphoses.
I just ordered a copy from Amazon  of Golding's translation of Metamorphoses
edited by Sims. As I recall, Sims comments on the piquant language in Golding's
translation that one would hardly expect from Golding who is mostly known for
translation of Calvin sermons. I suspect this piquant language that shows up
later in Venus and Adonis and Midsummer Night's Dream is Shakespeare juvenilia.

Truepenny


author: David L. Webb

subject: Re: Erudition Progress Report

text:
In article <[email]>, Truepenny25
<[email]> wrote:

   Is Truepenny25 actually *unaware* that Tully is just another name in
English for Cicero (Marcus Tullius Cicero), just as Naso is another
name for Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso), etc.?!  Someone this ill-informed
concerning classical Greco-Roman culture is most ill-advised to draw
conclusions concerning the classics that are at variance with the
conclusions of scholars who have actually read and *know the material*.

   Ovid was a favorite of a great many writers.  The same would almost
certainly be true of many contemporary Latin students.  It is glaringly
evident that Truepenny25 hasn't studied Latin, but had he/she done so
in school, he/she would probably, like a great many students of Latin,
have found the books of rhetoric, oratory, philosophy, etc. of Cicero,
the war commentaries of Caesar, and many other venerable staples of the
Latin grammar school curriculum to be as dry as dust compared to the
sprightly and absorbing tales of Ovid and Apuleius.

   What does Truepenny25 find "significant" about it?  Shakespeare is
by no means unique in his admiration of Ovid.  The inference that,
because Oxford's uncle translated Ovid and because Ovid is a favorite
of Shakespeare, therefore Oxford must be Shakespeare makes about as
much sense as the inference that if an American writer's work owes much
to Mark Twain, that circumstance can only mean that that writer is Mark
Twain's nephew.

   That is not at all surprising, since almost all the other works of
Ovid, apart from the _Heroides_, do not draw primarily upon mythology.
For example, in comparison with _Metamorphoses_, the mythological
content of _Ars amatoria_ is slight, and is confined mostly to amusing
asides.

   Indeed, for a grammar-school-educated youth with no university
training, Ovid's _Metamorphoses_ would likely be one of the main
classical works in the grammar school curriculum from which familiarity
with classical mythology would be drawn (although of course classical
mythology was far more influential in Renaiassance culture than in
contemporary culture, so one need not know Ovid to know many of the
myths recounted therein).

   One presumes that Truepenny25 is referring here to the edition of
Golding's translation edited by John Frederick Nims.  Truepenny25's
familiarity with the editor's name is evidently no better than his/her
familiarity with the name of the translator.

   In any event, Truepenny25's conclusions seem rather rash and
decidedly premature until he/she has actually *read* the "Golden"
translation in question, the original Latin of Ovid, and several other
translations for comparison.

   As noted earlier, there is little "piquant language" in Calvinist
religious works, so the lack thereof in Golding's translations of such
material is surely no surprise to the sane.  For that matter, if Oxford
was capable of such sprightly language, then why is such language so
conspicuously absent in the poetry *known* to be Oxford's?

               David Webb


subject: Re: Erudition Progress Report

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] (Truepenny25) wrote:

   Had you actually *read* Caesar, Seneca, and Cicero, I doubt that you
would find Shakespeare's preference for Ovid in the least surprising.
Pushkin expresses a similar preference for Apuleius over Cicero in
Canto 8 of _Evgenii Onegin_.  No doubt you would also be "struck" if a
modern writer clearly preferred Mark Twain to the Federalist Papers,
and if echoes of the former rather than the latter permeated his work.

   Not particularly.  Ovid was a mainstay of the classical curriculum,
and one of the most entertaining works in that curriculum.

   Such a suspicion has no evidentiary basis.

               David Webb


subject: Re: Erudition Progress Report

text:
Dear David: In the 19th century Lord Penzance, an eminent English jurist,
observed (re. Shakespeare) "At every turn and point at which the author
required a metaphor, simile, or illustration his mind ever turned first to the
law. He seems almost to have thought in legal phrases, the commonest of legal
expressions were ever at the end of of his pen...it protruded on all occasions,
appropriate or inapparopriate, and mingled itself with the strains of thought
widely divergent from forensic subjects." The same apparently could be said of
Shakespeare and Ovid, particularly Ovid's Metamorphoses. Some have
charactarized Shakespeare as the"English Ovid." The point we are making is that
Shakespeare, Shakspere if you will, must have focused intensely on "Ovid's
Metamorphoses sometime in his life to have become so familair with it that he
"exuded" it in T.W. Baldwin's words. Shakespeare, or Shakspere, apparently took
the time and trouble to translate most or all of the 12,000 lines of the Ovid
original .I believe Baldwin said a dozen line a day was the usual translation
assignment for a grammar school student of that period, not that a young genius
would have felt limited to that amount. Of course, by tradition,  Shakspere had
to withdraw from school before completing the 6-8 forms of grammar school.
As Lt. Colombo would say, "You see, I have this problem. Why and how this
intense familiarity with Ovid's Metamorphoses and not something from Tully,
Vergil, Seneca, Caesar or other authors in the grammar curriculum?"
We Oxfordians have a ready answer.

Truepenny


subject: Re: Erudition Progress Report

text:
In article <[email]>, Truepenny25
<[email]> wrote:

   Lots of students who have not done their homework and as a
consequence are completely ignorant have, when quizzed, a ready answer.
Their misfortune is that such ready answers are rarely *correct*.


author: Elizabeth Weir

subject: OXFORDIANISM IS A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY:  BACON'S IDENTITY

text:
=============================================================

Oxfordianism is founded on Looney's theory of "biography
as evidence."

The Oxfordian claim goes "Shakespeare was an ignoramous,
Oxford was a genius, therefore Oxford wrote the Shakespeare
plays.

That would work if Oxford didn't have a younger first cousin
by marriage who shared nearly identical biographical data
with Oxford.  Up to a point.

Truepenny wrote:

Penzance was a Baconian.

That's correct because the author of the works was a barrister,
a jurist and a Chief Justice as was Penzance.  Unlike Penzance
the author was a philosopher of law.

Oxford was not a lawyer, not a jurist, not a chief justice and
not a philosopher of law.

Oxford danced in a revel at Gray's Inn but that's all that
is known of Oxford's much lauded legal education.

That's because he was born at the estate of the Chief Justice
of the Chancery and heard the philosophy of law articulated when
he was in the cradle.  After which his mother cooed at him in Greek,
Latin, Italian, French and Spanish.

His father had maxims [maxims are philosophical sayings] of equity
law carved into the oak paneling of the great room.

Oxford was not yet born at Heddingham when John De Vere's relatives
carved Joan Jockey's nose off her face.

As were great maxims of law ever at the end of HIS pen.

Anyone can see for themselves what was at the end of Oxford's
pen by going to Nelson's OXDOX site:

<http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/oxlets.html>

As Prof. Alan Nelson has shown, Oxford stumbled over the
simplest law terms and made mistakes in first year Latin.

