Discussion:
Gary Taylor (a 10 oclock scholar)
(too old to reply)
Arthur Neuendorffer
2014-08-25 03:37:13 UTC
Permalink
http://tinyurl.com/matb47n
---------------------------------------------------
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110606141024AA2lliA

What is the meaning of nursery rhyme A diller a dollar a 10 oclock scholar?

jeanette wrote: <<The word 'diller' is a Yorkshire term for a boy who is dim-witted and stupid so this rhyme seems to be a moral lesson warning the importance of punctuality. The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes by Iona and Peter Opie (Oxford, OUP, 1951) suggests that 'a diller, a dollar' are taken from the words dilatory and dullard or that maybe 'a diller, a dollar' is related to dilly-dally. As English schools traditionally started at nine o'clock or earlier, anyone who arrived even at ten o'clock would certainly be very late.

A 'diller' according to the New Geordie Dictionary (the dialect spoken by Geordies - natives of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England) by Graham is an 'unwilling scholar,' - a lazy student who isn't too excited about having to do the work required of him. In the above Mother Goose nursery rhyme (circa 1760) an unwilling and 'unpunctual' student is being chastised for his tardiness and this nursery rhyme had, in fact, become a children's chant used to chide a student who was late for school.>>
---------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taylor_%28scholar%29

<<Gary Taylor (born 1953) is an American academic, George Matthew Edgar Professor of English at Florida State University. The first member of his family to graduate from high school, Taylor won scholarships that led to bachelor's degrees in English and Classics from the University of Kansas (1979) and to a doctorate in English from the University of Cambridge (1988). With Stanley Wells, he worked for eight years as the "enfant terrible" of the Oxford Shakespeare (1978-86), a project that generated much controversy through editorial decisions such as printing two separate texts of King Lear and attributing a poem commonly known as "Shall I die?" to Shakespeare (*an attribution that has since been almost universally rejected*).
...................................................
Shall I die? Shall I fly? Lovers' baits and deceits, sorrow breeding?
Shall I tend? Shall I send? Shall I sue, and not rue my proceeding?
In all duty her beauty Binds me her servant for EVER.
If she scorn, I mourn, I retire to despair, joying nEVER.
Yet I must vent my lust And explain inward [P]ain by my love breed[I]ng.
If she smiles, {S}he [E]xiles All my moan;
. if [S]h{E} frown, all my hopes deceiv{I}ng

-- Suspicious doubt, O kee{P} out, For thou art my tormentor.
Fly away, pack away; I will love, for hope bids me venter.

[PIES] 17
{PIES} -22
...................................................
Taylor devoted twenty years to The Collected Works of Thomas Middleton, published by Oxford University Press in 2007. With John Lavagnino, he led a team of 75 contributors from 12 countries to produce "the Middleton First Folio," designed to establish Middleton's status as "our other Shakespeare." Among other works, Taylor and Lavagnino chose to print the entire texts of William Shakespeare's plays Macbeth and Measure for Measure, on the theory that Middleton revised both of these plays after their original composition. They include Shakespeare's Timon of Athens as well, but in this case postulating that it was a collaboration between the two authors. Also included in the volume are such anonymous plays as A Yorkshire Tragedy, The Second Maiden's Tragedy (presented under the title The Lady's Tragedy) and The Revenger's Tragedy, which are generally, though not universally, credited to Middleton by modern scholars.>>
---------------------------------------------------
Son of a bricklayer like Ben Jonson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Middleton
I know some plasterers and bricklayers (Italians) here in
Luzern, but believe me, they aint never no poets, they aint.
Maybe I should go to London.
RThttp://villakreuzbuch.4t.com
---------------------------------------------------------
It's been argued that Middleton's Inner Temple Masque(1619) sneers
at Jonson (then absent in Scotland) as a *SILENCED BRICKlayer*
---------------------------------------------------------
___ *SILENCED*
___ *LICENSED*
___ *DECLINES*
-----------------------------------------------------
THE EARL OF OXFORD TO THE READER
OF BEDINGFIELD'S "CARDANUS' COMFORT"
.
The *MASON* poor, that BUILDS the lordly halls,
Dwells not in them, they are for high degree;
His cottage is compact in paper walls,
And not with *BRICK or STONE* as others be.
-----------------------------------------------------------
. #27 of Brother George Washington's Masonic Apron
http://www.tntpc.com/252/brother_george_washington.htm
.
*BRICK WALL* appears to represent the place in the Lodge occupied
by the Altar. The Holy Bible, Square, & Compasses rest upon it,
as do the three Lesser Lights. It composes 9 rows of *BRICKS* .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. Compare the posture of the Vesalius'
. "VIVITUR IN GENIO" skeleton:
.
http://www.clinicalanatomy.com/vesalius1.htm
http://www.zol.be/Vesalius/Start_Andreas_Vesalius/body_start_andreas_...
.
.with the posture of the 1740 Westminster Shakespeare statue:
. http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/west.htm
.
. Westminster: "And like the baseless *FNBRICK* of a Vision"
____ Vesalius: " De humani corporis *FABRICA* "
......................................................
. Vesalius' *FABRICA* published May 26, 1543
. Witty SUSAN VERE was 'born' on May 26, 1587
. Witty SUSANna Shak. was 'born' on May 26, 1583
-------------------------------------------------------------
. _The Adventure of the Final Problem_
. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Freemason)
.
<<"You have already been assaulted?"
"My dear Watson, Professor Moriarty is not a man who lets
the grass grow under his feet. I went out about midday to
.
. transact some business in OXFORD Street.
As I passed the corner which leads from
. Bentinck Street on to the WELBECK Street
.
crossing a two-horse van furiously driven whizzed round and
was on me like a flash. I sprang for the foot-path and saved
myself by the fraction of a second. The van dashed round by
Marylebone Lane and was gone in an instant. I kept to the
pavement after that, Watson,
.
. but as I walked down VERE Street
.
a *BRICK* [Bri(n)ck(nell)?] came down from the roof of one
of the houses and was shattered to fragments at my feet.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
[first lines] Village of the Damned (1960)
Prof. Gordon Zellaby(George Sanders): [on telephone] Good morning.
Uh, would you get me Major *BERNARD* at his Whitehall number? Thank
you.
.
[last lines] Village of the Damned (1960)
Prof. Gordon Zellaby(George Sanders): [voiceover] *BRICK WALL* ...
a brick wall... I must think of a *BRICK WALL* ... a *BRICK WALL* ...
I must think of a *BRICK WALL* ... a *BRICK WALL* ... *BRICK WALL* ...
I must think of a *BRICK WALL* ... It's almost half past eight...
*BRICK WALL* ... only a few seconds more... *BRICK WALL* ....
*BRICK WALL* ... *BRICK WALL* ... nearly over... a *BRICK WALL* ...
.
Village of the Damned Tagline: Beware *the STARe*
. that will paralyze *THE WILL OF THE WORLD*
.
<<In the small English village of Midwich EVERybody & EVERything
falls into a DEEP, mysterious sleep for sEVERal hours in the
middle of the day. Some months later EVERy woman capable of
child-bearing is pregnant and the children that are born out
of these pregnancies seem to grow VERy fast and they all
have the same blond hair and STRANGE, penetrating eyes
that make people do things they don't want to do.>>
.
<<Originally begun in 1957 as an American picture to star
Ronald Coleman, MGM shelved the project, because it was
deemed inflammatory & controversial, specifically due
to its sinister depiction of *immaculate conception*. >>
---------------------------------------------------------
______________________- ////
_____________________- (o o)
. _______________oOO__(_)__OOo____________________
. |______|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|
. |___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
. |_____|_____!_____!_____|_____!_____!_____|_____!_
. |______|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|
. |___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
. |_____|_____!_____!_____|_____!_____!_____|_____!_
.
__________ Titus Andronicus Act 5, Scene 1
.
LUCIUS: Say, *WALL-eyed slave* , whither wouldst thou convey
. This growing image of thy fiend-like face?
. Why dost not speak? what, deaf? not a word?
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<Built of *BRICK* trimmed with STONE Theobalds (pronounced
Tibbals) was approached by a mile-long avenue of CEDARS.>>
.
__ CO-RA-MB-IS
.
___ B R I C (k)
___ M A S O (n)
.
___ BRICK MASON
. (th)OMAS BRINCK(nell)
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUINCE: we must have a *WALL* in the great
. chamber; for Pyramus and Thisby says the story,
. did talk through the chink of a *WALL* .
.
. SNOUT-THOMA(s): You can nEVER bring in a *WALL*
. [SOUTHAM(p)TON] What say you, BOTtom?
.
BOTTOM: Some man or other MUST present WALL: and let him
. have some PLASTER, or some loam, or some rough-cast
.
. about him, to signify *WALL* ;
.
. and *LET* him hold his fingers thus, and through
. that cranny shall Pyramus and Thisby whisper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*LET* , n. [OE. LETten, AS. LETtan to delay, to hinder, fr. l[ae]t slow;
akin to D. LETten to hinder, G. verLETzen to hurt, Icel. LETja to
hold back.] 1. A retarding; hindrance; obstacle; impediment; delay.
----------------------------------------------------------------
. *UNRIDDLE [WALL] LET*
___ *LLUDD [LLAW] EREINT*
.
. Nodens alias *LLUDD [LLAW] EREINT* ('of the silver hand')
. Celtic God of Health & Healing
. http://www.britannia.com/celtic/gods/lludd.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
. http://www.taheke.co.nz/VCprisonr.html
.
<<Sir Walter Raleigh was imprisoned (BRICK Tower) by Queen Elizabeth
I in 1592 after she learned of his involvement with one of her maids
of honour - Bess Throckmorton - whom he later secretly married.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
d***@dartmouth.edu
2014-08-26 01:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://tinyurl.com/matb47n
---------------------------------------------------
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110606141024AA2lliA
What is the meaning of nursery rhyme A diller a dollar a 10 oclock scholar?
jeanette wrote: <<The word 'diller' is a Yorkshire term for a boy who is
dim-witted and stupid so this rhyme seems to be a moral lesson warning the
importance of punctuality. The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes
But Art -- speaking of moral lessons, Oxford could neVER be trusted
in the nursery, of all places!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
by Iona
and Peter Opie (Oxford, OUP, 1951) suggests that 'a diller, a dollar' are
taken from the words dilatory and dullard or that maybe 'a diller, a dollar'
is related to dilly-dally. As English schools traditionally started at nine
o'clock or earlier, anyone who arrived even at ten o'clock would certainly be
very late.
How would you characterize a "scholar" who thinks -- usual disclaimer
-- that Virgil predated Herodotus; that Shelton's English was the
original of _Don Quixote_, despite the glaringly obvious mistranslations
(e.g., _caballo_ ("horse") mistranslated as though it were _cabello_
("hair")) in the former; that Coleridge wrote Wordsworth's "The Idiot
Boy"; that _vier_ is Spanish for "four"; that _tÊrin_ is Russian for
"youth" -- indeed, thinking (usual disclaimer) that _tÊrin_ is Russian
*at all* is quite a feat, since the word contains letters not present in
the Russian alphabet!; that the number 19 is remarkable as both the sum
of two consecutive integers and the difference of their squares, etc.,
Art? The phrase "ten o'clock scholar" does not begin to do such an
invariably erroneous idiot justice, unless perhaps "ten o'clock" refers
to 10:00 P.M.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
A 'diller' according to the New Geordie Dictionary (the dialect spoken by
Geordies - natives of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England) by Graham is an
'unwilling scholar,' - a lazy student who isn't too excited about having to
do the work required of him. In the above Mother Goose nursery rhyme (circa
1760) an unwilling and 'unpunctual' student is being chastised for his
tardiness and this nursery rhyme had, in fact, become a children's chant used
to chide a student who was late for school.>>
You must have been about ten months late for school, Art!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taylor_%28scholar%29
<<Gary Taylor (born 1953) is an American academic, George Matthew Edgar
Professor of English at Florida State University. The first member of his
family to graduate from high school, Taylor won scholarships that led to
bachelor's degrees in English and Classics from the University of Kansas
(1979) and to a doctorate in English from the University of Cambridge (1988).
With Stanley Wells, he worked for eight years as the "enfant terrible" of the
Oxford Shakespeare (1978-86), a project that generated much controversy
through editorial decisions such as printing two separate texts of King Lear
and attributing a poem commonly known as "Shall I die?" to Shakespeare (*an
attribution that has since been almost universally rejected*).
it is not nearly as uniVERsally rejected as the attribution of the
works of Shakespeare to the Earl of Oxford, Art. Nor, for that matter,
is it as uniVERsally rejected as the attribution of Wordsworth's "The
Idiot Boy" to Coleridge by h.l.a.s.'s own Idiot Boy.

[Crackpot cryptography snipped]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Taylor devoted twenty years to The Collected Works of Thomas Middleton,
published by Oxford University Press in 2007. With John Lavagnino, he led a
team of 75 contributors from 12 countries to produce "the Middleton First
Folio," designed to establish Middleton's status as "our other Shakespeare."
Among other works, Taylor and Lavagnino chose to print the entire texts of
William Shakespeare's plays Macbeth and Measure for Measure, on the theory
that Middleton revised both of these plays after their original composition.
They include Shakespeare's Timon of Athens as well, but in this case
postulating that it was a collaboration between the two authors. Also
included in the volume are such anonymous plays as A Yorkshire Tragedy, The
Second Maiden's Tragedy (presented under the title The Lady's Tragedy) and
The Revenger's Tragedy, which are generally, though not universally, credited
to Middleton by modern scholars.>>
[...]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
It's been argued that Middleton's Inner Temple Masque(1619) sneers
at Jonson (then absent in Scotland) as a *SILENCED BRICKlayer*
---------------------------------------------------------
___ *SILENCED*
___ *LICENSED*
___ *DECLINES*
INIPNC score zero, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
THE EARL OF OXFORD TO THE READER
OF BEDINGFIELD'S "CARDANUS' COMFORT"
Orazio Cogno might contest the name, Art -- "Cardanus" could be a
misunderstanding of the utterance "scarr'd anus".
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
The *MASON* poor, that BUILDS the lordly halls,
Dwells not in them, they are for high degree;
His cottage is compact in paper walls,
And not with *BRICK or STONE* as others be.
-----------------------------------------------------------
. #27 of Brother George Washington's Masonic Apron
http://www.tntpc.com/252/brother_george_washington.htm
.
*BRICK WALL* appears to represent the place in the Lodge occupied
by the Altar. The Holy Bible, Square, & Compasses rest upon it,
as do the three Lesser Lights. It composes 9 rows of *BRICKS* .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
. Compare the posture of the Vesalius'
.
http://www.clinicalanatomy.com/vesalius1.htm
http://www.zol.be/Vesalius/Start_Andreas_Vesalius/body_start_andreas_...
.
. http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/west.htm
So? It's a common enough position, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
. Westminster: "And like the baseless *FNBRICK* of a Vision"
____ Vesalius: " De humani corporis *FABRICA* "
......................................................
. Vesalius' *FABRICA* published May 26, 1543
. Witty SUSAN VERE was 'born' on May 26, 1587
. Witty SUSANna Shak. was 'born' on May 26, 1583
You *still* do not comprehend the so-called "Birthday paradOX", Art!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
. _The Adventure of the Final Problem_
. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Freemason)
.
<<"You have already been assaulted?"
"My dear Watson, Professor Moriarty is not a man who lets
the grass grow under his feet. I went out about midday to
.
. transact some business in OXFORD Street.
As I passed the corner which leads from
. Bentinck Street on to the WELBECK Street
.
crossing a two-horse van furiously driven whizzed round and
was on me like a flash. I sprang for the foot-path and saved
myself by the fraction of a second. The van dashed round by
Marylebone Lane and was gone in an instant. I kept to the
pavement after that, Watson,
.
. but as I walked down VERE Street
.
a *BRICK* [Bri(n)ck(nell)?] came down from the roof of one
of the houses and was shattered to fragments at my feet.>>
Huh? What is your point, if any, Art? Do you doubt that Vere Street
intersects Oxford Street, or that Welbeck Street is nearby? Take a look
at a map of London and get someone to read it to you. Incidentally,
Art, Vere Street is a short, inconsequential one-way street.

