humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

In article ,
"Peter Farey" wrote:

> "lackpurity" wrote:
> >
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> > >
> > > "lackpurity" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Peter Farey wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "lackpurity" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > MM:
> > > > > > That "Hoffman Prize," that Farey got recently,
> > > > > > doesn't prove the Marlovian Theory.

> > > No it doesn't. What it proves is that is possible to
> > > present an anti-Stratfordian case in such a way that
> > > an eminent Shakespearian scholar (with biographies of
> > > both Shakespeare and Marlowe to his credit)

> > MM:
> > Hold on a minute, Mr. Farey. Let's dissect this claim.
> > You claim he was an "eminent Shakespearian scholar,"
> > but what I've read indicates that he was more like a
> > Marlovian with an open-mind. Let's tell it like it is.
> > Okay?

> Happily. The adjudicator was Park Honan, Emeritus Prof-
> essor at the School of English, University of Leeds. He
> is author of a recent biography of Marlowe (*Christopher
> Marlowe, Poet & Spy*, Oxford 2005) and also one of WS
> (*Shakespeare: A Life*, Oxford 1999). About the latter,
> Stephen Greenblatt in his *Will in the World* (p.392)
> said: "Among more recent biographies, the most thorough,
> informative, and steadily thoughtful is Park Honan's
> *Shakespeare, A Life*...which I have frequently consulted."

I haven't been reading h.l.a.s. much for the past year, so I missed
the earlier mention of the Hoffman Prize. Congratulations!

> I mentioned the two biographies earlier, and with a mom-
> ent's thought

Thought? Lackpurity?!

> it might have occurred to you

Not even then. All his enlightenment arises from medi(t/c)ation.

> how unlikely
> it would be for a Marlovian to have written an orthodox
> biography of either of them, let alone both.
>
> No, he does not believe that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare,
> and has in fact confirmed as much to me in private corr-
> espondence. However, he *is* unusually open-minded for
> a professional working in this area, which in my view
> was the main reason why he was prepared to acknow-
> ledge the quality of the argument I presented, even if he
> would still not accept my conclusion.

> > You remind me of Mouse, claiming that Dr. Egan is a
> > Stratfordian. It would be nice, if instead of tiptoeing
> > through the tulips, that you and Mouse would define a
> > little more accurately what their position is?

> Worth another outing, I think:
>
> THE TULIPS
> (With apologies to W.W.)
>
> I stand a-tiptoe in a field
> Of tulips where, it seems to me,
> The stony ground will never yield
> A bloom sown by 'lackpurity' -

Your error lies in seeking blooms, Peter. If you read lackpurity's
posts with an eye for bloomers instead, then you'll reap greater
rewards.

> Bane of slow-learning troll-controllers
> And dime-a-dozen pigeonholers.
>
> I spin and skate and dodge, 'tis true,
> Although I know that my discussion
> (Backassward to our Strat Guru)
> Will lead to karmic repercussion.
> To smell the coffee it will take
> O'er 40 years. Give me a break!
>
> Same ol' same ol's capacity,
> It don't mean zilch, so this is left
> To readers' own sagacity -
> Of flogging, each dead horse bereft.
> My heart from 'hind I cannot tell -
> So here I'll tiptoe. LOL

Excellent! (You left out "knee-high to a grasshopper" -- other
than that, it appears that you have reproduced almost his entire
repertoire.)

> > One tactic I've noticed with regards to Anti-Strats
> > is that they often blur the reality and try to overlap
> > with Stratfordianism. In fact, it seems that you have
> > been doing that to some extent in your recent replies
> > to me. I'm glad to see that in this message, now,
> > you're again presenting an Anti-Stratfordian POV, and
> > that was your argument for the Hoffman prize, by your
> > own admission.

> What I do, Michael, it to seek the truth. And if I see
> something that I believe not to be true, whether it be
> proposed by either a Strat or an anti-Strat, I will say
> as much. That was the case in our last exchange, where
> I was in fact arguing *against* the usual anti-Strat
> position, and you were too dim to appreciate this.

> > > can find
> > > it sufficiently well argued to award it a share in a
> > > fairly prestigious literary prize.

> > MM:
> > Even though Marlovian Theory is still just a theory?
> > Okay, I won't argue that point.

> And, surprising as it may be to you, the Stratfordian
> Theory is also "still just a theory", even though it it
> is the one accepted by the vast majority of scholars,
> as well as a few nutcases.

> > > > > > Farey's theory even makes Marlowe a liar and a
> > > > > > coward. It doesn't do William Shakespeare justice,
> > > > > > either. I don't know how anyone with a reasonable
> > > > > > mind could believe any of it.

> > > > > What someone with a reasonable mind could or could
> > > > > not do will, I fear, always remain a closed book to
> > > > > you, MM.

> > > > MM:
> > > > Don't worry about it. Worry about your own mind.

> > > My mind is one which is interested in finding the
> > > historical truth by the application of logical reas-
> > > oning to verifiable historical facts.

> > MM:
> > That's about the same for Strats, it would appear.

> It is the same for *some* Strats, although many of them
> believe that in this case no further thinking is needed,
> and it is something which in any case certainly *doesn't*
> apply to you.

> > You have a right to your own "logic," but your logic
> > makes so many people liars and conspirators. It
> > trashes what Strats consider as truth, etc.. Same
> > ol', same ol'..

> People tell lies, Michael. Get used to it. But very
> few actually needed to do so in this case; and having
> someone (with the author's permission) presenting his
> work as theirs alone is not a conspiracy.

> > > It is a method which is easily examined (and there-
> > > fore refuted) by anyone doubting what I say, and
> > > wanting to know precisely how I arrive at the con-
> > > clusions I reach.
> > >
> > > This is, of course, in direct contrast to the method
> > > employed by you and Paul Crowley,

...and, to give credit where credit is due, by Elizabeth Weir...

> > > which is to assume
> > > that anything you *imagine* to be true must be true -

> > MM:
> > Mystics don't imagine. They see and know the truth.

Give it up, Peter. The Master has spoken!

> They imagine they see and know the truth. However, the
> 'truth' that real mystics imagine they 'see and know'
> bears no resemblance to the bilge that you come up with.
> 'Talking to Marlowe' is *not* the sort of thing that
> mysticism is about, which you would know if you really
> had the slightest inkling of what enlightenment is.

> > You're a hypocrite for "imagining" that, Farey. I
> > can just as easily say that you're the one imagining
> > that so many people were liars and conspirators.
> > Many of them highly esteemed, such as Jonson, Spenser,
> > Greville.

> I have no idea what you are talking about. I accuse
> Jonson of deliberately misleading people, not actually
> lying to them. The others play no part in my theory.

> > You recently imagined that Dugdale did a sketch of
> > a monument to someone that he didn't even know who
> > he was. Talk about imagining things! The hypocrisy
> > is getting a little deep, now, Mr. Farey.

> What I was doing was to offer what I think is a more
> rational explanation for the wild inaccuracies of the
> Hollar engraving than the one presented by Kennedy,
> Whalen and Vickers. It is for you either to accept
> that explanation, theirs, or one of your own devising.
> I really couldn't care less what you think.

> > > an approach which, as Dominic keeps pointing out,
> > > rules out any rational discussion with either of you.

> > MM:
> > We can end it, anytime. I'm getting a little tired of
> > your pigeonholing of me, anyway.

> Then stop bombarding us with pigeon-shit.
>
>
> Peter F.
>
>