Nelson shows that Oxford writes "levare facias" instead of
"levari facias," then comments:

     "The correct legal term is "levari facias", as listed in
     BLD. . . This is . . .taught in first-year Latin and
     doubtless in any Inns of Court education.

     Oxford has made an error not only in first-year
     Latin, but in legal Latin."

Nelson offers further evidence of Oxford's legal genius at:

<http://socrates.berkeley.edu/ahnelson/SPELL/Latin.html>

A polymath genius philosopher wrote the Shakespeare works.

Oxford was not a polymath, not a genius and not a philosopher.

In addition, Oxford has no evidence of authorship.

  <<o====oOo====o>>  Bacon Has Manuscripts  <<o====oOo=====o>>
   Authenticated draft page Henry IV Part I Act II in Bacon's
   hand. <http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/4/4.3/ms1627.jpg>
  <<<o=====oOo====o>>oOo<<o====oOo====o>>oOo<<o====oOo=====o>>>


author: Brad Filippone

subject: Re: OXFORDIANISM IS A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY:  BACON'S IDENTITY

text:
Elizabeth Weir ([email]) wrote:

: Penzance was a Baconian.

Was he a pirate too?

Brad


text:
[email] (Brad Filippone) wrote in message news:<aibeod$rut$[email]>...

Penzance was the Captain of the HMS Westminster.

Edwin Abbott and Sir Sidney Lee were the pirates.


text:
Elizabeth Weir ([email]) wrote:
: [email] (Brad Filippone) wrote in message news:<aibeod$rut$[email]>...
: > Elizabeth Weir ([email]) wrote:
: >
: > : Penzance was a Baconian.
: >
: > Was he a pirate too?
: >
: > Brad

: Penzance was the Captain of the HMS Westminster.

: Edwin Abbott and Sir Sidney Lee were the pirates.

Ahh, so THEY would be the Pirates of Penzance.

Brad


author: Hermione Winterstale

text:
Elizabeth wrote:

No, it would not work. It *cannot* work, not even "up to a point",
because of the total absence of logic in the claim itself. There are
repeated attempts in the works of Looney (and the Ogburns, for that
matter) to jump from illogical claims to 'conclusions', as you
certainly know. I cannot imagine why in the world an intelligent
person such as you would bother to address such nonsense.


author: Atlas Bugged

subject: Stevens Shares His Pain

text:
Justice Stevens has given a speech essentially apologizing for his rulings
in several notoriously bad SCOTUS decisions this year.

http://tinylink.com/?QSk7VebvSy

He evidently wants us all to know that he's really, really sorry for his
insane medical marijuana and eminent domain decisions but this author of 4
decades of liberal opinions wouldn't be caught dead "legislating from the
bench."  Stealing peoples' life investments and dealing pain and death to
others wasn't something he wanted to do.  He was just following orders.

Court watchers here will find endless grist for the mill in this article and
the speech.  Stevens tells us, off the record where he can be intellectually
candid, that the Commerce Clause does indeed compel (allowance of federal)
regulation of something a person grows in their own back yard and consumes
themselves.

Elsewhere he calls the "outcomes" "unwise."  But these are outcomes he
brought about.  So is Stevens saying he's stupid?  Find much more irrational
nonsense at the link.


author: David Schwartz

subject: Re: Stevens Shares His Pain

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

    It would be a very serious error to confuse the retroactive
justification for a decision with the mechanism by which the decision itself
was made. The Supremes take a vote on the verdict, and once majority verdict
is decided, someone writes the decision. It is, of course, possible for
people to refuse to sign onto the decision or even change sides once they
read the decision for the verdict they agreed to, but it is not the norm.

    The cases that split on philosophical or political lines, like abortion,
capital punishment, eminent domain, and medical marijuana, are the ones that
most follow this pattern.

    DS


subject: Re: Stevens Shares His Pain

text:
Atlas Bugged wrote:

He's merely following in previous charlatans' stead.  Don't you know
that the Fourth Amendment does not enact Ayn Rand's -Atlas Shrugged-?

(It's strange, that medical marijuana doesn't get privacy protections,
while abortion does.  Isn't abortion a medical procedure?  Sorry for
trying to make any sense with this point.)

Sorry, but I just ate.


author: Ken Gardner

subject: Re: Stevens Shares His Pain

text:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:41:10 +0000 (UTC), Atlas Bugged wrote:

Now wait a minute.  There are situations where an outcome can be
unwise but constitutionally permitted.  And there are situations where
the "wiser" outcome is also the unconstitutional one.  So he isn't
saying he's stupid, at least not for this reason.  The real problem is
what he regards -- often wrongly -- as constitutional or
unconstitutional.

Ken


subject: Re: Stevens Shares His Pain

text:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:35:38 +0000 (UTC), Chris Cathcart wrote:

The medical marijuana case turned on a (very broad) reading of the
interstate commerce clause.  The court ruled that because Congress
could prohibit you from growing wheat in your own backyard for
personal use (the Wickard case), it could stop you growing pot as
well.

As far as I know, Congress hasn't attempted to regulate or prohibit
abortion under an equally broad reading of its interstate commerce
power.  After all, medical services like abortion are "commerce." And
an abortion has at least as much effect on interstate commerce as
growing wheat in one's own backyard for personal use.  An exercise of
an express constitutional power (the interstate commerce clause) will
always trump an implied right to abortion.

There, I think I just solved the Roe vs. Wade problem. For my next two
tricks, I will solve the problem of induction and find Natalie
Holloway.

Ken


author: MakBane

subject: A Rejection of Foster's Analysis of Thorpe's Epigraph

text:
At Terry Ross' direction, I went and studied Donald Foster's 1987 article on
Thomas Thorpe's Epigraph (or Dedication) to Shake-speare's Sonnets (1609). I
would now like to make a few observations in rejection of Foster's analysis.

First, the syntax of the Epigraph is simply WEIRD. Foster calls it "formulaic,"
although none of the contemporaneous examples he cites in proof of this
characterization are syntactically confusing. Thus, the Epigraph is not
formulaic; it is uniquely odd in its construction. Foster concedes that the
"extra pointing" in the Epigraph distinguishes it, yet he makes very little of
what purpose this may have served. I personally wish that he could have found a
way to dismiss those strange periods, as they give a certain hope to
cryptographers, but I don't recall that he did.

Second, Foster's proposal that the "ever-living poet" is a reference to God is
bollocks. Shakespeare is the ever-living poet. He receives this epithet in a
euphemistic sign to the reader that he is dead. Stratfordians are fond of
reminding us that Shakespeare was not yet regarded as an immortal poet in 1609;
therefore, if he is not yet "ever-living" in the sense that his greatness was
not recognized in his own lifetime, in what other sense might this epithet be
warranted? To say this of a living poet is, as I said here before, superfluous.
That the poet is dead seems to be the best solution. (I also recently made
reference to an analysis that I had read in which the phrase "ever-living" was
shown to be a common epithet of the time for the dead. I regret to say that I
cannot find this article, which I improperly termed a "statistical analysis,"
in any of my files. Nevertheless, I will try to find this reference and post it
here as soon as possible.)

