Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"John Cartmell" <john@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:4f77454d68john@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <B9WdnbGhMJh4klnanZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Chess One
> <OneChess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "John Cartmell" <john@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:4f750ada8ejohn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > In article <YNKdnT3BNrwXjiPanZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Chess One
>> >   <OneChess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> There is no evidence whatever that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.
>> >
>> > In your terms: what would constitute 'evidence'. In common parlance 
>> > (and
>> > academic research) there is plenty of evidence - but you are clearly 
>> > more
>> > picky.
>
>> Perhaps I should re-emphasise that I am not speculating on
Shakespearean
>> author****p - but on methodology - and somewhere at the head of these 
>> posts
>> remarked that there is not /written/ evidence [which I dare call
>> 'normative' for academic] in his own hand of that to inform us.
>
>> Therefore the 'plentiful' evidence is not any form of primary material
-
>> and is indeed a somewhat mixed bag of second sourcing, suppositions
>> [rightly to whatever degree].
>
> There is plenty of primary material.

'Plenty'. You continue to make vague assertions and then...

>> So the 'how we know what we know' question is answered in the instance
of
>> Shakespeare by saying 'second sourcing of literary material from
>> contem****aneous sources'. There are additional materials which contest 
>> the
>> degree that Shakespeare wrote anything at all, or to what degree he
did. 
>> It
>> is not necessary to believe anything about this subject in order to
note
>> that varieties of opinion exist.
>
> What would *you* call primary material as to the author****p of the
plays?

....ask me to define your terms  <grin>

Please try to understand the /nature/ of the inquiry. If you assert 
something, // how // do you know it?

When I have asked people here they have become [mildly] abusive,
dismissive, 
vague and evasive! Yet ontology has to do with the nature of things, 
including our investigation of them. It is not an attack or challenge to
any 
particular knowledge, as much as to *****s the means we come to resolve on

the process of investigation.

In short, I find you unable to state how you know what you say, in this 
instance - and more than a little evasive on the subject.

>> Since these messages include a Cornish newsgroup, it is pertinent to
>> mention that Conrishman A. L. Rowse was [perhaps?] the principal
>> Elizabethan scholar of the immediately preceding decade at Oxford, and
>> author of some half dozen Shakespearean commentaries - and a frim
>> 'Stratfordian'. Yet even Rowse speculated that for LLL, the principal 
>> hand
>> in that was not Shakespeare but Bacon - since he saw in it something of
a
>> refutation of Euro Roscicrucianism; a certain sterility, which was
>> somewhat relieved by the arrival of les femmes.
>
> That is secondary material that I would certainly discard as of little 
> value
> (sorry Cornwall!).

And so this writer easily dismisses the chief Elizabethan scholar of an
age 
as of little value - on the direct topic of who wrote Shakespeare, and let

me suppose my and Rowse's English were too difficult for him, since
indeed, 
it if is not too difficult to understand a couple of compound sentences, 
then it must instead be too inconvenient.

Phil Innes

> [Snip]
>
> -- 
> John Cartmell john@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
> Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com
> Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
>