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
______________________- ////
_____________________- (o o)
. _______________oOO__(_)__OOo____________________
. |______|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|
. |___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
. |_____|_____!_____!_____|_____!_____!_____|_____!_
. |______|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|
. |___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
. |_____|_____!_____!_____|_____!_____!_____|_____!_
Of course, the above is lunatic logorrhea as well, Art, but I just
couldn't bring myself to snip it.

[Asinine anthologizing snipped]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Arthur Neuendorffer
2014-08-26 14:07:24 UTC
Permalink
http://tinyurl.com/matb47n

<<Carl Sagan once said, "The reasoned criticism of a prevailing belief is a service to the proponents of that belief; if they are incapable of defending it, they are well advised to abandon it... Any substantive objection is permissible and encouraged; the only exception being that ad hominem attacks on the personality or motives of the author are excluded."

But Carl Sagan is no doubt guilty himself of being profoundly unscholarly in the foregoing statement, if he had the audacity to think it could possibly apply to the illustrious ranks of Shakespeare scholars. Even when they choose especially offensive ad hominem attacks.>>
------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
d***@dartmouth.edu
2014-08-28 01:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://tinyurl.com/matb47n
<<Carl Sagan once said, "The reasoned criticism of a prevailing belief is a
service to the proponents of that belief; if they are incapable of defending
it, they are well advised to abandon it...
Absolutely, Art. Someone who thinks (usual disclaimer) that Shelton
wrote the original of _Don Quixote_ and cannot defend that belief in the
face of numerous blatant, farcical mistranslations and misunderstandings
-- e.g., that a native speaker of English would write something like
"...anyone who says otherwise is turned into a grape [sic]" rather than
"...anyone who says otherwise is drunk", thereby displaying unawareness
of a common Spanish idiom, or that an English speaker would write "the
locks [sic] of the sun", an obvious misreading of the Spanish _caballos_
("horses") as _cabellos_ ("hairs"), and a schoolboy howler at that -- is
well advised to abandon it.

In the same vein, someone who thinks (usual disclaimer) that
Coleridge wrote Wordsworth's "The Idiot Boy" and who cannot defend that
belief in the face of Wordsworth's own correspondence in which he
discusses his composition of the poem is well advised to abandon that
belief. Yet you *repeated* it -- oVER and oVER -- long after it had
been conclusively refuted! Similarly, someone who thinks (usual
disclaimer) that _tÊrin_ is Russian for "youth" and who cannot defend
that belief in the face of the blatant fact that the word contains a
letter not in the Russian alphabet is well advised to abandon that
belief -- but that, too, you repeated oVER and oVER!

Indeed, that's one of your great comedic charms, Art -- adopting the
hallmark of what Martin Gardner called "thoroughly self-deluded cranks",
you do *not* abandon beliefs that you cannot defend, indeed, beliefs
that have been conclusively refuted -- rather, you keep posting the same
moronic crap oVER and oVER and oVER, as though an oft-repeated idiocy
gains _gravitas_ merely by virtue of incessant, moronic repetition.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Any substantive objection is
permissible and encouraged; the only exception being that ad hominem attacks
on the personality or motives of the author are excluded."
Absolutely, Art -- and calling a real Shakespeare scholar like Gary
Taylor a "ten o'clock scholar" on the basis of nothing whateVER typifies
this sort of _ad hominem_ attack. In the same vein, the "argument" that
real scholars accept the attribution of the Shakespeare canon to William
Shakespeare, the actor and shareholder in the company that performed the
plays, because of an unworthy motive -- usually some farcically idiotic
conspiracy theory about the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust benefitting
financially by selling trinkets to tourists -- as though many
Shakespeare scholars would benefit anyway! -- is exactly the sort of
behavior that Sagan excludes. It's an accusation that you have often
repeated.

HoweVER, what makes your attack on Gary Taylor as a "ten o'clock
scholar" so utterly ludicrous is that the accusation emanates from a
complete ignoramus who thinks (usual disclaimer) that Shelton wrote _Don
Quixote_ in the original English, that Anne Hathaway was Shakespeare's
mother, in whose VERsion of "history" Virgil predated Herodotus and
Aleksandr Nevskii was tsar, who confuses Dutch with Danish, Russian with
Ossetian, French with gibberish, Latin with gibberish, a sample mean of
a random variable with its expected value, etc., who thinks (usual
disclaimer) that the number 19 is remarkable as the both the sum of two
consecutive integers and the difference of their squares, etc.!

Mind you, the fact that they come from an illiterate boob is NOT what
makes your "arguments" untenable -- on the contrary, it is VERy easy to
refute all the above "arguments" (usual disclaimer) and many others as
well, quite conclusively without any reference to their source; indeed,
I and many others have done so regularly and repeatedly. HoweVER, their
source is what makes your hapless attacks on real Shakespeare scholars
so FUNNY!! In fact, the spectacle of you attacking the competence of
distinguished Romance linguists and native speakers of Spanish in your
hapless and hopeless defense of your Shelton delusion is like the
spectacle of Faker accusing NASA of coVERing up the supposed lunar
landing hoax, of a Velikovskian attacking the competence of a
distinguished planetary scientist like Sagan himself, of a special
creationist attacking the competence of Stephen Jay Gould, of a
scientific illiterate attacking the scientific establishment for having
"suppressed" the success of cold fusion (*why* on earth -- and *how*!?),
or of a crank attacking Einstein, as many cranks like Elizabeth do --
indeed, a particularly amusing site that I ran across recently attacks
Einstein and lists many supposed "counterexamples" to relativity, then
uses relativity to "argue" (Neuendorffer disclaimer) that the earth is
*really* only about 6,000 years old, as the Genesis account of creation
holds, but that relativistic time dilation makes it *appear* much older!

Of course, one need not note that Faker is a crackpot in order to
refute his NASA coVERup conspiracy theory. Nor need one resort to _ad
hominem_ arguments to refute Velikovskian planetary "science". Nor need
one point out that conspiracy theorists who deplore the "suppression" of
cold fusion are cranks. HoweVER, one misses out on a great deal of the
comedic charm of Carr's delusions about _Don Quixote_ if one is unaware
of his delusions concerning Mozart's marriage and the paternity of his
child. Similarly, one misses out on a great deal of robust humor that
emanates from anti-Stratfordians if one oVERlooks things like Mr.
Streitz's "theory" of airplane flight, or "Dr." Faker's belief that
Einstein pulled the c^2 in E-m c^2 out of the air "because he needed a
big number"!

