Portrait of a madman
David Kathman
http://earlofoxford.biz/oxford3022.htm
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
David L. Webb
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Viewer discretion is advised.
>
> http://earlofoxford.biz/oxford3022.htm
Hmm...for someone who has spent so much time frothing at mouth
accusing all and sundry of cowardice, lying, suppressing evidence,
lacking testosterone, etc., our aspiring best-selling author looks
positively avuncular.
Alisa Beaton
> > David Kathman:
> > Viewer discretion is advised.
> > http://earlofoxford.biz/oxford3022.htm
> David Webb:
> Hmm...for someone who has spent so much time frothing at mouth
> accusing all and sundry of cowardice, lying, suppressing evidence,
> lacking testosterone, etc., our aspiring best-selling author looks
> positively avuncular.
Do not let his gentle appearance fool you. Here is a man simply
BURSTING with the knowledge that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford,
did not die in 1604 (although buried that year), but instead his
spirit journeyed to the New World (where an island in Nova Scotia was
named after him), there to remain for a few years before returning to
England where he (it?)lived secretly (creating all the Shakespearean
plays penned after his death*), his presence unknown to any but his
old mum/lover, Elizabeth I. Don't take *my* word for it, read his
book!
*GHOST-writing, of course, you nits.
paul streitz
"If you have any interest in Tudor England, this is the one book you
MUST read, it is an accomplishment of outstanding significance with
more surprises on every page. Currently accepted history
is...history." Reviewed by Beverly J. Rowe, MyShelf.Com
I await your books.
It remains an absolutely staggering puzzle to me, how anyone could be
stumble on the doorstep of the ultimate truth of the Elizabethan era,
as you and these other Stratfordians have, (I might also include Dean
Keith Simonton) and walk away from it. The inevitable logic of the
Oxfordian position is that if the works are autobiographical, then
Oxford has to be a Prince of the Realm, that is son of the Queen. And
it doesn't take much reading of Elizabeth's biographies to realize
that the Summer of 1548 is very strange indeed. How all you alleged
students of history could have failed to follow this plain trail is
simply beyond me. To what end, to defend a few hanks of hair and
pieces of scrap that point to Stratford.
"Enthusiastic praise was turned into structured history by William
Camden, who wrote his Annales in the 1610s. Camden formulated the
historiographical agenda for the reign, and historians have usually
followed his scheme: Elizabeth inherited chaos at home and threats
from abroad, but with her own foresight and skill she imposed unifying
solutions to national problems. The reign of Elizabeth was thus a
golden age of progress, in which a careful queen inspired her people
to greatness and checked any divisive militant tendencies. The ‘Camden
version' has dominated interpretations of Elizabeth over the past
century: it was followed in most of the almost 90 biographies
published since 1890." — Christopher Haigh
But the Virgin Queen was the more elaborate hoax. A propaganda coup
unparelled in history. Believed for centuries as Elizabeth became an
Icon of the English nation. Elizabeth had children, six maybe seven.
Edward de Vere, Robert Cecil, Robert Devereux and Henry Wriothesley to
name a few.
To put it very simply, I haven't just written a biography of Oxford, I
have changed Elizabethan history for e-ver.
Take your choice, continue to prattle on HLAS about a theory that is
throughly discredited by every journalist that has approached it in
the last five years. Or read my book and try to refute it. But you two
are mainly hot air, preferring to make snide remarks on how foolish it
is. The same lack of courage to debate the authorship issues is shown
in the refusal to grapple with the evidence presented in the book.
paul streitz
Stephanie Caruana
"Too Low For Zero" <oele...@whitman.edu> wrote in message
news:5e5828ac.02021...@posting.google.com...
> Paul, maybe I am Edward de Vere's direct descendent, carring the
> Shakespeare/de Vere lifeline. Remarkable. Have you thought of that?
> Why don't you write your next book on that topic; you certainly have
> as much evidence for that idea as your recent book, about which you
> never stop spamming.
Actually, Diana Spencer, Lady Di, and her sons, Prince William and Prince
Harry, ARE direct descendants of Edward de Vere. The genealogy has been
floating around in Oxfordian circles for years, and Paul has included it in
his book.
I don't know about you, however.
Stephanie
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Stephanie Caruana
author/editor:
The Gemstone File of Bruce Roberts
http://gemstone-file.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote in message
news:<5daf239d.02021...@posting.google.com>...
‘Camden
> > version' has dominated interpretations of Elizabeth over the past
> > century: it was followed in most of the almost 90 biographies
> > published since 1890." — Christopher Haigh
David L. Webb
streitz <oxins...@aol.com> wrote:
> "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:<a4hm7m$ou6$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > Viewer discretion is advised.
> >
> > http://earlofoxford.biz/oxford3022.htm
> >
> > Dave Kathman
> > dj...@ix.netcom.com
> "If you have any interest in Tudor England, this is the one book you
> MUST read, it is an accomplishment of outstanding significance with
> more surprises on every page. Currently accepted history
> is...history." Reviewed by Beverly J. Rowe, MyShelf.Com
But Paul -- "Beverly I. Rowe" is an anagram of "Or, Vere be Wily" --
although she misspelled "Willy," it seems a fitting alternative title
for your book. Note also that Ms. Rowe's "wish list" (at
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/wishlist/39T3DRAJ0XL4Q/102-0688075-45
12942>) contains the following item:
_Speaking in Tongues: A Novel_, by Jeffery Deaver, Jeffrey Deaver.
Note that the author's name is repeated (for emphasis?) -- and that it
deviates by a single letter from "deVer"! Coincidence?
> I await your books.
>
> It remains an absolutely staggering puzzle to me, how anyone could be
> stumble [sic] on the doorstep of the ultimate truth of the Elizabethan era,
> as you and these other Stratfordians have, (I might also include Dean
> Keith Simonton) and walk away from it.
It remains an absolutely staggering puzzle to me how *anyone*, even
an Oxfordian, could be stumble oVER his own feet as you have and do.
> The inevitable logic of the
> Oxfordian position is that if the works are autobiographical, then
> Oxford has to be a Prince of the Realm, that is son of the Queen.
What? If _Hamlet_ is indeed autobiographical, why isn't the
"inevitable logic of the Oxfordian position" the inference that the
author was killed in a rigged fencing match? Or that the author was a
man who murdered his brother by pouring poison in his ear and then
usurped his realm and his queen? Or that the author was a young woman,
grief-stricken by the accidental slaying of her father by her lover?
If the other works are autobiographical as well, why isn't the
"inevitable logic of the Oxfordian position" the inference that the
author was a weaver and amateur actor with an ass's head? Or that the
author was a reclusive misanthrope? Or that the author was a Venetian
Jew who was despised and ill-used by his clients?
More to the point, why doesn't the "inevitable logic of the
Oxfordian position" -- that Oxford was Elizabeth's son and lover --
constitute a proof by _reductio ad absurdum_ that the "Oxfordian
position" that the works are autobiographical is simply *wrong*? If
one may furnish you with a brief but much needed tutorial in elementary
logic, the truth of the logical implication "A implies B" does *not*
mean that B follows -- not that you have established "A implies B" in
any case.
> And
> it doesn't take much reading of Elizabeth's biographies to realize
> that the Summer of 1548 is very strange indeed.
It is indeed fortunate for you that it doesn't take *much* reading.
> How all you alleged
> students of history could have failed to follow this plain trail is
> simply beyond me. [...]
Fools and Oxfordians (the two categories should not be construed as
disjoint) rush in where angels fear to tread; the author of _Oxford:
Son of Queen Elizabeth I_ rushes in where even most Oxfordians fear to
tread!
[...]
> But the Virgin Queen was the more elaborate hoax. A propaganda coup
> unparelled [sic] in history. Believed for centuries as Elizabeth became an
> Icon of the English nation. Elizabeth had children, six maybe seven.
> Edward de Vere, Robert Cecil, Robert Devereux and Henry Wriothesley to
> name a few.
And the others?
> To put it very simply, I haven't just written a biography of Oxford,
I certainly agree that you haven't just written a biography of
Oxford; rather, what you've just written is a lurid and farcical
fiction.
> I
> have changed Elizabethan history for e-ver.
>
> Take your choice, continue to prattle on HLAS about a theory that is
> throughly discredited by every journalist that has approached it in
> the last five years.
Evidently your reading of contemporary journalism is even more
selective than your reading of the Shakespeare canon.
> Or read my book and try to refute it.
Send me a review copy and I will read it.
> But you two
Two? You think that there are *two* of Dave Kathman?
> are mainly hot air, preferring to make snide remarks on how foolish it
> is. The same lack of courage to debate the authorship issues is shown
> in the refusal to grapple with the evidence presented in the book.
I've already agreed to debate you, provided you can show yourself
capable of a minimum level of civilized scholarly behavior by *proving*
your contemptible and baseless accusations of dishonesty. You need
only identify the "dozens of records" you claim are omitted in Dave
Kathman's list of references to William Shakespeare and show those
omissions to have been deliberate. If you really want to debate, why
haven't you done so? It's pretty plain who is just blowing hot air.
I've already made you a handsome offer: if you'll send me a review
copy of your book, I promise to spend the time to read it, and I'll
even post a review.
David Webb
Elizabeth Weir
> "Too Low For Zero" <oele...@whitman.edu> wrote in message
> news:5e5828ac.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > Paul, maybe I am Edward de Vere's direct descendent, carring the
> > Shakespeare/de Vere lifeline. Remarkable. Have you thought of that?
> > Why don't you write your next book on that topic; you certainly have
> > as much evidence for that idea as your recent book, about which you
> > never stop spamming.
>
> Actually, Diana Spencer, Lady Di, and her sons, Prince William and Prince
> Harry, ARE direct descendants of Edward de Vere. The genealogy has been
> floating around in Oxfordian circles for years, and Paul has included it in
> his book.
>
> I don't know about you, however.
>
> Stephanie
One of the most insidious things about rhetoric--particularly
romantic ideological rhetoric like "This Star of England"--is that
its images of "power" and "patronage" work on lower brain centers
to give some readers a sense of growing awe as they're reading.
Some readers turn into little literary serfs mentally
scraping and bowing before
their fantasy of the Highest Ranked Peer In The Realm,
My Lorde of Oxenforde. [long sigh].
I don't know what you can do about it short of reading
Thomas Paine.
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"We're loooooking." --Stephanie Caruana
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Stephanie Caruana
--
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Stephanie Caruana
author/editor:
The Gemstone File of Bruce Roberts
http://gemstone-file.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.02022...@posting.google.com...
> "We're loooooking." for a complete asshole named Elizabeth Weird, and she
is all too easy to find.--Stephanie Caruana
>
> > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <a518bp$9ih$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephanie Caruana
<spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Why, Stephanie -- I'm *shocked* that a self-styled consummate lady
has permitted Weird Elizabeth to induce her to emulate the unmemorable
prose style of Mr. Streitz! This is especially so since Elizabeth has
refined to an art form your habitual tendency merely to make assertions
(some of them demonstrably false) with no supporting evidence --
remember that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! HoweVER, I
certainly agree that Elizabeth has raised the technique to new levels.
David Webb
paul streitz
You two are like nerds, who couldn't get dates for the Prom, and then
spent the night telling each other how ugly the other guys' dates
were.
Unless I post something, there is nothing really for you to flame
about, because it is obvious neither of you have have read the book.
But then, to read the book, you have to buy the book. And to buy the
book, you have to pay money, some of which goes to me. Which means you
will be paying me for information you don't have, which would hurt
your tender little prides. Oh, that's really ok, I understand.
But then no matter what is in the book, it can't be true, because it
is already and axiom that "there is no evidence for Oxford." Even
though the book is talking about a time period 1547-1549 that you know
nothing about.
And it was true, Betty Lou couldn't go to the prom with you because
she did have to wash her hair that Saturday night.
paul streitz
David Kathman
oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
Streitz, the one good thing I can say for you is that you make
me laugh more heartily than any of the other antistratfordians
on this newsgroup. This post is your most hilarious yet! One of
the only reasons I even read this group any more is for the
entertainment value, and you're one of the primary entertainers.
The fact that you're apparently serious (however difficult that
may be to believe) makes the whole thing far, far funnier. Thanks
for the belly laughs!
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Mark Steese
wrote news:5daf239d.02022...@posting.google.com, on the day of
20 Feb 2002:
> David & David,
> You two are like nerds, who couldn't get dates for the Prom, and then
> spent the night telling each other how ugly the other guys' dates
> were.
>
> Unless I post something, there is nothing really for you to flame
> about, because it is obvious neither of you have have read the book.
> But then, to read the book, you have to buy the book. And to buy the
> book, you have to pay money, some of which goes to me.
Actually, no. Amazon now has *two* used copies for sale, one of which is
being sold by the Strand for only $16.25. Buy it and help support one of
the best bookstores in Manhattan!
-Mark Steese
--
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope
and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope
the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town
till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground
cold cold ground -Tom Waits
Tom Reedy
news:Xns91BBD2062B6D6...@209.249.90.101...
> Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz)
that
> wrote news:5daf239d.02022...@posting.google.com, on the day of
> 20 Feb 2002:
>
> > David & David,
> > You two are like nerds, who couldn't get dates for the Prom, and then
> > spent the night telling each other how ugly the other guys' dates
> > were.
> >
> > Unless I post something, there is nothing really for you to flame
> > about, because it is obvious neither of you have have read the book.
> > But then, to read the book, you have to buy the book. And to buy the
> > book, you have to pay money, some of which goes to me.
>
> Actually, no. Amazon now has *two* used copies for sale, one of which is
> being sold by the Strand for only $16.25. Buy it and help support one of
> the best bookstores in Manhattan!
*You* buy it. I've waded through enough of Streitz's lame-brained posts to
know I don't want to waste another minute of my life reading anything he has
to say. I just feel sorry for Mrs. Streitz.
I realize that's a coward's refusal to face the evidence, but there you go!
TR
Mark Steese
that wrote news:t9%c8.4440$ZC3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
on the day of 20 Feb 2002:
[snip]
>> > Unless I post something, there is nothing really for you to flame
>> > about, because it is obvious neither of you have have read the book.
>> > But then, to read the book, you have to buy the book. And to buy the
>> > book, you have to pay money, some of which goes to me.
>>
>> Actually, no. Amazon now has *two* used copies for sale, one of which
>> is being sold by the Strand for only $16.25. Buy it and help support
>> one of the best bookstores in Manhattan!
>
> *You* buy it. I've waded through enough of Streitz's lame-brained posts
> to know I don't want to waste another minute of my life reading
> anything he has to say. I just feel sorry for Mrs. Streitz.
Oh, I'm sure I could find better things to spend $16.25 on. In fact, it
would be almost impossible not to. I just felt that it was a trifle
ungenerous of Paul not to mention that there are more cost-effective
options than buying a new copy.
Bob Grumman
> romantic ideological rhetoric like "This Star of England"--is that
> its images of "power" and "patronage" work on lower brain centers
> to give some readers a sense of growing awe as they're reading.
>
> Some readers turn into little literary serfs mentally
> scraping and bowing before
> their fantasy of the Highest Ranked Peer In The Realm,
> My Lorde of Oxenforde. [long sigh].
And this is different from scraping and bowing before a mental
image of the Greatest Multiple-Genius in the History of the
World how? The Marlowe-backers are the only anti-Stratfordians
without a need to consider their man not simply a great writer,
but Super-Superior in almost every significant field--and
responsible for more great literature than just Shakespeare's
(and their man's) plays and poems, to boot.
--Bob G.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Mark Steese
but.net> that wrote
news:841fd1714ad76fe4f6d...@mygate.mailgate.org, on the day
of 21 Feb 2002:
Ah, but don't forget that according to the Marlovians, their man overcame
the greatest obstacle of all! Anyone can be a great writer, but who
besides Mighty Marlowe* could conquer Death Itself?
-Mark Steese
*Here he comes to write the pla-a-ay...