Third, Foster misses the point in reference to "Mr. W. H." Thorpe's Epigraph
was not meant to elucidate this mystery man's identity. Instead, it was meant
to obscure it, although not entirely. A reasonable take on "Mr. W. H." is that
it is a code name for Henry Wriothesley. If his initials are reversed, then his
form of address ("Mr.") is also a reversal of his true title (the address of a
commoner being the reverse of a nobleman in this context). In this regard,
Leslie Hotson's idea that "Mr. W. H." is William Hatcliffe is a steaming pile
of conjecture. But, far worse than that, is Foster's renewed proposal that "Mr.
W. H." is a typo and that the H should be an S. The absurdity of this one
proposal is enough to excuse the fantasies of a dozen cryptographers.

There are a few other observations I would like to make, but I will finish for
now with my firm rejection of Foster's "paraphrase" of the Epigraph. In a word,
it is impermissible and verges on dishonesty. If that bizarre little string of
words were susceptible, in its TOTALITY, to paraphrase, it would have already
been accomplished. But it is not. Foster says that the Epigraph has "no
justification for even existing" if it is merely a private message to "Mr. W.
H.," but why is that? Foster is too literal with this name and he is too
unimaginative with what the purpose of the Epigraph is. But he cannot seriously
presume to reconceive the syntax of the Epigraph and expect no notice of his
sleight of hand to be taken. Nor can he state "without question" that Thorpe is
the "well-wishing adventurer" since he cannot know what (or whom) the object of
this well-wishing is.

I take it that the "ever-living poet" is Oxford, that "Mr. W. H." is
Southampton, and that Thorpe has wrecked a million nights' sleep.

Hoping y'alls Xmases were safe and joyous,

Toby B.


author: Gary Kosinsky

subject: Re: A Rejection of Foster's Analysis of Thorpe's Epigraph

text:
In article <92dglg$ov9$[email]>, bookburn <[email]>
wrote:

        I've never heard this theory before.  Do you happen to recall
where you learned this?  Also, if the purpose of the periods was
to indicate where spaces went, would they place the periods after
the words that ended each line?  Seems kind of pointless, doesn't
it?


author: bookburn

text:
In article <[email]>,
  [email] (MakBane) wrote:

The dedication, which looks like this: (quote)

                   TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.
                     THESE.INSVING.SONNETS.
                     Mr.W.H.ALL.HAPPINESSE.
                       AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
                            PROMISED.
                               BY.
                      OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
                             WISHETH.
                        THE.WELL-WISHING.
                          ADVENTVRER.IN.
                             SETTING.
                              FORTH.

                                 T. T.

(unquote)has "extra pointing" in the form of periods.  But I thought
that was generally understood to be typesetter's instruction for where
spaces go, somehow left in after the proof.  As every word is followed
by a period, I don't see what meaning can be derived from this except
to recognize sloppy printing.

to God is bollocks. (snip of argument).

I read that critics of Foster's method claim that it leads him to
logical conclusions, rather than understanding constructive
ambiguities; and I imagine it could be so in this case, where "ever-
living" in the sonnets is used as part of the argument for the Young
Man's reproduction as being part of the divine plan--also indicated in
the dedication by "begetter."  Hard to imagine "eternitie promised" by
anyone but God, though, poetic immortality notwithstanding.

With Wriothesly's restored title coming in 1603, and the dedication
printed in 1609, it would have been incorrect to address him as "Mr.",
especially since he was the dedicatee as a lord in RL and VA. And the
point is especially made that Mr. W.H. is the "onlie" begetter, despite
that Wriothesly probably was the Young Man addressed in the sonnets.
So there seems to be a consistency about these protestations. Maybe for
specific reasons, like the fact that he would not tolerate being
patently associated with the Young Man, Wriothesly is not to be named
or initialed?  What seems especially misleading is that "W.H." are the
initials of William Herbert, who later receives the dedication of the
folio along with his brother.

I follow the argument against Foster's "W.H.,R.I.P.," but not one for
your substitutions, which seems based on negative reasoning,
viz., "ever-living" refers to Oxford.  I thought Marlowe was the one
everybody knew lived on?  bookburn

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


author: KQKnave

text:
In article <[email]>, [email]
(MakBane) writes:

What is weird about it? As Foster says:

"The only noteworthy difference between Thorpe's epigraph and these others,
apart from the extra pointing, is that his signature appears at the bottom,
rather than before "wisheth," so that his verb and direct object are
necessarily
 transposed - "To [the addressee], happinesse and eternity wishes [the
epistler],"
rather than the usual "To [the addressee], [the epistler] wishes happiness and
eternity." Thorpe doubtless inverted the order to prevent the reader from
mistaking the second appositive, "the well-wishing adventurer," for a reference
to
"W. H. ""

He doesn't say that the extra pointing distinguishes it, he says that he
doesn't find it used in other epigraphs or dedications, but he does find
it in other work that Thorpe published:

"As it happens, Thorpe's brief greeting to Master W. H. contains no word or
phrase without frequent, and often identical, counter-parts elswhere. Indeed,
in the light of contemporaneous practice, it is unusual only in the extra
pointing,
a printer's convention used in imitation of lapidary inscriptions and
monumental
brasses. I do not find this feature in other epigraphs, but it appears
repeatedly,
for example, in Jonson's *Sejanus*, which Thorpe published in 1605 for
Shakespeare's acting company, the King's Men. The lapidary format, though
cryptlike, is anything but cryptic. Yet the extra points have given literary
detectives an excuse to rewrite the epigraph as two or three sentences or to
amend "To . . . Mr. W. H. all happinesse" to read "To . . . Mr. W.  Hall,
happinesse". Leslie Hotson, the boldest cryptogram hunter of all, finds buried
here the secret message "To Mr. Will Hatliv," thereby proving that W. H. is in
fact
Hotson's own candidate, William Hatcliffe.""

Oh I see. And what is your evidence that "ever-living poet" means what you
say it means? What, don't have any? Gosh, it sure is great to make definitive
statements without evidence or even a rationalization, isn't it?  All you have
to do is
hope that people believe you.

Foster, on the other hand, does give us reason to suppose that "ever-living
poet" is
God:

"There is, however, a more likely candidate, since the term *ever-living*
appears most frequently in Renaissance texts as a conventional epithet
for God: Miles Coverdale, for example, describes Jesus as ''the only and
ever-living saviour"; Christopher Marlowe refers in both parts of Tamburlaine
to "ever-living Jove" (5.1.290;2.2.41); Sir Philip Sidney addresses God as
 "ever-lyving thee" (*Psalms* 96); George Herbert speaks of "the ever-living
Lord God" (288); and Nicholas Breton names God simply as "the Ever-Living"
(*Blessed Heart* F4r)." Samuel Johnson points in addition to Richard
Hooker's "ever-living Deity" and to Sir Isaac Newton's reference to God as
an "ever-living agent" (416). And numerous other examples might be added.
      It is not unlikely that Thomas Thorpe intended "our ever-living poet" to
refer to "our Lord," "our Father in Heaven," the Author of all creation.
The phrase is, at least, perfectly intelligible in this sense: Thomas Thorpe
wishes to the only begetter of these sonnets that eternity promised
(in Scripture) by our *ever*-living poet. I do not pretend that this reading is

obvious; if it were, it would have been suggested long ago. But Thorpe's
play on words here is by no means the only one in his epigraph that
causes problems for the literal-minded - nor are analogues hard to find.
In contemporaneous sermons, tracts, and literary works, the biblical God
is variously styled as Author, Builder, Counselor, Lover, Warrior, Pilot,
Physician,
Landlord, Shepherd, King, Musician, Gardener, Geometrician, Magistrate
and Play-Maker (to name but a few of his various callings), and here the name
is eternal Poet. This figure, hardly unique to Thomas Thorpe, is as old as the
Septuagint ("the firmament proclaims the poetry of His hands"[Ps. 19.1]) and
at least as recent as Robert Browning ("God is the perfect Poet" [138])."

