humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

"Dominic Hughes" wrote in message
news:024c133c-87f5-43d9-93a6-8440b28907a8@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

>>>> Your 'question' is transparently
>>>> no more than a delaying tactic. You don't
>>>> deny my assertion; but you don't want
>>>> to agree with it. So you make an entirely
>>>> fake request for 'evidence'.
>>
>>> My request for your evidence was not "fake" in any way. I made it
>>> before you admitted that your analysis relies only on guesswork.
>
> Requests for 'more evidence' are -- in any
> field -- very often no more than delaying
> tactics or, more bluntly, obscurantism.
> That's what they are with you, and with
> Strats generally.
>
>> All 'historical analyses' rely on guesswork.
>
> This statement is simply incorrect.

The usual term is 'interpretation' --
with the same meaning.

>> Your notion that there is some infallible
>> source of historical knowledge is mistaken,
>> if quite typical of a Strat.
>
> This is a strawman argument on your part.

It is not a strawman. It is an assertion
about the manner in which Stratfordian
'historians' work.

> My notion is that there are
> original documents that demonstrate that William Shakespeare of
> Stratford was the author of the plays, was an actor in the acting
> company that performed the plays, and was a shareholder in the theater
> where the plays were performed.

The 'record' is pathetic. In their rare
honest moments Strats often express
astonishment about the skimpiness
of the record left by 'Shake-speare' in
comparison with that for genuine
historical figures like Ben Jonson.

Strats 'KNOW' what went on, and
create a story in their own heads,
filling in the huge gaps in the record
with all sorts of imagined events --
for most of which they believe records
MUST exist. But -- in their rare honest
moments -- are amazed to discover
how little there is to back it up.

Of course, the few records that do
exist do not, in fact, back up their story,
as they would see if they looked at
them properly. But that they should do
such a thing would be inconceivable.

> Typically, you are unable to rebut the reasonable
> implications of those documents.

The reasonable implications of the all
the records are (pretty much) the direct
opposite of what you believe. For example,
those about the 'lodger of Silver Street
tell the story that the Stratman was a
nobody -- an illiterate but cagey country-
man, who watched his spending, and
who was reluctant to say anything
straight and honest.

Reasonable implications of all the
other records are similar. That is even
more so when we take them as a whole.
There is not one indication that he was
literate, let alone an author.

>> None of us were
>> there, and we can base our judgements only
>> on the surviving records.
>
> Exactly my point -- our judgments should be based only on the
> available records. We should not take guesswork as fact (as you do)
> when there are no records to support such guesswork.

Our judgments should be based on
the record. As one example (from
thousands) we can see that no human
being ever looked like the image in
the Folio (all its editions), and that it
is manifestly a joke -- telling us that
much more is going on than meets the
eye.

>>Of course, we
>> have to apply common sense, and realise
>> that everyone did not always tell the exact
>> literal truth.
>
> This necessarily involves guesswork on your part. There is no way,
> factually, that you or I can determine or decide that any of the
> witnesses or documents related to William Shakespeare of Stratford are
> not telling the exact literal truth.

There are plenty of ways. The most
obvious is when the superficial story
makes no sense (as in the Folio image
or the 'lodger of Silver Street' ). Another
is the lack of significant repercussions
from the Essex Rebellion, another is the
absence of any mention by the Stratman
(or his relatives) of his supposed service
as a member of the Royal Household .
. . . and so on and on and on.

>>> Your
>>> assertions as to the illiteracy of Shakespeare's relatives are not
>>> worthy of any serious consideration, since they constitute rank
>>> speculation and are not based on any factual evidence.
>>
>> Yet again you cannot claim that the
>> Stratman had any literacy in his family
>> background but, being a thoroughly
>> dishonest Strat, neither can you admit
>> it -- so you are reduced to this pretence
>> of ignorance.
>
> Not at all...I am merely recognizing that anything you or I say as to
> the literacy or illiteracy of the family is merely guesswork and rank
> speculation, because there are no records from which a definitive
> determination can be made.

What a twit! What do you expect?
A written affidavit from the Stratman
affirming his illiteracy? The whole
point is that there is nothing from
him in writing -- except those 'jokes'
of signatures.

> The only ignorance involved would be to
> state something as unequivocal fact when no evidence exists to make
> such a statement. Honesty on this issue requires a statement that the
> truth of the matter can not be determined.

And God is Love. How can 'the truth
of the matter' be established in anything
historical? You are simply looking for
an excuse to dodge. In the great bulk of
historical issues, we judge on the balance
of probabilities. Here they are over-
whemingly to the effect of the illiteracy
of the Stratman's whole family.

> We can certainly examine
> the facts that are available to us, and make an honest statement as to
> our opinion on the probabilities one way or the other, but to state
> that there is no doubt as to the matter is dishonest.

So where do the probabilities lie?
How come you cannot decide?

>> To you he MIGHT have
>> had great authors in his family -- they
>> just happen to be quite unknown.
>> (What total fools Strats are obliged to
>> be!)
>
> Why do you set up these strawman arguments? Please supply any
> statement from me in which I even suggested that Shakespeare of
> Stratford had great authors in his family other than himself. You
> will be unable to do so.

I was merely setting out the kind of
background we would expect for a good
(let alone great) author. The Stratman's
background is so far removed from that,
that any claim in his respect is close to
insane.
[..]

> How did James Murray emerge from a background of illiteracy

Where do you get this from? His father
was a draper. Have you evidence he was
illiterate?
[..]

> Your response was a Mickey Mouse answer that would be laughed out of
> any rational discussion.

On what grounds? Do you deny that people
have often written false names, to avoid
being traced by the taxman, or by others?

In this case, we have the apparently
extraordinary inability of the taxman to
locate the most famous and popular writer
of the day. Venus & Adonis, and Lucrece
sold very well. Under the Stratfordian
scenario, he was packing the theatres
with his plays, as well as prancing about
on stage. Every educated person -- and
many uneducated -- would have known
the name. You quote Manningham in
1602 recording that joke in his diary.

The Stratfordian scenario -- in this matter,
(as in all others) -- is quite absurd.

> As I said before, if you attempted to make
> such an argument in a legal case, you'd be laughed out of the
> courtroom and your client would have grounds for a malpractice action
> against you.

It's a shame that you cannot say why.
[..]

>> Was Mickey Mouse
>> regularly employed in dockyards and
>> other places of casual work in the
>> 1930s and 40s? Since he is recorded
>> as such, Stratfordians must necessarily
>> believe that he was a very busy fellow.
>
> Utter nonsense. William Shakespeare was the name of a living,
> breathing person.

Wrong. It was the name of a poet
(often spelled with a hyphen). Anyone
with any sense could see that it was a
pseudonym. No one in London knew
the name (Will Shacksber?) of an illiterate
living in Stratford-upon-Avon who could
not spell his own name in any case.

> I hate to break this to you, as it may cause the
> collapse of your fantasy world of guesswork and rank speculation, but
> Mickey Mouse is a fictional character.

Irrelevant. "Mr. & Mrs Smith" frequently
registered at hotels for week-end breaks.

>> People commonly write false names
>> when they don't want to be traced --
>> to avoid tax or for other reasons. The
>> 'joking' element is usually concealed
>> from the first person to read the record.
>> But I appreciate that as a Strat you
>> know nothing about the real world.
>
> So you can't cite any instances when any false names were inserted in
> the government records of the times.

There was one indisputable occasion in
1613 when apparently the most famous
actor of the age (Burbage) joined with the
most famous poet and playwright of the
time, to do a minor one-day paint job.
Although some Strats are so dopey that
they actually believe this record was
genuine.

> And your assertion that such was
> done in the multiple tax records regarding William Shakespeare is
> nothing but a guess, devoid of any evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is indisputable. How
could such a famous person escape
his taxes?

> You're the joker who isn't dealing with the real world?

Yep. Will Shake-speare was a famous
person. But he was also so unknown
he could not be traced.

> Your argument (if it can even be called that) is that some
> unidentified person wrote into the tax records and other official
> records the name "William Shakespeare" just as someone today might
> jokingly write down "Mickey Mouse" on some
> unidentified document (or because he didn't want to be traced)? And
> you think your guesswork is rational?

What on earth do you find irrational?
Some literate (and probably educated)
joker having a bit of fun with the barely
literate, while avoiding the taxman?
I suppose it would never happen in
your suburb, so you can't believe it
could anywhere at any time.
[..]

>> Phillips was called in after the performance
>> of Richard 2 for the Essex plotters. He
>> seems to be more central than the rest.
>
> Why would Phillips have been called in if the government already knew
> that it was Oxenforde who was the author? They could have gone
> straight to him and asked him what was going on.

What an idiot you are. Under the
Stratfordian scenario, the great mystery
is why the author was never questioned,
let alone imprisoned or executed. (Of
course, Strats are so brainless that they
are incapable of wonder.)

In fact, the play had been written 20 or
30 years earlier. Oxford would have
had no responsibility for performances
around 1600 -- other than agreeing to
the publication of the quartos in 1597/8.
[..]

> In order to be rational, one must rely on a review of the facts in
> evidence. Conjecture and guesswork do not qualify as facts. A review
> of the known and documented facts establishes a prima facie case for
> the Stratman's authorship.

This is completely false. The 'reviews' of
the facts made by Stratfordian 'scholars'
invariably (indeed necessarily) start from
a position of a firm and unquestioned
belief in the Stratman's authorship.

There is no possibility within the modern
academic framework of looking at this
question objectively. The "known and
documented facts" are lists of theories,
assumptions and superstitions where
records are read to mean the opposite of
what they say. Typical is the mention in
Groatsworth, where apparently a letter is
addressed to the Stratman (as playwright)
telling him to have nothing to do with
a scandalous person -- the Stratman as
actor. This story appears in every basic
textbook, although without any reference
to the slight contradiction.

The rest of Stratfordian 'scholarship'
maintains this high standard.

> Your job, if you wish to install Oxenforde
> as the true author of the works, is to rebut the Stratman's case with
> evidence of your own

There is no great need for additional
evidence. The foolishness of the Strat
case is manifest to all with eyes.

But I provide plenty -- in my account of
the Sonnets.


Paul.