[...]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Arthur Neuendorffer
2014-08-28 12:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://tinyurl.com/matb47n
<<Carl Sagan once said, "The reasoned criticism of a prevailing belief is a
service to the proponents of that belief; if they are incapable of defending
it, they are well advised to abandon it...
Lea wrote:

<<Absolutely, Art. Someone who thinks (usual disclaimer) that Shelton
wrote the original of _Don Quixote_ and cannot defend that belief in the
face of numerous blatant, farcical mistranslations and misunderstandings
-- e.g., that a native speaker of English would write something like
"...anyone who says otherwise is turned into a grape [sic]" rather than
"...anyone who says otherwise is drunk", thereby displaying unawareness
of a common Spanish idiom, or that an English speaker would write "the
locks [sic] of the sun", an obvious misreading of the Spanish _caballos_
("horses") as _cabellos_ ("hairs"), and a schoolboy howler at that -- is
well advised to abandon it.>>

The sun has "horses"!? ....like in the Phaeton Sonnet?
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/documents.html
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/phaeton-sonnet/

The Phaeton Sonnet
by Joseph Sobran

<<Mainstream Shakespeare scholars are currently debating the authorship of the poem A Funeral Elegy, published in 1612 and assigned to an otherwise unidentified "W.S." Professor Donald Foster argues that the poem is by Shakespeare. Others disagree, partly because they deem the poem unworthy of our greatest poet. The controversy has even reached the front page of The New York Times. A few years earlier, the short lyric "Shall I Die?" achieved the same distinction when Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor included it (along with several doggerel epitaphs) in the canon of the Collected Oxford Shakespeare. Their lead was followed, with some reservations, by Maurice Evans in the New Penguin edition of Shakespeare's narrative poems. Another poem sometimes thought to be Shakespeare's has never received comparable attention, and yet it has closer affinities to Shakespeare's traditionally acknowledged work than a Funeral Elegy, "Shall I Die?", or the epitaphs. This is the so-called "Phaeton" sonnet. The sonnet appeared under the title "Phaeton to His Friend Florio" as a commendatory poem in John Florio's book Second Fruits, published in 1591. It merits careful study. In 1591 Florio (1554?-1625) had lately served as tutor to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, and he later became a friend and protege of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, both of whom are believed to have been Shakespeare's patrons.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
Lea wrote:

<<In the same vein, someone who thinks (usual disclaimer) that
Coleridge wrote Wordsworth's "The Idiot Boy" and who cannot defend that
belief in the face of Wordsworth's own correspondence in which he
discusses his composition of the poem is well advised to abandon that
belief. Yet you *repeated* -- oVER and oVER -- long after it had
been conclusively refuted!

Exactly how many times have I *repeated* that?>>
----------------------------------------------------
Lea wrote:

<<Similarly, someone who thinks (usual
disclaimer) that _tærin_ is Russian for "youth" and who cannot defend
that belief in the face of the blatant fact that the word contains a
letter not in the Russian alphabet is well advised to abandon that
belief -- but that, too, you repeated oVER and oVER!>>

Exactly how many times have I *repeated* that?
----------------------------------------------------
Lea wrote:

<<Indeed, that's one of your great comedic charms, Art -- adopting the
hallmark of what Martin Gardner called "thoroughly self-deluded cranks",
you do *not* abandon beliefs that you cannot defend, indeed, beliefs
that have been conclusively refuted.>>
------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/matb47n

<<Carl Sagan once said, "The reasoned criticism of a prevailing belief is a service to the proponents of that belief; if they are incapable of defending it, they are well advised to abandon it... Any substantive objection is permissible and encouraged; the only exception being that ad hominem attacks on the personality or motives of the author are excluded.">>
------------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Any substantive objection is
permissible and encouraged; the only exception being that ad hominem attacks
on the personality or motives of the author are excluded."
Lea wrote:

<<Absolutely, Art -- and calling a real Shakespeare scholar like Gary
Taylor a "ten o'clock scholar" on the basis of nothing whateVER typifies
this sort of _ad hominem_ attack. In the same vein, the "argument" that
real scholars accept the attribution of the Shakespeare canon to William
Shakespeare, the actor and shareholder in the company that performed the
plays, because of an unworthy motive -- usually some farcically idiotic
conspiracy theory about the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust benefitting
financially by selling trinkets to tourists -- as though many
Shakespeare scholars would benefit anyway! -- is exactly the sort of
behavior that Sagan excludes. It's an accusation that you have often
repeated.>>

Of course, it's not just the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust:
--------------------------------------------------------
Major Tom Reedy wrote (and the quickly deleted):

<<Hi Bob [Grumman].

thanks for the compliment, but as you know, who we debate is out of
our hands. I got an e-mail from the Trust & was assigned Foelster just
as soon as his name appeared on the ng. Boy, I'm glad I was taken off
Crowley: the man is too well-read & intelligent, it was all I could do
to keep up with him.
I'm damn glad they've never given me Art to debate; I feel sorry for
poor David. Of course that new anagram program they have is sure coming
in handy for him, but I *NEVER* want to go toe-to-toe with Art--he knows
too much, although I doubt if he's even aware of all he knows.

Hey, I finally got the check. Something about a computer virus in the
mainframe at Stratford. I was glad to see it--the rent was overdue
& I had to pay a late fee.

Sorry about that last e-mail appearing on the ng.
Apparently I hit "post" instead of "e-mail." It won't happen again.

My 14-year-old is giving me trouble--the usual ersatz teenage angst. He
doesn't want to accept his occupation being already chosen for him. I
told him it was like the Phantom--the ghost who walks--& that it was an
honor to be born into a family with a 400-year old mission, but he just
sulks off & gets on the computer. I'm sure he'll come around--we all
do, eventually.

Meanwhile all he does is play on the computer (he's a real whiz at
programming) & mutters about how he's going to "fix me" & about
some grandoise plan he has to "expose the truth to the world."

Yeah, right, that'll be the day, hey Bob?

Who do you think is going to get the old monument in April? Schoenbaum
had it for so long I think they almost completely forgot about it. I
vote for Matus--he deserves it. I've heard some say that Dave or Terry
should get it, but they're a little young yet, I think. I know damn
well it'll be years before I'm eligible, not to mention that whoever
gets it keeps it for life.

Say, before they ship it to whomever they give it to we should all
gather around it & have our picture taken & send it to Kennedy! I'd
want to pose atop the woolsack. Wouldn't that be a hoot! I bet the old
fart would think he was having the DTs! If a picture could be printed
with some type of disappearing ink that couldn't be copied it would be
worth it. Maybe he'd have a heart attack or something & we'd be rid of
that thorn in the side & make our jobs a lot easier.

Well, that's about it for now. Brenda says to tell the family "hi"
& that we'll see you all in Stratford in April.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
d***@dartmouth.edu
2014-08-28 15:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://tinyurl.com/matb47n
<<Carl Sagan once said, "The reasoned criticism of a prevailing belief is a
service to the proponents of that belief; if they are incapable of defending
it, they are well advised to abandon it...
<<Absolutely, Art. Someone who thinks (usual disclaimer) that Shelton
wrote the original of _Don Quixote_ and cannot defend that belief in the
face of numerous blatant, farcical mistranslations and misunderstandings
-- e.g., that a native speaker of English would write something like
"...anyone who says otherwise is turned into a grape [sic]" rather than
"...anyone who says otherwise is drunk", thereby displaying unawareness
of a common Spanish idiom, or that an English speaker would write "the
locks [sic] of the sun", an obvious misreading of the Spanish _caballos_
("horses") as _cabellos_ ("hairs"), and a schoolboy howler at that -- is
well advised to abandon it.>>
The sun has "horses"!?
Absolutely, Art -- your abysmal ignorance of classical mythology (not
that your abysmal ignorance is by any means so narrowly circumscribed --
indeed, it appears broad enough to encompass almost all areas of human
intellectual endeavor) is merely one of many circumstances that make a
horse's hindquarters of you when you call a real Shakespeare scholar
like Gary Taylor a "ten o'clock scholar". In fact, Helios, a Greek
mythological personification of the sun, supposedly drove the chariot of
the sun across the heavens eVERy day; that chariot was, as chariots tend
to be, drawn by horses. See, for example, the Homeric Hymn to Helios,
although there are many other classical references to the steeds of the
sun.

In fact, if you had even read Shakespeare, you would be aware of the
existence of the sun's horses. For instance, in _Richard II_, act III,
scene 3, Richard says:

"Down, down I come; like glistering Phaethon,
Wanting the manage of unruly jades."

The reference is to the myth of Phaethon, son of Helios, who insisted
upon being allowed to drive the chariot of the sun. When he proved
incapable of controlling the horses of the sun and ventured too close to
the earth, which was in peril of being incinerated by the sun, Zeus,
perceiving the danger, killed him with a thunderbolt.

To cite another Shakespearean example, in _Romeo and Juliet_, Act
III, scene 2, Juliet says:

"Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds,
Towards Phoebus' lodging: such a wagoner
As Phaethon would whip you to the west,
And bring in cloudy night immediately."

Here is another reference to the "fiery-footed steeds" of the sun, which
is now personified as Phoebus, a later (Olympian) solar deity, rather
than as the Titan Helios, probably for metrical reasons.

Indeed, the Phaethon myth is a commonplace. It appears in Ovid, one
of Shakespeare's frequent sources; indeed, here is an excerpt of a prose
translation of Book 2 of Ovid's _Metamorphoses_:

"The boy has already taken possession of the fleet chariot, and
stands proudly, and joyfully, takes the light reins in his hands,
and thanks his unwilling father.

"Meanwhile the sun’s swift horses, Pyroïs, EoÃŒs, Aethon, and the
fourth, Phlegon, fill the air with fiery whinnying, and strike
the bars with their hooves. When Tethys, ignorant of her grandson’s
fate, pushed back the gate, and gave them access to the wide heavens,
rushing out, they tore through the mists in the way with their hooves
and, lifted by their wings, overtook the East winds rising from the
same region. But the weight was lighter than the horses of the Sun

[Note the reference, Art: "horses of the Sun".]

could feel, and the yoke was free of its accustomed load. Just as
curved-sided boats rock in the waves without their proper ballast,
and being too light are unstable at sea, so the chariot, free of
its usual burden, leaps in the air and rushes into the heights as
though it were empty.

"As soon as they feel this the team of four run wild and leave
the beaten track, no longer running in their pre-ordained course.
He was terrified, unable to handle the reins entrusted to him,
not knowing where the track was, nor, if he had known, how to
control the team. Then for the first time the chill stars of
the Great and Little Bears, grew hot, and tried in vain to douse
themselves in forbidden waters. And the Dragon, Draco, that is
nearest to the frozen pole, never formidable before and sluggish
with the cold, now glowed with heat, and took to seething with
new fury. They say that you Bootës also fled in confusion, slow
as you are and hampered by the Plough."

Note that Ovid even gives the *names* of the horses of the sun, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
....like in the Phaeton Sonnet?
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/documents.html
That's a nutcase source, Art -- although even so, if you had actually
managed to *read* it, you would have been aware of the horses of the
sun. Indeed, the Rubens painting of the fall of Phaethon is reproduced
there, and the horses of the sun are clearly visible therein -- unlike
Shelton's hilarious hairs of the sun!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/phaeton-sonnet/
The Phaeton Sonnet
by Joseph Sobran
That, too, is a nutcase source, Art -- but even so, had you actually
*read* it, you would have found a brief summary of Ovid's narration of
the Phaethon myth.

[...]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------
<<In the same vein, someone who thinks (usual disclaimer) that
Coleridge wrote Wordsworth's "The Idiot Boy" and who cannot defend that
belief in the face of Wordsworth's own correspondence in which he
discusses his composition of the poem is well advised to abandon that
belief. Yet you *repeated* -- oVER and oVER -- long after it had
been conclusively refuted!
Exactly how many times have I *repeated* that?>>
Huh?! You repeated it *many* times, *after* it was conclusively
refuted! For example, here is a post of mine from February of 2001; as
you can see if you can find someone to read it to you, Art, I was
*already* joking about your repetition of this refuted misattribution
*oVER 13 years ago*! Yet you have *repeatedly* posted the *same*
untenable idiocy many times since then, even as recently as *two years
ago*! Here is a VERbatim copy of my post dated Wed, 19 Dec 2012, when
you resurrected this moronic misattribution:
--------------------------------------------------
In article
<e04dead0-a771-4f17-bd13-***@x3g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Arthur Neuendorffer <***@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
THE IDIOT BOY. - Samuel Taylor Coleridge
And Susan she begins to fear
Of sad mischances not a few,
That Johnny may perhaps be drown'd,
Or lost perhaps, and never found;
Which they must both for ever rue.
She prefaced half a <HINT> of this
With, "God forbid it should be true!"
In another thread I commented upon your propensity for repeating --
oVER and oVER -- idiotic crap that had been conclusively refuted, and
you asked for an example, Art. This is a perfect example -- you posted
this idiocy in another thread (multiple times!), at

<http://tinyurl.com/c4t86lj>,

and I pointed out to you at the time that "The Idiot Boy" is by William
Wordsworth, *not* by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. This fact is well known
to eVERyone with even a desultory acquaintance with English literary
history:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idiot_Boy>.

This misattribution has been *conclusively* refuted.

If you wish to learn more, Art, there is plenty more available. In
any decent library, you should be able to obtain access to Ernest de
Selincourt's _The Letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth_. In volume
1, you will find (in letter 170, from Wordsworth to John Wilson)
Wordsworth's own account of the composition of "The Idiot Boy" and a
defense of the poem against criticism. In particular, Wordsworth writes:

"A man must have done this [engaged in honest introspection]
habitually before his judgment upon the Idiot Boy would be in any
way decisive with me. I *know* I have done this myself habitually:
I wrote the poem with exceeding delight and pleasure, and whenever
I read it, I read it with pleasure."

In short, your misattribution of "The Idiot Boy" to Coleridge has
been *decisively and conclusively refuted*. Yet you *CONTINUE* to
repeat the *SAME idiotic crap*, *oVER and oVER*, utterly impERVious to
refutation, exactly as I said that you did. You initiated a thread
entitled "'Is that all?' Alice timidly asked" in which you repeated it
VERbatim, and now you have initiated yet *another* thread in which you
have repeated it yet *again*, Art!!

*Why* you make an ass of yourself in this way I cannot imagine;
possibly because the "Taylor" in Coleridge's name reminds you of your
Masonic _idée (such as it is) fixe_, despite the inconvenient fact that
"tailor" and "tiler" are etymologically unrelated. Or, perhaps you're
emulating Elizabeth, who habitually does the same thing.

WhateVER the reason, you *CANNOT* continue to deny that you post,
oVER and oVER, idiocies that have been conclusively refuted -- in fact,
you posted about a half-dozen iterations of this one in the other
thread, and you've now initiated two *new* threads, replete with the
*SAME* conclusively refuted idiotic crap! But if your past performance
is any guide, a year from now h.l.a.s.'s VERy own comedically esteemed
Idiot Boy from District Heights will be reposting, oVER and oVER, the
*SAME* moronic and conclusively refuted misattribution! No wonder you
cannot tell Oxford from Shakespeare.

You asked for an example, Art.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Are you satisfied now, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<Similarly, someone who thinks (usual
disclaimer) that _tÊrin_ is Russian for "youth" and who cannot defend
that belief in the face of the blatant fact that the word contains a
letter not in the Russian alphabet is well advised to abandon that
belief -- but that, too, you repeated oVER and oVER!>>
Exactly how many times have I *repeated* that?
This is getting tiresome, Art -- I should not have to do your
homework for you! If you are at all competent in the use of a search
engine, you ought to be able to work that out for yourself.

HoweVER, this once I will oblige you. The post in which this
particularly idiocy had its debut is dated 29 March 2010, and could be
found here, before you deleted it:

<http://tinyurl.com/ng7la7m>.

In fact, you posted this idiocy *twice*. On April 1, 2010 you
*reposted* the same already refuted idiocy; that post, fortunately for
posterity, you did *not* delete, and it can still be found here:

<http://tinyurl.com/l6qtyj4>.

You kept repeating the *same* moronic mistranslation, despite my
refutation, prompting Peter Groves to joke about it; Peter's post quotes
a post of yours dated April 22 -- in case you're keeping score, Art,
that's a good two weeks after the original refutation of the idiocy.
Peter's post can be found here:

<http://tinyurl.com/qzuxrbq>

HoweVER, since your ability even to clink on links has been called into
question, I reproduce the entire post below for your convenience, Art:
-------------------------------------------
From: Peter Groves <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Subject: Re: Marlowe in France and other myths
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 42
Message-ID:
<660e1c6d-2da5-4af6-9814-***@p35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References:
<d931914f-8f01-4853-be6a-***@k41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
<d95b597f-72d8-4180-a744-***@x7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
<7fe41b7c-949f-49d1-ae41-***@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
<dfaca139-5dd6-4426-a27f-***@w39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>

NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.191.218.51
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1271900415 27360 127.0.0.1 (22 Apr 2010
01:40:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ***@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:40:15 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: ***@google.com
Injection-Info: p35g2000prf.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=59.191.218.51;
posting-account=IA51HQoAAABEBYcbAd1pxhjThXy-_oHK
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB;
rv:1.9.2.3)
Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3,gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:26458
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
ONE of the troubles with anti-Strat - is that they dream up
some figment of imagination that could fit onto anything and
then state it as a fact and keep on stating it and stating
it and stating it until it somehow becomes a legend.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~=E2=80=93ahnelson/ITALY/Tirata.html
<<The horse of *MiLord of Oxford* is faun-colored and
goes by the name of OL(t)RAM(arin) : (BEYOND-THE-SEA).>>
......................................................
*=D1=82=C3=A6=D1=80=D0=B8=D0=BD* : adolescent, youth, boy (Russian)
=C2=A0Huh? =C2=A0What are you gibbering about now, Art? =C2=A0The secon=
d character
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
"=C3=A6" ("ae" in case it appears as an unprintable character on your
computer) is not even a letter in the Russian alphabet! =C2=A0From what
lunatic web site did you get this nonsense, Art?
=D1=82=C3=A6=D1=80=D0=B8=D0=BD
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%82%C3%A6%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD
Ossetian, Russian, Spanish -- it's all the same to Art.

Peter G.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
And what, if anything, was supposed to be the point?
MAR-L.O. was written by [L]ord [O]xford
when he was an adolescent, youth, boy.
Art Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You will note (provided you can find someone to read the header to you,
Art) that the post of yours to which Peter is replying is dated April
22, Art -- oVER *three weeks after* the original idiocy (Peter's reply
is dated April 21 because of the International Date Line, Art; get
someone to explain that to you as well.)

Are you satisfied now, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<Indeed, that's one of your great comedic charms, Art -- adopting the
hallmark of what Martin Gardner called "thoroughly self-deluded cranks",
you do *not* abandon beliefs that you cannot defend, indeed, beliefs
that have been conclusively refuted.>>
------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/matb47n
<<Carl Sagan once said, "The reasoned criticism of a prevailing belief is a
service to the proponents of that belief; if they are incapable of defending
it, they are well advised to abandon it... Any substantive objection is
permissible and encouraged; the only exception being that ad hominem attacks
on the personality or motives of the author are excluded.">>
------------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Any substantive objection is
permissible and encouraged; the only exception being that ad hominem attacks
on the personality or motives of the author are excluded."
<<Absolutely, Art -- and calling a real Shakespeare scholar like Gary
Taylor a "ten o'clock scholar" on the basis of nothing whateVER typifies
this sort of _ad hominem_ attack. In the same vein, the "argument" that
real scholars accept the attribution of the Shakespeare canon to William
Shakespeare, the actor and shareholder in the company that performed the
plays, because of an unworthy motive -- usually some farcically idiotic
conspiracy theory about the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust benefitting
financially by selling trinkets to tourists -- as though many
Shakespeare scholars would benefit anyway! -- is exactly the sort of
behavior that Sagan excludes. It's an accusation that you have often
repeated.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
<<Hi Bob [Grumman].
thanks for the compliment, but as you know, who we debate is out of
our hands. I got an e-mail from the Trust & was assigned Foelster just
as soon as his name appeared on the ng. Boy, I'm glad I was taken off
Crowley: the man is too well-read & intelligent, it was all I could do
to keep up with him.
I'm damn glad they've never given me Art to debate; I feel sorry for
poor David. Of course that new anagram program they have is sure coming
in handy for him, but I *NEVER* want to go toe-to-toe with Art--he knows
too much, although I doubt if he's even aware of all he knows.
Hey, I finally got the check. Something about a computer virus in the
mainframe at Stratford. I was glad to see it--the rent was overdue
& I had to pay a late fee.
Sorry about that last e-mail appearing on the ng.
Apparently I hit "post" instead of "e-mail." It won't happen again.
My 14-year-old is giving me trouble--the usual ersatz teenage angst. He
doesn't want to accept his occupation being already chosen for him. I
told him it was like the Phantom--the ghost who walks--& that it was an
honor to be born into a family with a 400-year old mission, but he just
sulks off & gets on the computer. I'm sure he'll come around--we all
do, eventually.
Meanwhile all he does is play on the computer (he's a real whiz at
programming) & mutters about how he's going to "fix me" & about
some grandoise plan he has to "expose the truth to the world."
Yeah, right, that'll be the day, hey Bob?
Who do you think is going to get the old monument in April? Schoenbaum
had it for so long I think they almost completely forgot about it. I
vote for Matus--he deserves it. I've heard some say that Dave or Terry
should get it, but they're a little young yet, I think. I know damn
well it'll be years before I'm eligible, not to mention that whoever
gets it keeps it for life.
Say, before they ship it to whomever they give it to we should all
gather around it & have our picture taken & send it to Kennedy! I'd
want to pose atop the woolsack. Wouldn't that be a hoot! I bet the old
fart would think he was having the DTs! If a picture could be printed
with some type of disappearing ink that couldn't be copied it would be
worth it. Maybe he'd have a heart attack or something & we'd be rid of
that thorn in the side & make our jobs a lot easier.
Well, that's about it for now. Brenda says to tell the family "hi"
& that we'll see you all in Stratford in April.>>
As I have told you many times before when you have brought this up,
Art, one is naturally reluctant to explain a joke, but in the case of
certain demented morons, it simply cannot be helped.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
--------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Arthur Neuendorffer
2014-08-28 19:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://tinyurl.com/matb47n
<<Carl Sagan once said, "The reasoned criticism of a prevailing belief
is a service to the proponents of that belief; if they are incapable
of defending it, they are well advised to abandon it...
<<Absolutely, Art. Someone who thinks (usual disclaimer) that Shelton
wrote the original of _Don Quixote_ and cannot defend that belief in the
face of numerous blatant, farcical mistranslations and misunderstandings
-- e.g., that a native speaker of English would write something like
"...anyone who says otherwise is turned into a grape [sic]" rather than
"...anyone who says otherwise is drunk", thereby displaying unawareness
of a common Spanish idiom, or that an English speaker would write "the
locks [sic] of the sun", an obvious misreading of the Spanish _caballos_
("horses") as _cabellos_ ("hairs"), and a schoolboy howler at that -- is
well advised to abandon it.>>
The sun has "horses"!?
Lea wrote:

<<Indeed, the Phaethon myth is a commonplace. It appears in Ovid, one
of Shakespeare's frequent sources; indeed, here is an excerpt of a prose
translation of Book 2 of Ovid's _Metamorphoses_:

"The boy has already taken possession of the fleet chariot, and
stands proudly, and joyfully, takes the light reins in his hands,
and thanks his unwilling father.

"Meanwhile the sun's swift horses, Pyroïs, Eoüs, Aethon, and the
fourth, Phlegon, fill the air with fiery whinnying, and strike
the bars with their hooves. When Tethys, ignorant of her grandson's
fate, pushed back the gate, and gave them access to the wide heavens,
rushing out, they tore through the mists in the way with their hooves
and, lifted by their wings, overtook the East winds rising from the
same region. But the weight was lighter than the horses of the Sun>>

Note that Ovid even gives the *names* of the horses of the sun, Art.
-----------------------------------------------------
Hawkins: I've got it! I've got it! The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is *TRUE*! Right?

Griselda: Right. But there's been a change: they broke the chalice from the palace!

Hawkins: They broke the chalice from the palace?

Griselda: And replaced it with a *PHLEGON*.

Hawkins: A *PHLEGON*...?

Griselda: With the figure of a dragon.

Hawkins: *PHLEGON* with a dragon.

Griselda: Right.

Hawkins: But did you put the pellet with the poison in the vessel with the pestle?

Griselda: No! The pellet with the poison's in the *PHLEGON* with the dragon! The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is *TRUE*!

Hawkins: The pellet with the poison's in the *PHLEGON* with the dragon; the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is *TRUE*.

Griselda: Just remember that.
-----------------------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
....like in the Phaeton Sonnet?
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/documents.html
Lea wrote:

<<That's a nutcase source, Art -- although even so, if you had actually
managed to *read* it, you would have been aware of the horses of the
sun. Indeed, the Rubens painting of the fall of Phaethon is reproduced
there, and the horses of the sun are clearly visible therein>>

Aren't you going to mention the one horse's Rubenesque ass?

Lea wrote:

<< -- unlike Shelton's hilarious hairs of the sun!>>

. Shelton's *LOCKS of the SUN*
-------------------------------------------------
. The Merchant of Venice Act 1, Scene 1

BASSANIO: Her name is Portia, nothing undervalued
To Cato's daughter, Brutus' Portia:
Nor is the wide world ignorant of her worth,
For the *FOUR WINDS* blow in from *EVERy coast*
Renowned suitors, and her *SUNNY LOCKS*
Hang on her *TEMPLES* like a golden fleece;
-------------------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/phaeton-sonnet/
The Phaeton Sonnet
by Joseph Sobran
Lea wrote:

<<That, too, is a nutcase source, Art -- but even so, had you actually
*read* it, you would have found a brief summary of Ovid's narration of
the Phaethon myth.>>

I read about Stanley Wells & Gary Taylor "theory" about "Shall I Die?"
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------
<<In the same vein, someone who thinks (usual disclaimer) that
Coleridge wrote Wordsworth's "The Idiot Boy" and who cannot defend that
belief in the face of Wordsworth's own correspondence in which he
discusses his composition of the poem is well advised to abandon that
belief. Yet you *repeated* -- oVER and oVER -- long after it had
been conclusively refuted!??
Exactly how many times have I *repeated* that?>>
Lea wrote:

<<Huh?! You repeated it *many* times, *after* it was conclusively
refuted! For example, here is a post of mine from February of 2001; as
you can see if you can find someone to read it to you, Art, I was
*already* joking about your repetition of this refuted misattribution
*oVER 13 years ago*! Yet you have *repeatedly* posted the *same*
untenable idiocy many times since then, even as recently as *two years
ago*! Here is a VERbatim copy of my post dated Wed, 19 Dec 2012, when
you resurrected this moronic misattribution:
--------------------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
THE IDIOT BOY. - Samuel Taylor Coleridge
And Susan she begins to fear
Of sad mischances not a few,
That Johnny may perhaps be drown'd,
Or lost perhaps, and never found;
Which they must both for ever rue.
She prefaced half a <HINT> of this
With, "God forbid it should be *TRUE*!">>
I guess I had *meant* to say:
. THE IDIOT BOY: Gary Taylor.
-----------------------------------------------
Lea wrote:

<<You asked for an example, Art.
Are you satisfied now, Art?

I asked for *a number* ...so no.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<Similarly, someone who thinks (usual
disclaimer) that _tærin_ is Russian for "youth" and who cannot defend
that belief in the face of the blatant fact that the word contains a
letter not in the Russian alphabet is well advised to abandon that
belief -- but that, too, you repeated oVER and oVER!>>
Exactly how many times have I *repeated* that?
In fact, you posted this idiocy *twice*. On April 1, 2010 you
*reposted* the same already refuted idiocy; that post, fortunately for
posterity, you did *not* delete, and it can still be found here:

<http://tinyurl.com/l6qtyj4>.

It was April Fool's Day, Dave!

Lea wrote:

<<Are you satisfied now, Art?>>

No.

I admit to repeating some *good* stuff oVER and oVER!
But you are disingenuous to state that it is *this* stuff.

Art Neuendorffer
d***@dartmouth.edu
2014-08-30 00:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://tinyurl.com/matb47n
<<Carl Sagan once said, "The reasoned criticism of a prevailing belief
is a service to the proponents of that belief; if they are incapable
of defending it, they are well advised to abandon it...
<<Absolutely, Art. Someone who thinks (usual disclaimer) that Shelton
wrote the original of _Don Quixote_ and cannot defend that belief in the
face of numerous blatant, farcical mistranslations and misunderstandings
-- e.g., that a native speaker of English would write something like
"...anyone who says otherwise is turned into a grape [sic]" rather than
"...anyone who says otherwise is drunk", thereby displaying unawareness
of a common Spanish idiom, or that an English speaker would write "the
locks [sic] of the sun", an obvious misreading of the Spanish _caballos_
("horses") as _cabellos_ ("hairs"), and a schoolboy howler at that -- is
well advised to abandon it.>>
The sun has "horses"!?
<<Indeed, the Phaethon myth is a commonplace. It appears in Ovid, one
of Shakespeare's frequent sources; indeed, here is an excerpt of a prose
"The boy has already taken possession of the fleet chariot, and
stands proudly, and joyfully, takes the light reins in his hands,
and thanks his unwilling father.
"Meanwhile the sun's swift horses, Pyroïs, EoÌs, Aethon, and the
fourth, Phlegon, fill the air with fiery whinnying, and strike
the bars with their hooves. When Tethys, ignorant of her grandson's
fate, pushed back the gate, and gave them access to the wide heavens,
rushing out, they tore through the mists in the way with their hooves
and, lifted by their wings, overtook the East winds rising from the
same region. But the weight was lighter than the horses of the Sun>>
Note that Ovid even gives the *names* of the horses of the sun, Art.
[Irrelevant lunatic logorrhea snipped]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
....like in the Phaeton Sonnet?
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/documents.html
<<That's a nutcase source, Art -- although even so, if you had actually
managed to *read* it, you would have been aware of the horses of the
sun. Indeed, the Rubens painting of the fall of Phaethon is reproduced
there, and the horses of the sun are clearly visible therein>>
Aren't you going to mention the one horse's Rubenesque ass?
Of course not, Art -- horses's asses are almost by definition
Neuferesque, not Rubenesque.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<< -- unlike Shelton's hilarious hairs of the sun!>>
. Shelton's *LOCKS of the SUN*
I did not use quotation marks precisely because I was *paraphrasing*
Shelton rather than quoting him, Art. In fact, the word that Shelton
mistranslated, _caballos_ ("horses"), which Shelton "translated" as
though it were the word _cabellos_ is usually best translated as "hairs"
rather than "locks"; for a lock of hair, one normally uses the word
_mechón_ or _bucle_, the latter particularly if the hair in question is
curly. HoweVER, Shelton, probably troubled by the uncomfortable sense
that what he was writing was stupidity, opted at least for *poetic*
stupidity.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
. The Merchant of Venice Act 1, Scene 1
BASSANIO: Her name is Portia, nothing undervalued
Nor is the wide world ignorant of her worth,
For the *FOUR WINDS* blow in from *EVERy coast*
Renowned suitors, and her *SUNNY LOCKS*
Hang on her *TEMPLES* like a golden fleece;
Huh? It is certainly not news (except perhaps to you, Art) that
Shakespeare used the word "locks"; indeed, countless writers have done
so.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/phaeton-sonnet/
The Phaeton Sonnet
by Joseph Sobran
<<That, too, is a nutcase source, Art -- but even so, had you actually
*read* it, you would have found a brief summary of Ovid's narration of
the Phaethon myth.>>
I read about Stanley Wells & Gary Taylor "theory" about "Shall I Die?"
You mean, you got someone to read it to you, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<In the same vein, someone who thinks (usual disclaimer) that
Coleridge wrote Wordsworth's "The Idiot Boy" and who cannot defend that
belief in the face of Wordsworth's own correspondence in which he
discusses his composition of the poem is well advised to abandon that
belief. Yet you *repeated* -- oVER and oVER -- long after it had
been conclusively refuted!??
Exactly how many times have I *repeated* that?>>
<<Huh?! You repeated it *many* times, *after* it was conclusively
refuted! For example, here is a post of mine from February of 2001; as
you can see if you can find someone to read it to you, Art, I was
*already* joking about your repetition of this refuted misattribution
*oVER 13 years ago*! Yet you have *repeatedly* posted the *same*
untenable idiocy many times since then, even as recently as *two years
ago*! Here is a VERbatim copy of my post dated Wed, 19 Dec 2012, when
--------------------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
THE IDIOT BOY. - Samuel Taylor Coleridge
And Susan she begins to fear
Of sad mischances not a few,
That Johnny may perhaps be drown'd,
Or lost perhaps, and never found;
Which they must both for ever rue.
She prefaced half a <HINT> of this
With, "God forbid it should be *TRUE*!">>
. THE IDIOT BOY: Gary Taylor.
No, Art; the Idiot Boy manifestly resides in Alexandria, not in
Florida.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<You asked for an example, Art.
Are you satisfied now, Art?
I asked for *a number* ...so no.
Don't be a moron, Art -- or at any rate, don't make such a
conspicuous display of it. The lamentable fact that you cannot count
isn't sufficient to induce me to waste my time by dredging up eVERy
single time that you repeated this cretinous idiocy long after it had
been conclusively refuted. To prove my point, it was more than
sufficient to show that you were *still* repeating the *SAME MORONIC
IDIOCY* *THIRTEEN YEARS(!!)* after it was conclusively refuted in this
VERy newsgroup! That I have done. Talk about a slow learner!

But if you *really* want to know the exact number of times that you
moronically repeated this particularly idiocy after its conclusive
refutation, then get St. Carolyn, or someone else who can count and
tolerates fools more willingly than I, to go through the archive with
you, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<Similarly, someone who thinks (usual
disclaimer) that _tÊrin_ is Russian for "youth" and who cannot defend
that belief in the face of the blatant fact that the word contains a
letter not in the Russian alphabet is well advised to abandon that
belief -- but that, too, you repeated oVER and oVER!>>
Exactly how many times have I *repeated* that?
In fact, you posted this idiocy *twice*. On April 1, 2010 you
*reposted* the same already refuted idiocy; that post, fortunately for
<http://tinyurl.com/l6qtyj4>.
It was April Fool's Day, Dave!
That signifies nothing, Art -- for you, eVERy day is April Fool's Day!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<Are you satisfied now, Art?>>
No.
Don't be a moron, Art -- or at any rate, don't make such a
conspicuous display of it. The lamentable fact that you cannot count
isn't sufficient to induce me to waste my time by dredging up eVERy
single time that you repeated this cretinous idiocy long after it had
been conclusively refuted. To prove my point, it was more than
sufficient to show that you were *still* repeating the *SAME MORONIC
IDIOCY* *WEEKS(!!)* after it had already been conclusively refuted in
this VERy newsgroup! I repeat the pertinent part of Peter Groves's post
for your delectation, Art:
------------------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
*=D1=82=C3=A6=D1=80=D0=B8=D0=BD* : adolescent, youth, boy (Russian)
=C2=A0Huh? =C2=A0What are you gibbering about now, Art? =C2=A0The secon=
d character
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
"=C3=A6" ("ae" in case it appears as an unprintable character on your
computer) is not even a letter in the Russian alphabet! =C2=A0From what
lunatic web site did you get this nonsense, Art?
=D1=82=C3=A6=D1=80=D0=B8=D0=BD
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%82%C3%A6%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD
Ossetian, Russian, Spanish -- it's all the same to Art.

Peter G.
-------------------------------------------------
Talk about a slow learner!

But if you *really* want to know the exact number of times that you
moronically repeated this particularly idiocy after its conclusive
refutation, then get someone who can count and who has more forbearance
for idiots than I have to go through the archive with you, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
I admit to repeating some *good* stuff oVER and oVER!
But you are disingenuous to state that it is *this* stuff.
Huh?!?! I neVER said that the above was good stuff, Art -- in fact,
it is pure idiocy. HoweVER, I showed that in the case of _tÊrin_, you
were still repeating the same unbelievably moronic blunder *weeks* after
it had been conclusively refuted, while in the case of "The Idiot Boy",
h.l.a.s.'s VERy own Idiot Boy was still repeating the same moronic
misattribution *A DOZEN YEARS AFTER* it had been conclusively refuted!
What kind of idiot does that?!

Of course, there are *many* more examples of this cretinous behavior.
For example, you have repeated the *same* moronic nonsense about
Cervantes being a translation of Shelton for *years* now!

In fact, in view of your Cervantes track record, I'm just waiting for
you to inform us all that the number 19 is remarkable as both the sum of
two consecutive integers and the difference of their squares, or that
Virgil came before Herodotus!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
Loading...