If you are going to try to refute someone's argument, you need to do more
than simply make assertions, and refer rather disingenuously to studies
which don't exist.

Your interpretation of Foster's argument is a steaming pile of
misrepresentation.
The typo is not that the H should be replaced by an S, but that an S is
missing,
and it should read "W. SH." This is a perfectly reasonable assumption, since
the printer, George Eld, made numerous typographical errors in the sonnets
themselves, and there is an extra space after the "H." that would indicate
that something was missing.

The only dishonesty is in your misrepresentation of Foster's argument.

Yes, it has, and Foster has done it.

You mean that he doesn't make up a fantasy and then try to shoehorn
everything into it.

object

And what is your evidence or proof that this is unknowable? Foster gives
good and clear reasons for that interpretation:

"Such tags as "well-wisher," "well-willer," and "well-wishing friend" were
familiar
epithets for the speaker, as in Rich's dedication to William Cokyne, which
concludes, "I shall rest still to wish you well. Your wel-willing Friend,
Barnabe
Rych" (B4v).^10 Thorpe is without question the "well-wishing adventurer." "

How can a mortal man like Oxford promise eternity to anyone? "Beget"
was shown quite clearly by Foster to mean the author of the poems. And if
Oxford is the "ever-living poet" and Southampton is "Mr. W.H." (How can
a nobleman be adressed as "Mr."?) who is the "well-wishing adventurer"
if it is not Thorpe? Since you have no reason at all for your attributions,
why not use Bacon and Hatcliff, or the earl of Derby and William Herbert,
or any of a million other combinations? Why? Because those names
wouldn't fit your fantasy would they?

Jim


text:
"Gary Kosinsky" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<[email]>
thought
where
followed
except
recall
it?

I  remember the professor referring to this likelyhood in Shakespeare
class (mumble) years ago.  I think someone (Kathman?) recently on hlas
alludes to the practice of indicating spaces for monument engravings
in the same way, and that there was a vogue for leaving periods in,
too--although I may have read it elsewhere.  bookburn
---
---


author: David Hugill

text:
In article <92o831$nqs$[email]>, [email]
writes
Of course.  He wanted to link a theme from the sonnets, fair, kind and
true, with Hatcliffe - his coat-of-arms - for those people smart enough
to work out Mr W.H. but without making the meaning so easy that anybody
could decipher it.  This process of disguising for the few but not the
many, is documented as a typical 'conceit' of the time.
I don't take will to mean sexual appetite, although it does carry that
meaning at times.  The capitalised Will and Will are the two writer and
inspirer, but I do not doubt that undertones can fit in quite well.  I
don't really want to go through each line of the poems at present, but I
will look at them again soon.

I don't see a series to the dark lady.  The poems as a whole have
Hatcliffe or Shakespeare involved, but the second group are not
exclusively about the woman, she is an 'interloper' but adds to
Shakespeare's invention..

As for homosexuality, nothing could be further from the intention.  Just
as the courtiers of Elizabeth strove to persuade her to marry and
therefore guarantee the royal inheritance, so the courtiers of Hatcliffe
as Prince of Purpoole acted out the need to continue the royal line.
Shakespeares first 17? sonnets the epitome of such courtly advice.  The
other poetic/courtly device used by Elizabeth's courtiers was to swear
undying love for her as prince of all England.    In Peele's Decensus
Astraeae, the 1591 Lord Mayor's Pageant, he wrote;

Our faire Eliza, or Zabeta faire, Sweet Cynthias darling, beauteous
Cyprias peere, As deere to England and true English heartes, as Pompey
to the citizens of Rome.

The love of Pompey by the citizens of Rome was seen as the apex of the
mass feelings of non sexual love.  The sort of thing we offer to the
jewels of hollywood/notting-hill and football payers in the present
time.

The sonnets are couched in such terms, nothing to do with homesexuality.
Here I think you have missed the imagery.  The chase with the huswife is
an image of three items.  Hatcliffe is in the role of the huswife,
chasing after the dark lady and ignoring Shakespeare.
'So will I [wil shak] pray thou [will hat] maist have thy Will [shak]
if thou turn back and my [shak] loude crying still'.

Hatcliffe the cock, dark lady the hen, Shakespeare the anguished babe.

It was 1588, doesn't fit!  no hen in poem.  Did Henry go to Jesus
college?
2001 so far good, good party.  Try to get your 'brilliance' sharp enough
to penetrate the fog around Southampton, Oxford, Marley and all the
rest, to find the best answers to these questions which Hatcliffe/liv
provides; makes for a conclusive new year.  Regards;  David H.


text:
In article <92lf2d$p6d$[email]>, [email]
writes

Bob;  Noting that the sonnets include the dark lady ( son 40-42) before
the divide of son 126, and the fair youth is found after the divide, eg
134,5,6 , I feel it is reasonable for Thorpe to claim 'onlie'.  For the
complete definitive accuracy that some seem to require, Thorpe would
have needed to write 'onlie, except a few, begetter' or some such like.
It would not have scanned so well.

Since Thorpe knew Mr W.H. and the sonnets well, using 'onlie' would be a
way of emphasizing the central role of Hatcliffe as the inspirer.  I
suggest sonnets 135 and 136, with the play on the names of Will Sh and
Will Hatliv should clinch the matter.  However, try son 143.  Why the
image of a hen being chased?  Hatcliffe was at Jesus college Cambridge
where the emblem was three cocks.  The college founded by John Alcock.
Members of Grays inn, many from Cambridge, would have recognised the
joke, and Hatliv, Shakespeare and the dark lady are all part of that
sonnet.
        David Hugill.


text:
In article <92nidf$84h$[email]>, [email]
writes
That is being too pernickety Bob.  Thorpe was not trying to provide the
world with an academic treatise.  As I have said before, since Hatcliffe
was the inspirer and he was also the recipient of the poems, he was a
singular begetter, in both senses of the word.  Therefore, the 'onlie
begetter' is spot on.

