Post Reply
Page 11 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11
Switch to Forum Live View Why Does Alaska Hate Bears?
3 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2012 - 12:55PM #101
mindis1
Posts: 8,142

Jan 28, 2012 -- 4:32PM, solfeggio wrote:


Getting back to Shakespeare, a much more amenable subject of discussion:


Once upon a time, as the legend goes, you could surprise a bear by shoving a mirror in his face.  The idea was that the bear would stare at his image, giving the hunter ample opportunity to aim and fire at him.


Decius, in Julius Caesar, does this:


Unicorns may be betrayed with trees


And bears with glasses.


If the Alaskans were to use mirrors to trap bears, would far fewer of them be killed?


Of course, perhaps the Alaskan authorities might prefer bear-baiting, once so popular with the masses, and spoken of by Fabian in Twelfth Night.  And then there is Clifford in Henry VI:


Are these thy bears?  We'll bait thy bears to death,


And manacle the bear-ward in their chains,


If thou darest bring them to the baiting place.


So, what's a bear-ward?  Well, bearwards or bearherds were keepers of bears attached to royal households in olden times.


Should bearwards make a comeback in Alaska?  Possibly, instead of killing the bears with mirrors (or rifles), they could be captured and used for bear-baiting.  That might prove very entertaining for the common folk.  Of course, it's a cruel, inhumane 'sport,' but they still do it in Pakistan, and what's good enough for Pakistan is certainly good enough for Alaska.


And, since when did those folks that so enthusiastically hunted wolves from planes care whether a sport was cruel or inhumane?


 




I’d say that ancient or early modern methods of bear-baiting were less cruel than the aerial gunning that the Alaska Board of Game has instituted, where bears and wolves are chased to exhaustion, often in deep snow, with nowhere to seek cover, and then are shot. Apparently “clean” shots are rare with aerial gunning. “Clean” shots of wild animals are rare under the best of circumstances. Then, after the animal suffers a slow death, the aerial gunner goes and retrieves the carcass at his convenience.


It’s really little different than snaring, which is also part of this predator control program--except, I suppose, aerial gunning is more fun for the killer. Wolves and foxes left in snares and traps have been known to chew their own legs off.


This is a topic that cries out for education. It’s a shame to present the predator control program as something that Alaskans support, since the vast majority do not.




Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2012 - 1:01PM #102
mindis1
Posts: 8,142

Jan 27, 2012 -- 5:39PM, mindis1 wrote:

If you have concluded from the evidence that the man from Stratford was the author of the plays and sonnets, why don’t you lay out that case?



For anyone interested (which will be no one, despite this being a blazing hot topic), it cannot be concluded from the evidence that the man from Stratford was the author of the Shakespearean corpus. Few ideas are more absurd than that this man with, at most, a grammar school education wrote the plays and poems. The plays exhibit the author’s extensive learning in the law, in the literature of the day and in the ancient classics (including Plato’s Symposium, not translated into English at the time; and Ovid’s original Metamorphoses), an intimate knowledge of the royal court, of the recreations of the nobility, of the latest scientific discoveries, of music, and of Italian cities, correctly describing local Italian customs and particular works of art. The man from Stratford evidently never owned a book, had no friends or acquaintances among the nobility, evidently never wrote or received a letter, had illiterate parents and children, owned no musical instrument, and never visited the Italian cities whose local color the author animated in such detail. The sonnets are completely incomprehensible as the work of the man from Stratford.


In contrast, the evidence is literally overwhelming, and increases every year, that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is the author of the Shakespearean corpus. Nearly a dozen scholarly books have been written compiling the evidence that indicates de Vere as the playwright and poet. The sonnets become comprehensible in de Vere’s voice: it is readily understandable why de Vere was saying such things to the Earl of Southampton; it is unintelligible why the man from Stratford would be. Hamlet becomes illuminatingly autobiographical with de Vere as the author, as do dozens of other subplots and incidents in the plays.


