🚀 go-pugleaf

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> > >
> > > In the play 'Romeo and Juliet' a quarrelsome character
> > > by the name of Tybalt seeks trouble,
> >
> > Tybalt is Juliet's cousin who, angered at Romeo (a Montague)
> > gatecrashing the Capulets' ball - but being prevented by
> > Capulet from challenging him at the time - has apparently
> > sent a challenge to the Montagues' house and is now looking
> > for him.
> > >
> > > draws against Romeo's friend Mercutio,
> >
> > No he doesn't. Mercutio is the first to utter provocative
> > words and neither draws initially.
> > >
> > > this one also draws, a sword fight ensues,
> >
> > Not yet it doesn't. Romeo arrives, at which point Tybalt
> > says "Here's my man", and tries to provoke him to fight.
> > Romeo refuses (because this is Juliet's cousin), which
> > angers Mercutio as a "vile submission", and he's determined
> > to fight even if Romeo won't. He draws first, and some
> > lines later Tybalt draws too.
> > >
> > > Romeo intervenes, but in vain, he makes it only worse,
> > > Mercutio falls,
> >
> > Romeo tries to beat down their swords, but in doing so
> > allows Mercutio to be stabbed (under Romeo's arm). Tybalt
> > flees and Mercutio, mortally wounded but still alive, is
> > led away by Benvolio, who soon returns to say that he has
> > died. Romeo decides that this death must be revenged.
> > >
> > > whereupon Romeo takes revenge by killing Tybalt for
> > > having murdered his good and funny friend.
> >
> > Tybalt returns and Romeo challenges him. They fight and
> > Tybalt dies. Benvolio urges him to flee, which he does
> > eventually.
> > >
> > > Romeo was not guilty under Verona's law,
> >
> > The Prince arrives, and incensed that his prohibition of
> > any such fighting has been ignored and his kinsman Mercutio
> > killed, he banishes Romeo from Verona on pain of death.

Interesting that you snipped all of those parts of your own
report of what happened which I pointed out as being wrong.
Seems to me that in order to have anything sensible to say
about who wrote Shakespeare one should at least have a work-
ing knowledge of what was written. You apparently don't.

> Kindly consider me an eyewitness delivering my personal
> report. Ask the police, they will tell you that one witness
> saw a blue jacket, the next one a red jacket, and the third
> a yellow one. What counts in the end is that the right villain
> is revealed by a witness.

I see. So we are to assume that Shakespeare's own account of
what "really" happened was inaccurate? Interesting theory!

> > Peter Farey was joking. Any alleged "hidden meanings" like
> > these are worthless unless that meaning is grammatically
> > correct, says something which is actually meaningful, and
> > can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been placed
> > there deliberately.
>
> The joke in the Baroque theater is that the chester is speaking
> the truth, the least likely one to do so. And you, as a Marlowe
> supporter in the Shakespeare question, helped me establish
> de Vere. So Peter Farey made a fine joke.

Yes, we chesters have our uses. Pity you didn't get it.

> > The only "fine advice" I gave you was to make sure that you
> > have a satisfactory answer to the questions posed in my
> > short article at <http://tinyurl.com/ydzqv8r>. How are you
> > doing?
>
> I replied yesterday afternoon, telling you that I can't print
> out your blog, told you so in all detail, and therefore had to
> answer your question in a general way. Didn't you see it?

No I didn't. Not being a subscriber to sci.lang, the only posts
I would see as a matter of course would be those to newsgroup
<humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare>.

> Must I repeat it for you? Well then:
>
> (begin of copy)
>
> I just tried to print it out, impossible, four pages
> slid out of the printer, the first one with the title,
> rest of the sheet empty, then your blog on the next
> page, cut off in the middle of the second table,
> then another empty page, only a narrow column
> of advertisements on the margin, then a page with
> a couple of links at the top, rest empty. Most of
> your question blog swallowed. So I had to read
> it online and will answer it here, without having
> studied it at home.

You must have more trees in Switzerland, I guess?

> Kurt Kreiler wrote a book on
> The Man who Invented Shakespeare, I heard him
> on a radio program but didn't see his book, an
> English translation is bound to appear this summer,
> as I am informed, and he will answer your questions,
> I hope, for he found a lot of remote material.

I look forward to reading this in translation, although I'm
rather less optimistic than you are about his being able to
answer those specific questions, there being a complete lack
of success in doing so among your fellow-Oxfordians so far.

> For the
> time being I rely on him for the historical aspects
> and carry on my hermetic work.

Well good for you Franz. Despite evidence which utterly
demolishes your theory, you trust that one day there will
be a saviour who will refute such rubbish, since as every-
one knows, your theory is right!

<snip>

As I said:

> > Any alleged "hidden meanings" like these are worthless
> > unless that meaning is grammatically correct, says
> > something which is actually meaningful, and can be
> > proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been placed
> > there deliberately.

You weren't listening, were you?


Peter F.
<peter.f@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>