humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 1, 6:43=A0am, "Paul Crowley"
wrote:
> "Dominic Hughes" wrote in message
>
> news:33e39a2e-14b2-4485-b4c6-91f7dbfdd39d@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> No serious Shakespeare scholar or
> >>>> Elizabethan historian would argue that
> >>>> the Anne Hathaway was literate.
>
> >>> As usual, Crowley has no evidence for the unequivocal pronouncements
> >>> he makes.
>
> >> As usual -- for all Strats -- Hughes cannot deal
> >> with any response, except to repeat his bluster.
>
> > You made certain assertions.
> > I asked you for the evidence that you relied on for those assertions.
> > Your response contained no evidence.
>
> I asserted that the Stratman's mother was
> illiterate, and that no serious student of
> those times disputes that. =A0You, being
> deeply ignorant, don't accept that as
> evidence -- wanting to persist untroubled
> in your irrational superstitious beliefs.

You can't even remember your own assertions. You asserted that the
mother, father and wife of William Shakespeare were all illiterate. I
asked you for the EVIDENCE that YOU relied on to support your
assertions. Without citing anyone in particular, you replied that no
serious student of the times would sipute that they were illiterate.
You obviously have no idea whatsoever as to what quaqlifies as
evidence. What is also interetsing is that you cite "serious students
of the times" as authority for the proposition that the mother, father
and wife were illiterate, but you would condemn those same authorities
as idiots when they would not dispute that Shakespeare of Stratford
was the author. You don't know what evidence is and you are mentally
incapable of mounting an argument.

> >> That penmanship is not the sloppiness
> >> we so often see from the hands of the
> >> careless literate. It is the striving of the
> >> quite incompetent. It has some similarity
> >> to the writing of a typical seven-year old.
> >> There is no fluency. This person has only
> >> rarely sought to draw the letters, and is
> >> liable to do it in an uncertain and varying
> >> manner each time.
>
> > These are your opinions...
>
> You don't deny them, of course.

Actually, I did. I offered the example of modern physicians, all
fully literate, who have notoriously bad, often illegible,
penmanship. You felt compelled to snip that argument because you had
no answer for it.

> =A0Every
> Stratfordian looking at those 'signatures'
> objectively must be aghast. =A0

Not at all.

> It's the
> same for every scrap of evidence in the
> entire field. =A0There is NOTHING that
> supports the Strat 'argument'. =A0

You obviously do not have the mental ability to understand what
qualifies as evidence that supports an argument. Can you define the
"TOTALLY different nature" of the so-called evidence on which you
rely?

There is plenty of evidence that supports the Strat argument. Your
job is to impeach that evidence -- to show that is not authentic or
reliable. So far you have failed miserably at that task.

> It isn't an
> argument -- it's a set of very stupid
> assumptions. =A0

The irony is rich. Your entire case is built on stupid assumptions.
You have no documentary evidence such as that which tends to prove the
Strat argument. All you have is speculation.

> This sad tale was sold to
> a bunch of exceedingly ignorant folks,
> and you are still lumbered with it.

None sold me anything. You have bought into the voices in your head.

> > they are not facts that prove that
> > Shakespeare's sloppy penmanship shows his illiteracy.
> >> These 'signatures' are all on legal
> >> documents, where the person was
> >> supposed to be signing his whole
> >> name -- and where any abbreviations
> >> would be out of the question.
>
> > Can you provide some evidence for your assertion that abbreviations
> > were not used in legal documents of that time.
>
> What kind of a clown are you?

One who laughs at your stupidity.
So you have done no research into legal documednts in Elizabethan
times and whether abbreviations were ever used in executing such legal
documents. In fact, in your delusional state, you somehow believe
that how we sign legal documents now is definitive as to how
Elizabethans signed legal documents.

> Do you sign legal documents with
> the nickname you had at school?
> ("Dom Dumbo Huge" . . ?)

If you get any more immature, you'll be a zygote...

> [..]
>
> >>> So Richard Field was one of the plotters.
>
> >> He didn't have to be -- but he probably
> >> was. Although the term should really
> >> be " . . . one of the jokers . . ". It was
> >> a great practical joke, played on the
> >> profoundly ignorant.
>
> > Speculation with no evidentiary foundation.


MORE UNACKNOWLEDGED SNIPS BY THE COWARD CROWLEY

> None of us were there, nor have full
> information on what took place. We
> have to fill the gaps with guesses as
> to what was likely. =A0

Hurrah...Crowley admits that his argument is merely guesswork.

>The test then is
> whether or not they are reasonable.
> Stratfordian guesses often take the
> form "He must have learnt this recondite
> items of information from a sailor in a
> bar . . ". =A0"He knew no French . . but he
> could have asked a Frenchman in
> London to write this passage for him . . . "

As opposed to the unreasonable Oxenfordian guesses...the documents
that connect the Stratfordian to the plays, the acting company, and
the theaters must all be forgeries because....well, just because.

> > From =A0Reedy And Kathman:
> > List of Non-literary References to William Shakespeare of Stratford-
> > upon-Avon
> > 1594 (Record of payment to Chamberlain's Men; December 28)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Will. Shakespeare"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (handwritten) (EKC II, 319; facs. SS, 136)
>
> This is 'non-literary'?

This is an argument attacking the credibility or authenticity of this
document? Your job, if you wish to impeach this evidentiary support
for the Stratfordian argument, is to provide an objective and rational
attack on the credibility or authenticity of the document. You
obviously have no ability to do so.