In seeking to answer the authorship question, de Vere’s Geneva Bible alone constitutes prima facie evidence. This Protestant-exile Bible, specially made as a gift for de Vere, contains about one thousand marked or underlined verses and about 40 marginal notes by de Vere. About 250 of the marked verses or notes correspond to passages in the plays. (www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=83  And:  www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualcla... And: shake-speares-bible.com/bible-faq/) These hundreds of underlinings/notes must be accounted for in some way. And there is simply no rational explanation for these underlinings/notes other than as indicating de Vere as the author of the plays. We certainly do not have even one underlining or margin note in a book in the hand of the man from Stratford that corresponds to any passage in any play.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2012 - 2:27PM #103
costrel
Posts: 6,226

Jan 31, 2012 -- 1:01PM, mindis1 wrote:

Jan 27, 2012 -- 5:39PM, mindis1 wrote:

If you have concluded from the evidence that the man from Stratford was the author of the plays and sonnets, why don’t you lay out that case?


For anyone interested (which will be no one, despite this being a blazing hot topic), it cannot be concluded from the evidence that the man from Stratford was the author of the Shakespearean corpus. Few ideas are more absurd than that this man with, at most, a grammar school education wrote the plays and poems. The plays exhibit the author’s extensive learning in the law, in the literature of the day and in the ancient classics (including Plato’s Symposium, not translated into English at the time; and Ovid’s original Metamorphoses), an intimate knowledge of the royal court, of the recreations of the nobility, of the latest scientific discoveries, of music, and of Italian cities, correctly describing local Italian customs and particular works of art. The man from Stratford evidently never owned a book, had no friends or acquaintances among the nobility, evidently never wrote or received a letter, had illiterate parents and children, owned no musical instrument, and never visited the Italian cities whose local color the author animated in such detail. The sonnets are completely incomprehensible as the work of the man from Stratford.


In contrast, the evidence is literally overwhelming, and increases every year, that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is the author of the Shakespearean corpus. Nearly a dozen scholarly books have been written compiling the evidence that indicates de Vere as the playwright and poet. The sonnets become comprehensible in de Vere’s voice: it is readily understandable why de Vere was saying such things to the Earl of Southampton; it is unintelligible why the man from Stratford would be. Hamlet becomes illuminatingly autobiographical with de Vere as the author, as do dozens of other subplots and incidents in the plays.


In seeking to answer the authorship question, de Vere’s Geneva Bible alone constitutes prima facie evidence. This Protestant-exile Bible, specially made as a gift for de Vere, contains about one thousand marked or underlined verses and about 40 marginal notes by de Vere. About 250 of the marked verses or notes correspond to passages in the plays. (www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=83  And:  www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualcla... And: shake-speares-bible.com/bible-faq/) These hundreds of underlinings/notes must be accounted for in some way. And there is simply no rational explanation for these underlinings/notes other than as indicating de Vere as the author of the plays. We certainly do not have even one underlining or margin note in a book in the hand of the man from Stratford that corresponds to any passage in any play.



No, the Oxford hypothesis is not a blazing hot topic. You've got a lot of interesting information there, but you don't seem to deal with the dating problem. De Vere was dead years before some of the final plays were supposedly written (like The Tempest). In addition, you have lots of speculation, such as the assumption that the Stratford man didn't have enough education to write some of the things in the plays (and who's to say that the Stratford man didn't study and learn things after his grammar school days?). And your whole argument about Shakespeare not owning a book, and never writing or receiving a letter, and never owning a musical instrument, and that his daughter Judith might have been illiterate (and are you suggesting that his other daughter Susanna was also illiterate?), sounds like just as much unprovable fanciful and imaginary fluff as Stevie Davies when, in Emily Bronte: Heretic, she fancifully discusses how Emily Bronte had a fulfilling masturbatory life. And what evidence do you have that his father, John Shakespeare, was illiterate? What then of the tradition of John Shakespeare's last will and testament (the original unforuntately being currently lost, but which was printed in 1790)? Do you consider the whole testiment to have been a forgery? And authors don't have to actually visit the cities in which they set their stories. Also, perhaps Shakespeare never had any friends or acquintences among the nobility, but he did perform before Queen Elizabeth and his theatre troupe did become the King's Men under James I. 


