humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Feb 27, 6:08 am, "Paul Crowley"
wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" wrote in message
>
> news:1e394ac7-c027-470b-b307-267a46cb3c8f@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> You never complain when Oxfordians call Shakespeare illiterate.
> >>>> Is that not offensive?
>
> >>>> Greg Reynolds
>
> >>> I didn't see you complaining at what Tom said about Oxfordians, Greg.
> >>> Therefore I leave it up to you to complain when Oxfordians call
> >>> Shakespeare illiterate, something I've never done, by the way.
>
> >> That would require having an
> >> opinion -- a hideous fate that
> >> moronic quasi-Strats avoid at
> >> all costs.

"Name-calling is not an argument." -- Paul Crowley

> > Oh, Paul, you have become so boring.

Hasn't he...Crowley is a one-trick pony.

> Whether the Stratman was literate
> or illiterate determines numerous
> other issues of crucial importance.
>
> Many quasi-Strats (such as yourself)
> -- still such slaves to their Stratfordian
> indoctrination, and anxious to keep a
> toe in Stratfordian waters -- cannot
> decide upon the extent of the Stratman's
> role as an actor, or in 'play-broking',
> even sometimes going so far as to
> believe that he might have done some
> writing.

The so-called quasi-Strats are rational enough to realize that there
is enough evidence to establish a prima facie case as to Shakespeare's
role as an actor with the acting company that performed the
Shakespeare plays, and establishing his role as a shareholder in the
theater where those same plays were performed. Your quasi-Strats
realize that they must come up with some quasi-rational argument to
explain away that evidence. Because you reside in the Crowley Zone,
where "no evidence" = "evidence of a totally different nature") you
either deny the existence of such evidence or dismiss it as
inauthentic (forgeries, documents surreptitiously placed by the
government plotters, etc.).

> In fact, it is not in the least difficult
> to get to the basic facts. His parents
> were illiterate. His wife was illiterate.
> His children were illiterate. His
> 'signatures' are those of an illiterate.

Just out of curiosity, what do you contend is the evidence that proves
unequivocally that John Shakespeare was illiterate?

Just out of curiosity, what do you contend is the evidence that proves
unequivocally that Mary Arden Shakespeare was illiterate?

Just out of curiosity, what do you contend is the evidence that proves
unequivocally that Anne Hathaway Shakespeare was illiterate?

Could you explain your argument as to how the known signatures qualify
as evidence that William Shakespeare was illiterate?

> OF COURSE he was illiterate.

Prove it.

> He was chosen for his illiteracy (in
> addition to his name).

So the brilliant plotters searched high and low looking for a man with
a name that was close enough to the pseudonym of William Shakespeare,
and they chose the Stratfordian William Shakespeare, all that for the
purpose of passing him off as the author of the most admired literary
works of the day. But the patsy had to be illiterate so that he
couldn't be passed off as the author. They would pay the patsy well
for his services as the stand-in, and he would even have the plotters
over a barrel. Then they could plant forged references in obscure
legal records making it look like the Stratford man was, in fact, the
author.

Queen Elizabeth, and, later, King James were constantly worried that
"the secret" would come out, and that the government would topple
because of the scandal. All of the many courtiers who were also in on
"the secret" were constantly vigilant to make sure no one leaked any
word of "the secret" -- why, if the barely literate middle and lower
classes, with minimal to non-existent knowledge of the works, ever
found out that an earl had written those plays they would suddenly
have been able to piece together all sorts of things hidden even from
modern scholars and they would have posed a threat to the government.

And so, in order to make sure that this vital secret was kept, they
intentionally chose as a stand-in for the highly acclaimed author (an
author who surely would have been recognized as the preeminent author
of the day even by lowly maidservants) William Shakespear of Stratford
-- a man who was illiterate...

> Had be [sic] been
> literate, then the poet and the Queen
> (and other government plotters)
> would have turned him down.

Did he apply for the position? Was he interviewed by the poet, the
Queen, and/or the other government plotters? Did they run an
advertisement to find him?

"Stand-in wanted. Must have name similar to/or the same as William
Shakespeare, so that he can be made to look like the author of the
most popular of plays and poems. However, must be illiterate so that
no one could seriously consider that he is the true author of those
same plays and poems. Excellent pay...No resume required. If you know
of someone who fits this description, please tell him about it, since
he obviously can't read this want-ad."

> He'd have been too risky. He might have
> been in a position to make a remotely
> plausible claim to the authorship.
> Such a prospect (no matter how
> unlikely) was one thing they could
> never have tolerated.

Oxenforde: Your Highness, we must find a man to play the role of the
author of my plays and poems, written under the pseudonym of William
Shakespeare, or some disaffected nobleman will tell some middle class
Puritans that the works attributed to William Shakespeare were
actually written by me, Lord Oxenforde, and will tell them about the
naughty bits in the works, and that even though those Puritans have
minimal to non-existent knowledge of the works (works they can't even
understand), they might go back and look at the works and figure out
that Sonnet 103 is describing a crapping contest between me and Your
Highness, and then, being the total idiots they are, they will then
conclude that the poem describes actual events (even though I meant it
as a joke), and so, even as late as 1623, the secret will have to be
maintained, because those Puritans would be so upset about this old
information about some poet/ playwright that they previously didn't
even care about, and the long-dead Queen, and then they would
disseminate the information far and wide, even to the stupider and
less-interested lower class, fomenting class tensions and potentially
threatening the stability of the government.

Government plotter # 1: We must find a man with a similar name to
pass off as the author of these popular poems and plays, someone who
everyone will believe is the man who wrote them.

Government plotter # 2: Then we can find some obscure legal cases ten
years down the road and we can insert faked references to the patsy in
them so that everyone will continue to think he was the author.

Oxenforde: He must also be illiterate, so that he could never make a
claim to have actually written the plays and poems. We couldn't
tolerate the Stratfordian ever actually claimong to have written the
works, even though that is exactly the cover story and subterfuge
we're planning to perpetuate.

Queen Elizabeth: Say what? Your fart smelt better than this offal
you're peddling now....your theory is inane.

> Paul.


Dom