humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:31:24 -0800 (PST), Roundtable
wrote:

>On 21 Feb., 04:55, Tom Reedy wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 11:36 am, "Ms. Mouse" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > [snip--don't think I've missed anything. Let me know if I have.]
>>
>> > > > And what are you promoting, Tom? As it happens I'm not promoting
>> > > > Oxfordiana, I'm just interested in what really happened, and have
>> > > > changed my mind in the past about many issues that affect authorship,
>> > > > both in Oxford's favour and against it.  But even if the "entire
>> > > > excercise" had been about Oxford since Day One, as you state, what
>> > > > does that matter? Would that nullify our research? Does your hope to
>> > > > rescue Strachey to confirm Stratfordian thinking nullify yours? Do you
>> > > > feel, like the scholar I mentioned above, that scholarly research
>> > > > should be prohibited to Oxfordians?
>>
>> > > Of course not. It's just that I've seen precious little that qualifies
>> > > as such. Even your and Roger's essay is rife with error and
>> > > misquotation, along with unsupported assumptions and leaps of logic.

I've been wondering whether to compare Tempest to Bermuda, Gillian's
Island, Gulliver's Island, The Island of Dr. Moreau, or Devil's
Island. Here, TR gives us search clues that the island has 1) rife
error, 2) misquotation, 3) unsupported assumptions, and 4) leaps of
logic. I imagine this might describe a moral allegory like Pilgrim's
Progress, where Scholar (Ms Mouse) gets to solve Tempest re dating
puzzle by surmounting each of these obstacles, probably represented by
tempters, villains, and wild animals. I'm working on a mental picture
of how logic looks leaping, etc..