humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 2, 4:37=EF=BF=BDam, "Peter Farey"
wrote:
> "spinoza1111" wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > "spinoza1111" wrote:
>
> > > I apologize if I am too offtopic in the two posts "Sonnets
> > > to Sundry Notes of Music" and "SSAT Analogies".
>
> > > That's ok. You did make a valiant attempt to make the second
> > > on-topic by relating it to what happens here. You said:
>
> > > Fuchs is a spokesperson for the self-indulgent who pretend,
> > > in this ng as elsewhere, that there really is no such
> > > thing as polysemy, and insist, when in positions of power,
> > > on applying a single set of rules while pretending there
> > > are no alternative sets.
>
> > > Unfortunately, you got it entirely the wrong way round,
> > > since the only contributors 'in a position of power' here
> > > are of course the Stratfordians. And, as I explained with
> > > the several examples I offered, it is the Stratfordians
> > > who apply "a single set of rules while pretending there
> > > are no alternative sets."

MM:
I don't think Stratfordians are coercing anyone. They just prefer
real evidence over fantasy. Maybe you think that is some form of
coercion from a position of power? Seems like you're going
hyperbolic, IMO.

> > With all respect, the "Stratfordians" (where no professional
> > and full time Shakespeare scholar, to the best of my knowledge
> > and belief, is anything but a "Stratfordian") do address the
> > authorship identity question and have long resolved it.
>
> If you read what I said, you will find that I was referring only
> to the people posting here, among whom the Stratfordians
> are in a position of power for the very reason you have just
> given. It is the orthodox position.

MM:
It is also the most logical position, which means a lot to most
readers, I'd say. I don't know why you emphasize the "power." We're
just discussing things, and what appeals to the sagacity of the
readers. I don't think anyone is browbeating anyone, do you?

> As to whether many Shakespeare scholars have really addressed
> the issue with sufficient rigour to have made a truly informed
> decision, I very much doubt it. Most of them simply follow the
> crowd, and have no interest in finding out more.

MM:
Truth is within us. Mystics can know the truth. If you want to know
the truth, you should ask a mystic, IMO. They have access to the
"information."

As for your condescending attitude towards Stratfordians, I don't see
any difference. You're always advertising your website. If people
agree with you, or follow you, it is the same as Stratfordians
following one another, IMO.

Stratfordians are interested in "finding out more," as you put it, but
they might balk at accepting pure fantasy. Marlovians indulge in a
lot of fantasy, IMO, so that would be a stumbling block, I think.

> For example, I was recently fortunate enough to be declared
> (by a well-known Shakespeare scholar) joint winner of a
> prestigious literary prize.

MM:
Was he a Marlovian?

> My winning entry was an essay
> giving my main reasons for believing that Marlowe survived
> 1593 and went on to play the major part in writing the works
> attributed to Shakespeare. The award was announced in the
> Times, and the Marlowe Society publicly congratulated me at
> =
.

MM:
Is this just another case of "following the crowd," as you called it?

Authors can write novels. They can win prizes for them. It doesn't
translate into truth, however. Fact is fact, and fiction is still
fiction. Fantasy is still fantasy, I might add.

Doctor Egan has achieved a degree of respect, also, but it seems that
he is still searching for the truth, IMO. Neither prizes, nor
respect, nor job description, translate into TRUTH. I urge readers to
continue to use their sagacity on the authorship discussion. I urge
them to be wary of the Anti-Stratfordian bait, which is constantly on
display here.

> Yet at the time of writing not one orthodox Shakespeare
> scholar has expressed the slightest interest in reading it.

MM:
So? I still don't have the sligtest interest in reading it. :-)

> > Investigate for example the need for constant revision
> > of playtexts to get the Stationer's approval and the
> > fact that making a copy required knowledge of the author,
> > and ask yourself if a cover up could have occured, and
> > to what reason in a business always near extinction.
>
> I don't see all that much of a difference between an
> exiled 'atheist' in the 1590s and a writer blacklisted
> as a 'communist' in the 1950s. Many such writers had
> other people acting as fronts for them - something that
> would in several cases be completely unknown even
> now were it not for the work of the Writers Guild of
> America in eventually bringing it to light and ensuring
> that credit went where it was really due.

MM:
This even regarding the WG of A has no bearing on William Shakespeare,
nor on Christopher Marlowe.

>
>
> > In terms of documentary evidence as opposed to evidence
> > which has to be treated as a secret code, Shakespeare
> > is the best answer to the test question: but many Deniers
> > feel as do parents of students who can't do analogies
> > that(1) there is polysemy and (2) this allows us to
> > select anything "reasonable" and speak of it as an excl-
> > usionary truth.
>
> I don't. I use such polysemy in three ways.
>
> 1) As in the case of the inscription on the monument, I
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDshow that it is not only *possible* to read it in a
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDdifferent way, but that the odds against that *poss-
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDibility* having happened by chance are so huge that
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDit must have been done deliberately.

MM:
That is your opinion.

> 2) As in the case of the Sonnets quotations, I show that
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDonce any basic assumptions about the authorship are
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDremoved, the words as used at that time, and the
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDgrammar employed, do actually point to a different
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDperson, and circumstances which an exiled Marlowe
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDwould have experienced.

MM:
Your opinion, again.

> 3) As in the case of the First Folio quotations, I show
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDthat the words presented by Stratfordians as proof
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDthat their man wrote the works *can* in fact be read
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDin a way which does no such thing, and that they
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDcould just as easily have been written in a deliber-
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDately ambiguous way to put us off the scent.

MM:
Your opinion is your prerogative. This appears to be the beginning of
the dreaded Anti-Strat cover-up. They always dance around it, as if
it is not too important. Just take a highly esteemed person, and
trash him as a liar, or a conspirator. They seem to think there is no
problem with that.

I think Anti-Stratfordianism will continue to entertain the
fantasizers, but the majority will want more evidence, and that is
found in the Stratfordian camp. :-)

Michael Martin
>
>
> Peter F.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -