humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 11, 6:00=EF=BF=BDam, "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?

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?

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.

> 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.

> > > > 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. =EF=BF=BDWorry 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. 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'..

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

> 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.

> Peter F.
>
>

Michael Martin