Strats Have Got Farey's Back.
elizabeth
I think it's ironic that the Oxfordians, whose
candidate has never failed to flunk a stylometric
test, are tearing into Farey.
I've posted on Prof. Dean Simonton's design of
seven stylometric studies to test Oxford's
authorship of the Shakespeare works. Oxford
flunked all seven. Add to that Elliott and Valenza's
results.
In addition, Strat stylometric studies, now more
than a hundred and twenty, confirm that there
was one principle author who was making small
incremental experiments with the elements of
verse from play to play.
So contra Looney, science, not romance,
attests to the FACT that the plays written after Oxford's death were
written by the same author that wrote the plays before Oxford's death.
Whoever he or she was, they weren't Oxford.
As far as moving the Jacobean plays to the
16th century is concerned, I'll repost the abstract
below in which Simonton explains why the Oxfordians
are not going to be able to move the chronology
of the plays into Oxford's lifetime. This doesn't
bear directly on Farey's theory but it, and all the
other Strat stylometric studies do corroborate
Farey in the sense that his theory is consistent
with theirs.
THEMATIC CONTENT AND POLITICAL CONTEXT IN SHAKESPEARE'S DRAMATIC
OUTPUT, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORSHIP AND CHRONOLOGY CONTROVERSIES
DEAN KEITH SIMONTON A1
A1 University of California, Davis
Abstract:
Empirical studies of Shakespeare's plays have usually assumed that the
traditional Stratfordian chronology is basically correct. This
assumption is cast in doubt by Oxfordians who claim that the plays
were authored by Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. However,
prior investigations have shown that Stratfordian chronologies are
more strongly supported by stylometric analyses than are Oxfordian
chronologies. In this study the two authorship positions are evaluated
by examining the correlation between the thematic content of the plays
and the political context in which the plays would be written
according to rival sets of dates. Stratfordian chronologies, when
lagged just two years, yield substantively meaningful associations
between thematic content and political context, whereas Oxfordian
chronologies . . .
yield no relationships, however lagged.
Hence, only the Stratfordian results are consistent with previous
research indicating that artistic creativity is responsive to
conspicuous political events.
mylear
I agree with your comments Elizabeth, but where is the irony? It is
to be expected that they would tear into Peter Farey, and the
magnitude of their response is a measure of his effectiveness in
demolishing their case.
JH
elizabeth
Update. I was reading Farey's posts on FOA.
Farey was threatened.
Robin G.
> Update. I was reading Farey's posts on FOA.
>
> Farey was threatened.
And the plays weren't written by Bacon.
elizabeth
And since you've studied the evidence for
Bacon, why don't you share some with us.
art
> I think it's ironic that the Oxfordians, whose
> candidate has never failed to flunk
> a stylometric test, are tearing into Farey.
We have never failed to flunk a Farey.
elizabeth <messageform...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've posted on Prof. Dean Simonton's design of
> seven stylometric studies to test Oxford's
> authorship of the Shakespeare works.
> Oxford flunked all seven.
Oxford didn't flunk anything.
Oxfordians may have flunked having a sufficiently
comprehensive theory about when the final
versions of the Shakespeare opus were written
--------------------------------------------
Elizabeth wrote:
<<Here's Simonton's statement:
DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
University of California, Davis
Abstract:
Empirical studies of Shakespeare's plays have
usually assumed that the traditional Stratfordian
chronology is basically correct. This assumption
is cast in doubt by Oxfordians who claim that the
plays were authored by Edward de Vere, the 17th
Earl of Oxford. However, prior investigations have
shown that Stratfordian chronologies are more
strongly supported by stylometric analyses than
are Oxfordian chronologies. In this study the two
authorship positions are evaluated by examining
the correlation between the thematic content of
the plays and the political context in which the
plays would be written according to rival sets
of dates. Stratfordian chronologies, when lagged
just two years, yield substantively meaningful
associations between thematic content and
political context, whereas Oxfordian chronologies
YEILD NO RELATIONSHIPS, however lagged.
Hence, ONLY the Strat-fordian results are consistent
with previous research indicating that artistic
creativity is responsive to conspicuous
political events.
http://www.science-of-aesthetics.org/abstracts.php?vol=22&issue=2
--------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/yj8xmy9
<<I [recently] wrote [a book review] (Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter,
Fall 2001) of Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity
by Dean Keith Simonton (Oxford University Press, 1999). The review
outlines the developmental and character traits that Simonton and
others found to be associated with genius, including literary genius.