KQKnave
mst...@charter.net (Mark Steese) writes:
>Ah, but don't forget that according to the Marlovians, their man overcame
>the greatest obstacle of all! Anyone can be a great writer, but who
>besides Mighty Marlowe* could conquer Death Itself?
>
Apparently Oxenforde did as well, since he continued to write after
1604.
See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Greg Reynolds
paul streitz wrote:
> "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<a4hm7m$ou6$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > Viewer discretion is advised.
> >
> > http://earlofoxford.biz/oxford3022.htm
> >
> > Dave Kathman
> > dj...@ix.netcom.com
>
> "If you have any interest in Tudor England, this is the one book you
> MUST read, it is an accomplishment of outstanding significance with
> more surprises on every page. Currently accepted history
> is...history." Reviewed by Beverly J. Rowe, MyShelf.Com
>
> I await your books.
Pre-order today:
*Stars and Streitz for E. Ver.*
*Takin it to the Streitz* [see trailer]
*Where the Streitz Have No Shame*
> It remains an absolutely staggering puzzle to me, how anyone could be
> stumble on the doorstep of the ultimate truth of the Elizabethan era,
> as you and these other Stratfordians have, (I might also include Dean
> Keith Simonton) and walk away from it.
Paul, you're walking the plank!
There's not a dry eye in Oxfordia!
> The inevitable logic of the
> Oxfordian position is that if the works are autobiographical, then
> Oxford has to be a Prince of the Realm, that is son of the Queen.
Elementary, Your Dizziness.
> And
> it doesn't take much reading of Elizabeth's biographies to realize
> that the Summer of 1548 is very strange indeed. How all you alleged
> students of history could have failed to follow this plain trail is
> simply beyond me.
Have fun wrestling with the afterbirth, slimemonger.
> To what end, to defend a few hanks of hair and
> pieces of scrap that point to Stratford.
Will Oxfordians make you register as a known molester?
> "Enthusiastic praise was turned into structured history by William
> Camden, who wrote his Annales in the 1610s. Camden formulated the
> historiographical agenda for the reign, and historians have usually
> followed his scheme: Elizabeth inherited chaos at home and threats
> from abroad, but with her own foresight and skill she imposed unifying
> solutions to national problems. The reign of Elizabeth was thus a
> golden age of progress, in which a careful queen inspired her people
> to greatness and checked any divisive militant tendencies.
She had "forgotte the fart."
> The ‘Camden
> version' has dominated interpretations of Elizabeth over the past
> century: it was followed in most of the almost 90 biographies
> published since 1890." — Christopher Haigh
>
> But the Virgin Queen was the more elaborate hoax.
More elaborate than Art looking busy at his office?
> A propaganda coup unparelled in history. Believed for centuries as Elizabeth became an
> Icon of the English nation. Elizabeth had children, six maybe seven.
The Oxfordian line was that the Earl could father 10 with her (I read this
in *Paul Crowley, Sonnet Butcher*)!
> Edward de Vere, Robert Cecil, Robert Devereux and Henry Wriothesley to
> name a few.
Vera, Chuck, and Dave, so that is six or seven.
> To put it very simply, I haven't just written a biography of Oxford, I
> have changed Elizabethan history for e-ver.
Please wash your hands before returning to work.
> Take your choice, continue to prattle on HLAS about a theory that is
> throughly discredited by every journalist that has approached it in
> the last five years. Or read my book and try to refute it.
It sucks. You're a creep.
> But you two
> are mainly hot air, preferring to make snide remarks on how foolish it
> is. The same lack of courage to debate the authorship issues is shown
> in the refusal to grapple with the evidence presented in the book.
>
> paul streitz
[NB: Dave Kathman advised us to exercise discretion.]
Takin' It To The Streitz
Words and Music by
Michael McDonald and Greg Reynolds
We didn't know it, but she's his mother.
He was raised here in this living hell.
She didn't know that he'd be Shakespeare
Fairly soon the time will tell.
Paul, telling us the things he's gonna do for Ed.
I ain't blind and I don't like what I think I see.
Takin' it to the Streitz,
takin' it to the Streitz, no more need for runnin',
Takin' it to the Streitz.
Take this message to his brothers...
You will find them everywhere.
Edward, Robert, Rob, and Henry
Each one Elizabeth's heir.
Takin' it to the Streitz,
takin' it to the Streitz, no more need for runnin',
takin' it to the Streitz.
Takin' it to the Streitz,
takin' it to the Streitz, no more need for hidin',
takin' it to the Streitz.
Takin' it to the Streitz,
takin' it to the Streitz, takin' it to the
Repeat and fade
bookburn
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
news:3c75c830$0$1612$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
"Puttin' on the Streitz," Irving Berlin & Fred Astair
Tips his hat just like an English chappie
To a lady with a wealthy pappy
Very snappy
You'll declare it's simply topping
To be there and hear them swapping
Smart tidbits
Puttin' on the Ritz
Puttin' on the Ritz
Puttin' on the Ritz
>
Bob Grumman
overcame
< <the greatest obstacle of all! Anyone can be a great writer, but who
< Apparently Oxenforde did as well, since he continued to write after
You know, that makes me wonder if there are any Marlowe-backers
who blieve that he died at Deptford. After all, there are
people who think Sidney died when he was said to have but that
he still wrote Shakespeare.
John W. Kennedy
>
> In article <Xns91BC717A7B78B...@209.249.90.101>,
> mst...@charter.net (Mark Steese) writes:
>
> >Ah, but don't forget that according to the Marlovians, their man overcame
> >the greatest obstacle of all! Anyone can be a great writer, but who
> >besides Mighty Marlowe* could conquer Death Itself?
> >
>
> Apparently Oxenforde did as well, since he continued to write after
> 1604.
That ain't nothin' compared to Bacon writing "The Song of Hiawatha".
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
Robert Stonehouse
>In article <Xns91BC717A7B78B...@209.249.90.101>,
>mst...@charter.net (Mark Steese) writes:
>>Ah, but don't forget that according to the Marlovians, their man overcame
>>the greatest obstacle of all! Anyone can be a great writer, but who
>>besides Mighty Marlowe* could conquer Death Itself?
>
>Apparently Oxenforde did as well, since he continued to write after
>1604.
Robert Greene seems to have made a speciality of it. "He was
apparently as prolific a writer in death as he had been in life.
John Dickenson describes him as 'a well-proportioned man, suited in
death's livery, who seemed to write as fast as I could read', and
the title-page of _Greene in Conceipt_ showed Greene tied up in his
shroud but still busy at his writing-desk" (Katherine Duncan-Jones,
Ungentle Shakespeare, page 228 - the picture is reproduced on the
previous page as fig. 37).
This seems to be stronger evidence than we have for Marlowe - an
eye-witness and a picture.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Gary Kosinsky
oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
>The inevitable logic of the
>Oxfordian position is that if the works are autobiographical, then
>Oxford has to be a Prince of the Realm, that is son of the Queen.
Do other Oxfordians in this newsgroup agree with Paul
Streitz that the inevitable logic of the Oxfordian position is
that Oxford was Elizabeth's son?
Pat Dooley
"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:jQ9h8wyT...@vcn.bc.ca...
There are two schools of thought amonsgt the Oxfordians
and they are deeply split on the issue. The "Prince Tudor"
school takes it as an article of faith that the Earl of Southampton
was the son of Oxford and Elizabeth. Others add in
the even more bizarre claim that Oxford was Elizabeth's
son as well. No amount of documentary evidence proving the
impossibility of either proposition will sway them from
their position. In their view, you cannot be an advanced
Oxfordian unless you embrace the core belief of
Southampton's royal birth.
The other school of Oxfordians are embarrassed by the
theory and the lack of scholarship that goes with it.
This is interesting, especially when those in this school
take Ogburn as the last word on the authorship,
and he was a not-so-closet Tudor Rose believer himself.
The Oxfordian version of the Tudor Rose theory was
stolen from the Baconians, although one of the earliest
Oxfordian advocates (Percy Allen) claimed to have
received information or confirmation from beyond the
grave from an automatic writer. If you'd like some
bibiography, I can put a few things together for you.
I don't subscribe to the views of either Oxfordian school.
Most of the Oxfordian evidence is circumstantial and
some of it is plain wrong.
Pat Dooley
Tom Reedy
news:XhVh8.232422$uz6.3...@news.webusenet.com...
>
> "Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:jQ9h8wyT...@vcn.bc.ca...
> > In article <5daf239d.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> > oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> > >The inevitable logic of the
> > >Oxfordian position is that if the works are autobiographical, then
> > >Oxford has to be a Prince of the Realm, that is son of the Queen.
> >
> > Do other Oxfordians in this newsgroup agree with Paul
> > Streitz that the inevitable logic of the Oxfordian position is
> > that Oxford was Elizabeth's son?
> >
>
> There are two schools of thought amonsgt the Oxfordians
> and they are deeply split on the issue. The "Prince Tudor"
> school takes it as an article of faith that the Earl of Southampton
> was the son of Oxford and Elizabeth. Others add in
> the even more bizarre claim that Oxford was Elizabeth's
> son as well. No amount of documentary evidence proving the
> impossibility of either proposition will sway them from
> their position. In their view, you cannot be an advanced
> Oxfordian unless you embrace the core belief of
> Southampton's royal birth.
This is interesting. So Oxfordians can advance by embracing
more bizarre beliefs? Sounds like some demented Masonic
lodge.
> The other school of Oxfordians are embarrassed by the
> theory and the lack of scholarship that goes with it.
As opposed to the scholarship that goes along with "orthodox"
Oxfordianism?
> This is interesting, especially when those in this school
> take Ogburn as the last word on the authorship,
> and he was a not-so-closet Tudor Rose believer himself.
>
> The Oxfordian version of the Tudor Rose theory was
> stolen from the Baconians, although one of the earliest
> Oxfordian advocates (Percy Allen) claimed to have
> received information or confirmation from beyond the
> grave from an automatic writer. If you'd like some
> bibiography, I can put a few things together for you.
>
> I don't subscribe to the views of either Oxfordian school.
> Most of the Oxfordian evidence is circumstantial
Indeed, it brings new meaning to the word, "circumstantial."
> and some of it is plain wrong.
>
> Pat Dooley
Do tell.
TR
Pat Dooley
"Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:L5Wh8.2049$Vx1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Worse.
>
> > The other school of Oxfordians are embarrassed by the
> > theory and the lack of scholarship that goes with it.
>
> As opposed to the scholarship that goes along with "orthodox"
> Oxfordianism?
>
> > This is interesting, especially when those in this school
> > take Ogburn as the last word on the authorship,
> > and he was a not-so-closet Tudor Rose believer himself.
> >
> > The Oxfordian version of the Tudor Rose theory was
> > stolen from the Baconians, although one of the earliest
> > Oxfordian advocates (Percy Allen) claimed to have
> > received information or confirmation from beyond the
> > grave from an automatic writer. If you'd like some
> > bibiography, I can put a few things together for you.
> >
> > I don't subscribe to the views of either Oxfordian school.
> > Most of the Oxfordian evidence is circumstantial
>
> Indeed, it brings new meaning to the word, "circumstantial."
>
> > and some of it is plain wrong.
> >
> > Pat Dooley
>
> Do tell.
The monument makeover-conspiracy theory is wrong
The idea that Oxford's widow paid off Shakespeare to buy his silence
is wrong
The theory that the Queen's annual grant of £1000 was for Oxford's
theatrical
activities has no evidence to support it.
The attempts to replace Shakespeare's by Oxford in the theatrical
records are
wrong.
Their account of his non-literary life ignores the foolishness of the
man.
He sold land faster than it was given to him and was duped by his
servants on the way through.
The theory that references to the Lord Chamberlain are
actually references to the Lord Great Chamberlain (Oxford)
is wrong.
That'll be enough to set the Oxfordians on my tail.
Pat Dooley
Tom Reedy
Ha! I meant it as a figure of speech, but I got a good laugh out of it!
TR
Toby Petzold
> "Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:L5Wh8.2049$Vx1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Pat Dooley" <patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> wrote in message
> > news:XhVh8.232422$uz6.3...@news.webusenet.com...
> > >
> > > "Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:jQ9h8wyT...@vcn.bc.ca...
> > > > In article <5daf239d.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> > > > >The inevitable logic of the
> > > > >Oxfordian position is that if the works are autobiographical,
> then
> > > > >Oxford has to be a Prince of the Realm, that is son of the
> Queen.
No, that's NOT the inevitable conclusion of Oxfordian logic; that's
the belief of a couple of hard-core types. It's bad for business.
> > > > Do other Oxfordians in this newsgroup agree with Paul
> > > > Streitz that the inevitable logic of the Oxfordian position is
> > > > that Oxford was Elizabeth's son?
Stratfordians would like nothing better.
> > > There are two schools of thought amonsgt the Oxfordians
> > > and they are deeply split on the issue. The "Prince Tudor"
> > > school takes it as an article of faith that the Earl of
> Southampton
> > > was the son of Oxford and Elizabeth. Others add in
> > > the even more bizarre claim that Oxford was Elizabeth's
> > > son as well. No amount of documentary evidence proving the
> > > impossibility of either proposition will sway them from
> > > their position. In their view, you cannot be an advanced
> > > Oxfordian unless you embrace the core belief of
> > > Southampton's royal birth.
Then I am a Neo-Oxfordian.
> > This is interesting. So Oxfordians can advance by embracing
> > more bizarre beliefs? Sounds like some demented Masonic
> > lodge.
>
> Worse.
>
> >
> > > The other school of Oxfordians are embarrassed by the
> > > theory and the lack of scholarship that goes with it.
It just seems like an unnecessary goad to orthodox criticism.
> > As opposed to the scholarship that goes along with "orthodox"
> > Oxfordianism?
There IS such a thing. Orthodox Oxfordianism stands by the
autobiographical argument, but not at all costs and not at all times.
That would be reasonable. Stratfordianism, which rejects all arguments
for self-allusion (even, I guess, in the Sonnets) would be
unreasonable. Any literary artist worth his salt would tell you that
he writes about what he knows, which is his own life, at least SOME of
the time.
> > > This is interesting, especially when those in this school
> > > take Ogburn as the last word on the authorship,
> > > and he was a not-so-closet Tudor Rose believer himself.
I don't know about THAT!
> > > The Oxfordian version of the Tudor Rose theory was
> > > stolen from the Baconians, although one of the earliest
> > > Oxfordian advocates (Percy Allen) claimed to have
> > > received information or confirmation from beyond the
> > > grave from an automatic writer. If you'd like some
> > > bibiography, I can put a few things together for you.
> > >
> > > I don't subscribe to the views of either Oxfordian school.
> > > Most of the Oxfordian evidence is circumstantial
> >
> > Indeed, it brings new meaning to the word, "circumstantial."
> >
> > > and some of it is plain wrong.
> > >
> > > Pat Dooley
> >
> > Do tell.
>
> The monument makeover-conspiracy theory is wrong
I don't agree. Of course, I haven't read Diana's article to see why
y'all think it's wrong, but there's a whole lot of something fishy
about the Monument.
> The idea that Oxford's widow paid off Shakespeare to buy his silence
> is wrong
I think I agree. That's the "dombe man" reference?
> The theory that the Queen's annual grant of £1000 was for Oxford's
> theatrical
> activities has no evidence to support it.
Well, it's not absolutely crazy. I still like the idea.
> The attempts to replace Shakespeare's by Oxford in the theatrical
> records are
> wrong.
I agree completely.
> Their account of his non-literary life ignores the foolishness of the
> man.
> He sold land faster than it was given to him and was duped by his
> servants on the way through.
So what? Literary artists are renowned for their business acumen and
judgement of character?
> The theory that references to the Lord Chamberlain are
> actually references to the Lord Great Chamberlain (Oxford)
> is wrong.
Agreed.
> That'll be enough to set the Oxfordians on my tail.
>
> Pat Dooley
How tenable is it to be so certain that Shakspere was a fraud and so
agnostic about the actual Author's identity? You know I like you guys
very much, but some of the Unorthodox Biography has some mighty sweet
FUDGE in it.