Likewise, one does not have to assume that we must read the sonnets as autobiographical in the way that Wordsworth read the sonnets as if they were autobiographical. As you probably learned in a literature class along the way, one should not automatically conclude that the use of first-person perspective in a poem means that the poem is autobiographical. (And perhaps de Vere is the author of the sonnets and the man from Stratford is the author of the plays. Printers routinely tried to capitalize on the name of Shakespeare when he was still alive and published poems and even plays as if they were his. So it's possible that the sonnets and the plays come from two different people.)


You've got a lot of fanciful ideas and lots of "maybes" and "perhapses," and little else, and you seem to be yet another one of those elitist scholars who don't like the possiblity that a glover's son with a grammar school education might just be the author of the greatest works in English literature. Considering that the actors Hemmings and Condell published the plays of Shakespeare and that other authors such as Ben Jonson prefaced the First Folio with tributes to Shakespeare, what you and the other Oxfordians suggest is a conspiracy over the course of many years perpetuated by a great many people.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 02, 2012 - 3:05AM #104
Father_Oblivion
Posts: 11,924

Jan 26, 2012 -- 2:55PM, mindis1 wrote:


Jan 25, 2012 -- 4:17PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Jan 24, 2012 -- 4:16PM, mindis1 wrote:


Provide the data that substantiate your claim that adhering to the Board of Game’s policy that forbids “manipulat[ing] the population of one species to benefit the hunting of another” will result in “starvation or massive assault on the environment.”




You have missed my point. I do not contend that adhering to the Board of Game's policy will result in starvation or massive assault on the environment. It is planting gardens and building hothouses that will cause starvation or a massive assault on the environment



Then provide the data that show that planting gardens and building hothouses will cause starvation or a massive assault on the environment.  




Are you serious?


Do you seriously need data to prove that vegetation does not thrive at -40C?


Do you seriously need data to prove that trucking enough equipment hundreds of miles through wilderness that may not even be passable to motorized vehicles in order to build hothouses large enough to support a population of people who have survived almost exclusively on meat for thousands of years would cause a severe impact on the environment?


I had a greater respect for your intelligence than this response of yours demands.

The important thing to remember about American history is that it is fictional, a charcoal-sketched simplicity for the children or the easily bored. For the most part it is uninspected, unimagined, unthought, a representative of the thing and not the thing itself. It is a fine fiction...
Neil Gaiman
'American Gods'

‎"Ignorance of ignorance, then, is that self-satisfied state of unawareness in which man, knowing nothing outside the limited area of his physical senses, bumptiously declares there is nothing more to know! He who knows no life save the physical is merely ignorant; but he who declares physical life to be all-important and elevates it to the position of supreme reality--such a one is ignorant of his own ignorance."
- Manly Palmer Hall
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 02, 2012 - 4:21AM #105
Father_Oblivion
Posts: 11,924

"Bears are not companions of men, but children of God, and His charity is broad enough for both... We seek to establish a narrow line between ourselves and the feathery zeros we dare to call angels, but ask a partition barrier of infinite width to show the rest of creation its proper place. Yet bears are made of the same dust as we, and breathe the same winds and drink of the same waters. A bears days are warmed by the same sun, his dwellings are overdomed by the same blue sky, and his life turns and ebbs with heart-pulsings like ours and was poured from the same fountain....."
- John Muir

The important thing to remember about American history is that it is fictional, a charcoal-sketched simplicity for the children or the easily bored. For the most part it is uninspected, unimagined, unthought, a representative of the thing and not the thing itself. It is a fine fiction...
Neil Gaiman
'American Gods'

