Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:GNWwj.5123$g81.316@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chess One 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.
>
> Where did this criterion suddenly pop up from?

It is suddenly nothing. The means of asking is of epistemology, which is
to 
say, 'how we know things', which is a perennial means of inquiry.

> And why are you suddenly applying it to Shakespeare, rather than any of 
> his contem****aries or predecessors?

You are perhaps not aware that Shagsper is the most known author in the 
world, and the 'suddeness' of my inquiry is merely to illustrate that such
a 
person has so little known of him that his precedents might be considered
in 
a similar way.

> You know perfectly well that even if there were anything in his own hand

> that there are kooks who would flatly deny it. And we can be sure that 
> even if there were agreement that Hand D of "The Boke of Sir Thomas
More" 
> were Shakespeare's that you would not accept it.

?   I am not contesting author****p of Shakespeare, but asking how anyone 
knows aught? That, you see, is simply normal procedure for an
anthropologist 
of antiquarian. Not what you know, but how you know.

Do you even understand the issue here, of 'Shakespeare', or anyone long 
before Shakespeare? I do not quite understand you challenge above, if it
is 
a challenge, since essentially, I ask you directly what you know, and how 
so, rather than rhetorically.

>> 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].
>
> You are defining "primary" somewhat arbitrarily - and disingenuously.

I am sure that you are fraught with constraint, so that you merely fling 
aspersion, having not the time to back it up or define your terms.
Otherwise 
I must conclude you cannot actually contest the point, and a bit of a big 
girl about it.

>> 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.
>
> There certainly are not any "additional materials" of any sort - and
these 
> "varieties of opinion" are beneath contempt.

Not beneath yours though, since you mention them. [lol]

My remark mentions that there are varieties of opinion, and I think
Brigg's 
response indicates, in all its elucidation, that he doesn't have another 
thought in his head resulting from his own wit, and cannot cope with any 
challenge to the God-Like [if anonymous] people he espouses.

>> 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,
>
> Immediately preceding what?

The decade previously referenced.

>> 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.
>
> A.L. Rowse said a lot of very silly things - and he was a historian
rather 
> than a literary scholar - but I find it hard to believe that he would
say 
> anything quite as silly as that - except, perhaps, as an academic joke,
in 
> which case it wasn't written for the likes of you.

Briggs finds it hard. How harder will he be if he actually reads Rowse?
But 
since Briggs hasn't actually read the Author on the topic, be 'finds it 
hard' to understand him.

Pfft! Which is understandable. That is to say, his ignorance of the
author's 
opinion is not a mystery, as is, since he hasn't read Rowse, his opinion 
that he is not a 'literary scholar'. Presumably for Mr. Briggs Rowse was 
some other kind?

> He would, however, have been able to spell "Rosicrucianism", and
probably 
> would have known that it never existed.

Pardon?

Will someone please do a trance medium****p thingy-ma-bob with Frances A. 
Yates, and inform her that her brilliant history is, in the opinion of Mr.

"no" Briggs, bust.

> I suppose I shouldn't really be so harsh on you - it is one of the
hazards 
> of being an autodidact that one is exposed to all sorts of abberrant 
> thinking without necessary possessing the ability to discriminate.
> -- 
> John Briggs

Not at all! It is my pleasure to attend upon the ignorant, the willfully 
ignorant, and even those who have nothing to say of their own wit, though 
project their visions of the cosmos, and how others must be wrong, without

attempt to converse on such in any known form of civil discourse, upon the

ethers and upon the others.

Cordially, Phil Innes