Toby Petzold
American
p.s. I'm thinking about becoming a Groupist. Have you seen their
brochures?
paul streitz
> impossibility of either proposition will sway them from
> their position.
You have it a little backward.
There is no documentary evidence that Oxford is the son of John de
Vere and Margery Golding. It is taken at face value by Oxfordians, by
most up to this point, that because he was called and raised as Edward
de Vere, that he is in fact Edward de Vere. By the same token,
Oxfordians should then say that because the plays have the name
William Shakespeare on them, they are in fact written by William
Shakespeare. In short, Oxfordians cannot prove anything as to the
birth of Oxford, and rely simply on historical tradition.
Further, there is no documentary evidence, or evidence of any kind
that disproves the contention that Elizabeth did not give birth in the
summer of 1548. That is, she was confined for four months, she was
sick, but saw no doctor, and after she left, she starts writing about
the rumors that she "is" pregnant by the Lord Admiral.
As to both propositions being true, we have noted Stratfordian scholar
Jonathan Bate saying this as to Venus and Adonis.
"It is an adroit variation; where Ovid begins his tale with Adonis as
a son issuing from a tree, Shakespeare ends with a flower issuing from
Adonis, who thus becomes a father. Shakespeare's Venus acts out an
extraordinary family romance. By imaging her lover as a father, she
makes herself into the mother and the flower into the fruit of their
union. But the logic of the imagery dictates that the flower is her
sexual partner as well as her child, for it clearly substitutes for
Adonis himself—she comforts herself with the thought that it is a
love-token, which she can continually kiss. The fusion of lover and
mother in the context of vegetative imagery makes Venus in Myrrha once
again. It is as if, having slept with her father, the girl is now
sleeping with her son."
As I have said before, if the logic of the Oxfordian position is that
the works reflect the biography of Oxford, then they have to address
the problem that Hamlet is the Prince. To be a prince, means to be
the son of a Queen. At this point, orthodox Oxfordians move to the
Stratfordian position and the works are no longer autobiographical,
but the produce of imagination and literary license. Oxford as all
authors, for orthodox Oxfordians, reveals his biography in his works
except this crutial one. As Freud points out,
"In the Oedipus the child's wishful phantasy that underlies it is
brought into the open and realized as it would be in a dream. In
Hamlet it remains repressed; and—just as in the case of a neurosis—we
only learn of its existence from its inhibiting consequences.
Strangely enough, the overwhelming effect produced by the more modern
tragedy has turned out to be compatible with the fact that people have
remained completely in the dark as to the hero's character. The play
is built up on Hamlet's hesitations over fulfilling the task of
revenge that is assigned to him; but its text offers no reasons or
motives for these hesitations and an immense variety of attempts at
interpreting them have failed to produce a result.…
"What is it, then, that inhibits him in fulfilling the task set him by
his father's ghost? The answer, once again, is that it is the peculiar
nature of the task. Hamlet is able to do anything—except take
vengeance on the man who did away with his father and took that
father's place with his mother, the man who shows him the repressed
wishes of his own childhood realized. Thus the loathing which should
drive him on to revenge is replaced in him by self-reproaches, by
scruples of conscience, which remind him that he himself is literally
no better than the sinner whom he is to punish."
That is, Oxford has slept with his mother.
There is plenty of evidence around, historical and literary as to both
propositions. The orthodox Oxfordian faction wants to remain with the
noble Earl theory, more for political-educational reasons than
anything else. They want to radicals, but remain respectable within
the academic community. They don't want to propose a line of
reasonsing that leads to incest. Denial is the orthodox Oxfordian
method of dealing with unwanted evidence, (a la Stratfordians). That
is, claim there is no evidence, but not read the book that offers
evidence.
paul streitz
paul streitz
>
I should also point out, that for all the alleged open-mindedness to
new paradigms, creative thinking, and accusations against
Stratfordians, the orthodox Oxfordians have exhibited the same toward
the PT Theory and Advanced PT. The SOS newsletter appears (maybe I am
wrong, it could be later) to even review Oxford: Son of Queen
Elizabeth I, and the de Vere Conference won't put the book in the
bookstore for coming de Vere Conference (at least to date.)
Notable Oxfordians asked off my mailing list, when the book began to
receive glowing comments from Oxfordian readers.
The orthodox Oxfordians don't say there is no evidence, what they do
is try to repress the evidence. The are not certain that I am wrong,
they know the case is substantial and are deathly afraid that I am
right.
And you seem to be in the same camp, that is, make claims about
something you have never read.
paul streitz
Bob Grumman
> Do other Oxfordians in this newsgroup agree with Paul
> Streitz that the inevitable logic of the Oxfordian position is
> that Oxford was Elizabeth's son?
Stuphanie is leaning that way.
paul streitz
about the year's of 1546-1949.
Orthodox Oxfordians, who are tied to the academic world, want to try
to be rebels within the establishment. You never know, the Dean of
Literature you antagonize now, may be the one that will hire you next
year.
Further, the British contingent wants nothing to do with anything that
challenges the icon of the Virgin Queen.
The notion that Oxford was the son of the Queen has floated around for
decades in Oxfordian circles, or so I am told. But no one bothered to
investigate it. This is probably the reason that Southampton as son of
Elizabeth, was so resisted by orthodox Oxfordians. They knew that it
was more than that. And incest was an isssue too hot to discuss in
refined Shakespeare circles.
I am coming to the conclusion that nobody changes paradigms. If one
has somehow actively defended the Stratfordian paradigm, then it will
be defended until death. Or if one came into the authorship issue, and
picked-up on Oxford as the noble earl, and defended that idea, then
that's where it stops. No matter how strong the evidence, the orthodox
Oxfordians are not going to accept any change in their beliefs.
Denial is the defense against unwanted information.
In reality, there is no Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. The
person is Edward Tudor-Seymour, Prince of England, 17th Earl of
Oxford. As I think about it, I should make that change to the cover
and interior of my book for the next printing.
paul streitz
Pat Dooley
<snip>
>
> How tenable is it to be so certain that Shakspere was a fraud and so
> agnostic about the actual Author's identity? You know I like you guys
> very much, but some of the Unorthodox Biography has some mighty sweet
> FUDGE in it.
Our idea is that it will take more qualified researchers than the
anti-Stratfordians can mount to even make a dent in the problem
of figuring out who wrote the stuff. But the academics who could
do the research won't bother while they consider -- with much
justification -- that the authorship issue is a crackpot theory.
So we are starting out by pointing our the gaping hole in
the orthodox biography. That's actually relatively easy
because we know virtually all we are ever going to know
about the man William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon
and we know far more than Strafordians dare admit about
his literary contemporaries. Line them up and the hole
stands out like a sore thumb. If it wasn't for that hole
I'd happily revert back to the comfort of the orthodox
position. Hopefully, we can get a few academics to see
the hole and the problem that it represents.
The second stage of figuring out who did it is much harder
and may never be soluble. The underlying problem seems to
be that the author *really* didn't want to be remembered for
plays and poetry -- serious case of stigma of print -- and W.S.
was quite willing and able to promote the product with himself
as the brand-name.
And if an alternative author is never found, at least
we can be thankful that Shakespeare gave posterity his works,
however he came to get his grubby little paws on them.
> p.s. I'm thinking about becoming a Groupist. Have you seen their
> brochures?
I don't buy the group theories except at the edges. Most
of the canon reflects the work of one mind. Some individual
plays show signs of third party hands, either in collaboration
or in posthumous revision/completion.
Pat Dooley
Webmaster of www.shakespeare-authorship.com
David L. Webb
streitz <oxins...@aol.com> wrote:
> Neither the orthodox Oxfordians, nor the Stratfordians, know anything
> about the year's [sic] of 1546-1949 [sic!].
Are you sure of that? That's a pretty long time interval for them
to know nothing about, particularly since many lived through at least
part of the period in question.
> Orthodox Oxfordians, who are tied to the academic world, want to try
> to be rebels within the establishment. You never know, the Dean of
> Literature you antagonize now, may be the one that will hire you next
> year.
You mean, the Oxfordian Revolution is going to happen *THAT fast*?!
After a century on the lunatic fringe? What turned the tide so
decisively -- your recent book?
> Further, the British contingent wants nothing to do with anything that
> challenges the icon of the Virgin Queen.
>
> The notion that Oxford was the son of the Queen has floated around for
> decades in Oxfordian circles, or so I am told. But no one bothered to
> investigate it.
Are you sure of that? Stephanie Caruana said just this week that
Walter Freeman of Fairleigh Dickinson College wrote a manuscript
advocating the idea as early as the 1950s, and that Peter Sammartino's
book summarized Freeman's fiction in an appendix. Surely Freeman must
have investigated the idea? Or was his manuscript as farcical as your
book?
Perhaps the problem is not that nobody investigated the idea, but
rather that the theory lacked a champion who could marshall your
formidable erudition, penetrating scholarship, and eloquent
persuasiveness on its behalf.
> This is probably the reason that Southampton as son of
> Elizabeth, was so resisted by orthodox Oxfordians. They knew that it
> was more than that. And incest was an isssue too hot to discuss in
> refined Shakespeare circles.
>
> I am coming to the conclusion that nobody changes paradigms.
That's odd -- numerous Oxfordians have gone on at tedious length
about how they "changed paradigms" when they became Oxfordians.
> If one
> has somehow actively defended the Stratfordian paradigm, then it will
> be defended until death. Or if one came into the authorship issue, and
> picked-up on Oxford as the noble earl, and defended that idea, then
> that's where it stops. No matter how strong the evidence, the orthodox
> Oxfordians are not going to accept any change in their beliefs.
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the quality of your
"evidence" is substandard. If you can't even convince Oxfordians,
among the most gullible segment of the population, then you will have
difficulty persuading almost all sane readers.
Bob Grumman
> for self-allusion (even, I guess, in the Sonnets) would be
> unreasonable.
This is the kind of lie is a main reason I find it near
impossible to argue with Toby Petzold, American.
--Bob G., Oxford-Denier
Peter Groves
Pat Dooley <patd...@nls.net> wrote in message
news:2d385423.0203...@posting.google.com...
> neogno...@hotmail.com (Toby Petzold) wrote in message
news:<2dbd058e.0203...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > How tenable is it to be so certain that Shakspere was a fraud and so
> > agnostic about the actual Author's identity? You know I like you guys
> > very much, but some of the Unorthodox Biography has some mighty sweet
> > FUDGE in it.
>
> Our idea is that it will take more qualified researchers than the
> anti-Stratfordians can mount to even make a dent in the problem
> of figuring out who wrote the stuff. But the academics who could
> do the research won't bother while they consider -- with much
> justification -- that the authorship issue is a crackpot theory.
>
> So we are starting out by pointing our the gaping hole in
> the orthodox biography. That's actually relatively easy
> because we know virtually all we are ever going to know
> about the man William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon
> and we know far more than Strafordians dare admit about
> his literary contemporaries. Line them up and the hole
> stands out like a sore thumb. If it wasn't for that hole
> I'd happily revert back to the comfort of the orthodox
> position. Hopefully, we can get a few academics to see
> the hole and the problem that it represents.
All this sounds eminently reasonable, but it is belied by the actual
discursive strategies you adopt. Frankly, no academic is going to look
twice at what you say as long as you argue dishonestly, like a lawyer rather
than a scholar, straining at every gnat that undermines your case and
swallowing every camel that appears to support it. Any scholar who looks at
your absurd cut-off point for personal testimony, for example, will see at
once that it was designed for the sole purpose of excluding Jonson's
testimony. Anything you can't answer, you evade: I quote the last para. of
my unanswered (AFAIK) post of 24/02/02:
"I think in show-jumping this is called a third and final refusal, for which
the horse is disqualified. If Mr Dooley (or even Mr Dolley) had an
argument in favour of his reading Jonson's "whatsoever he penned" (i.e. [in]
'absolutely everything that he wrote') as 'if indeed he wrote anything',
then I imagine he would have produced it by now. If his argument is "Jonson
wrote between the lines and therefore I can read whatever I like there",
then rational argument is at an end."
As I've pointed out, you can't magically transform the syntax of a phrase
just by bunging it between parentheses.
Peter G.
Gary Kosinsky
oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
SNIP
Paul, while I await responses from other Oxfordians
on this newsgroup as to whether they believe Oxford was the
son of Elizabeth (how 'bout it, Art? Stephanie? Richard K.?
Paul C.? Mark A.? Peter D.?), while I've got your attention perhaps
you could tell me something. I'm under the impression
you're in contact with Roger Stritmatter. If so, do you
know whether Roger supports the theory that Oxford was
Elizabeth's son? (I ask this because Roger appears to be one
of the 'big guns' of Oxfordianism, and while his presence is
felt in this newsgroup he doesn't really frequent it so I
can't ask him myself.)
Pat Dooley
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:G7bi8.7497$uR5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
It's not an absurd cut-off. Posthumous evidence is qualitatively
different from contemporaneous evidence. The cut-off excludes
a large number of eulogies for his contemporaries.
The "notice at death" was designed to capture the immediate
reaction to a writer's death. If one decided to move the cut-off
point to exclude the "warm-body" eulogies the fact would still
remain that William Shakespeare is the only Elizabethan writer
of consequence for whom one must rely on posthumous evidence
to support the simple statement "his vocation was writing".
I am in the process of producing "reduced" biographies of
a number of writers that shows the literary and non-literary
personal evidence that they left from birth to death.
I posted early versions for Shakespeare and Marlowe
already. More to come.
>
> "I think in show-jumping this is called a third and final refusal,
for which
> the horse is disqualified. If Mr Dooley (or even Mr Dolley) had an
> argument in favour of his reading Jonson's "whatsoever he penned"
(i.e. [in]
> 'absolutely everything that he wrote') as 'if indeed he wrote
anything',
> then I imagine he would have produced it by now. If his argument is
"Jonson
> wrote between the lines and therefore I can read whatever I like
there",
> then rational argument is at an end."
I posted citations to Jonsonian critics who specifically note that
Jonson's parenthesized asides "signal shifts to and from a different
tone of voice. These semi-asides can create extremely funny
interpretations of thought; their humour is vitiated if they are
incorporated into the sentence."
In effect, your read of "everything he wrote" ignores Jonson's
use of parentheses. A reading that takes it as a sardonic
aside takes note of the way Jonson sometimes uses
parentheses, especially when he is "writing between the
lines".
We already know De Nostrati Shakespeare is not straightforward
praise because of the way Jonson drags in Seneca's description
of Haterius.
I cited other Jonsonian critics, such as Lipking, who point
out Jonson's praise of Shakespeare was not exactly fulsome.
I would have trouble sustaining my contrary interpretations
if Jonson and Shakespeare had exchanged letters, verses
or opinions during the latter's life. As we will see, Jonson
had a large circle of literary friends and enemies but
Shakespeare, the man, is entirely absent.
> As I've pointed out, you can't magically transform the syntax of a
phrase
> just by bunging it between parentheses.
I followed what the Jonsonian critic said and took the obvious
contrary meaning.
A huge amount of newsgroup space has been devoted to
this topic. Neither side is going to change their opinion
although I hope a few do bother to think about why Jonson
drags in Haterius. If one thought Nestor and Socrates were
odd points of comparison, one has to ask what the heck
is Haterius doing in there?
Pat Dooley
Pat Dooley
KQKnave
<patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> writes:
>The "notice at death" was designed to capture the immediate
>reaction to a writer's death. If one decided to move the cut-off
>point to exclude the "warm-body" eulogies the fact would still
>remain that William Shakespeare is the only Elizabethan writer
>of consequence for whom one must rely on posthumous evidence
>to support the simple statement "his vocation was writing".
>
There is no evidence that Marlowe was a writer either by your
standards, since Kyd's comments were not only given after
torture, but after Marlowe's death.
David L. Webb
<gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> In article <5daf239d.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> SNIP
>
> Paul, while I await responses from other Oxfordians
> on this newsgroup as to whether they believe Oxford was the
> son of Elizabeth (how 'bout it, Art? Stephanie?