‎"Ignorance of ignorance, then, is that self-satisfied state of unawareness in which man, knowing nothing outside the limited area of his physical senses, bumptiously declares there is nothing more to know! He who knows no life save the physical is merely ignorant; but he who declares physical life to be all-important and elevates it to the position of supreme reality--such a one is ignorant of his own ignorance."
- Manly Palmer Hall
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 02, 2012 - 12:38PM #106
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Feb 2, 2012 -- 4:21AM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


"Bears are not companions of men, but children of God, and His charity is broad enough for both... We seek to establish a narrow line between ourselves and the feathery zeros we dare to call angels, but ask a partition barrier of infinite width to show the rest of creation its proper place. Yet bears are made of the same dust as we, and breathe the same winds and drink of the same waters. A bears days are warmed by the same sun, his dwellings are overdomed by the same blue sky, and his life turns and ebbs with heart-pulsings like ours and was poured from the same fountain....."
- John Muir




Very nicely said.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2012 - 4:36PM #107
mindis1
Posts: 8,142

Jan 31, 2012 -- 2:27PM, costrel wrote:


Jan 31, 2012 -- 1:01PM, mindis1 wrote:

Jan 27, 2012 -- 5:39PM, mindis1 wrote:

If you have concluded from the evidence that the man from Stratford was the author of the plays and sonnets, why don’t you lay out that case?


For anyone interested (which will be no one, despite this being a blazing hot topic), it cannot be concluded from the evidence that the man from Stratford was the author of the Shakespearean corpus. Few ideas are more absurd than that this man with, at most, a grammar school education wrote the plays and poems. The plays exhibit the author’s extensive learning in the law, in the literature of the day and in the ancient classics (including Plato’s Symposium, not translated into English at the time; and Ovid’s original Metamorphoses), an intimate knowledge of the royal court, of the recreations of the nobility, of the latest scientific discoveries, of music, and of Italian cities, correctly describing local Italian customs and particular works of art. The man from Stratford evidently never owned a book, had no friends or acquaintances among the nobility, evidently never wrote or received a letter, had illiterate parents and children, owned no musical instrument, and never visited the Italian cities whose local color the author animated in such detail. The sonnets are completely incomprehensible as the work of the man from Stratford.


In contrast, the evidence is literally overwhelming, and increases every year, that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is the author of the Shakespearean corpus. Nearly a dozen scholarly books have been written compiling the evidence that indicates de Vere as the playwright and poet. The sonnets become comprehensible in de Vere’s voice: it is readily understandable why de Vere was saying such things to the Earl of Southampton; it is unintelligible why the man from Stratford would be. Hamlet becomes illuminatingly autobiographical with de Vere as the author, as do dozens of other subplots and incidents in the plays.


In seeking to answer the authorship question, de Vere’s Geneva Bible alone constitutes prima facie evidence. This Protestant-exile Bible, specially made as a gift for de Vere, contains about one thousand marked or underlined verses and about 40 marginal notes by de Vere. About 250 of the marked verses or notes correspond to passages in the plays. (www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=83  And:  www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualcla... And: shake-speares-bible.com/bible-faq/) These hundreds of underlinings/notes must be accounted for in some way. And there is simply no rational explanation for these underlinings/notes other than as indicating de Vere as the author of the plays. We certainly do not have even one underlining or margin note in a book in the hand of the man from Stratford that corresponds to any passage in any play.



No, the Oxford hypothesis is not a blazing hot topic. You've got a lot of interesting information there, but you don't seem to deal with the dating problem. De Vere was dead years before some of the final plays were supposedly written (like The Tempest). In addition, you have lots of speculation, such as the assumption that the Stratford man didn't have enough education to write some of the things in the plays (and who's to say that the Stratford man didn't study and learn things after his grammar school days?). And your whole argument about Shakespeare not owning a book, and never writing or receiving a letter, and never owning a musical instrument, and that his daughter Judith might have been illiterate (and are you suggesting that his other daughter Susanna was also illiterate?), sounds like just as much unprovable fanciful and imaginary fluff as Stevie Davies when, in Emily Bronte: Heretic, she fancifully discusses how Emily Bronte had a fulfilling masturbatory life. And what evidence do you have that his father, John Shakespeare, was illiterate? What then of the tradition of John Shakespeare's last will and testament (the original unforuntately being currently lost, but which was printed in 1790)? Do you consider the whole testiment to have been a forgery? And authors don't have to actually visit the cities in which they set their stories. Also, perhaps Shakespeare never had any friends or acquintences among the nobility, but he did perform before Queen Elizabeth and his theatre troupe did become the King's Men under James I. 


Likewise, one does not have to assume that we must read the sonnets as autobiographical in the way that Wordsworth read the sonnets as if they were autobiographical. As you probably learned in a literature class along the way, one should not automatically conclude that the use of first-person perspective in a poem means that the poem is autobiographical. (And perhaps de Vere is the author of the sonnets and the man from Stratford is the author of the plays. Printers routinely tried to capitalize on the name of Shakespeare when he was still alive and published poems and even plays as if they were his. So it's possible that the sonnets and the plays come from two different people.)


You've got a lot of fanciful ideas and lots of "maybes" and "perhapses," and little else, and you seem to be yet another one of those elitist scholars who don't like the possiblity that a glover's son with a grammar school education might just be the author of the greatest works in English literature. Considering that the actors Hemmings and Condell published the plays of Shakespeare and that other authors such as Ben Jonson prefaced the First Folio with tributes to Shakespeare, what you and the other Oxfordians suggest is a conspiracy over the course of many years perpetuated by a great many people.



Costrel, you have written a lot here (and very rapidly) without actually addressing my points.


I began with the question: If you have concluded from the evidence that the man from Stratford was the author of the plays and sonnets, why don’t you lay out that case? One can only assume that your non-response to this question means that you are unable to argue that William from Stratford was the author of the Shakespearean corpus.


What else need be said on the idea that the man from Stratford was the author? Given the fact that one cannot argue from the evidence that he was the author, it is illogical to assume that he was the author. Right?


I further noted that in seeking to answer the authorship question, de Vere’s Geneva Bible constitutes prima facie evidence. You did not respond to this issue at all. I noted that this Bible, with its 250 marked/annotated verses corresponding to passages in the plays, must be accounted for in some way. You did not attempt to account for this Geneva Bible or de Vere’s markings or margin notes in it.


It has long been known that the Geneva Bible was the primary scriptural source used by the Shakespearean author. Why would the man from Stratford quote from the Geneva Bible? William from Stratford was born of a conspicuously Catholic family, and married into a conspicuously Catholic family. Stratford seems to have been a hotbed of Catholics at this time, including the majority of the schoolmasters at the grammar school where William probably attended. It makes no sense whatsoever that the man from Stratford would use as his source this Bible translated by Protestant exiles from England and with its infamous anti-Catholic annotations. There is no evidence that William from Stratford ever owned any Bible, much less the Geneva Bible.


In contrast, it makes perfect sense that de Vere used the Geneva Bible as his scriptural source in the Shakespearean plays and poems: he was given a specially made Geneva Bible, in which he marked and annotated verses that are present in the plays and poems. In at least one case, de Vere referred to the same marked Biblical passage in a letter to his father-in-law: Thus two extra-textual sources, in de Vere’s hand, for a Shakespearean passage. It fits together like the pieces of a puzzle.


 


Likewise, one does not have to assume that we must read the sonnets as autobiographical in the way that Wordsworth read the sonnets as if they were autobiographical. As you probably learned in a literature class along the way, one should not automatically conclude that the use of first-person perspective in a poem means that the poem is autobiographical. (And perhaps de Vere is the author of the sonnets and the man from Stratford is the author of the plays. Printers routinely tried to capitalize on the name of Shakespeare when he was still alive and published poems and even plays as if they were his. So it's possible that the sonnets and the plays come from two different people.)


You've got a lot of fanciful ideas and lots of "maybes" and "perhapses," and little else . . .