The Earl of Oxford matches the expected profile of a literary genius
perfectly, while the Stratford man fits hardly at all. Mr. Shakspere's
father did experience some "family reversal of fortune;" but nothing
like what Oxford experienced, including being orphaned, which
Shakspere was not. It is remarkable how clearly the research on genius
points to Oxford, and away from Shakspere. Simonton is one of the
world's leading experts on creativity and genius, and a signer of the
Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William
Shakespeare (www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration)..>>
- John Shahan, head of the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition
---------------------------------------
http://shakespeareoxfordsociety.wordpress.com/page/6/
Shahan’s letter to Shermer, the skeptic
August 2, 2009
On July 24, 2009, John Shahan, Chairman of the Shakespeare Authorship
Coalition, sent this letter to the editor in reply to Michael
Shermer’s column, “Shakespeare, Interrupted,” in the August 2009 issue
of Scientific American:
Shahan wrote:
The current issue of the Mensa Research Journal contains an article
titled, “Shakespeare’s small Latin and less Greek: Scientific
perspectives on education, achieved eminence, and the authorship
controversy,” by Dean Keith Simonton, Distinguished Professor of
Psychology at the University of California at Davis (Vol. 40(2), 2009,
22-26). Simonton is regarded as one of the world’s leading experts on
creativity and genius. He’s a member of my academic advisory board,
and wrote the article at my request. After reviewing the evidence, he
wrote the following conclusion, the first part of which supports your
position, but the second part of which poses major problems for you:
On the Stratfordian side, high levels of formal education and
exceptional scholastic success are by no means required for
extraordinary achievement as a creative writer, and especially not as
a poet. Certainly a college degree is not a requisite. Indeed, in the
arts and humanities a college degree is predictive of less success. To
be sure, some college education is generally better than none at all,
but this does not mean that someone with only a high school degree
cannot reach the highest ranks. In fact, for the creators in the Cox
(1926) sample, those with just high school were better off than those
with master’s or doctoral degrees (Simonton, 1983). Hence, the fact
that Shakspere seems not to have gone to Cambridge or Oxford tells us
very little according to these results. The only real question is
whether he obtained a sufficiently good education at the grammar
school, and the answer to this issue will probably never be known with
confidence.
On the anti-Stratfordian side, any dearth of formal training
should be compensated by considerable self education. Not only are
creative writers unusually prone to be omnivorous and voracious
readers, but the amount of that reading is positively associated with
achieved eminence. And this stipulation is the crux of the matter. The
fact is that we have no direct evidence whatsoever that the Stratford
man was a man of letters. Not one letter that he wrote, nor any book
that he owned or read, has ever been found. Not one thing about
Shakspere’s will suggests that it was written by a man who had lived
the life of a writer, much less the writer Shakespeare. His own
children were illiterate, a surprising outcome if Shakspere was
spending numerous hours reading the historical and literary works that
underlie his plays and poems. Worse, one has to wonder whether even
the best education available at the local grammar school would suffice
for the man to become as well-read as he needed to be. Shakespeare
betrays considerable competence in modern languages, including French,
and especially Italian. To become broadly read outside English and
Latin literature may not have been possible given the grammar school
training most likely offered at the Stratford of Shakspere’s youth.
Omnivorous Oxford
Right, this is the crux of the matter, not whether Shakspere may have
attended Stratford’s grammar school. Oxford was apparently an
omnivorous and voracious reader. He was a patron of writers, musicians
and artists, who held him in the highest regard. Twenty-five works
were dedicated to him, some praising his literary achievements. No
work was dedicated to Shakespeare.
How likely is it that Shakspere became a voracious reader in
childhood, before entering grammar school, with illiterate parents?
Early childhood education is very important to the development of a
literary creative genius, and Shakspere did not live in an environment
conducive to such development. But as the Declaration says, ”This is
not to say that a commoner, even in the rigid, hierarchical social
structure of Elizabethan England, could not have managed to do it
somehow; but how could it have happened without leaving a single
trace? Orthodox scholars attribute the miracle to his innate “genius,”
but even a genius must acquire knowledge … Academic experts on
characteristics of geniuses see little reason to think that Mr.
Shakspere was a genius.” Simonton is one of the “experts” referred to.
Attached is a book review [see SO Newsletter, Vol. 37, No. 3, Fall
2001, 13] of Simonton’s Origins of Genius, Darwinian Perspectives on
Creativity (Oxford University Press, 1999), focusing on implications
for authorship. The book spells out in detail the developmental
characteristics that one would expect to find in a literary creative
genius. The review first describes these characteristics, and then
examines the extent to which each applies to Oxford and Shakspere.
Oxford clearly has all of them, and he has them in spades.
Shakspere has none of them. The results of Simonton’s work on genius
couldn’t point more strongly toward Oxford, or away from Shakspere. I
expect that you will find it both interesting, and relevant. Seen in
this context, whether or not Shakspere attended grammar school seems
like a red herring. What about all the other prerequisites to the
development of genius? It’s easy to frame an issue such that only
one’s own research paradigm seems relevant. That’s typical of
academics who see only through the lens of the own discipline.