Stephanie has already opined that "My feeling at present is that
Edward was QE's son"; see her post in response to my request for
clarification.
> Richard K.?
The teleport Kennedy or the zensearch Kennedy?
> Paul C.?
To Streitz's observation "This is a road orthodox Oxfordians don't
want to go down [sic]," Crowley replied:
"You bet.
When a psychotic gets on the train, I get off."
> Mark A.?
Mark Alexander has politely expressed his skepticism concerning Mr.
Streitz's "Super DT theory" in this newsgroup.
> Peter D.?), while I've got your attention perhaps
> you could tell me something. I'm under the impression
> you're in contact with Roger Stritmatter. If so, do you
> know whether Roger supports the theory that Oxford was
> Elizabeth's son? (I ask this because Roger appears to be one
> of the 'big guns' of Oxfordianism, and while his presence is
> felt in this newsgroup he doesn't really frequent it so I
> can't ask him myself.)
I'd be curious about Dr. Stritmatter's opinion myself.
David Webb
Pat Dooley
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
news:20020308201204...@mb-ml.aol.com...
> In article <uJci8.274479$uz6.3...@news.webusenet.com>, "Pat
Dooley"
> <patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> writes:
>
> >The "notice at death" was designed to capture the immediate
> >reaction to a writer's death. If one decided to move the cut-off
> >point to exclude the "warm-body" eulogies the fact would still
> >remain that William Shakespeare is the only Elizabethan writer
> >of consequence for whom one must rely on posthumous evidence
> >to support the simple statement "his vocation was writing".
> >
>
> There is no evidence that Marlowe was a writer either by your
> standards, since Kyd's comments were not only given after
> torture, but after Marlowe's death.
I tend to trust torture when the torturers can verify the evidence
and the tortured knows it.
Marlowe's Reduced Biography
======================
1563 - He was born
W 1578 - He went to Kings School
W 1580 - He went to Cambridge
1589 - He was involved in a lethal fracas with Watson
W 1591 - He shared rooms for writing with Kyd (posthumous testimony)
W 1592 - He was arrested for uttering and referred to as a Scholar
1593 - He got murdered
W 1593 – Peele wrote a eulogy to Marlowe 3 weeks after his death
"Marley, the Muses darling, for thy death"
(W - confirms that his vocation was writing)
We have evidence of Marlowe's education, an essential step in becoming
a writer.
We can only surmise about Shakespeare's education
Marlowe was called a scholar in a context where the OED definition is
most applicable (and I'll take the OED over your opinion -
the compilers didn't have an agenda when they created their
definition.
You have an agenda running when you reject of the most appropriate
definition)
In personal testimony nobody ever called Shakespeare anything
resembling a writer.
Within a short time of Marlowe's death, Peele had penned a eulogy.
When Shakespeare died, none of the literati noted the fact. We had to
wait until the First Folio before Jonson writes his "insolent,
sparing, and invidious panegyric".
And Shakespeare left rather more personal records than Marlowe, so the
utter absence of literary records is surprising. The pitifully
small pile of personal records left by Marlowe yielded more evidence
to support the statement that "he was a writer by vocation"
than Shakespeare's large pile of personal records (see below)
Shakespeare's Reduced Biography
=========================
1564 - He was born
1582 - He was going to marry Anne Whateley
1583 - He married Anne Hathaway instead
1583 - They had a daughter, Susanna
1585 - They had twins, Hamnet and Judith
1587 - He was named in a suit over his mother's property
1592 - He lent £7 pounds to John Clayton in London
1592 - His name was parodied as Shakes-scene in a pamphlet
1595 - He received a court payment of £20 for play performances
1596 - His son died
1596 - He and/or his father applied for a coat of arms
1596 - He and/or his father re-applied for the coat of arms
1596 - He and Francis Langley were involved in a fracas
1597 - He owed taxes from 1593 in Bishopsgate
1598 - He bought a big house in Stratford
1598 - He owed more taxes in Bishopsgate
1598 - He hoarded some grain
1598 - Sturley and Quiney discussed a deal with him and Qiney wrote to
him
1598 - He sold a load of stone
1598 - He owed taxes again
1599 - He applied to augment the design of his coat of arms
1599- He was a founding shareholder in the Globe
1599 - He was listed as one of the Globe occupants
1600 - He owed more taxes in Bishopsgate
1600 - He sued John Clayton to recover his 1592 loan of £7
1600 - He owed taxes for the last time
1601 - He and Richard Burbadge are named as Globe occupants
1601 - His father died
1601 - The shepherd, Whittington, sought in his will to recover 40
shillings from him
1602 - He bought 107 acres from the Combes for £320
1602 - He bought a cottage in Chapel Lane.
1602 - A heraldry official complained about the coat of arms
1603 - He was listed in the Letters Patent as a member of the King's
Men
1604 - He rented lodgings from the Mountjoy family in Cripplegate
1604 - He was issued red cloth on the occasion of James's procession
1604 - He sold malt to Phillip Rogers, lent him, two shillings, sued
recover £1-15s
1604 - His property was listed in a Stratford survey
1605 - He purchased £440 in tithes from Ralph Hubaud
1605 - Augustine Phillips left him a piece in gold.
1607 - Susanna married physician John Hall.
1608 - Hubaud's will sought to recover £20 from him
1608 - Sued John Addenbroke for debt of £6 plus damages and took
action against his security
1608 - He was a partner in the Blackfriars Theatre
1610 - The Combes transferred property to him
1611 - He leased a barn from Robert Johnson
1611 - He filed a complaint to protect real estate interests
1611 - He was noted in a road improvement fund
1612 - He testified in a Mountjoy domestic dispute and signed his
deposition
1613 - He invested £140 in a gate-house near the Blackfriars theater
and signed the document
1613 - He mortgaged the gate-house for £60 and signed the document
1613 - He and Richard Burbage were paid for an impresa.
1614 - He was listed as a Stratford landowner
1614 - He was involved in proposed Welcombe pasture enclosures
1615 - His legal title to the gate-house was disputed.
1615 - He was named as one original shareholder in the Globe and
Blackfriars
1615 - John Combe left him £5
1616 - He died and his will distributed his estate
(Note the absence of W annotations)
paul streitz
I think Roger's first interest is political-academic. That is, he is
looking to be hired in academia, therefore, he has always been very
circumspect about taking strong positions, or being strident about
anything. His dissertation on the Bible gives many insights into
Oxford's concern for Kings, etc., but he never openly commits himself
to a position of why Oxford would be saying this, if he were simply
the Earl of Oxford. If asked directly, I imagine he would waffle and
give whatever poltically-academic correct answer that most fit his
needs of the moment.
paul streitz
paul streitz
All in all, marketing this book to anyone who holds a firm opinion on
the authorship is pretty much a waste of time. No one wants their
opinion changed, so reading anything that could alter that opinion is
pretty much avoided. If the Stratford tomb opened up and the
handwriting of a script of Hamlet were inside, my feeling is that
whatever it turned out to be, would be first avoided and then denied
by the partisans of any side.
paul streitz
David Kathman
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
Roger Stritmatter does believe that Oxford was Elizabeth's
son, though he has tried to avoid expressing this opinion
too publicly. In 1996, I was invited to the annual meeting
of the Shakespeare-Oxford Society in Minneapolis, where I
debated Charles Burford. The day after the debate, there
was a panel discussion about the "Prince Tudor theory"
(the idea that Oxford was Elizabeth's son), which I watched
among an audience of True Believers. Here is how I described
the panel in an e-mail to Terry Ross shortly after the
conference:
"This was the subject of a panel discussion Friday morning,
and apparently it's a very contentious issue which is
threatening to tear the society apart. The panel consisted
of Joe Sobran, Pat Buckridge, Betty Sears, Roger Stritmatter,
and Charles Boyle. Sobran and Buckridge represented the
skeptical side, who don't believe Southampton was Oxford's son:
Sobran because he thinks they had a homoerotic relationship
(all of them agreed without question that Southampton was
the Fair Youth of the Sonnets), and Buckridge because he's
reasonably sane, at least for an Oxfordian. On the other hand,
Stritmatter is a very big supporter of the "Prince Tudor" theory,
as are Boyle and Sears. But Boyle wants to have it both ways:
he thinks Southampton was Oxford's son, *and* that they had
a homoerotic relationship, and he read some quotes about
incest among sixteenth-century European royalty in support
of his position. But the bombshell came at the end, when
somebody gave Carol Sue Lipman (who was moderating) a letter
from Charlton Ogburn to read. The letter was a vicious attack
on Joe Sobran for daring to "slander" Oxford by suggesting
that he was homosexual; as Lipman read the letter (which she
didn't know about beforehand), there were cries of distress
from the audience, and Sobran grabbed his microphone and
started loudly defending himself in his booming bass voice.
It was all quite fascinating."
In the most recent issue of "Shakespeare Matters", the
newsletter of the splinter-group Shakespeare Fellowship,
there is a column "From the Editors" (Roger Stritmatter
and Bill Boyle) entitled "Tender airs, Tudor heirs" which
includes the following relevant paragraphs:
"The Shakespeare Fellowship neither endorses nor condemns
the 'Tudor heir' theory in any of its published permutations.
Some of our members believe that the theory, in one form
or another, resolves many longstanding enigmas of Shakespearean
scholarship and Tudor/Stuart cultural and diplomatic history.
Tudor heir advocates such as Mrs. Sears in her *Shakespeare
and the Tudor Rose* (2nd edition forthcoming from Meadow
Geese Press) have, in our opinion, established a firm
foundation for the plausibility of the theory. However,
a new theory inevitably produces new problems and questions.
Its proponents, if they practice intellectual honesty,
must consider these. By no means have the advocates
of this theory prevailed by satisfying all our doubts
on some critical points of fact and interpretation.
And their critics have sometimes made valid arguments
which deserve consideration, discussion, and debate."
I'm pretty sure on stylistic grounds that this was written
by Stritmatter. The fact that he considers it an open question
is, by itself, pretty amazing, and makes one wonder whether
there is any "theory" that he would dismiss out of hand
(other than the idea that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare,
of course).
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Greg Reynolds
> gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message news:<6QUi8wyT...@vcn.bc.ca>...
> > In article <5daf239d.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> > oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> > SNIP
> >
> > Paul, while I await responses from other Oxfordians
> > on this newsgroup as to whether they believe Oxford was the
> > son of Elizabeth (how 'bout it, Art? Stephanie? Richard K.?
> > Paul C.? Mark A.? Peter D.?), while I've got your attention perhaps
> > you could tell me something. I'm under the impression
> > you're in contact with Roger Stritmatter. If so, do you
> > know whether Roger supports the theory that Oxford was
> > Elizabeth's son? (I ask this because Roger appears to be one
> > of the 'big guns' of Oxfordianism, and while his presence is
> > felt in this newsgroup he doesn't really frequent it so I
> > can't ask him myself.)
From here, this post is reminiscent of a scene in "The Graduate" .....
> I think Roger's first interest is political-academic. That is, he is
> looking to be hired in academia, therefore, he has always been very
> circumspect about taking strong positions, or being strident about
> anything.
MRS. BRADDOCK
When did you two talk this over?
BEN
We haven't.
> His dissertation on the Bible gives many insights into
> Oxford's concern for Kings, etc., but he never openly commits himself
> to a position of why Oxford would be saying this, if he were simply
> the Earl of Oxford. If asked directly, I imagine he would waffle
MR. BRADDOCK
Ben - this whole idea sounds
pretty half-baked.
BEN
No - it's not. It's completely
baked. It's a decision I've made.
Toby Petzold
> > Stratfordianism, which rejects all arguments
> > for self-allusion (even, I guess, in the Sonnets) would be
> > unreasonable.
Grumman:
> This is the kind of lie is a main reason I find it near
> impossible to argue with Toby Petzold, American.
I wouldn't think to call my remark a lie, Bob. What are you going on
about? You may think it's an offensive stereotype of Stratfordians
that they are trained to avoid any interpretations based on
autobiography or even topicality, in general, but I take it as
axiomatic. You gotta go with your strengths (e.g., the name on
title-pages, the quill pen in the hand of the funerary bust, the
crushing weight of three centuries of scholarship, etc.).
Now, when Stratfordians DO try to argue for autobiography (for
instance, in the Sonnets), they either run afoul of their
drill-sergeants (who insist that the Sonnets are only literary
exercises) or they face the task of explaining the homoeroticism and
then the identities of the hidden subjects. Rowse tried to put a name
to the Dark Lady and look what that got him.
Nearly all Stratfordian attempts at arguing for self-allusion or
topicality fail the test of corroboration. That goes for everything
from proving a relationship with Southampton to what source was
actually used for The Tempest.
Toby Petzold
American
Toby Petzold
My reaction to your theories, as you've posted them here, is that they
are just too weird for many people to support them. It was already too
much to ask people to believe in a different Shakespeare; now you want
them to completely cash out their understanding of Elizabeth I. It's
just too much, and always will be.
It's a cautionary tale, really: I regard your view (which takes
autobiography to an irretrievable extreme) as Stratfordians regard
mine (which is a kind of 9-to-5, grey-flannel Oxfordianism). I guess I
shouldn't expect any better treatment of my own opinions if my
opponents are as firm in their conviction that I am wrong as I am in
mine that you are, too.
Ignorantly, but reasonably,
Toby Petzold
American
Toby Petzold
> > How tenable is it to be so certain that Shakspere was a fraud and so
> > agnostic about the actual Author's identity? You know I like you guys
> > very much, but some of the Unorthodox Biography has some mighty sweet
> > FUDGE in it.
Dooley:
> Our idea is that it will take more qualified researchers than the
> anti-Stratfordians can mount to even make a dent in the problem
> of figuring out who wrote the stuff. But the academics who could
> do the research won't bother while they consider -- with much
> justification -- that the authorship issue is a crackpot theory.
I don't think there's any doubt that Diana has an "inkling" in mind.
As for your own view, I don't recall ever having seen you suggest that
a nobleman is behind it. There's got to be, after all, a very limited
number of potential candidates.
> So we are starting out by pointing our the gaping hole in
> the orthodox biography.
But the ultimate purpose IS to propose a candidate?
> That's actually relatively easy
> because we know virtually all we are ever going to know
> about the man William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon
> and we know far more than Strafordians dare admit about
> his literary contemporaries.
That is what Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography leads to. There's an
Inverse Biography there, essentially, saying, "Look at all of the
people who comprise what should be his milieu. Where are they in
relation to him? Why are they documented in these expected ways and he
is not?"
> Line them up and the hole
> stands out like a sore thumb. If it wasn't for that hole
> I'd happily revert back to the comfort of the orthodox
> position. Hopefully, we can get a few academics to see
> the hole and the problem that it represents.
It may seem natural to go from one conviction to a period of
agnosticism before arriving at a new conviction, but, in this case, I
doubt any orthodox scholar would leave that hole without some other
candidate to embrace. They SEE the hole, but they are comfortable in
it because their rationalizations are stronger than any new compulsion
to climb out.
> The second stage of figuring out who did it is much harder
> and may never be soluble. The underlying problem seems to
> be that the author *really* didn't want to be remembered for
> plays and poetry -- serious case of stigma of print -- and W.S.
> was quite willing and able to promote the product with himself
> as the brand-name.
Well, I just have to think that any belief in the stigma of print
necessarily points to someone in power. But, yeah: Col. Sanders wasn't
there frying up all the chicken, but he gets the credit. Same goes for
movie producers, CEOs, and heads of state: their names get attached to
things they didn't actually create, but it would be superfluous to
point that out since they are the ones who stand to gain or lose the
credit, regardless.
> And if an alternative author is never found, at least
> we can be thankful that Shakespeare gave posterity his works,
> however he came to get his grubby little paws on them.
>
> > p.s. I'm thinking about becoming a Groupist. Have you seen their
> > brochures?