Obviously it is your post, not mine, that consists of little more than useless speculations and legend. If you believe there is any reason or evidence that leads to the conclusion that the sonnets were some kind of weird exercise in fiction, or were written by someone other than the author of the plays (an ironic speculation from someone who eschews “conspiracies” on principle), then present this evidence. I don’t know what the speculation means that the sonnets were not intended as autobiographical. To whom is the pronoun “I” in the sonnets supposed to refer, if not the author?


Likewise, if you have some evidence or reason to conclude that The Tempest was written after de Vere’s death, then present it. Such evidence certainly won’t help one conclude that the man from Stratford wrote any play.


In the literature that compiles the evidence of de Vere’s authorship, the dating of The Tempest or the plays generally has not proven a problem. It has certainly never been shown that The Tempest or any other play was dependent on any source that eliminates de Vere as the playwright. For instance, see “How Shakespeare Got His Tempest: Another ‘Just So’ Story,” by Stritmatter and Kositsky (page 205):


Abstract The one-hundred-year tradition identifying William Strachey’s True Reportory (TR)* as a paramount Tempest source and influence is rooted in a history of critical error and omission and contradicted by a host of stubborn facts about TR’s genesis and textuality. Alden Vaughan’s recent critique of our Review of English Studies article perpetuates this tradition of error, failing to provide a substantive critique of the theory that TR, as subsequently published in 1625, was not completed until at least 1612, far too late for it to have been a Tempest source. The recent discovery in Bermuda of an early draft of the Strachey manuscript, lacking in plausible ties to The Tempest, compounds the crisis of the orthodox paradigm by supplying a textual exemplar confirming our argument: That if any version of Strachey’s text returned on the July 1610 Gates’ voyage, it would have been a much abbreviated draft lacking the literary and rhetorical flourishes of the published document. Neither Vaughan nor the sources on which he depends (Kathman, Cawley, etc.) have established evidence “from sign” of TR’s influence on Tempest; a far more persuasive source of Shakespeare’s New World imagery and ethos is Richard Eden’s 1555 translation of Iberian travel narratives, Decades of the Newe Worlde.


www.briefchronicles.com/ojs/public/journ...


The highly informative Review of English Studies background article by Stritmatter and Kositsky, “Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited,” begins:


A two-century critical tradition that the 1609 Bermuda shipwreck literature (Jourdain 1610, ‘True Declaration’ 1610, Strachey 1625) establishes a terminus a quo for The Tempest is incorrect. Strachey’s True Reportory, the only Bermuda pamphlet now thought to have significantly influenced The Tempest, was put into its only extant form too late to be used as the play’s source and probably after the play had already been produced in 1611. Strachey, a notorious plagiarist even by early modern standards, borrowed much that his narrative shares with The Tempest from earlier sources also accessible to Shakespeare.


www.shakespearestempest.com/articles/res...


You have mentioned the prefaces attributed to Jonson, and Hemings and Condell in the First Folio, and have suggested that such tributes or legends would be too great a “conspiracy” for these men to maintain. But there was nothing more common in Elizabethan-Jacobean England than noms de plume. It wasn’t considered a “conspiracy” then any more than claiming Mark Twain is actually Samuel Clemens is considered a “conspiracy” today. It seems everyone understood what was going on except the geckes. You haven’t articulated any argument that leads from the prefatory attributions in the First Folio to the conclusion that the man from Stratford wrote the plays and poems. Obviously there isn’t any such argument.


Here is what the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition says about the First Folio as “evidence” that the man from Stratford wrote the Shakespearean corpus:


There are four main reasons to identify Mr. Shakspere of Stratford with the author William Shakespeare. First, the name “William Shakespeare” (often “Shake-speare”) appeared on the title pages of many of the poems and plays published during his lifetime. Second, Ben Jonson wrote a key phrase in the First Folio referring to the author as “Sweet Swan of Avon,” and Leonard Digges refers to “thy Stratford moniment.” Third, fellow actors Heminges and Condell, mentioned in his will, point to him as the author in the Folio. Fourth, the effigy and inscription on his Stratford monument suggest that “Shakspeare” had been a writer. These four reasons would seem to amount to a prima facie case for Mr. Shakspere (evidence sufficient to establish a presumption of fact, unless rebutted by other evidence); however, each of them is problematic.


