To our English Terenc[E] Mr. Will:

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

-------------------------------------------------
John Davies of Hereford
http://shakespeareauthorship.weebly.com/q--a.html
.................................................
The Scourge of Folly, Epigram 159-163 (1610)

To our English Terenc[E] Mr. Will: Shake-speare.
To his most constant, tho[U]gh most unknowne friend; No-body.
To my neere-de[E]re wel-knowne friend; Some-body.
To my much rega[R]ded and approved goo{D} friend, Thomas Marber{Y} [E]squire.
To my right de{E}re friend, approued fo{R} such, Iohn Panton Esquire.
..............................................
. <= 19 =>
.
. T o o u r E n g l i s h T e r e n c [E]
. M r.W i l l:S h a k e-s p e a r e. T o
. h i s m o s t c o n s t a n t,t h o [U]
. g h m o s t u n k n o w n e f r i e n
. d;N o-b o d y.T o m y n e e r e-d e [E]
. r e w e l-k n o w n e f r i e n d; S o
. m e-b o d y.T o m y m u c h r e g a [R]
. d e d a n d a p p r o v e d g o o {D} f
. r i e n d,T h o m a s M a r b e r {Y}[E]
. s q u i r e.T o m y r i g h t d e {E} r
. e f r i e n d,a p p r o v e d f o {R} s
. u c h,I o h n P a n t o n E s q u i r e.
.
{DYER} 19
[E UERE] 38 : Prob. in {DYER} array ~ 1 in 421
-------------------------------------------------
. (E)DW(E)ED [DYER/DEVERE]
...............................................
. Sonnet 76 (1609)

WHy is my verse so barren of new pride?
So far from variation or quicke change?
Why with the time do I not glance aside
To new found methods, and to compounds *STRANGE* ?

Why write I still all one, [EVER] the same,
And keepe inuention in a *NOT[(E)D W(E)ED]*,
That *[EVER]y WOR<D>* [D]oth almo{S|T} fel {M[Y] NAME},
Shewing th[E]ir birth, and whe[R]e they did proce[E]d?

O know sweet lo[V]e I alwaies writ[E] of you,
And you an[D] love are still (Y) argument:
So all (M)y best is dressing old words new,
Spending againe what is already spent:
..................................................
____ <= 14 =>
.
. A *N O T[(E) D W (E) E D] T h {A}{T}
. E V E R y w o r <D>[D] O t h a
. l m o {S}{T} F E L m [Y] N a m {E}
. S h e w i n g t {H}[E]<I> r b i
. r t h a n d w h e [R] e t h {E}
. y (D) i d p r o c e [E] d O <K> n
. o w s w e {E} t l o [V] e I a l
. w a i e s w r i t [E] o f y o
. u A n d y o u a n [D] l (O) v (E)
. a r e s t i l l m (Y) a r g u
. m e n t: S o a l l (M) y b e s
. t i s d r e s s i n g o l d
. w o r d s n e w,
..................................................
[DYER] 14 {Found by A.W.Burgstahler}
.
[(MY) DE VERE] -14 {Found by James Ferris}
.
[DYEREVED] 14 Prob. in any sonnet ~ 1 in 9375
..................................................
Edward de Vere & Edward Dyer:
.
1) Only two Shakespeare authorship candidates
. named Edward: http://tinyurl.com/6yqvqwz
.
2) Only two Shakespeare authorship candidates
. sharing yet another authorship controversy:
..........................................................
- [King Richard the Third (Quarto 1, 1597) 3.1]
.
Buckingham: [A HA] my Lord this prince is *NOT AN EDWARD* :
. He is not lulling on a lewd day bed,
. But on his knees at meditation:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

[nordicskiv2]

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:23:52 PM UTC-5, Arthur Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]

Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
____ <= 14 =>
.
. A *N O T[(E) D W (E) E D] T h {A}{T}
. E V E R y w o r <D>[D] O t h a
. l m o {S}{T} F E L m [Y] N a m {E}
. S h e w i n g t {H}[E]<I> r b i
. r t h a n d w h e [R] e t h {E}
. y (D) i d p r o c e [E] d O <K> n
. o w s w e {E} t l o [V] e I a l
. w a i e s w r i t [E] o f y o
. u A n d y o u a n [D] l (O) v (E)
. a r e s t i l l m (Y) a r g u
. m e n t: S o a l l (M) y b e s
. t i s d r e s s i n g o l d
. w o r d s n e w,
..................................................
[DYER] 14 {Found by A.W.Burgstahler}
.
[(MY) DE VERE] -14 {Found by James Ferris}
.
[DYEREVED] 14 [...]

"DYEREVED [sic]" is moronic nonsense, Art.

Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
.
1) Only two Shakespeare authorship candidates
. named Edward: http://tinyurl.com/6yqvqwz

Huh? So what, Art? What is your point, if any? Do you think (usual disclaimer) that there is something special about the number two? There is another pair of candidates who share the same name: Anne Hathaway and Anne Whateley.

But you would do well to read some of the notes on that page, Art:

"Kathman 2003, p. 621: 'Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings.'; Alter 2010 quotes James Shapiro: 'There's no documentary evidence linking their 50 or so candidates to the plays.'; Nicholl 2010, p. 4 quotes Gail Kern Paster, director of the Folger Shakespeare Library: 'To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a paleontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record.'

Indeed, it's like asking a mathematician about dogged angle trisectors, or asking a physicist about perpetual motion machines.

Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)