humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

"Dominic Hughes" wrote in message
news:bc9cd909-337e-4c46-9bea-2628f0507cdc@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>> > >>>>> Does it make a statement in the English
>> > >>>>> language?
>>
>> No. It makes a partial statement.
>
> Which is meaningless as evidence since the abbreviation of the name
> was never used in any public manner to identify the author of the
> works.

This 'argument' is pathetic enough to
qualify as 'stratfordian' -- or 'strat'. (In
future, when the debate is long past, its
technical sense will be forgotten, the
capital will be dropped, and the term will
be mostly one of abuse, much like (say)
'bastard' or 'moron'. Kids will shout it at
each other in playgrounds.)

Our poet tells us quite explicitly in the
Sonnets that his name is "Will" -- and
he puns on it in dozens of ways.

Of course, when 'Will' (fronted by the
illiterate country clod) sought to publish
his works, he was obliged to use his full
and proper "name". After all, his front
was a 'gent', and the abbreviated form was
used only colloquially, or by clowns and
peasants.


>> >>>>>> and who saw himself as the
>> >>>>>> poet of modern Pallas Athena?
>>
>> No. The connection to Athena is very weak, and the connection to
>> poetry close to non-existent.
>
> There is no connection to Pallas Athena, considering William
> Shakespeare was the name of an actual individual for whom a
> documentary record exisist which record, on its face

Yep -- that's the usual tactic. Ignore
the evidence. Retreat into your eternal
God-given truths as stated in your bible.
Galileo shows you the Jovian planets --
ignore them -- you know the word of
God and it cannot be wrong.

> and within the
> four corners of the documents, establishes a prima facie case that
> connects him to the plays, the theatres where the plays were
> performed, and the acting company that performed the plays.

Yawn. That's what you were told at
school, so it must be true.
[..]

> Crowley again:
>> Those who cannot see that "Will Shake-speare"
>> is a glorious Elizabethan pun, are excessively
>> stupid, devoid of a sense of humour, ignorant
>> of the entire corpus of Elizabethan literature,
>> and quite incapable of appreciating the canon.
>
> And yet I've never seen him cite a single Elizabethan who ever
> remarked on the hilarity, or even the existence, of this obvious and
> self-evident joke.

Have you ever seen any denial by an
Elizabethan of the existence of Tooth
Fairy? Or of Santa Claus?

> Nobody at the time ever documented the connection
> between the name "William Shakespeare" and the Queen's identification
> with Pallas Athena.

You can be sure that if such a document
had come into existence, it would not
have remained intact for long.

> Those who speculate that the name of a living, breathing individual
> named William Shakespeare,

You left out the words 'illiterate' and
the phrase 'with illiterate daughters'.

[..]

Paul.