1. It is not certain from the title pages that the name printed on them necessarily refers to Mr. Shakspere. Mr. Shakspere's last name was spelled numerous ways, even after many of the works had been published. The name on the works was virtually always spelled one way, “Shakespeare;” but it was often hyphenated -- a rarity for English names at the time. Scholars have no definitive explanation for the hyphenated name. Mr. Shakspere's name was never hyphenated in other contexts, such as his business dealings in Stratford. On his baptismal record, even on his monument, Mr. Shakspere's name was spelled with no “e” after “k.” The same is true of its three appearances in his will, twice spelled “Shackspeare,” and once “Shakspeare.” Some think that it may have been pronounced with a short “a,” like “Shack,” as it was quite often spelled.


2. The First Folio testimony does point to Shakspere as the author, but should this be taken at face value? It is very unusual that the identity of such a great writer would depend so heavily on posthumous evidence. Neither Ben Jonson, nor Leonard Digges, ever wrote a personal reference to Mr. Shakspere while he lived. Not until the year Shakspere died did Jonson refer to “Shakespeare,” and then only to list him as an actor. Other than their two brief allusions, neither Jonson nor Digges offered any further identifying information -- not his dates of birth and death, or names of any family members, or any revealing episode from his life. Short on individualizing facts, they gave us generalized superlatives that describe the author, not the man.


3. Perhaps the strongest link to Mr. Shakspere is the apparent testimony of actors Heminges and Condell. Neither of them was a writer, however, and several scholars doubt that they wrote the passages attributed to them. Some think their Folio testimony sounds like a sales pitch, urging undecided readers to purchase. Most orthodox scholars are untroubled by the lack of corroboration, limited specifics, ambiguities, puffery and unclear role of Mr. Shakspere's fellow actors. Skeptics ask why the Folio is not more straightforward, and why such a great outpouring of eulogies only occurred following seven years of silence after his death.  [Emphasis mine.]


www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration


The First Folio raises numerous problems for the idea that William from Stratford was the Shakespearean author, and in the end does more to point to de Vere. No family member or executor of the Stratford man’s estate was involved in the publication--of course, the Stratford man mentions no unpublished or published manuscripts in his will, which would have been quite valuable to his heirs. (Likewise, the man from Stratford was not involved in the 1609 publication of the sonnets; and the detailed 17-year-long records of Philip Henslowe’s Rose Theatre, where the Shakespearean plays were performed regularly, reveal that the Stratford man never received payment for any play--there is no record of him ever having received payment from anyone for the production of any play.) However, as the de Vere Society notes, the two brothers who financed the publication of the First Folio and to whom it is dedicated were closely connected to de Vere: one, the Earl of Montgomery, being the husband of de Vere’s daughter Susan. It is further noted that Jonson “was an intimate associate of the de Vere family after Oxford's death.”  www.deveresociety.co.uk/OxfordBiography....


 


And your whole argument about Shakespeare not owning a book, and never writing or receiving a letter, and never owning a musical instrument, and that his daughter Judith might have been illiterate (and are you suggesting that his other daughter Susanna was also illiterate?), sounds like just as much unprovable fanciful and imaginary fluff as Stevie Davies when, in Emily Bronte: Heretic, she fancifully discusses how Emily Bronte had a fulfilling masturbatory life.  


The claims noted in my sentence--  


“The man from Stratford evidently never owned a book, had no friends or acquaintances among the nobility, evidently never wrote or received a letter, had illiterate parents and children, owned no musical instrument, and never visited the Italian cities whose local color the author animated in such detail”


--are deductions from the available evidence. If you know of any evidence that any of these (or any other) claims are erroneous, then present that evidence.