>
> I don't buy the group theories except at the edges. Most
> of the canon reflects the work of one mind. Some individual
> plays show signs of third party hands, either in collaboration
> or in posthumous revision/completion.
>
> Pat Dooley
> Webmaster of www.shakespeare-authorship.com
I still haven't read enough of the plays (and with the care I should)
to say for myself whether they reflect a single mind, but if they
didn't, I guess Groupism wouldn't be as dead as it is.
Toby Petzold
American
Bob Grumman
Thanks for reminding me of it just in time for my portrait of
Rojerk, Dave!
--Bob G.
Stephanie Caruana
"Toby Petzold" <neogno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2dbd058e.02030...@posting.google.com...
> oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote in message
news:<5daf239d.02030...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > I should also point out, that for all the alleged open-mindedness to
> > new paradigms, creative thinking, and accusations against
> > Stratfordians, the orthodox Oxfordians have exhibited the same toward
> > the PT Theory and Advanced PT. The SOS newsletter appears (maybe I am
> > wrong, it could be later) to even review Oxford: Son of Queen
> > Elizabeth I, and the de Vere Conference won't put the book in the
> > bookstore for coming de Vere Conference (at least to date.)
> >
> > Notable Oxfordians asked off my mailing list, when the book began to
> > receive glowing comments from Oxfordian readers.
> >
> > The orthodox Oxfordians don't say there is no evidence, what they do
> > is try to repress the evidence. The are not certain that I am wrong,
> > they know the case is substantial and are deathly afraid that I am
> > right.
> >
> > And you seem to be in the same camp, that is, make claims about
> > something you have never read.
My reaction to your book is mixed. I think your conflation of the "Prince
Tudor Theory" and the Oxford=QE+Thomas Seymour theory (by whatever name it
is going these days) renders the whole idea too outlandish to be believable.
Plus, you added in a list of additional "babies" in your book without any
supporting evidence whatsoever; they are just names. If you didn't want to
get into what evidence you may have for these names, I believe it would have
been better to leave them out altogether. They do nothing to add to your
credibility.
To get back to the first problem: Did Oxford, knowing he was QE's son,
commit incest with his mother and produce a son raised as Henry Wriothesley?
My answer to this is, that it is psychologically impossible in my opinion.
Oxford was a believer in courtly conduct; and above all "honor." There is
no way he would have done this, in my opinion. "Pericles," which I consider
to have been written by him, expresses real horror of father/daughter incest
in its opening scenes. There is certainly an awareness of incest, and a
rejection of it. Also in "Hamlet", in the scene with Burghley, beginning
"You have a daughter?...", etc. There is also in Venus and Adonis the
explicit story of a young man who will not yield to the blandishments of an
older woman (Venus, no less!) Adonis would rather get fatally gored by a
wild boar any day!
With regard to contemporary [Elizabethan] comments: One letter describing
the Court scene says something to the effect that the Queen is courting
Oxford, but "he will not fall in." QE is reported to have said that she
might have considered marrying Oxford, except that he is young enough to be
her son! One of the foreign ambassadors to her court wrote home something to
the effect that her courtiers "ride her like a mare." She is reported by
many observers to have kept her various favorites more or less all night,
"playing cards," etc. So the Queen was very likely not as virtuous as all
that, and being a member of the human race, a notoriously randy lot, she was
probably as lusty as the rest of us. I question, however, considering the
real danger of dying in childbirth from infection or whatever in those
times, whether Elizabeth would have risked her life, [a very special life,
carrying with it the throne of England] in repeated pregnancies, when they
could have been avoided. On the other hand, a pregnancy when she was a
teen-ager, as a result of seduction by a determined adult male (Thomas
Seymour) is believable.
Oxford is referred to in various places as one of the Queen's favorites, and
it is an open question how far, and with which, of her long series of
favorites, QE dallied sexually, and what the results, if any, were. Oxford
is known to have referred to a mysterious "Book of Babies," but no one has
ever seen such a thing that I know of. QE is referred to in some documents
as having had one or more children, but the evidence is submerged at best.
I have heard of a document consisting of a tailor's records of how QE's
measurements waxed and waned, but I haven't seen this and it probably
wouldn't hold up in a court of law anyway! Betty Sears spent a couple of
years as I recall trying to see the original of a letter by the older
Wriothesley which she believed would contain the name of the infant born to
his wife, [which she thought would be significant] and I don't know whether
she ever found this letter and what it actually said.
Paul wrote:
> > The orthodox Oxfordians don't say there is no evidence, what they do
> > is try to repress the evidence. The are not certain that I am wrong,
> > they know the case is substantial and are deathly afraid that I am
> > right.
I think this is a mischaracterization. The way you presented the case is
that you have appeared to adopt ALL of the suggestions and inferences that
have been made as being true, wrapped them all up in a ball, and presented a
pastiche which is, for me, anyway, impossible to swallow. Ultimately, if
you had presented the same [unproven] suggestions as just that and no more,
your book would have been more convincing and would probably have had more
staying
power.
I think the best part of your book is the opening section on the "Ashbourne"
portrait which hangs in the Folger Library, in the "Founders' Room," with
its rather schizoid identification of the sitter as "Lord Mayor Hugh
Hamersley," a Mayor of London, at the same time implicitly acknowledging it
as a portrait of "Shakespeare." Also, your updating of the general
situation of the Shaxper/Oxford controversy is very useful.
I am nothing less than grateful that the Sobran book, with its portrayal of
Oxford, and thus Shakespeare, as a homosexual, has had its day and is now
out of print.
Your book, as the most recently published book on Oxford as Shakespeare that
I am aware of, will hold center stage until the next book on the subject
appears. I wish it had been a better book, but it will have to do, if for
no other reason than its existence, and it does offer some information and
insights that have not been previously available in book form.
If it does go into a "second edition" (whatever that may mean in its
"print-on-demand" format), I really would advise a complete additional
proof-reading by someone who is familiar with Elizabethan texts and grammar.
I note that Marilyn Clarke is included in your list of proofreaders and
editors; I know Marilyn's writing ability, literacy level and familiarity
with Elizabethan texts to be of the highest. And I also know that the errors
that still remain in the book would be time-consuming to correct. I am
aware that you have made considerable effort to raise the
grammar/spelling/syntax well above the level of your usual product, but
let's face it: the original text must have had a long way to go, and the
"final product" still contains so many errors that it is somewhat
embarrassing. I'm sure you realize that running a text through an automatic
spell-checker and then accepting the changes that are offered can lead to
completely inappropriate words appearing in the final text.
All that having been said, I wish you the best of luck with your book,
although I can't completely endorse it for the reasons mentioned above.
Stephanie
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Stephanie Caruana
author/editor:
The Gemstone File of Bruce Roberts
http://gemstone-file.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Roundtable
>
>You gotta go with your strengths (e.g., the name on
> title-pages, the quill pen in the hand of the funerary bust, the
> crushing weight of three centuries of scholarship, etc.).
The name on the title pages was after all Will's name.
The dedications in the Folio were not to some noble-lord-
in-an-actor's-hide, nothing cryptic about those dedications.
And where were Oxford, Bacon, Marlowe, Derby - or even anyone else -
mentioned as being possible authors of Will's Works?
I mean THEN, not now.
>
> Now, when Stratfordians DO try to argue for autobiography ....
> they face the task of explaining the homoeroticism
Why is this such a big deal for you?
Do you know how many people are gay? Do you know how many people
are bisexual? Do you know how many writers - American writers as
well - are/were gay?
WHO CARES?!
Will left Stratford and hung out with his co-actors, a
close, family-like group. Some of the boys playing the girls roles
may have looked kind of cute. Maybe not, I don't know.
Why are Will's sexual preferences so important?
I mean, I like the OPPOSITE sex, but I have no trouble with gays.
Do you?
I don't see why Will's perhaps being bisexual would change anything.
> and then the identities of the hidden subjects.
> Rowse tried to put a name to the Dark Lady and look what
> that got him.
That's why she's the Dark Horse, sorry, Dark Lady. Probably even not
many people around WS knew who she was. Some affairs are secret,
and remain so till the few people who knew are gone, and their
knowledge with them.
Perhaps Anne Hathaway found out about it, and in jealous rage
burned all Will's letters to her. (Ha! Well, you never know!)
Perhaps the Dark Lady was not the kind of woman a man would write
to. Maybe it was just obsessive love/lust.
It's not something he would have registered at the Town Hall, her
identity I mean, especially since she sort of dumped him, as far
as I can remember (am I right?),
or moved on to one of his friends...I'm not sure.
> Nearly all Stratfordian attempts at arguing for self-allusion or
> topicality fail the test of corroboration.
I'd say the same for each and every anti-Strat argument, as well.
You guys are standing on MUCH more shaky ground than we are.
Roundtable
Brit Abroad
David L. Webb
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Amazing! Thanks for the information (and a good laugh!), Dave.
Although there have been some great one-liners, errors, and whole posts
that have been funnier, this thread is remarkable in that virtually
*every post* in it has left me laughing helplessly -- in that respect I
can't recall any thread that rivals it. I realize that I'm probably
spoiling everything with this followup, but if I can find the time,
maybe I'll try to atone by posting a summary of some of the more
amusing aspects of Streitz's book, of which I recently found a used
copy.
David Webb
Gary Kosinsky
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
David, thank-you for the position summary of the various
Oxfordians in this newsgroup. Obviously I haven't been paying
as close attention as I should have been before asking the question.
However, while we're on the subject, do you know where
Art N. stands on the issue?
Finally, I, for one, would be very interested in reading
your review of Paul Streitz's book.
Gary Kosinsky
" Stephanie Caruana" <spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>My reaction to your book is mixed. I think your conflation of the "Prince
>Tudor Theory" and the Oxford=QE+Thomas Seymour theory (by whatever name it
>is going these days) renders the whole idea too outlandish to be believable.
I'm getting a bit confused by the labels being used in
this discussion. Dave Kathman says the 'Prince Tudor theory' refers
to the idea that Oxford was the son of Elizabeth. Pat Dooley says
it refers to the idea that Henry Wriothesley was the son of
Oxford and Elizabeth. Which is it? And is the 'Prince Tudor theory'
differentiated from the 'Tudor Rose theory'? Thanks.
Stephanie Caruana
"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:/Woi8wyT6...@vcn.bc.ca...
As I understand it, the "Prince Tudor" theory has generally referred to the
idea that Henry Wriothesley was the son of Oxford and Elizabeth. Elisabeth
Sears' book, "Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose" deals primarily with Henry
Wriothesley as the son of Oxford and Elizabeth. Oxford as the son of
Elizabeth has been a sort of sub rosa thread which has now apparently raised
its head once more. I have not been active in Oxfordian circles for several
years, so I don't know how strong the "Blue Boar Special" theory has gotten.
(That's just a name I made up just now for the "Combination Theory", or
perhaps the "Incest Theory" would be more vivid; so don't think anyone else
has used it [the "Blue Boar Special"], or that it means anything.)
As Shakespeare, or Oxford, or whoever he was, said: "A rose by any other
name would smell as sweet." Can anyone be sure exactly what he meant by
that?
Tom Reedy
I'm even more confused than you are. I thought it was the "Tooter" theory,
and that it referred to Oxford farting in front of the queen.
TR
David L. Webb
<gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> In article <08032002220755...@Dartmouth.edu>,
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> SNIP
>
> David, thank-you for the position summary of the various
> Oxfordians in this newsgroup. Obviously I haven't been paying
> as close attention as I should have been before asking the question.
>
> However, while we're on the subject, do you know where
> Art N. stands on the issue?
Art has opined that Mr. Streitz is wrong about Oxford being the son
of the Queen, although I'm not sure where Art stands on all the other
vexing questions raised in this thread -- Oxford as the Queen's lover,
Southampton as the Queen's and/or Oxford's son, Rutland as Oxford's
twin brother, etc. However, Art changes his mind (if I may use the
word loosely) frequently, so it's probably best to get an answer
straight from the horse's mouth (or from whatever part of that oracle's
anatomy answers are forthcoming).
> Finally, I, for one, would be very interested in reading
> your review of Paul Streitz's book.
It may take me quite a while to get around to it, as it will take a
lengthy post even to do justice to the humor afforded by the book's
first and relatively innocuous chapter.
In article </Woi8wyT6...@vcn.bc.ca>, Gary Kosinsky
<gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> I'm getting a bit confused by the labels being used in
> this discussion. Dave Kathman says the 'Prince Tudor theory' refers
> to the idea that Oxford was the son of Elizabeth. Pat Dooley says
> it refers to the idea that Henry Wriothesley was the son of
> Oxford and Elizabeth. Which is it? And is the 'Prince Tudor theory'
> differentiated from the 'Tudor Rose theory'? Thanks.
In a post at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20010719212047.27853.00000326%40ng-
cb1.aol.com&rnum=1>,
Mr. Streitz appears to refer to his theory of Oxford's incestuous
relations with the Queen as the "Super PT theory." Since "Super PT
theory" seems more apt for the theory that Oxford was the Queen's lover
and Southampton their son, I propose the term "Super D.T. theory" for
Mr. Streitz's incestuous soap-opera scenario, as a means of keeping the
two theories straight. The "Tudor Rose" theory would then refer to the
unadorned theory that Southampton was the Queen's son (without the
additional claim of Oxford's paternity), leaving "Tudor Bros." for Mr.
Streitz's theory that both Oxford and Rutland were the Queen's progeny.
The proliferation of theories reminds one a bit of particle physics
in its complexity.
David Webb
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <a6dhda$k25$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephanie Caruana
<spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > I should also point out, that for all the alleged open-mindedness to
> > > new paradigms, creative thinking, and accusations against
> > > Stratfordians, the orthodox Oxfordians have exhibited the same toward
> > > the PT Theory and Advanced PT. The SOS newsletter appears (maybe I am
> > > wrong, it could be later) to even review Oxford: Son of Queen
> > > Elizabeth I, and the de Vere Conference won't put the book in the
> > > bookstore for coming de Vere Conference (at least to date.)
> > >
> > > Notable Oxfordians asked off my mailing list, when the book began to
> > > receive glowing comments from Oxfordian readers.
> > >
> > > The orthodox Oxfordians don't say there is no evidence, what they do
> > > is try to repress the evidence. The are not certain that I am wrong,
> > > they know the case is substantial and are deathly afraid that I am
> > > right.
> > >
> > > And you seem to be in the same camp, that is, make claims about
> > > something you have never read.
> My reaction to your book is mixed. I think your conflation of the "Prince
> Tudor Theory" and the Oxford=QE+Thomas Seymour theory (by whatever name it
> is going these days) renders the whole idea too outlandish to be believable.
Too outlandish even for someone who trains and develops her
credulity by praticing believing six impossible things eVERy day before
breakfast?
> Plus, you added in a list of additional "babies" in your book without any
> supporting evidence whatsoever; they are just names. If you didn't want to
> get into what evidence you may have for these names, I believe it would have
> been better to leave them out altogether. They do nothing to add to your
> credibility.
Credibility?
> To get back to the first problem: Did Oxford, knowing he was QE's son,
> commit incest with his mother and produce a son raised as Henry Wriothesley?
> My answer to this is, that it is psychologically impossible in my opinion.
> Oxford was a believer in courtly conduct;
You doubt that incest went on in courts?
> and above all "honor." There is
> no way he would have done this, in my opinion.
Well, Oxford *was* accused of pederasty, and his conduct elsewhere
is not exactly indicative of punctilious regard for honor; the proposed
conduct would at least have been consensual, and at least would have
been with an adult.
> "Pericles," which I consider
> to have been written by him,
A U'Ry dubious proposition!
> expresses real horror of father/daughter incest
> in its opening scenes.
Mr. Streitz almost surely has not read _Pericles_. He said that he
had read _Hamlet_, and he said that only one of Shakespeare's plays is
set in a foreign country other than Italy; therefore (unless he
believes that Tyre is in Italy) he can scarcely have read _Pericles_.
HoweVER, perhaps a belated reading of the play prompted by your post,
coupled with his "proof" that Oxford was the Queen's son, will convince
Mr. Streitz that Oxford definitely cannot have written _Pericles_.
> There is certainly an awareness of incest, and a
> rejection of it. Also in "Hamlet", in the scene with Burghley, beginning
> "You have a daughter?...", etc. There is also in Venus and Adonis the
> explicit story of a young man who will not yield to the blandishments of an
> older woman (Venus, no less!)
I fail to see the relevance of the latter -- incest involves rather
more than merely "yield[ing] to the blandishments of an older woman."
> Adonis would rather get fatally gored by a
> wild boar any day!
>
> With regard to contemporary [Elizabethan] comments: One letter describing
> the Court scene says something to the effect that the Queen is courting
> Oxford, but "he will not fall in."
Can you furnish a specific reference?
> QE is reported to have said that she
> might have considered marrying Oxford, except that he is young enough to be
> her son! One of the foreign ambassadors to her court wrote home something to
> the effect that her courtiers "ride her like a mare." She is reported by
> many observers to have kept her various favorites more or less all night,
> "playing cards," etc.
Elizabeth Weir reports that they were supposedly playing checkers.
> So the Queen was very likely not as virtuous as all
> that, and being a member of the human race, a notoriously randy lot, she was
> probably as lusty as the rest of us. I question, however, considering the
> real danger of dying in childbirth from infection or whatever in those
> times, whether Elizabeth would have risked her life, [a very special life,
> carrying with it the throne of England] in repeated pregnancies, when they
> could have been avoided. On the other hand, a pregnancy when she was a
> teen-ager, as a result of seduction by a determined adult male (Thomas
> Seymour) is believable.
"Believable" by whom? Is there any credible evidence for it? Space
aliens are also "believable," but I am unaware of any credible evidence
for their existence.
> Oxford is referred to in various places as one of the Queen's favorites, and
> it is an open question how far, and with which, of her long series of
> favorites, QE dallied sexually, and what the results, if any, were. Oxford
> is known to have referred to a mysterious "Book of Babies," but no one has
> ever seen such a thing that I know of.
Where does he refer to it?
> QE is referred to in some documents
What documents?
> as having had one or more children, but the evidence is submerged at best.
> I have heard of a document consisting of a tailor's records of how QE's
> measurements waxed and waned,
I have heard of sightings of Elvis.
> but I haven't seen this and it probably
> wouldn't hold up in a court of law anyway! Betty Sears spent a couple of
> years as I recall trying to see the original of a letter by the older
> Wriothesley which she believed would contain the name of the infant born to
> his wife, [which she thought would be significant] and I don't know whether
> she ever found this letter and what it actually said.
Well, that's *certainly* strong evidence then!
> Paul wrote:
> > > The orthodox Oxfordians don't say there is no evidence, what they do
> > > is try to repress the evidence. The are not certain that I am wrong,
> > > they know the case is substantial and are deathly afraid that I am
> > > right.
> I think this is a mischaracterization. The way you presented the case is
> that you have appeared to adopt ALL of the suggestions and inferences that
> have been made as being true, wrapped them all up in a ball,
No pun intended, of course.
> and presented a
> pastiche which is, for me, anyway, impossible to swallow.
As hard to swallow as your proVERbial shoe shredded by a food
processor and garnished with Pepto-Bismol?
> Ultimately, if
> you had presented the same [unproven] suggestions as just that and no more,
> your book would have been more convincing and would probably have had more
> staying
> power.
If he had done that, then the *entire book* would have consisted of
material presented as unproven suggestions and no more.
> I think the best part of your book is the opening section on the "Ashbourne"
> portrait which hangs in the Folger Library, in the "Founders' Room," with
> its rather schizoid identification of the sitter as "Lord Mayor Hugh
> Hamersley," a Mayor of London, at the same time implicitly acknowledging it
> as a portrait of "Shakespeare." Also, your updating of the general
> situation of the Shaxper/Oxford controversy is very useful.
>
> I am nothing less than grateful that the Sobran book, with its portrayal of
> Oxford, and thus Shakespeare, as a homosexual, has had its day and is now
> out of print.
What's wrong with a bisexual Shakespeare? Oxford, at any rate, was
accused of pederasty, so what's wrong with a bisexual Oxford, for that
matter? There are many *far* more cogent reasons for dismissing
Sobran's silly book, among them the fact that he appears to believe
that he has presented a persuasive argument that Oxford wrote the works
of Shakespeare. (My bête noire, of course, is that he repeats --
without a shred of evidence or even a citation -- the old, ridiculously
unfounded canard that Nabokov was an anti-Stratfordian.)
> Your book, as the most recently published book on Oxford as Shakespeare that
> I am aware of, will hold center stage
The sideshow freaks gallery seems a better metaphor.
> until the next book on the subject
> appears. I wish it had been a better book,
It's hard to imagine how it could have been any worse, or any
funnier!
> but it will have to do, if for
> no other reason than its existence, and it does offer some information and
> insights that have not been previously available in book form.
There's a very good reason that that "information" and those
"insights" had not been previously available in book form! To
paraphrase a devastating mathematical review, "This book fills a
much-needed gap in the mathematical literature." Mr. Streitz's book
fills a much-needed gap in the secondary (or perhaps tertiary)
Elizabethan historical literature.
> If it does go into a "second edition" (whatever that may mean in its
> "print-on-demand" format), I really would advise a complete additional
> proof-reading by someone who is familiar with Elizabethan texts and grammar.
Even a proofreading by someone familiar with 21st-century texts and
grammar would be a big improvement.
> I note that Marilyn Clarke is included in your list of proofreaders and
> editors; I know Marilyn's writing ability, literacy level and familiarity
> with Elizabethan texts to be of the highest. And I also know that the errors
> that still remain in the book would be time-consuming to correct.
Anyone care to cleanse the Augean stables?
> I am
> aware that you have made considerable effort to raise the
> grammar/spelling/syntax well above the level of your usual product,
As sadly deficient as the book is in those respects, I will grant
that there are indeed signs that considerable effort was expended to
achieve that end.
> but
> let's face it: the original text must have had a long way to go,
That's exactly what I was trying to say less bluntly above.
> and the
> "final product" still contains so many errors that it is somewhat
> embarrassing.
"Somewhat"?!
> I'm sure you realize that running a text through an automatic
> spell-checker and then accepting the changes that are offered can lead to
> completely inappropriate words appearing in the final text.
Yes, this is one of the funniest aspects of many anti-Stratfordians'
"polished" prose. Presumably this phenomenon accounts for Faker's
"hieratical" for "heretical," "armature" for "amateur," and other
hilarious howlers. It doesn't help to have spellchecking software if
the user is unaware of the words' meanings.
> All that having been said, I wish you the best of luck with your book,
> although I can't completely endorse it for the reasons mentioned above.
I can enthusiastically endorse it as a case study in the
psychopathology of historical studies.
[...]
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> > David, thank-you for the position summary of the various
> > Oxfordians in this newsgroup. Obviously I haven't been paying
> > as close attention as I should have been before asking the question.
> >
> > However, while we're on the subject, do you know where
> > Art N. stands on the issue?
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> Art has opined that Mr. Streitz is wrong about Oxford being the son
> of the Queen, although I'm not sure where Art stands on all the other
> vexing questions raised in this thread -- Oxford as the Queen's lover,
> Southampton as the Queen's and/or Oxford's son, Rutland as Oxford's
> twin brother, etc. However, Art changes his mind (if I may use the
> word loosely) frequently,
I just got back from seeing the John Nash movie and I think I have
quite a beautiful mind thank you very much!
> so it's probably best to get an answer
> straight from the horse's mouth
> (or from whatever part of that oracle's
> anatomy answers are forthcoming).
"That oracle's anatomy?"
What definition of oracle did you mean, Dave?
-------------------------------------------------
Oracle, n. [F., fr. L. oraculum, fr. ORARE to speak, utter, pray, fr.
os, oris, mouth.] 1. The answer of a god, or some person reputed to be a
god, to an inquiry respecting some affair or future event, as the
success of an enterprise or battle.
2. Hence: The deity who was supposed to give the answer; also, the place
where it was given.
3. The communications, revelations, or messages delivered by God to the
prophets; also, the entire sacred Scriptures -- usually in the plural.
4. (Jewish Antiq.) The sanctuary, or Most Holy place in the temple;
also, the temple itself. --1 Kings vi. 19.
Siloa's brook, that flow'd Fast by the oracle of God. --Milton.
5. One who communicates a divine command; an angel; a prophet.
God hath now sent his living oracle Into the world to teach his final
WILL. --Milton.
6. Any person reputed uncommonly wise; one whose decisions are regarded
as of great authority; as, a literary oracle.
7. A wise sentence or decision of great authority.
-----------------------------------------
Oracle In the Old Testament used in every case, except 2 Sam. 16:23, to
denote the most holy place in the temple (1 Kings 6:5, 19-23; 8:6). In 2
Sam. 16:23 it means the Word of God. A man inquired "at the oracle of
God" by means of the Urim and Thummim in the breastplate on the high
priest's ephod. In the New Testament it is used only in the plural, and
always denotes the Word of God (Rom. 3:2; Heb. 5:12, etc.). The
Scriptures are called "living oracles" (comp. Heb. 4:12) because of
their quickening power (Acts 7:38).
-----------------------------------------
To answer the question: I'm not much interested in idle &
unsubstantiated speculation vis-a-vis Oxford's personal life. It all
seems rather silly to me.
Art Neuendorffer (Oracle Extraordinaire)
David Kathman
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
>In article <a6dhda$k25$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephanie Caruana
><spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> QE is referred to in some documents
>
> What documents?
>
>> as having had one or more children, but the evidence is submerged at best.
>> I have heard of a document consisting of a tailor's records of how QE's
>> measurements waxed and waned,
>
> I have heard of sightings of Elvis.
From this week's "News of the Weird"
(http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html):
Board-certified Kansas City, Mo., psychiatrist (and University of
Kansas School of Medicine graduate) Dr. Donald Hinton told reporters
in February that "Elvis Aron Presley, the entertainer (whom) everybody
believes died in 1977," is alive and that Hinton has been treating him
for migraine headaches, among other things, for five years. Hinton,
35, said he has several items from Presley containing his DNA and
absolutely denied that he's running a scam (even though he is listed
as co-author, with Presley, of a slow-selling book of what purport to be
letters from Elvis to his fans). An Elvis Presley Enterprises official was
unfazed, insisting that Elvis is still "in the garden (at Graceland)."
[Associated Press, 2-9-02]
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Kennedy
Whatever you are doing, Kathman, lay it down. What possible respect
can you expect for posting such as this below. It's often gurgled over that
any anti-Strat sighting is like sighting a UFO, or Elvis, or Bigfoot, that sort
of thing, and for some reason you think that such a response is witty, or
well-debated, maybe even intelligent. A book, you understand, could be
written about your various Stratfordian "defenses" made at hlas. Take care.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
paul streitz
>
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I will try to answer your
points.
> My reaction to your book is mixed. I think your conflation of the "Prince
> Tudor Theory" and the Oxford=QE+Thomas Seymour theory (by whatever name it
> is going these days) renders the whole idea too outlandish to be believable.
The outlandishness, or initial unbelievableness, has nothing to do
with whether it is true or not. Many ideas have been outlandish but
over time been accepted as true, evolution, sun centered universe,
etc.
However, as you read, you and Elizabeth Sears broached the notion in
your work decades earlier. I quote from my book:
"Stephanie Caruana and Elisabeth Sears perceptively remarked over a
decade ago of the motherly interest that Elizabeth took in the young
Earl of Oxford:
"When Oxford arrived in London at the age of twelve, Queen Elizabeth
was twenty-nine—at the height of her beauty and personal powers. She
was old enough to be his mother, and she took delight in his personal
talents and achievements, almost as though he were her son."
You had your toe in the water then but neither you or Betty Sears
pursued this.
> Plus, you added in a list of additional "babies" in your book without any
> supporting evidence whatsoever; they are just names. If you didn't want to
> get into what evidence you may have for these names, I believe it would have
> been better to leave them out altogether. They do nothing to add to your
> credibility.
Perhaps so, but as I point out, the only reason that extended research
has been done on the birth of Oxford & also Southampton is their
relation to Shakespeare. Further, the better explanation of the whole
Essex Rebellion and many other aspects of Elizabethan history is that
Oxford, Robert Cecil, Robert Devereux and Henry Wriothesley were all
sons of the Queen. I give specific reasons why I think they are,
although again, the historical record on all births is not as complete
as it is for Oxford.
>
> To get back to the first problem: Did Oxford, knowing he was QE's son,
> commit incest with his mother and produce a son raised as Henry Wriothesley?
> My answer to this is, that it is psychologically impossible in my opinion.
> Oxford was a believer in courtly conduct; and above all "honor." There is
> no way he would have done this, in my opinion. "Pericles," which I consider
> to have been written by him, expresses real horror of father/daughter incest
> in its opening scenes. There is certainly an awareness of incest, and a
> rejection of it. Also in "Hamlet", in the scene with Burghley, beginning
> "You have a daughter?...", etc. There is also in Venus and Adonis the
> explicit story of a young man who will not yield to the blandishments of an
> older woman (Venus, no less!) Adonis would rather get fatally gored by a
> wild boar any day!
The man lies on the shrink's couch and repeats again and again, "I
don't want to kill my mother." The shrink asks him, "Let's talk about
why you don't want to kill your mother." Jonathan Bate (Stratfordian)
particularly points out the literary references and incest
interpretation. Freud was especially that something was being hidden.
>
> With regard to contemporary [Elizabethan] comments: One letter describing
> the Court scene says something to the effect that the Queen is courting
> Oxford, but "he will not fall in." QE is reported to have said that she
> might have considered marrying Oxford, except that he is young enough to be
> her son! One of the foreign ambassadors to her court wrote home something to
> the effect that her courtiers "ride her like a mare." She is reported by
> many observers to have kept her various favorites more or less all night,
> "playing cards," etc. So the Queen was very likely not as virtuous as all
> that, and being a member of the human race, a notoriously randy lot, she was
> probably as lusty as the rest of us. I question, however, considering the
> real danger of dying in childbirth from infection or whatever in those
> times, whether Elizabeth would have risked her life, [a very special life,
> carrying with it the throne of England] in repeated pregnancies, when they
> could have been avoided. On the other hand, a pregnancy when she was a
> teen-ager, as a result of seduction by a determined adult male (Thomas
> Seymour) is believable.
You are using "believable" in some way I don't understand. Like
someone's label makes it true of not. As you know, many find it
"unbelievable" that the man from Stratford is not the author. But what
they initially find it is not related to the ultimate truth. That is a
matter of evidence and looking at that evidence in total. Not because
in is initially implausible.
> Oxford is referred to in various places as one of the Queen's favorites, and
> it is an open question how far, and with which, of her long series of
> favorites, QE dallied sexually, and what the results, if any, were. Oxford
> is known to have referred to a mysterious "Book of Babies," but no one has
> ever seen such a thing that I know of. QE is referred to in some documents
> as having had one or more children, but the evidence is submerged at best.
>I have heard of a document consisting of a tailor's records of how
QE's
> measurements waxed and waned, but I haven't seen this and it probably
> wouldn't hold up in a court of law anyway!
I followed Betty's trail on this and could not find any documentation
of such a dress maker. But I don't think it mattered. Once Elizabeth
became Queen, then anything could be covered up. She only had to be
out of sight for two months, children would be placed in foster homes
of willing aristocrats, and life would go on. No one was going to
blab. And there are accusations of Elizabeth having five children by
Dudley. Which I think is over by one. That is she had one child by her
stepfather, which beyond all reasonable doubt I have shown to be true,
four by Dudley and the last by her own son. (maybe more, but who
knows?)
Betty Sears spent a couple of
> years as I recall trying to see the original of a letter by the older
> Wriothesley which she believed would contain the name of the infant born to
> his wife, [which she thought would be significant] and I don't know whether
> she ever found this letter and what it actually said.