Thorpe was not trying to be punctilious in this dedication, merely to
get readers to think carefully about what it meant, and allow them to
find the name of the begetter/inspirer.  They may have forgotten since
the sonnets were then 20 years old.
'And in aboundance addeth to his store, so thou being rich in Will adde
to thy Will, One will of mine to make thy large Will more.'
I suppose you will need to see a footnote to the poem before you are
prepared to chance the possible two Wills?

I paraphrased, sorry. The poem does not say hen but 'fethered
creatures'.  No chance for Wriothsley, not in any of these sonnets.
Sonnet 143 is a sustained use of the imagery of a chase to link three
persons, Shakespeare, Hatcliffe and the dark lady.  Is there any way you
can link Wriothsley with that imagery and make some poetic meaning with
it?  There's a challenge for the new year.
                        David Hugill.
Happy new year to you.


text:
In article <[email]>, David Kathman
<[email]> writes

Since the OED allows for beget to mean creator, obtainer, inspirer and
procreator, around the time of Shakespeare - why shouldn't TT have meant
any one of those, even if in a small minority usage?  Sonnet 78 has
Shakespeare writing 'Yet be most proud of that which I compile, whose
influence is thine, and born of thee'.  Inspirer and procreator were
possibly good enough for TT?
David Hugill.


text:
In article <92jo5b$j4h$[email]>, [email]
writes
Bob;  There really isn't a problem here.  Once you recognize the date of
the sonnets and Will Hatcliffe is Mr W.H. all is clear.  The only
begetter as inspirer is plain to see.  The lady is found in both
'halves' of the sonnets; see 40-42 and particularly 133, 'him, myself
and thee.  All the sonnets have Will Hatcliffe intertwined in their
ideas although some have little mention of him, eg 66.  As I have
pointed out begetter [as owner] and inspirer is found in Hatcliffe.  He
inspired and also, probably, had the original copies of the sonnets.  He
was a very singular begetter.
David Hugill.


text:
In article <92kq9p$a5a$[email]>, [email]
writes
Bob;  I am saying not only 'sole' but also 'singular'.  I suggest sole
inspirer but also so unique that only Hatcliffe could be the 'onlie
begetter'.


text:
Jim: >Your interpretation of Foster's argument is a steaming pile of

Toby B.: I stand corrected on this point. Foster is not saying that the H is
where an S should be, but that the presumed S fell off and escaped the notice
of the compositor. Or was deliberately omitted. In either case, the idea is to
ignore the probability that "Mr. W. H." is an intentionally disguised address
for someone other than the poet and to simply assert, instead, that it is an
address for Shakespeare, by virtue of a presumed typo. Got it.

Jim: >"Beget"

Foster relies a lot on contemporary usage of words for his authority, which I
think is a sound method, on its face. However, such resort necessarily
precludes the validity of unprecedented usage. That can't be good. It is not a
stretch to reconceive "begetter" in the sense of "procurer" or "getter" of
manuscripts at that date or now. Consider that, for a bundle of poems written
by a man lately departed and perhaps presumed lost, its emergence would be
something like a posthumous birth. Southampton begets something, after all, for
the late Edward de Vere.

A final thought: I think the Sonnets were deeply personal poems that reflected
the identity of their maker. Thus, I believe that Southampton waited for a
respectable period after de Vere's death and his own spate of troubles to make
these beautiful songs known to the world. He did it  surreptitiously, but he
wanted his name known with that of Shakespeare. This is why the name is
concealed at the literal level. And, as the project is his, he cannot be
insulted by the style of "Mr." since it is his disguise (and part of his own
experience from his time in the Tower). The 1609 Sonnets were a private tribute
to a friend. I am sure Shakspere would not have objected.

Toby B.


author: [redacted]

text:
I think we're arguing subjective interpretations now, so have snipped
down to just one of yours, which I take to be an example of how
you strain to get Hatcliffe into sonnets:

How did Hatcliffe the huswife get to be a cock?  And why would
Shakespeare think of him as a female huswife?  It makes much more
sense for the housewife to be the dark lady, leaving Shakespeare
to pursue a hen(ry)--especially since, for most readers, this
sonnet is among sonnets that seem all to be to the dark lady.

No hen, then no cock and no Jesus College.

As for the homosexuality that you discussed in snipped remarks, I
only said the poems would have to be homosexual if Hatcliffe was
the sole inspirer of them, since the dark lady, who clearly
inspired some of them, would then have had to have been him.

(Did the puzzle makers of the time lie in their
puzzles to make them harder?  To call Hatcliffe the only
inspirer is an outright lie.)

And that, I hope, is it for me on this subject for now.  We surely
HAVE reached an impasse.

conclusive new year.  Regards;  David H.

                                         Harumpf--Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


text:
I just don't follow this, David: the dark lady is an
inspirer of some of the sonnets no matter where they
are, so WH cannot be consider their sole inspirer.

No, he could have written, "major begetter," "foremost
begetter," "principal begetter," or even (gasp) "chief
inspirer," if he wanted to refer to WH as some kind of
poem-inspirer.  These would not need to scan, by the way,
the dedication being in prose.

This Hatliv "play" is no better than the "play" on "Bob
Gruman," which shows that such plays on words are too
easy to find to be considered anything more than coincidences.
In Sonnets 135 and 136 there is not "Hatliv" and probably only
one "Will"--since you only need one "Will" for the sonnets to
make sense, and since they are with the sonnets to the dark
lady and make most sense as being to her.

But "hen" is a diminutive of "Henry," so this sonnet MUST have
been written with Wriothsley HENry in mind.  David, these kinds of
selective finds work only for true believers.  You have interesting
real evidence for the Hotson theory, but this kind of thing makes
your advocacy seem silly.
                                                 --Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


text:
But according you Hotson and you, he was VERY careful in working out
the three triangles.

I never said there's no chance of there being two
Wills, only that the poem works fine with one Will
as a person, if we take "will" to mean "sexual appetite,"
as my sonnet collection's footnote says.  If there are
two wills, then the sonnet is openly homosexual, which
I doubt it would be, since homosexuality was a bigtime
offense.  And why would two poems to the fair youth
suddenly pop up in a series to the dark lady, and why
would the first start, "Whoever hath HER wish, thou hast
thy Will," or "whatever woman has what she wishes for,
you (not a woman?) have your wish (my footnote telling
me "will" also means "wish"), which makes a three-fold pun.

I looked at Sonnet 143.  It ends, "thou may'st have thy Will,/
if thou look'st back . . ." which suggests that she must turn back
to the speaker in order to get her Will, which in turn suggests
only one Will in the picture.  As for Wriothsley, if "feathered
creatures" can suggest "cocks" which suggests Jesus college, why
can't it suggest "hen" which suggests "Henry?"  Aside from that,
a parallel to the story told by the sonnet can be worked out for
almost any man and woman, or even two people, in which one of them is
chasing something and neglecting the other.

I hope you had a good time at the party you will have been to and
back by the time you read this, David, and that my future brilliance
in opposition to your theories doesn't completely spoil your 2001!

                                                    --Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


text:
When is someone who thinks "begetter" may mean "inspirer"
going to answer a question I've asked several times recently
and at least once a year or more ago, which is: "in view
of some of the sonnets' being about and clearly inspired
by a dark woman, why would T.T. call Mr. W.H. the ONLY
begetter of the ensuing sonnets?"  I doesn't make much
sense, to me, to call him the only procurer of the sonnets,
either.  Was there a rumor going around at the time that
nine different people brought the sonnets to T.T. and he
wanted to make it clear than only Mr. W.H. did?

                                              --Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


text:
I don't follow you, David.  Are you saying that "onlie" means
"singular" and not "sole?"

                                                --Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


text:
So Hatliv was the dark lady as well as the fair youth?  And I don't
know where "onlie" suggests "only possible," or why TT would have
wanted to make that point.

                                              --Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


author: David Kathman

text:
MakBane wrote:

Why is there a "probability" that Mr. W. H. is "an intentionally disguised
address for someone other than the poet"?  Do you have any evidence other
than your own intuition, which is admittedly based on ignorance?  You can't
just assert something like this and pretend that you've made an argument.
Foster provides a wealth of evidence that in dedications of the time,
"begetter" was always understood to mean the author of the work; he also
provides examples from other dedications and title pages of typographical
errors in initials.  He gives lots of evidence; *you're* the one who is
simply asserting.  Can't you see that?  Apparently not, or you would
be saying these things.

Huh?  Now, this is a bizarre argument if I've ever heard one.
You basically admit that Foster shows that everyone at the time
used "begetter" in dedications to refer to the author of the work;
but then you say that this doesn't mean that Thorpe couldn't
have been using the word in a unique and unprecedented way.
Well, I suppose that's true, in a trivial sense, but it's a logically
empty claim, since it allows you free rein to claim whatever
you want in the absence of evidence.  Why couldn't I claim
that Thorpe meant "dog" or "harpsichord" when he wrote "begetter"?
Sure, those would both be unprecedented usages, but you yourself
don't want to "preclude the validity of unprecedented usage."

The problem is that there are no known examples of the word being
used in this way.  Your ability to imagine something does not make
it reality, and does not count as evidence.  You are ignoring all
the documented usages of "begetter" and similar words in dedications,
and declaring instead that a completely unknown and unprecedented
usage is more likely, based solely on your own imagination.  Do you
not realize how silly this makes you look?  Do you imagine that
you could present such an argument in a college-level Shakespeare
class and not be laughed out of the room?

I'm afraid that your beliefs, however fervently held, do not count
as evidence.

Dave Kathman
[email]


text:
In article <92lenm$p2t$[email]>, [email]
writes
Bob;  I did not find any dedication similar to Thorpe's in Foster
document and that makes the point that Thorpe's was unique.  Why?
The Hatcliffe theory explains all the unusual patterns in the Thorpe
dedication.  The weight of evidence is on the side of Hotson.  I would
not even dare to look for my name as author, I have never been able to
write poetry.   We seem to be at an impasse.   David H.


text:
In article <92nh6u$7bk$[email]>, [email]
writes
Hotson's work is often available in second hand book stalls, I nearly
bought a Mr W.H. last week in the Charing Cross Road.  His final book
'Shakespeare by Hilliard' is ISBN  0 7011 2226 9.  I can not over
emphasize how deeply immersed in Tudor times was Hotson's scholarship.
I have read many books about the sonnets over the last 35 years and I my
opinion not one comes near to the works of Hotson.  I hope you get the
chance to read him.

Happy new year.  I am off to party.    David H.


text:
Mr. Grumman wrote:

Toby B.: For the reason you stated (that there are multiple "inspirers" of the
Sonnets), I agree that begetter is not likely to be taken in this sense. But
Foster's method of excluding the sense of "procurer" by virtue of its
unprecedence (with which Rolett disagrees, by the way) is invalid. Isn't the
English of the Elizabethans particularly known for its richness and
inventiveness? Foster's take on this is too reductive. Why couldn't the "only
begetter" be taken to mean the "unique" or "singular" procurer of the
manuscript? In the sense that "this is the ONE GUY who COULD have gotten me
these ensuing sonnets."

As for "our ever-living poet" being an epithet for God, I understand the Greek
root of the pun, although to interpret that phrase in this way is every bit as
much a nod to the Epigraph's purpose of concealment as it is in taking "Mr. W.
H." for a simple reversal of Southampton's initials and title.

Last thing: Foster CANNOT make a paraphrase of the Epigraph without monkeying
with the word order and assuming an arbitrary arrangement of subject and
objects. No one can because the Epigraph is deliberately ambiguous.

Toby B.


text:
In article <[email]>, MakBane
<[email]> writes

Toby;  I am unlikely to agree with all you write but on Foster's
analysis I am with you.  By a series of acts of legerdemain Foster tries
to change the exceptional into the commonplace, so that he can dismiss
the meaning of Thorpe's dedication/epigraph.  This he does in order to
concentrate on his own imaginative thesis about the poet god, and typo's
etc.  Foster's is a poor piece of work.

David Hugill.


text:
In article <92krkl$b1e$[email]>, [email]
writes
Bob;  I don't follow the logic.  The majority form of a dedication takes
the sequence; To the dedicatee(1) the dedicator(2) wisheth (3)
blessings.  Thorpe's form is 3,2,1 - blessings wisheth the dedicator.

Is there any other example of that second sequence?  Thorpe's form is
unique.  Foster turned it into a standard sequence and then claimed
there was nothing unusual about it, so that he could dismiss the
epigraph as having no significance.  How wrong he was.


text:
- Bob;  I did not find any dedication similar to Thorpe's in Foster

Yes.  But I suspect we'll be at it again later--perhaps after I
read Hotson, if I'm ever able to.

                                                      --Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


text:
In article <[email]>,
  [email] (MakBane) wrote:
"inspirers" of the
sense. But

He does not exclude it, he merely says that it is much more likely
that "begetter" means what it means in all the other dedications
he's found except one, which he explains, than that it means what
anti-Oxfordians want it to mean.

I suppose it could.  But the far greater likelihood is that it means
what everyone else would mean by it.  You see how you have to strain
to get the thing to say what you want it to?
the Greek
every bit as
"Mr. W.

A simple reversal, right, but a simply typo is to be rejected.
And why, if Thorpe doesn't want to offend Southampton, does he
even schizpirationally hint at who the fair youth was?

Baloney.  The dedication is like many others except for the
placement of "T.T."  It reads: To the sole author of the
sonnets you'll be seeing (no poems by Heywood here), Mr. W. H.
(assumed to be Mr. William sHakespeare), all happiness and
that eternal life promised by God (and wished on dedicatees
by many other dedicators of the time) is wished by the guy
setting forth on the publication of this book, T.T.

It's written in a somewhat awkward backward way because that
was a fashion (and you yourself claim that these Elizabethans
can be original, although this isn't).  The idea, I believe,
is to start with the most important item in the dedication,
which is who it is for.  The rest of the word-order follows
from that: Thorpe doesn't say, "To Mr. W. H. the well-wishing
adventurer in setting forth, T.T. wishes all happiness, etc.,"
because the reader might, as Jim shows, think WH the adventurer;
he doesn't say, "To Mr. W. H. T. T. the well-wishing adventurer,
etc." because all those initials would be confusing; he doesn't
say, "To Mr. W. H. all happiness, etc., T.T., the well-wishing
adventurer in setting forth, wishes" or "To Mr. W. H. all
happiness, etc., the well-wishing adventurer in setting forth,
T.T. wishes" (using the word-order of another dedication of
the time that Foster quotes) because, I believe, it is more
effective to put "T.T." at the end to serve to indicate who
the well-wisher is AND as signature to the dedication.