> > 1596 (Writ for sureties of the peace by William Wayte; Michaelmas
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Term)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "William Shakspere"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (handwritten)
>
> This sounds like the equivalent of
> the numerous instances of 'Mickey
> Mouse'. =A0

??? "This sounds like the numerous instances of Mickey Mouse" --
where? Your job, if you wish to impeach this evidentiary support for
the Stratfordian argument, is to provide an objective and rational
attack on the credibility or authenticity of the document. What it
sounds like to you is not evidence that even slightly impeaches the
evidence.

> The local 'Dogberry' was
> clearly not into recently published
> bawdy literature.

Non sequitur. You clearly don't know what qualifies as evidence, you
are unable to put together any cogent rebuttal of the Stratfordian
theory, and you are mentally incapable of mounting a coherent argument
in support of your own guesswork.

> > 1597 (List of tax defaulters, St. Helen's parish, London; November 15)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "William Shackspere"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (handwritten)
>
> > 1598 (List of tax defaulters, St. Helen's parish, London; October 1)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "William Shakespeare"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (handwritten)
>
> > 1598-9 (List of tax defaulters, St. Helen's parish, London)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Willelmus Shakespeare"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (handwritten)
>
> It seems that the authorities were
> anxious to locate a number of
> 'Michael Mice'.

This is the best you can do? Pathetic. If this were a legal case and
your argument depended on raising a legitimate, reasonable doubt as to
the authenticity or credibility of these documents, your Mickey Mouse
claims would be laughed out of court, and your client would sue for
malpractice.

You claimed that the Stratfordian was merely an occasional visitor to
London. These documents show otherwise. You don't have a response.

> > 1599 (Inventory of property of Thomas Brend, whose son Sir Nicholas
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0owned the grounds on which the Globe stood; May 16)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Willielmi Shakespeare"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (handwritten)
>
> Some joker in the theatre company.

Crowley indulges in more stupid, unreasonable guesswork, devoid of
evidence.

> > 1599 (List of tax defaulters; Residuum London of Pipe Roll for 1598-9;
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0October 6))
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Willelmus Shakspeare"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (handwritten)
>
> Another 'Michael J. Mouse'.

Another stupid and pathetic attempt at impeachment.

> > 1601 (Deed transfering the Globe and other Southwark properties
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 from Nicholas Brend to Sir Matthew Brown and John
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Collett as security for a 2500-pound debt; October 7)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Richard Burbadge and William Shackspeare gent."
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (handwritten)
>
> Seemingly written down years later,
> when a retrospective account of the
> 'great years of the London Theatre'
> was being related.

The passage of time does not invalidate evidence...in some cases, it
may be a factor that can be considered in determining the credibility
of the evidence, but it is not definitive. The existence of other
documents that corroborate the information tend to establish its
credibility, far more than the alleged passage of time pose any
legitimate questions as to its authenticity.

> > 1601 (Updated deed for the above transaction; October 10)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Richard Burbage and William Shakspeare gentlemen"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (handwritten)
>
> The same.

The same -- your guesswork is pitiful.

> > 1602 (Diary of John Manningham; March 13)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Shakespeare"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Shakespeare"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (handwritten; John Manningham)
>
> Desperate. =A0Apparently the name was
> in the public domain. =A0What a surprise!

You made the claim that Shakespeare was merely a visitor to London.
You have also made the claim that the plotter-jokers intentionally
chose him to impersonate the author, knowing that he was illiterate.
You've claimed that he never would have met Burbage. There are
documents that connect the Stratfordian to the plays, the company that
performed the plays, and the theaters where they were performed. The
diary entry by Manningham is merely one of those documents, this one
connecting William Shakespeare to the theater and to Burbage. This is
more than just a name being in the public domain. This is an actual
joke (as opposed to your supposed jokes) with specific references to
William Shakespeare, Burbage, and the plays (in this case, Richard III
- elsewhere, the law student, Manningham, makes reference to Twelfth
Night).

>

SNIPS BY THE COWARD CROWLEY
Is this really the best you can do?
You obviously are unable to argue your case or rebut the evidence that
tends to prove the Stratfordian case.

> > One more time...what evidence do you have, of the nature that is
> > commonly accepted to be evidence or of the "TOTALLY different nature"
> > that you claim exists, for your pronouncement that the plotters picked
> > intentionally chose an illiterate man to stand in for the author, so
> > as to play a joke on the ignorant.
>
> His manifest illiteracy -- among
> much else.

You have yet to provide anything other than your opinion for the
argument that Shakespeare was illiterate, and you have failed to rebut
the evidence that he was literate. Your assertion that he was
illiterate is merely speculation on your part -- it is not evidence.

> You can choose to believe in a
> tooth fairy -- if you want. =A0

No thanks.

> But don't
> pretend that it's a rational choice.

How ironic...you talking about rationality.

> At some point your betters spun
> you an extraordinarily stupid story
> -- one that could be believed only
> by children or the weak-brained.

Too true...you think you're my better (more delusion on your part),
and you've spun an extraordinarily stupid story -- one that could be
believed only by dimwitted children or the weak-brained.

> For some pathetic reasons, you
> want to hold on to it.

Here you're wrong...I want to kick it around like I've been doing.
> [..]
>
> > In addition, William Shake-speare was a real name.
> > =A0It was the real name of a real person (and was the real
> > name of other real people in England prior to the Stratford man's
> > birth).
>
> Names of roughly that sort had been
> around. =A0But given the great variety of
> spellings, it would be hard to exclude
> almost any two syllable name using
> two fairly common syllables.

Your answer is non-responsive to the point that was made.
You get more incoherent the longer this goes on.

>

SNIPS BY THE COWARD CROWLEY
Is this really the best you can do? You have no answer and so are
reduced to snipping what you obviously can't handle. Talk about
pathetic...
You obviously are unable to argue your case or rebut the evidence that
tends to prove the Stratfordian case.

> Paul.

Dom