humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 12, 1:50=EF=BF=BDam, "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. =EF=BF=BDLet'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. =EF=BF=BDLet'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 mentioned the two biographies earlier, and with a mom-
> ent's thought it might have occurred to you how unlikely
> it would be for a Marlovian to have written an orthodox
> biography of either of them, let alone both.

MM:
That's why I said, "Hold on a minute," as the incongruence was
apparent. I thought you were going to discuss Hoffman.

> 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.

MM:
People who don't know the truth won't exclude anything, if they are
fair. I know the truth, and that is why I exclude every other so-
called candidate.

> > 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:
>
> =EF=BF=BDTHE TULIPS
> =EF=BF=BD (With apologies to W.W.)
>
> =EF=BF=BD I stand a-tiptoe in a field
> =EF=BF=BD Of tulips where, it seems to me,
> =EF=BF=BD The stony ground will never yield
> =EF=BF=BD A bloom sown by 'lackpurity' -
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD Bane of slow-learning troll-controllers
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD And dime-a-dozen pigeonholers.
>
> =EF=BF=BD I spin and skate and dodge, 'tis true,
> =EF=BF=BD Although I know that my discussion
> =EF=BF=BD (Backassward to our Strat Guru)
> =EF=BF=BD Will lead to karmic repercussion.
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD To smell the coffee it will take
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD O'er 40 years. Give me a break!
>
> =EF=BF=BD Same ol' same ol's capacity,
> =EF=BF=BD It don't mean zilch, so this is left
> =EF=BF=BD To readers' own sagacity -
> =EF=BF=BD Of flogging, each dead horse bereft.
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD My heart from 'hind I cannot tell -
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD So here I'll tiptoe. LOL

MM:
Very good!

> > One tactic I've noticed with regards to Anti-Strats
> > is that they often blur the reality and try to overlap
> > with Stratfordianism. =EF=BF=BDIn fact, it seems that you have
> > been doing that to some extent in your recent replies
> > to me. =EF=BF=BDI'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.

MM:
I noticed it, but I also noticed everything else you wrote. Let's
broaden the scope a bit. You should have put that phrase in your
poem. LOL

> > > 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.

MM:
Anti-Strats always try to claim that Stratfordianism is just a
theory. I replied to Neuendorffer last night, acking him not to
equate Strats with Anti-Strats. There are "facts," associated with
Stratfordianism, not just fantasies, nor just allegations. That is a
big difference. I know Anti-Strats want to gain equal respect, and
that is why they claim they are no different than Strats, but there
are big differences between facts and fantasies.

> > > > > > 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.

MM:
When you have a fact, then it is not a theory. Let's get that
straight. If Anti-Strats want to make everybody liars, conspirators,
the will is false, Shakespeare's name on the FF is false, etc.,
etc.., then it is the problem of Strats, IMO. IOW, they can't tell
the difference between facts and fantasies, IMO.

> > You have a right to your own "logic," but your logic
> > makes so many people liars and conspirators. =EF=BF=BDIt
> > trashes what Strats consider as truth, etc.. Same
> > ol', same ol'..
>
> People tell lies, Michael. Get used to it.

MM:
That doesn't mean that Jonson was lying. Sorry.

> But very
> few actually needed to do so in this case;

MM:
I notice, both you and Crowley try to diminish the scope of the secret
silent cover-up. I know why, because it is so ridiculous, that nobody
will buy it. I don't think you, nor Crowley, will be able to keep the
conspiracy small. There are too many names involved in it, too many
children, too many grandchildren, too many witnesses, etc., etc...

> and having
> someone (with the author's permission) presenting his
> work as theirs alone is not a conspiracy.

MM:
Here you go again, trying to keep the cover-up small. The commission
of a fraud by two or more persons is 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, which is to assume
> > > that anything you *imagine* to be true must be true -
>
> > MM:
> > Mystics don't imagine. =EF=BF=BDThey see and know the truth.
>
> They imagine they see and know the truth.

MM:
Not true mystics.

> However, the
> 'truth' that real mystics imagine they 'see and know'
> bears no resemblance to the bilge that you come up with.

MM:
This is about as ridiculous as your Marlovian Theory.

> '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.

MM:
Ridiculous, and I don't think you have a clue to what mysticism is.

> > You're a hypocrite for "imagining" that, Farey. =EF=BF=BDI
> > 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.

MM:
Anybody who covers-up the truth, the silent secret conspiracy must be
part of your theory, as I see it. Your double-talk about Jonson is
meaningless. Misleading can certainly be the same as lying.

> > You recently imagined that Dugdale did a sketch of
> > a monument to someone that he didn't even know who
> > he was. =EF=BF=BDTalk about imagining things! =EF=BF=BDThe 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.

MM:
The engraving is fine with me. I have no problem with it, at all.
Shakespeare was a writer, as well as a mystic. So, I have no problem
with the engraving, nor the sketch of the monument.

> 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.

MM:
That's understandable. LOL

> > > an approach which, as Dominic keeps pointing out,
> > > rules out any rational discussion with either of you.
>
> > MM:
> > We can end it, anytime. =EF=BF=BDI'm getting a little tired of
> > your pigeonholing of me, anyway.
>
> Then stop bombarding us with pigeon-shit.

MM:
I'll leave this discussion to the sagacity of the readers.

> Peter F.
>
>

Michael Martin