Note: Prof. Simonton’s article in the current issue of the Mensa
Research Journal is available by subscription or purchase.
The Mensa Research Journal website is at:
http://www.mensafoundation.org/Sites/foundation/NavigationMenu/Public...
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> _________________________________________
>
> I think it's ironic that the Oxfordians, whose
> candidate has never failed to flunk a stylometric
> test, are tearing into Farey.
>
> I've posted on Prof. Dean Simonton's design of
> seven stylometric studies to test Oxford's
> authorship of the Shakespeare works. Oxford
> flunked all seven. Add to that Elliott and Valenza's
> results.
>
> In addition, Strat stylometric studies, now more
> than a hundred and twenty, confirm that there
> was one principle author who was making small
> incremental experiments with the elements of
> verse from play to play.
They don't CONFIRM anything, Elizabeth. They may support the thesis
that one principle author wrote the plays.
What a halfwit--as if there's anything artistic creativity might not
sometimes be responsive to. My own is just about never responsive to
political events.
--Bob G.
art
>
> What a halfwit--as if there's anything artistic creativity might not
> sometimes be responsive to. My own is just about never
> responsive to political events.
You have "artistic creativity?"
Art Neuendorffer
elizabeth
wrote:
> On Jan 1, 7:12 pm, elizabeth <messageform...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > _________________________________________
>
> > I think it's ironic that the Oxfordians, whose
> > candidate has never failed to flunk a stylometric
> > test, are tearing into Farey.
>
> > I've posted on Prof. Dean Simonton's design of
> > seven stylometric studies to test Oxford's
> > authorship of the Shakespeare works. Oxford
> > flunked all seven. Add to that Elliott and Valenza's
> > results.
>
> > In addition, Strat stylometric studies, now more
> > than a hundred and twenty, confirm that there
> > was one principle author who was making small
> > incremental experiments with the elements of
> > verse from play to play.
>
> They don't CONFIRM anything, Elizabeth. They may support the thesis
> that one principle author wrote the plays.
That's right, Bob. Strat stylometrics are so
exactly consistent from test to test that
they do confirm that one principle author
wrote the plays.
The only thing they do not confirm is the
authorship of any candidate who was deceased
before the plays were completed. The authors
who were still living in 1623 when 20,000
emendations not to speak of hundreds of new
lines were added to the First Folio in the authorial
hand are Bacon and presumably Marlowe.
There's a lot of evidence that Bacon wrote
Henry VIII to complete the histories. For
example, even after his "fall" Bacon had access
to Wolsey's papers kept in the same office
where Bacon worked as Lord Chancellor.
Wolsey's influence is seen in the speeches
in Henry VIII.
Bacon's signature is still on the check out
sheet that he signed when he took Wolsey's
papers home to write Henry VIII. There's
a letter from Bacon to one of the Stuart
children telling them that he's working on
Henry VIII. Bacon is the only candidate who
had access to the Cavendish Manuscript,
a key source for Henry VIII.
Bacon's literary executor Archbishop Thomas
Tenison (there are two Archbishop Thomas
Tenisons, father and son, both were executors
of Bacon's papers), wrote . . .
"And those who have true skill in the Works
of Lord Verulam, like great Masters in painting,
can tell by the design, the strength, the way of
coloring, whether he was the author of this or
the other piece,though his name be not to it."
--Archbishop Thomas Tenison in "Baconiana"
1679
So at least one of the Tenisons who had possession
of Bacon's papers, is telling us that Bacon doesn't
always sign his works but that his style is so unique
that it's possible to identify Bacon as the author.
While I'm thinking of it, the deaths of both Oxford
and Shaksper went without any notice at all on the
part of other literary figures in England. Nothing,
not even a condolence card.
If Shaksper or Oxford were the greatest poet
of that era, other poets, at least, would have taken
notice.
Dr. William Rawley, the first executor of Bacon's
works, received so many verses at Bacon's death
that Rawley wrote that he could not publish all of
them. He did publish more about forty, many of
them referring to Bacon as a concealed poet.
A Tenison further tells us that Bacon, Jonson,
Pembroke, Hobbes, Bacon's nephew Sir Nathaniel
Bacon and some other "good pennes" were having a
hilarious time at Gorhambury about the time the
First Folio was being edited. Jonson, of course,
is thought to be the editor but Jonson, whose style
was nothing like "Shakespeare's,'" could not have
made the 20,000 corrections and emendations
in the authorial hand nor written . . . I think it's
2,000 new lines.