                                               --Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


text:
Foster found a dedication very similar in pattern to this.  But
even if he didn't, the pattern is not that odd, and to you improved
reasoning wish I.  And I showed why he could have wanted it that
way.

Well, he missed my name as the sonnets' author, too.

                                                   --Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


author: Richie Miller

subject: Grumman on Groatsworth

text:
The entire text is located here:

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1492/crow.html

You really should include all of Groatsworth in your reading.  If you had
you would have added "/usurer" to the end of "actor/playwright".

Proof, Bob?  You obviously missed this:

     A letter written to his wife, founde with
     this booke after his death.

which prefaces Part 4, the repentant letter to his wife.  This clearly says
to me that "this booke" was "Groatsworth", all of it, excluding Chettles
smattering of editorial comment.

This is preposterous.

In your "selective" opinion, since you then go on to approve of Foster's
stylometric study that agrees with your biased views:

Typical Stratfordian double talk.

Why don't you address the usury issue which is central to Groatsworth as a
whole?  You are grandstanding here on minor and somewhat insignificant red
herrings.

I believe it is you who is the egregious line-skipper.  And by skipping
99/100ths of the Groatsworth text you fail to see that usury is the real
issue here.

Turn against them how?  All this points to an opinion of the "upstart crow"
as a back-stabbing moneylender, and a pretended player and versifier.

If you read Alexander and Price as intentionally trying to 'sow confusion"
as opposed to merely offering alternative interpretations then you are on
the wrong tack.  Perhaps it is you that cannot read effectively.  You
should be hesitant to upbraid people like grantco when you are so obviously
blinded to the very truth you seek to uphold.

Finally, Bob, you get to addressing the main point of Price's argument.

This is the Stratfordian defense model in it's all-glorious cart load.  The
hell with context; and the rest of Groatsworth be damned.  This one line
referring to "Shakespeare" is all we need be concerned with, especially
because the second line after this says:

    I know the best husband of you all will never prove an Usurer, and the
    kindest of them / all will never proove a kinde nurse : yet whilst you
    may, seeke you better Maisters; for it is pittie men of such
    rare wits, should be subject to the pleasures of such rude groomes.

Of all the actors who will go to hell (and undoubtedly meet Greene there as
well), Shakespeare is the king Usurer, Maister, and rude groom.  And then
you accuse Price of keeping from us vital information (line expunging as
opposed to whole text ignoring)

    ...his Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hide...

You claim the above is not a "comparison" because of the word "his" (and
because it is in italics) and yet:

    ...the best husband of you all will never prove an Usurer...
    ...the best husband of you all will never prove an Usurer...
    ...yet whilst you may, seeke you better Maisters...

All contain proper nouns in the exact same context and these are meant to
be comparisons.  Which is it Bob?

    ...for it is pittie men of such rare wits,
    should be subject to the pleasures of such rude groomes.

Obviously Shakesper was not considered a rare wit along with the others.
Why not?  Shakespeare was brilliant right out of the starting gate.  Greene
must be talking about somebody else.

Bob, you are off your game here.  The lines should be interpreted as
follows:

    I know the best husband of you all will never prove an Usurer, and the
    kindest of them / all will never proove a kinde nurse

meaning, the best of the playwrights will never stoop to usury just like
the best of the usurer/actors could never make it as a playwright (nurse).
Shakesper included.


subject: Re: Grumman on Groatsworth

text:
In article <[email]>,
  Richie Miller <[email]> wrote:

Thanks for the response, Richie.  Alas, the essay you're responding to
is sorta out-of-date, though I don't think there's anything wrong in
it.  There is nothing in the Groatsworth to indicate the Crow was
a usurer since he is mentioned only in one sentence that has nothing
to do with usury.  Moreover, the "usurers" line, which is directed
at actors in general, no more tabs the actors as--as I'm sure I state--
than it tabs the playwrights Greene is writing to as nurses.

Greene"

Richie, I don't deal with proofs, only evidence.

Yes, it says that.  I would claim that it says that because Chettle
cobbled miscellaneous stuff together to make a book that he wanted
taken as a book.  Eventually I'll return to my chapter on the
Groatsworth and talk more about this.  For now, I'll just say that
the transitions between the parts of Groatsworth are very weak,
which suggests that the parts were discrete elements cobbled
together to make a book.

It may be wrong, but it's not preposterous, Paul . . . I mean, Richie.

Foster's stylometric studies are far from conclusive here, but
interesting enough to bring up.  I would not say that the Groatsworth
stylometric studies were irrelevant.  They were a point in favor of
the Chettle-as-author thesis.

Right, Richie.  Bombasting a blank verse has a lot to do with usury.

By not accepting plays from them, thus cutting them off from their
means of support.

I would expect you to defend Grantco, Richie.  He reminds me a lot
of you.

Whaddya know.  Good for me!

 The
line
especially
the
you
groomes.

there as
then
as

She changed her essay after I wrote this--whether because she saw
my essay, or someone told her about it, or for some other reason.

Sorry, I've lost you here.  The tygers hart line, I think I've
always argued, can be taken as a comparison, but only secondarily.  I
give many reasons in my essay why the tygers hart line should be
taken primarily as Shakespeare's line.

Right, Richie: if you can see that Shakespeare was brilliant out
of the starting gate, Greene would have to have agreed with you.
actors as
like
(nurse).

Why is "usurers" to be taken literally, "nurses" not?

                                                          --Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


subject: Re: Grumman on Groatsworth

text:
<snip>

Let's just focus on this one idea for the moment:

Greene's Groatsworth of Wit is about usury: it's practitioners and it's
victims.

Part 1 - [The story of the last testament of Glorinius, the "king" of
          usurers as Greene describes him]

            Glorinius - a usurer, and dying father
            Lucanio - his son, also a usurer (by inheritance)
            Roberto - his older son, of the Academie, and against usury

Part 2 - [Greene's letter to the three playwrights, which is NOT a
          separate, unrelated text*, has three characters or groups of
          personages that are reflected in the characters of G,L, and R:]

            The "Upstart Crow" = Glorinius
            Greene = Roberto, and so will the other
               playwrights be if they do
               not heed Greene's advice.
            Playwrights = Lucanio, who in his naivete,
               let his "Maister" (Glor/Upstart Crow)
               decide his destiny.

Greene signs his name at the end here, as he does at the end of part 3 and
4, but not part 1, which suggests 1 & 2 are one continuous piece (as does
the excerpt below my sig. of the transition between 1 & 2)

Part 3 - [Aesops fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper]

            The Ant = Glor/Lucan/Upstart Crow
            The Grasshopper = Greene/Roberto
            The Worme = playwrights taken in by the ants ways.

Part 4 - [A letter to his estranged wife on repentance.]

            An appendix or epilogue of sorts.  Related to Greene's fear of
            eternal damnation more than parts 1 & 2,  or 3.

What do you think?  A reasonable assessment of the text?  (Screw the minor
points, let's just try to nail down a theme here).


subject: Re: Grumman on Groatsworth

text:
Richie wants to focus on the following:

  usurers as Greene describes him]

You over-simplify the first story, but I don't have time now to reread
it.  It starts off vehemently against usury but goes on to other things.

I say it IS separate.  (1) it's a letter to real people not
          an episode in a piece of fiction  (2) the
          transition between it and thepreceding is abrupt
          and does not suggest continuation--it's on the
         order of,"now, for the next act . . ."
        (3) there's little connection between it and what
          preceded it  (4) if Greene wanted to make the
        points in the letter in a unified book, there's no
      reason at all he would have had to switch to a letter
      at the point in the Roberto story that he does; he could
      have just had Roberto talk about the other playwrights
      he had met, and then of his final illness and mistreatment
          by the actors.

By the way, now that I've time to think about your point on Chettle's
claim that he found the second letter in the Groatsworth "with this
Booke," or whatever, probably the most reasonable explanation is that
the letter WAS with the booke--the latter having been cobbled together
by Greene out of miscellaneous stuff he had lying around.

No indication in the letter to the playwrights that this is so.  Peter
Farey and Wraight are convinced that the Crow is the playwright who
befriends Roberto in part one--because Greene refers to both as
"players."

I agree.

No indication whatever of this in the letter to the playwrights

Yes, but the Roberto story, the letter to the playwrights and the
grasshopper fable are presented as a single story.  I contend they
were originally separate, then thrown together to make enough pages
for a full book--probably because Greene was desperate for money.  My
main reason for believing this is that the three pieces are very
different from one another, and are connected by very rudimentary
transitions.  But even if they were a single story from the start,
it seems to me absurd to take as a usuerer a man the only reference to
whom has to do with bombasting out a blank verse and thinking he's the
only shake-scene in a country.

no indication that this is so, though the Glorianus connection may
be weakly there; but the Ant would be much more likely the players
collectively than the Crow specifically

  probably, in a way

     could be, very weakly

I still see the Groatsworth as four discrete if related pieces that
were cobbled together to make a book.  Usury is the main theme of
the first part; the second's main theme is the untrustworthiness of
actors; the third is the importance of thrift; the fourth a personal
communication to the author's wife.

                                              --Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


author: art

subject: Obama leads McCain by 8 points

text:
Poll: Obama leads McCain by 8 points, gains strength on key issues
By STEVEN THOMMA McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/851177.html

Entering the homestretch, Barack Obama leads John McCain by 50 percent
to 42 percent and appears to be gaining strength on key issues despite
a barrage of criticism from his rival. A new Ipsos/McClatchy poll out
Tuesday found:

-Obama, the Democrat, supported by 50 percent of likely voters.

-McCain, the Republican, supported by 42 percent.

-Independent candidate Ralph Nader supported by 1 percent.

Libertarian candidate Bob Barr didn't register enough support to
count. Another 7 percent of likely voters didn't support any of those
candidates or didn't know whom they supported.

The Ipsos/McClatchy poll of 773 likely voters was taken last Thursday
through Monday. It has an error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage
points. "Likely voters" are those who are registered to vote and
display some measure of intense engagement in the election.

The first Ipsos/McClatchy poll taken since the third and final debate
between the major candidates offered several signs of growing strength
for Obama and troubling weaknesses for McCain.

On issues, Obama has gained ground among voters across the board, even
on issues where McCain still has an advantage and on some where the
Republican usually would expect to be ahead.

On taxes, for example, likely voters now prefer Obama over McCain by a
margin of 8 percentage points. This is despite a concerted effort by
McCain and running mate Sarah Palin to cast Obama as a tax-and-spend
liberal who would raise taxes on ordinary folks such as Joe the
Plumber, an Ohio man whom McCain cited repeatedly in the last debate
and since then in ads and on the campaign trail.

On family values, a subject Republicans have used to court Christian
conservatives and suburban moderates since the 1980s, likely voters
now prefer Obama over McCain by 8 points. That's up from 3 points in
mid-September.

Voters also prefer Obama over McCain to handle jobs and the economy by
16 points and health care by 24 points, both wider margins than
earlier Ipsos/McClatchy polls found. That reflects the traditional
Democratic advantage on those issues and a barrage of Obama ads in
battleground states ripping McCain's health care proposals.

Likely voters still prefer McCain over Obama on the issues of national
security and foreign policy. However, McCain's advantage on national
security, 12 percentage points, had narrowed sharply from the 23- to
28-point edge he'd had in weekly Ipsos/McClatchy polls since Labor
Day.

More troubling for McCain's prospects: Voters don't care as much about
the issues on which he's strong.

They rank the economy as their top priority by 3-1 over national
security, a distant second. Foreign policy is dead last.

Obama benefits from a significant gender gap, leading among women by
16 points while trailing among men by 1 point. He also leads among
voters aged 18-34, those aged 35-54, Hispanics and blacks. The two
candidates split older voters.

McCain leads among whites, 51-40 percent.

In another sign of Obama's growing strength, his support is becoming
more solid in the final weeks, as McCain continues to show some
weakness even among his own supporters.

Among Obama supporters, 92 percent said they'd definitely vote for him
and 6 percent more said they'd probably vote for him. Just 2 percent
said they still could change their minds.

Among McCain supporters, 81 percent said they'd definitely vote for
him and 12 percent said they'd probably vote for him. Seven percent
said they could change their minds.

That relative softness among McCain's support helps explain why Obama
is spending his final campaign push in once reliably Republican states
such as Florida, Virginia and Indiana, looking to win over McCain
voters.

These are some of the findings of an Ipsos poll conducted last
Thursday through Monday. Ipsos interviewed 773 likely voters. With a
sample of this size, the results are considered accurate within plus
or minus 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would
have been had the entire adult population in the U.S. been polled.
Likely voters are defined as individuals who are registered to vote,
who voted in the 2004 presidential election, are 7-10 on a 10-point
likelihood-to-vote scale and are interested in following news about
the campaign "a great deal" or "quite a bit."

Individuals who didn't vote in the 2004 presidential election qualify
as likely voters if they're registered to vote, are 8-10 on a 10-point
likelihood-to-vote scale and are interested in following news about
the campaign "a great deal" or "quite a bit." Those individuals who've
already cast their ballots through early voting or absentee ballots
automatically qualify as likely voters.

The margin of error will be larger within regions and for other
subgroups of the survey population. All sample surveys and polls may
be subject to other sources of error, including but not limited to
coverage error and measurement error. These data were weighted to
ensure that the sample's composition reflects that of the U.S.
population according to census figures. Interviews were conducted with
respondents on land-line telephones and cellular phones. Respondents
had the option to be interviewed in English or Spanish.
-----------------------------------------------------------