I find the idea surreal that the author of the Shakespearean corpus was a man who had, at most, a grammar school education, who evidently owned no books, or bookcase or writing desk, who evidently never wrote or received a letter, who owned no musical instrument, who never visited Italy, who had not even mastered the art of penmanship adequately so that he could scribble his name legibly. The author of the plays and poems was a voracious reader and writer, was exposed intimately to the court and the aristocracy, was familiar with classical literature than had not been translated into English, had a practical efficiency in the most advanced musical knowledge of the day, was trained in the law, knew that one strolled beneath sycamore trees along Verona’s western wall, knew that “the duke’s oak” where Bottom and Quince meet to rehearse their play in A Midsummer Night’s Dream was an open-air loggia accessed through the entrance gate of the Italian city (Sabbioneta) known as “Little Athens,” knew that one could travel from Verona to Milan by boat--and that the aristocracy generally did so, as it was the safest ticket. (www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-roe-metter..._)


 


No, the Oxford hypothesis is not a blazing hot topic.  


In fact, just as I said, the problem that it cannot be concluded from the evidence that the man from Stratford was the author of the Shakespearean corpus is a blazing hot topic, sweeping the world like a wildfire, or maybe like a flood, at least in Shakespearean circles. The past couple of decades have seen a multitude of scholarly books published arguing for de Vere as the author (it seems I underestimated the number earlier), with hardly, if, any books published attempting to argue for the man from Stratford. The Stritmatter dissertation in 2001, on de Vere’s Geneva Bible, was something of a watershed on the authorship issue. The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition, founded in 2006, has attracted more than 2200 signatories on its “Declaration of Reasonable Doubt” (see link above) consisting of “over 800 persons with advanced degrees, nearly 400 current or former college faculty members (including many leaders in their fields), two U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and numerous Shakespearean actors.” No such declaration or signatories exist supporting William of Stratford as the author.


In September of last year, shortly before Anonymous was released, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust announced “a campaign to debunk the ‘conspiracy theories’ surrounding the authorship of Shakespeare’s works”. This campaign consisted of “60 actors, writers and scholars” responding to 60 questions (supposedly) related to the authorship issue. To correct the imbalance of only Stratfordian responses to the questions, the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition obtained answers from some of its “doubters”. It’s good stuff: doubtaboutwill.org/pdfs/sbt_rebuttal.pdf


I recommend that everyone whose soul has ever boiled from the heat of a Shakespearean line should read the answers, all 78 pages. I realize that might be a lot a reading for the average Stratfordian.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2012 - 4:43PM #108
mindis1
Posts: 8,142

Feb 2, 2012 -- 3:05AM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Jan 26, 2012 -- 2:55PM, mindis1 wrote:


Jan 25, 2012 -- 4:17PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Jan 24, 2012 -- 4:16PM, mindis1 wrote:


Provide the data that substantiate your claim that adhering to the Board of Game’s policy that forbids “manipulat[ing] the population of one species to benefit the hunting of another” will result in “starvation or massive assault on the environment.”




You have missed my point. I do not contend that adhering to the Board of Game's policy will result in starvation or massive assault on the environment. It is planting gardens and building hothouses that will cause starvation or a massive assault on the environment



Then provide the data that show that planting gardens and building hothouses will cause starvation or a massive assault on the environment.  




Are you serious?


Do you seriously need data to prove that vegetation does not thrive at -40C?



That isn’t even close to the claim that you made that I asked you to substantiate, is it?


It is planting gardens and building hothouses that will cause starvation or a massive assault on the environment


How about let’s accept that goofy claim as baseless?  


BTW, FO, the caribou and moose, whose numbers the Board of Game wish to increase by killing predators, live on air, right?


BTW, FO, since the moose and caribou that “subsistence hunters” have chosen to feed upon experience huge mortality rates each winter, should not the subsistence hunters also?


Is there any reason why people who have wandered onto permafrost and can’t figure out how to feed themselves except by killing endangered animals and destroying the ecology of a national park should be allowed to engage in such activities? If so, what is that reason?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 11 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook