humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

"Peter Farey" wrote in message
news:fqgasb$5as$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

>> > 1) As in the case of the inscription on the monument, I
>> > show that it is not only *possible* to read it in a
>> > different way, but that the odds against that *poss-
>> > ibility* having happened by chance are so huge that
>> > it must have been done deliberately.
>>
>> It is easy to explain anything in a way
>> which is possible. The issue is whether
>> or not it is reasonable.
>
> What is tragic is that you are unable to enjoy - as the
> rest of us do - the wonderful irony of you saying this.

I am fully aware that all such strictures
must apply to my own theory -- one part
of which is that the author had the theatre
'in his blood' -- in that his father (and his
grandfather before him) had a theatre in
his own house, and our young poet mixed
with actors and saw plays from his earliest
days.

>> We might explain
>> (say) the assasination of JFK by pointing
>> to the positions of the moon and planets
>> at the time. The odds against the moon
>> and planets being in those positions at
>> any particular time will always be in the
>> order of billions to one against.
>>
>> We could then say it must have been
>> deliberate, and God (or some other entity)
>> must have intended it so.
>
> And we might thereby demonstrate that yet again you
> haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking
> about. A proper analogy for what I am saying would be
> that some such 'rare' celestial phenomenon was found
> to have happened not only at JFK's assassination
> but at RFK's too. High odds become significant only
> in the comparison of two or more sets of data.

You will not, of course, point out the
OTHER set of data -- nor the rarity of
any supposed phenomena you identify.

Your entire 'data set' comes from your
own 'reading' of one passage.

>> > 3) As in the case of the First Folio quotations, I show
>> > that the words presented by Stratfordians as proof
>> > that their man wrote the works *can* in fact be read
>> > in a way which does no such thing, and that they
>> > could just as easily have been written in a deliber-
>> > ately ambiguous way to put us off the scent.
>>
>> This sounds more reasonable. Maybe
>> you have shown that the words can be
>> seen as systematically ambiguous, and
>> that such ambiguity cannot be read into
>> other roughly comparable texts, and
>> must therefore be present.
>
> No, Paul, this is of course the pseudo-logical approach
> that you employ

If there are errors in the logic, or its
application, then you should be able
to point them out. You have never
made the slightest attempt in this
regard, and you never will.

> , based upon your fond belief that those
> who reject your eisegeses

Those 'rejections' are like yours --
perfectly silent 'arguments' based on
(a) non-reading, and (b) superstition.
I've yet to see one that anyone could
actually consider.

> would, if they could, waste
> their time trying to do what you have done with the
> Sonnets, assuming the same scenario but using different
> texts.

I'm not sure what you mean here.
You may be referring to my requests
for others to try to relate particular
sonnets to other events -- as well as
I relate them to, say, Mary QS or
Raleigh. But I know, and you know,
and everyone knows that no one is
ever going to try. The request is, in
fact, absurd. No one could relate
(say) Sonnet 129 to some events
other than those involving Mary QS,
Bothwell and Carberry Hill.

And that is my point. All I ask is for
a 'thought-experiment'. But I also
know that you, like other Strats and
quasi-Strats, cannot think. I don't
expect your recognition. That will
come from another generation.


Paul.