That's a perfect example, Grumman, of the
tendency for Strats to turn their considerable
weapons on themselves. Simonton has done
Strats a big favor, he's created a hole in
Oxfordianism big enough for Strats to walk
through but Strats are too demoralized and
disorganized to take on the Oxfordians.
I'm through, I'm never going to ask the Strats
to get off their butts again, I can see that the
Oxfordians have succeeded in undercutting
your faith in Shaksper. That's the vulnerability
of quasi-religious literary movements, eventually
the Oxfordians will suffer the same.
>
> --Bob G.
elizabeth
>
>
>
> > _________________________________________
>
> > I think it's ironic that the Oxfordians, whose
> > candidate has never failed to flunk a stylometric
> > test, are tearing into Farey.
>
> > I've posted on Prof. Dean Simonton's design of
> > seven stylometric studies to test Oxford's
> > authorship of the Shakespeare works. Oxford
> > flunked all seven. Add to that Elliott and Valenza's
> > results.
>
> > In addition, Strat stylometric studies, now more
> > than a hundred and twenty, confirm that there
> > was one principle author who was making small
> > incremental experiments with the elements of
> > verse from play to play.
>
> They don't CONFIRM anything, Elizabeth. They may support the thesis
> that one principle author wrote the plays.
Oh, and you've read Wells and Taylor's
review article in the Shakespeare Survey?
For several years I've been trying to get HLAS
posters to focus on stylometrics, I'm so glad
that Farey broke through. How brilliant is
tying Meres to modern stylometric studies?
I'm totally in awe..
And it does not help the Oxfordian case
to say the least.
Simonton is no halfwit. Have you seen his
bibliography? Simonton sells his articles to
the most prestigious university presses.
Paul Crowley
>>> according to rival sets of dates. Stratfordian chronologies, when
>>> lagged just two years, yield substantively meaningful associations
>>> between thematic content and political context, whereas Oxfordian
>>> chronologies . . .
>>> yield no relationships, however lagged.
>>> Hence, only the Stratfordian results are consistent with previous
>>> research indicating that artistic creativity is responsive to
>>> conspicuous political events.
>>> <http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?id=eqdpmk0kdfckma8f>
>>
>> What a halfwit
I broadly agree with Bob (if probably on
very different grounds). Simonton is the
worst kind of hack, knowing how to churn
out the standard garbage for money. He's
not really a halfwit. He's just selling to
halfwits. That is how he sees his 'job'.
He would not know what it is to have an
original thought. He would be repelled by
the possibility of such an idea.
>> --as if there's anything artistic creativity
>> might not sometimes be responsive to. My own is just about
>> never responsive to political events.
No doubt he picks up the 'political events'
specified by Strats (such as Guy Fawkes)
and then locates 'the references' in the
plays, unsurprisingly finding that Oxford
could not have mentioned Fawkes.
> Simonton is no halfwit. Have you seen his
> bibliography?
Take a look at his home page:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/simonton/
> Simonton sells his articles to
> the most prestigious university presses.
Do you think that they would buy the same
kinds of articles from an Oxfordian -- or
even from a Baconian?
Simonton understands his market and
sells to it. No more than that. He is an
'operator' -- of the sort that people every
kind of institution, including academia.
His 'opinions' on anything are of no more
value than those of another used-car
salesman.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On 2 Jan, 06:46, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 7:12 pm, elizabeth <messageform...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > _________________________________________
>
> > > I think it's ironic that the Oxfordians, whose
> > > candidate has never failed to flunk a stylometric
> > > test, are tearing into Farey.
>
> > > I've posted on Prof. Dean Simonton's design of
> > > seven stylometric studies to test Oxford's
> > > authorship of the Shakespeare works. Oxford
> > > flunked all seven. Add to that Elliott and Valenza's
> > > results.
>
> > > In addition, Strat stylometric studies, now more
> > > than a hundred and twenty, confirm that there
> > > was one principle author who was making small
> > > incremental experiments with the elements of
> > > verse from play to play.
>
> > They don't CONFIRM anything, Elizabeth. They may support the thesis
> > that one principle author wrote the plays.
>
> Oh, and you've read Wells and Taylor's
> review article in the Shakespeare Survey?
No stylometric analysis can CONFIRM a dating, Elizabeth. No matter
how much academics agree with it.
> the most prestigious university presses.- Hide quoted text -
>
Have you seen Diana Price's bibliography? A good general rule
for "Scholarly" texts, is that the longer the bibliography (per page
of text), the more worthless the text. Roger Strittmatter is probably
a champion of bibilogrphizing. It's not how many books you consult
(or cherry pick for statements to support your thesis, but how much
effective thought you give to your thesis. As for "prestigious
university presses," they only publish work by mediocrities. And
they don't publish work by Baconians--what do you make of that,
Elizabeth?
--Bob
Dave
> > --Bob G.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -