Stratfordian Fundamentalism - RIP?
From: "gangleri" <gunnar.tomasson@...> Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare Subject: Re: Christopher Marlowe - Peter Farey - May 30, 1593/2005 Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:04:54 -0700 Tom. Your rhetorical style - "there is not the slightest reason to think that etc." - conveys a sense of secure command over the subject matter which, in the present case, is a splendid example of what Whitehead termed "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness." Let me explain. 1. At issue is the question whether Edmund Spenser's "Our pleasant Willy" - And he the man, whom Nature selfe had made = 15104 To mock her selfe, and Truth to imitate, = 17230 With kindly counter vnder Mimick shade, = 18240 Our pleasant Willy, ah is dead of late: = 15329 With whom all ioy and iolly meriment = 17352 Is also deaded, and in dolour drent. = 13104 = 96359 - is meant to denote Edward Oxenford playcast as "willy" in the context of Shakespeare Myth. Since you do not admit of any such play-acting being afoot in the first place, your views on the subject matter reduce to mere restatement of your Orthodox Stratfordian faith. The same goes for your view that Gematria is worthless insofar as resolving any literary puzzle such as the identity of "Our pleasant Willy". 2. David Kathman, who knows all incidental details and understands nothing about the substance of the Shakespeare Mystery, has cited the following verse penned by hand along with two of the Holy Trinity Church Shakespeare memorial inscriptions in a copy of the First Folio which is now in the Folger Library - Heere Shakespeare lyes whome none but Death could Shake = 23237 and heere shall ly till judgement all awake; = 16602 when the last trumpet doth unclose his eyes = 21976 the wittiest poet in the world shall rise. = 22014 = 83829 - as surefire proof that the writer was memorializing Will Shakspere. Of course, Kathman can't entertain any alternative construction without giving the lie to his professed certitude insofar as the Shakespeare Authorship Issue is concerned. 3. A couple of days ago, before I put these particular pieces of the puzzle together, I identified "Our pleasing Willy's" death of late on Mons Veneris as marking the End of one cycle of Shakespeare Myth and the Beginning of another - with the End of Edward Oxenford's "houre vpon the stage" and the Beginning of that of Gulielmus Shakspere. The first proposition accords with the Cipher Sum 7936 - 1000 + 1612 - 2801 + 6783 + 83829 = 96359, where 7936 = Edward Oxenford; - 1000 = Darkness; 1612 = Hell; - 2801 = Our pleasing Willy (Penis, 2801) "dead of late" (-); and 6783 = Mons Veneris. **** Here is the 1895 version of Edward Oxenford/Prince Hamlet "coming before Ophellia" on being "loosed out of hell" (Act II, Sc. i): Enter Ophelia Polonius: How now, Ophelia! what's the matter? Ophelia: Alas! my lord, I have been so affrighted. Polonius: With what, in the name of God? Ophelia: My lord, as I was sewing in my closet, Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbrac'd; No hat upon his head; his stockings foul'd, Ungarter'd, and down-gyved to his ancle; Pale as his shirt; his knees knocking each other; And with a look so piteous in purport As if he had been loosed out of hell To speak of horrors, he comes before me. Polonius; Mad for thy love? Ophelia: My lord, I do not know; But truly I do fear it. Polonius: What said he? Ophelia: He took me by the wrist and held me hard, Then goes he to the length of all his arm, And, with his other hand thus o'er his brow, He falls to such perusal of my face As he would draw it. Long stay'd he so; At last, a little shaking of mine arm, And thrice his head thus waving up and down, He rais'd a sigh so piteous and profound That it did seem to shatter all his bulk And end his being. That done, he lets me go, And, with his head over his shoulder turn'd, He seem'd to find his way without his eyes; For out o' doors he went without their help, And to the last bended their light on me. ---------- Compare descriptions of Edward Oxenford's condition and appearance when caught in the act of 'brownswerdish' buggery - the flip side of "coming before" Ophelia. ---------- 4. But is there any indication that Edward Oxenford alias Prince Hamlet alias William Shakespeare, 9322, may have passed the baton, so to speak, to Brownswerd, - 4000, Gulielmus, 5322, Shakspere? Yes - as in 9322 - 4000 = 5322. 5. Some time ago, I advanced the notion on this forum that the ONLY extant reference by Edward Oxenford to Francis Bacon was meant to 'document' the latter's assumption of responsibility for adapting, revising, and augmenting Oxenford's "booke" to make it reflect the Shakspere Cycle of Shakespeare Myth. Of course, to admit of any such construction of the record would scuttle the leaky vessel of Stratfordian Fundamentalism - and the notion was roundly rejected. The reference in question reads as follows: For I am aduised, that I may passe = 12363 my Booke from her Magestie yf a warrant may be procured = 22634 to my Cosen Bacon and Seriant Harris to perfet yt. = 21532 = 56529 6. Now, here is a problem - and reason for Stratfordian True-Believers to heap scorn on Gematria as admissible tool of analysis in Shakespeare Studies - for the orthodox construction of the record. The problem is 'spelled' 56529 + 1000 + 2801 + 7 + 360 + 35662 = 96359, where 1000 = Light of the World; 2801 = Penis; 7 = MAN-Beast of Seventh Day; 360 = Devils' Circle; and 35662 = The Stratfordian's "Houre Vpon The Stage".* * As in 17252 + 2602 + 1564 + 10026 + 2502 + 1616 + 100 = 35662, where 17252 = Gulielmus filius Johannes Shakspere; 2602 = April 26; 1564 = 1564; 10026 = Will Shakspere gent; 2502 = April 25; 1616 = 1616; and 100 = The End **** The Saga-Shakespeare Cipher Key and Calculator is posted on the Internet at http://www.light-of-truth.com/gunnartomasson/ciphers.htm