>
> Paul wrote:
> > > The orthodox Oxfordians don't say there is no evidence, what they do
> > > is try to repress the evidence. The are not certain that I am wrong,
> > > they know the case is substantial and are deathly afraid that I am
> > > right.
>
> I think this is a mischaracterization. The way you presented the case is
> that you have appeared to adopt ALL of the suggestions and inferences that
> have been made as being true, wrapped them all up in a ball, and presented a
> pastiche which is, for me, anyway, impossible to swallow. Ultimately, if
> you had presented the same [unproven] suggestions as just that and no more,
> your book would have been more convincing and would probably have had more
> staying
> power.
Not true. Both the Catholics of the time, and others have suggested
that Anne Boleyn was Henry VIII's daughter. I ran that down as far as
I could and it does not seem possible and I state that. But then
again, noone knows when Anne Boleyn was born. Henry admitted he had
sexual relations with Anne's sister, but "never with the mother," so I
am sure he was telling the truth.
> I think the best part of your book is the opening section on the "Ashbourne"
> portrait which hangs in the Folger Library, in the "Founders' Room," with
> its rather schizoid identification of the sitter as "Lord Mayor Hugh
> Hamersley," a Mayor of London, at the same time implicitly acknowledging it
> as a portrait of "Shakespeare." Also, your updating of the general
> situation of the Shaxper/Oxford controversy is very useful.
Further work on the Ashbourne portrait may reveal documents between
the Folger and the restorer, in which the restorer complains that what
he is being asked to do is beyond 'restoration.' Certainly with the
1611-1612 'restoration' by the Folger, it engaged in slight of hand to
make Hamersley possible.
>
> I am nothing less than grateful that the Sobran book, with its portrayal of
> Oxford, and thus Shakespeare, as a homosexual, has had its day and is now
> out of print.
>
> Your book, as the most recently published book on Oxford as Shakespeare that
> I am aware of, will hold center stage until the next book on the subject
> appears. I wish it had been a better book, but it will have to do, if for
> no other reason than its existence, and it does offer some information and
> insights that have not been previously available in book form.
>
> If it does go into a "second edition" (whatever that may mean in its
> "print-on-demand" format), I really would advise a complete additional
> proof-reading by someone who is familiar with Elizabethan texts and grammar.
> I note that Marilyn Clarke is included in your list of proofreaders and
> editors; I know Marilyn's writing ability, literacy level and familiarity
> with Elizabethan texts to be of the highest. And I also know that the errors
> that still remain in the book would be time-consuming to correct. I am
> aware that you have made considerable effort to raise the
> grammar/spelling/syntax well above the level of your usual product, but
> let's face it: the original text must have had a long way to go, and the
> "final product" still contains so many errors that it is somewhat
> embarrassing. I'm sure you realize that running a text through an automatic
> spell-checker and then accepting the changes that are offered can lead to
> completely inappropriate words appearing in the final text.
Thanks for the advice. Errata have been noted as they appeared. I made
several additions after it was proof read by an editor, and I did not
go back through another proofing. Definitely a mistake. I am doing
another printing and it will be better.
Further, as I acknowledge in the book, I am indebted to both you and
Betty for your early work on the early literary career of Edward de
Vere, Ovid, Romeus and Juliet, etc. Your writing is witty and insights
abound. This seems to be authored by you (dripping in sarcasm) and is
right on the money,
"There is also an astonishing crowd of one-shot "geniuses" who appear
to have served as alonymous authors. These were real people behind
whom we believe the true author, Oxford, hid his identity, beginning
at the age of about twelve. They are now given credit for writing
various "orphan" literary works of genius."
One change I am considering, which is significant. That is the
definition of Oxford on the cover. Shakspere is not Shakespeare, and
de Vere is not de Vere.
That is, de Vere is truly Edward Seymour, that is the argument of the
book. Titles can be conferred, by princes are born. So using the
English custom of hyphens to signify the joining of important
families, Oxford will be:
Edward Tudor-Seymour
Prince of England
17th Earl of Oxford
Author of Hamlet, Macbeth, Sonnets, Metamorphoses and Romeus & Juliet.
>
> All that having been said, I wish you the best of luck with your book,
> although I can't completely endorse it for the reasons mentioned above.
>
> Stephanie
Thanks for the comments, and taking the time to offer your insights.
paul streitz
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
> Stephanie Caruana
> author/editor:
> The Gemstone File of Bruce Roberts
> http://gemstone-file.com
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
>
> >
> > My reaction to your theories, as you've posted them here, is that they
> > are just too weird for many people to support them.
The truth value of something has got nothing to do with how many
people support the idea. Once true, always true.
Greg Reynolds
paul streitz wrote:
> I should also point out, that for all the alleged open-mindedness to
> new paradigms, creative thinking, and accusations against
> Stratfordians, the orthodox Oxfordians have exhibited the same toward
> the PT Theory and Advanced PT. The SOS newsletter appears (maybe I am
> wrong, it could be later) to even review Oxford: Son of Queen
> Elizabeth I, and the de Vere Conference won't put the book in the
> bookstore for coming de Vere Conference (at least to date.)
Are you the author or the front man?
> Notable Oxfordians asked off my mailing list, when the book began to
> receive glowing comments from Oxfordian readers.
Just because we write to you doesn't mean you are literate.
> The orthodox Oxfordians don't say there is no evidence, what they do
> is try to repress the evidence.
In your will, are there any books?
> The are not certain that I am wrong,
> they know the case is substantial and are deathly afraid that I am
> right.
Are you the Terrence or the Batillus?
> And you seem to be in the same camp, that is, make claims about
> something you have never read.
>
> paul streitz
Think of being in Oxford's camp...
If Orazio's tent's a-quakin'
Then the Earl must be Shakin'
Streitz, I dare you to show your braggy numbers
as your ridiculous book declines in notoriety and
people who thought they knew you turn their heads
in pity. If Oxfordians had a Space Program, you, my
friend, would be sputnick--the first to go.
Look what you've become, Paul, a mere curiosity, the
2001 version of Billy Beer.
Greg Reynolds
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3C8AC46B...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> > Gary Kosinsky wrote:
>
> > > David, thank-you for the position summary of the various
> > > Oxfordians in this newsgroup. Obviously I haven't been paying
> > > as close attention as I should have been before asking the question.
> > >
> > > However, while we're on the subject, do you know where
> > > Art N. stands on the issue?
> "David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> > Art has opined that Mr. Streitz is wrong about Oxford being the son
> > of the Queen, although I'm not sure where Art stands on all the other
> > vexing questions raised in this thread -- Oxford as the Queen's lover,
> > Southampton as the Queen's and/or Oxford's son, Rutland as Oxford's
> > twin brother, etc. However, Art changes his mind (if I may use the
> > word loosely) frequently,
> I just got back from seeing the John Nash movie and I think I have
> quite a beautiful mind thank you very much!
So you do, Art, as I would be among the first to acknowledge -- but
beauty can exist in some VERy unconventional avatars:
Still will I harvest beauty where it grows:
In coloured fungus and the spotted fog
Surprised on foods forgotten; in ditch and bog
Filmed brilliant with irregular rainbows
Of rust and oil, where half a city throws
Its empty TINS; and in some spongy log
Whence headlong leaps the oozy emerald frog.
And a black pupil in the green scum shows.
Her the inhabiter of DIVERS [di Ver's!] places
Surmising at all doors, I push them all.
Oh, you that fearful of a creaking hinge
Turn back forevermore with CRAVEN faces,
I tell you Beauty bears an ultra fringe
Unguessed of you upon her gossamer shawl!
[Emphasis added; "craven" is an anagram of "A.C.N. Ver"!]
-- Edna St. Vincent Millay
> > so it's probably best to get an answer
> > straight from the horse's mouth
> > (or from whatever part of that oracle's
> > anatomy answers are forthcoming).
> "That oracle's anatomy?"
>
> What definition of oracle did you mean, Dave?
> -------------------------------------------------
> Oracle, n. [F., fr. L. oraculum, fr. ORARE to speak, utter, pray, fr.
> os, oris, mouth.] 1. The answer of a god, or some person reputed to be a
> god, to an inquiry respecting some affair or future event, as the
> success of an enterprise or battle.
>
> 2. Hence: The deity who was supposed to give the answer; also, the place
> where it was given.
>
> 3. The communications, revelations, or messages delivered by God to the
> prophets; also, the entire sacred Scriptures -- usually in the plural.
The Gospel According to Neuendorffer, of course!
[...]
> To answer the question: I'm not much interested in idle &
> unsubstantiated speculation vis-a-vis Oxford's personal life.
VERy sensible, Art -- it's far better to confine your idle and
unsubstantiated speculation to Templar conspiracies and the like.
> It all
> seems rather silly to me.
Indeed! If it seems silly even to *you*, that ought to alert eVERy
potential reader of Mr. Streitz's book.
> Art Neuendorffer (Oracle Extraordinaire)
The Oracle has spoken!
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Art has opined that Mr. Streitz is wrong about Oxford being the son
> > > of the Queen, although I'm not sure where Art stands on all the other
> > > vexing questions raised in this thread -- Oxford as the Queen's lover,
> > > Southampton as the Queen's and/or Oxford's son, Rutland as Oxford's
> > > twin brother, etc. However, Art changes his mind (if I may use the
> > > word loosely) frequently,
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
> > I just got back from seeing the John Nash movie and I think I have
> > quite a beautiful mind thank you very much!
"David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> So you do, Art, as I would be among the first to acknowledge
> -- but beauty can exist in some VERy unconventional avatars:
>
> Still will I harvest beauty where it grows:
> In coloured fungus and the spotted fog
> Surprised on foods forgotten; in ditch and bog
> Filmed brilliant with irregular rainbows
> Of rust and oil, where half a city throws
> Its empty TINS; and in some spongy log
> Whence headlong leaps the oozy emerald frog.
> And a black pupil in the green scum shows.
> Her the inhabiter of DIVERS [di Ver's!] places
> Surmising at all doors, I push them all.
> Oh, you that fearful of a creaking hinge
> Turn back forevermore with CRAVEN faces,
> I tell you Beauty bears an ultra fringe
> Unguessed of you upon her gossamer shawl!
>
> [Emphasis added; "craven" is an anagram of "A.C.N. Ver"!]
>
> -- Edna St. Vincent Millay
<<As Abraham Lincoln was watching the play, Our American Cousin, on the
night of his assassination at Ford's Theater, one of the actresses
called for a shawl to protect her from the draft. One of the actors
ad-libbed a reply, "You are mistaken, Miss Mary, the draft has already
been stopped by order of the President!" Lincoln shared his last laugh
with the rest of the audience.>>
> > "David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> > > so it's probably best to get an answer
> > > straight from the horse's mouth
> > > (or from whatever part of that oracle's
> > > anatomy answers are forthcoming).
>
> > "That oracle's anatomy?"
> >
> > What definition of oracle did you mean, Dave?
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Oracle, n. [F., fr. L. oraculum, fr. ORARE to speak, utter, pray, fr.
> > os, oris, mouth.] 1. The answer of a god, or some person reputed to be a
> > god, to an inquiry respecting some affair or future event, as the
> > success of an enterprise or battle.
> >
> > 2. Hence: The deity who was supposed to give the answer; also, the place
> > where it was given.
> >
> > 3. The communications, revelations, or messages delivered by God to the
> > prophets; also, the entire sacred Scriptures -- usually in the plural.
>
> The Gospel According to Neuendorffer, of course!
A Blatter day saint like Tycho.
> > To answer the question: I'm not much interested in idle &
> > unsubstantiated speculation vis-a-vis Oxford's personal life.
>
> VERy sensible, Art -- it's far better to confine your idle and
> unsubstantiated speculation to Templar conspiracies and the like.
Absolutely!
> > It all seems rather silly to me.
>
> Indeed! If it seems silly even to *you*, that ought to alert eVERy
> potential reader of Mr. Streitz's book.
Paul is a kinetic writer.
> > Art Neuendorffer (Oracle Extraordinaire)
>
> The Oracle has spoken!
Note, that I don't:
1) Search out cryptic patterns
2) 'cut & paste' articles or
3) write on Windows.
Art N.
Richard Kennedy
answers invade a sensible conversation, and evade answering to
the rules of civil debate. Steese writes this, obviously at a loss of
something to say relative to the question at hand.
"The people who go looking for alien spacecraft think they're exercising
sense, and that anyone who points out that they simply don't understand
what they're looking at is wilfully blind. Just so with the Bigfoot
hunters; just so with the perpetual-motion seekers; just so with you."
--Steese
David Kathman
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> Amazing! Thanks for the information (and a good laugh!), Dave.
>Although there have been some great one-liners, errors, and whole posts
>that have been funnier, this thread is remarkable in that virtually
>*every post* in it has left me laughing helplessly -- in that respect I
>can't recall any thread that rivals it. I realize that I'm probably
>spoiling everything with this followup, but if I can find the time,
>maybe I'll try to atone by posting a summary of some of the more
>amusing aspects of Streitz's book, of which I recently found a used
>copy.
David:
If you really want to be left helpless with laughter, tears
streaming down your face, I suggest you visit this site:
http://www.gamegene.com/shakespeare.html
It's by an Oxfordian named Geoffrey Hamilton who wrote a script
called "Edward the Great", about the allegedly "true story" behind
Shakespeare. He actually filmed his script using volunteer actors,
and even "asked passers-by if they could help on the day of the shoot."
You can buy the finished video for $15, and I'm sorely tempted
to do so, just for the undoubtedly rich humor value. He put a
portion of the shooting script on his site, and reading it left
me in paroxysms of helpless laughter. For example, here's an
exchange between Edward de Vere and Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester:
**************
ROBERT
There is no sport between us Edward. But sport will be my excuse.
EDWARD
Excuse for what? For what? you gallows maker!
ROBERT
How dare you fuck my Queen in my own house?
EDWARD
How dare you steal my lands?
ROBERT
I'll destroy you Edward.
EDWARD
Not when the Queen discovers your secret marriage!
ROBERT
How do you know?
EDWARD
Don't worry you pin prick. I don't care. I have my own concerns.
Just leave me to them and I will leave you to yours.
**************
This is only a small sample of the hilarity to be found just
within the sample provided on the web. The opening trial
scene, with an Oxfordian lawyer cross-examining a Shakespeare
"expert", is also priceless. I recommend not reading this
script while you're eating or drinking, lest you choke
on your food or drink in a fit of laughter.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Gary Kosinsky
> To answer the question: I'm not much interested in idle &
>unsubstantiated speculation vis-a-vis Oxford's personal life. It all
>seems rather silly to me.
Unsubstantiated speculation? I though Paul Streitz was
arriving at his conclusions through the anti-Stratfordian technique
of reading fiction as autobiography. Are you saying such a
technique is silly?
Gary Kosinsky
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>Mr. Streitz appears to refer to his theory of Oxford's incestuous
>relations with the Queen as the "Super PT theory." Since "Super PT
>theory" seems more apt for the theory that Oxford was the Queen's lover
>and Southampton their son, I propose the term "Super D.T. theory" for
>Mr. Streitz's incestuous soap-opera scenario, as a means of keeping the
>two theories straight.
I assume 'PT' stands for 'Prince Tudor'. I hesitate to
ask, but what does 'D.T.' stand for?
Gary Kosinsky
Richard Kennedy <stai...@teleport.com> wrote:
SNIP
Richard, while you're here, can I ask you something?
You're an Oxfordian. Do you believe that Oxford was Elizabeth's
son?
Tom Reedy
news:a6gfn1$lgb$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
<snip>
> If you really want to be left helpless with laughter, tears
> streaming down your face, I suggest you visit this site:
>
> http://www.gamegene.com/shakespeare.html
>
I second that. What's really hilarious is the seriousness of it all. Are you
sure "Geoffrey Hamilton" isn't a pseudonym for Ken Kaplan or Mark Alexander?
TR
Tom Reedy
QUEEN
Our little ceremony was under the dominion of the sun and moon, it was only
the pagan side of me that married you.
(Edward nearly cries.)
Oh, Edward, don't be hurt. Oh, you're too foolish, too ambitious, too
controversial for the nobility to accept. How could our little ceremony be
made public? I married you to Anne because you were still free, too free. If
you loved another I would lose you, if you married for love I would lose
you. Some kind of marriage was the only way I was going to control your
railing...hobby-horse -- I love you so Edward. If you were with someone you
could not love I was safe. And William was so set on you. Well, at first he
was. I had to consent to his wishes at the time.
KQKnave
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>David:
>
>If you really want to be left helpless with laughter, tears
>streaming down your face, I suggest you visit this site:
>
>http://www.gamegene.com/shakespeare.html
>
>It's by an Oxfordian named Geoffrey Hamilton who wrote a script
>called "Edward the Great", about the allegedly "true story" behind
>Shakespeare. He actually filmed his script using volunteer actors,
>and even "asked passers-by if they could help on the day of the shoot."
>You can buy the finished video for $15, and I'm sorely tempted
>to do so, just for the undoubtedly rich humor value. He put a
>portion of the shooting script on his site, and reading it left
>me in paroxysms of helpless laughter. For example, here's an
>exchange between Edward de Vere and Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester:
>
>**************
>ROBERT
>
>There is no sport between us Edward. But sport will be my excuse.
>
>EDWARD
>
>Excuse for what? For what? you gallows maker!
Martyrs of pies, and relics of the bum.
>
>ROBERT
>
>How dare you fuck my Queen in my own house?
>
>EDWARD
>
>How dare you steal my lands?
About thy boat the little fishes throng,
As at the morning toast that floats along.
>
>ROBERT
>
>I'll destroy you Edward.
>
>EDWARD
>
>Not when the Queen discovers your secret marriage!
>
>ROBERT
>
>How do you know?
>
>EDWARD
>
>Don't worry you pin prick. I don't care. I have my own concerns.
>Just leave me to them and I will leave you to yours.
Leave writing plays, and choose for thy command
Some peaceful province in acrostic land.
See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Richard Kennedy
the Oxfordians, and shoveled the same by the Stratfordians, but if I
were going to market the stuff I'd go with the Stratfordians, they've
got wagons full, out to the horizon.
As to your question, I don't know, I was somewhere else and I have
witnesses, talk to my lawyer. It's certainly astounding that so many
people think so, and the outrage is equal to the insult. Actually, without
the Shakespeare question, there would be nothing to it, her very
queenieness being herself a bastard. Doesn't mean she ever has to
admit of bastard children? Who has the best information about Arthur
Dudley, who bounced about Europe claiming to be the son of the Queen
and Leicester? There is much more evidence that Arthur was a bastard by
the Queen than the same for Oxford. Yet the Stratfordians don't much
give a damn one way or the other about Arthur Dudley. If it were not for
the evidence got up that Oxford was Shakespeare, the Strats wouldn't care
skat about the Queen's bastards if she had any.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <Q07i8wyT...@vcn.bc.ca>, Gary Kosinsky
<gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
I presume that's what he intended as well.
> I hesitate to
> ask, but what does 'D.T.' stand for?
Delirium tremens. It's the most charitable explanation.
David Webb
Stephanie Caruana
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a6gfn1$lgb$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
<SSNIP>
> **************
>
> This is only a small sample of the hilarity to be found just
> within the sample provided on the web. The opening trial
> scene, with an Oxfordian lawyer cross-examining a Shakespeare
> "expert", is also priceless. I recommend not reading this
> script while you're eating or drinking, lest you choke
> on your food or drink in a fit of laughter.
>
> Dave Kathman
> dj...@ix.netcom.com
I think you guys are missing something in all this. Here is a young man,
who states that he saw the PBS special on "The Shakespeare Mystery" when he
was in high school. It pleased and excited him to the point where he went
out and did a lot of reading on Shakespeare and the Authorship question.
Here are the books he listed in his bibliography, and his comments:
********************************
BOOKS ABOUT EDWARD DE VERE
The Mysterious William Shakespeare, Charlton Ogburn Jr., 1984
...Compares William Shakspere to Edward de Vere
The Life Story of Edward de Vere as "William Shakespeare", Percy Allen
Every Man Out of His Humour, Ben Jonson, 1590s
...First hand satire on the Shakespeare pretender.
Story of the Learned Pig, "Learned Pig"-an officer of the Royal Navy 1786
....Later satire on pretentions of Shakspere of Stratford
"Shakespeare" Identified as Edward de Vere the 17th Earl of Oxford, J.
Thomas Looney, 1920
...The first book on the subject
This Star of England, Dorthy and Charlton Ogburn
...Long but the best book on the subject
Shake-speare: the Man Behind the Name, Dorthy and Charlton Ogburn Jr.
Alias Shakespeare, Joseph Sobran, 1997
***********************************************
NOTE: There isn't a single "literary historian"/Stratophreako among them.
He just doesn't care, obviously what Strats have to say. He loves the
story! He can get behind Edward de Vere, as a character/personality, while
he clearly can't get behind Mr. Pudding-face from Stratford.
So now he has made a video on the subject. He has designed, or had someone
design for him, a cover illustration. He's rolling. Okay, the literary and
dramatic quality is poor, but these are the students our educational system
turns out these days, and at least this man has found something in the
literature that interests him, and he has learned a lot from the study.
Maybe his next video, or movie, will be more skillfully done. Everyone
needs to start somewhere. (Except the Stratman, of course, who started with
"Venus and Adonis. Need I say more?)
If you had any sense, you would see this as a straw in the wind. Watch
out--within the next year or so, it will be followed by an entire bale of
hay.
If Oxford were alive today, he'd probably be writing and directing
blockbuster Academy Award-grade films.
Dave Kathman, I think you have hit a new low with your attempt to recycle
the well-known Archaionomy "signature" forgery as an exciting new find. You
have now taken your place firmly within the "establishment: they've been
doing the same thing for what--200 years now?
I'm thinking of visiting my community TV station and putting together a
video of my play. It's a lot of fun when you see it, and the time appears
to be ripe for this.
Stephanie
David L. Webb
You're right -- this stuff is absolutely priceless! Thanks for the
URL -- I had actually stumbled upon this site before, but had not
explored the link to the script, and so missed out on all the fun.
I'll try to reciprocate by warmly recommending Streitz's book. I've
begun a discussion of it on a new thread devoted to the subject, and
I'll try to return to it in more detail if and when I have more time,
but suffice it to say that one can open the book almost at random and
find material that will leave one laughing until the tears come. I
started reading it in the library, but very quickly had to leave for
fear not merely of disturbing other patrons but of actually making a
spectacle of myself by bursting into loud, unrestrained laughter in a
quiet reading room.
David Webb
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <a6gpot$jfe$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephanie Caruana
<spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote:
It's a *great* list!
> ********************************
> BOOKS ABOUT EDWARD DE VERE
>
> The Mysterious William Shakespeare, Charlton Ogburn Jr., 1984
> ...Compares William Shakspere to Edward de Vere
>
> The Life Story of Edward de Vere as "William Shakespeare", Percy Allen
Do you suppose that this gullible "young man" will conduct
"research" as Percy Allen himself did, via seances and the like?
> Every Man Out of His Humour, Ben Jonson, 1590s
> ...First hand satire on the Shakespeare pretender.
>
> Story of the Learned Pig, "Learned Pig"-an officer of the Royal Navy 1786
> ....Later satire on pretentions of Shakspere of Stratford
>
> "Shakespeare" Identified as Edward de Vere the 17th Earl of Oxford, J.
> Thomas Looney, 1920
> ...The first book on the subject
...and still among the most risible.
> This Star of England, Dorthy and Charlton Ogburn
> ...Long but the best book on the subject
For those who value unintended humor, this may well indeed be the
best book on the subject.
> Shake-speare: the Man Behind the Name, Dorthy and Charlton Ogburn Jr.
>
> Alias Shakespeare, Joseph Sobran, 1997
But Stephanie -- you just expressed on another thread what one took
to be heartfelt gratitude that Sobran's asinine book was out of print!
> ***********************************************
>
> NOTE: There isn't a single "literary historian"/
You can say that again!
> Stratophreako among them.
That's probably why the young man has drifted so far out to the
lunatic fringe.
> He just doesn't care, obviously what Strats have to say. He loves the
> story!
Anyone can love a story. It is only when charming fiction is
confused with history that I object.
> He can get behind Edward de Vere, as a character/personality, while
> he clearly can't get behind Mr. Pudding-face from Stratford.
>
> So now he has made a video on the subject. He has designed, or had someone
> design for him, a cover illustration. He's rolling.
Or trolling? I'm the one that's rolling -- on the floor laughing.
> Okay, the literary and
> dramatic quality is poor,
You noticed that, Stephanie? Excellent! My faith in your aesthetic
judgment remains intact.
> but these are the students our educational system
> turns out these days,
No, the best educational institutions still turn out plenty of
students who can think incisively, argue persuasively, and write
gracefully.
> and at least this man has found something in the
> literature that interests him, and he has learned a lot from the study.
That's odd -- I cannot detect that he has learned *anything* (except
some lunatic-finge conspiracy lore). He is evidently not in command of
the factual background, nor does he exhibit much (if any) familiarity
with reputable source material; what judgment (if any) he still retains
seems seVEREly impaired, and as you have already noted, his writing is
farcical. The "study" he has undertaken does not seem to have enhanced
his critical or analytical skills at all; the less said about his
writing, the better.
> Maybe his next video, or movie, will be more skillfully done.
Don't bet on it. You've read Mr. Streitz's book -- it isn't a big
improvement over his inflated pig bladders and his h.l.a.s. posts.
> Everyone
> needs to start somewhere. (Except the Stratman, of course, who started with
> "Venus and Adonis. Need I say more?)
He is by no means the only writer whose first published work was
both a major popular success and a lasting creation.
> If you had any sense, you would see this as a straw in the wind. Watch
> out--within the next year or so, it will be followed by an entire bale of
> hay.
It sounds as though you're intimating that Oxfordians are poised to
disgorge the entire contents of a sizable barn or stable; if so, I
would not be at all surprised.
> If Oxford were alive today, he'd probably be writing and directing
> blockbuster Academy Award-grade films.
No, he would probably be brawling, trying to get the credit card
companies off his back, residing in a state that only undertakes the
most desultory oversight of deadbeat dads, botching virtually
everything he undertook, defending himself from child molestation
complaints, and trying unsuccessfully to corner the tin market.
(Perhaps he could take lessons in the latter from the incomparable
brethren William Herbert Hunt and Nelson Bunker Hunt.)
> Dave Kathman, I think you have hit a new low with your attempt to recycle
> the well-known Archaionomy "signature" forgery as an exciting new find. You
> have now taken your place firmly within the "establishment: they've been
> doing the same thing for what--200 years now?
>
> I'm thinking of visiting my community TV station and putting together a
> video of my play. It's a lot of fun when you see it, and the time appears
> to be ripe for this.
This idea has comic potential as well -- perhaps you can become a
national legend as well as a Boston-area legend in pursuit of your
quest to promote your play. Just make a beeline for the nearest
injured staff member and turn on the charm -- and don't forget to twist
the arm *hard*! (If you can manage it, try a full Nelson.)
David Webb
Toby Petzold
> "Toby Petzold" <neogno...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >
> >You gotta go with your strengths (e.g., the name on
> > title-pages, the quill pen in the hand of the funerary bust, the
> > crushing weight of three centuries of scholarship, etc.).
>
> The name on the title pages was after all Will's name.
> The dedications in the Folio were not to some noble-lord-
> in-an-actor's-hide, nothing cryptic about those dedications.
I disagree. The opening lines of Jonson's dedicatory poem are
extremely indirect and confusing. I think he was trying to indicate
that his poem contained a second layer of meaning.
> And where were Oxford, Bacon, Marlowe, Derby - or even anyone else -
> mentioned as being possible authors of Will's Works?
>
> I mean THEN, not now.
>
> >
> > Now, when Stratfordians DO try to argue for autobiography ....
> > they face the task of explaining the homoeroticism
>
> Why is this such a big deal for you?
It isn't. I have only occasionally mentioned the subject here.
> Do you know how many people are gay?
Maybe as many as a tenth of all males? That's what we usually hear.
> Do you know how many people
> are bisexual?
No.
> Do you know how many writers - American writers as
> well - are/were gay?
No, but there's been a lot.
> WHO CARES?!
Homosexuals care very much. And I think it's interesting, too. I also
keep a mental list of famous people from Texas. We got a lot of 'em,
too.
> Will left Stratford and hung out with his co-actors, a
> close, family-like group.
We can reasonably believe that, but we can't prove it.
> Some of the boys playing the girls roles
> may have looked kind of cute.
I daresay.
> Maybe not, I don't know.
It was like the Mexican singing group Menudo. They could stay so long
as their stones didn't drop.
> Why are Will's sexual preferences so important?
Because it's important to know the man in full. And that applies to
gender, preference, race, nationality, religion, etc. Groups comprised
of any or all of these categories are especially interested in whether
an artist represents them in some respect. Are you saying that a
heterosexual isn't allowed to explore and find relevance in the
homosexuality or bisexuality of an artist who interests him? (I don't
know about in your country, but over here, black kids will tell you
that only THEY are allowed to call each other niggers. I enjoy hearing
their explanations, but I say they're wrong.)
> I mean, I like the OPPOSITE sex, but I have no trouble with gays.
> Do you?
Not at all. I find them to be fastidious, hygienic, sensitive, and
decent. They are also bitchy, particular, cliquish, and angst-ridden.
Like everybody. A favorite cousin of mine is gay and I love him.
Several friends of mine through the years have been gay and lesbian
and I care for them, too. What is your point?
> I don't see why Will's perhaps being bisexual would change anything.
It would better explain the Sonnets, for one thing. Wouldn't that be
worth the trouble of knowing?
> > and then the identities of the hidden subjects.
> > Rowse tried to put a name to the Dark Lady and look what
> > that got him.
>
> That's why she's the Dark Horse, sorry, Dark Lady. Probably even not
> many people around WS knew who she was. Some affairs are secret,
> and remain so till the few people who knew are gone, and their
> knowledge with them.
So, as a Stratfordian, you are saying that the Dark Lady was an actual
human being and that the Sonnets are not literary exercises, but poems
inspired by real events and emotions? Excellent.
> Perhaps Anne Hathaway found out about it, and in jealous rage
> burned all Will's letters to her. (Ha! Well, you never know!)
That would certainly solve some problems for your side.
> Perhaps the Dark Lady was not the kind of woman a man would write
> to. Maybe it was just obsessive love/lust.
Alas, too true. I wrote a poem to a girl I had just met while in
college. It was the last time she ever came near me.
> It's not something he would have registered at the Town Hall, her
> identity I mean, especially since she sort of dumped him, as far
> as I can remember (am I right?),
> or moved on to one of his friends...I'm not sure.
Nobody really knows, but that's close enough.
> > Nearly all Stratfordian attempts at arguing for self-allusion or
> > topicality fail the test of corroboration.
>
> I'd say the same for each and every anti-Strat argument, as well.
> You guys are standing on MUCH more shaky ground than we are.
If biography qualifies a candidate for the Authorship, Oxford wins,
hands down.
Toby Petzold
American
Neuendorffer
> "David L. Webb" wrote:
> > The Oracle has spoken!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I started to think I was a man of great religious importance,
and to hear voices all the time. I began to read something like
email messages on my computer, from people opposed to my ideas...'
'.... I started to see crypto-Freemasons everywhere ... '
'the staff at my university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
and later all of Boston were behaving strangely towards me.'
--------------------------------------------------------
"I would not dare to say that there is a direct relation between
mathematics and madness, but there is no doubt that great mathematicians
suffer from maniacal characteristics, delirium and symptoms of
schizophrenia."
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Nash.html
his fellow students took delight in making fun of Nash who they saw as
an awkward immature person displaying childish tantrums. One of his
fellow students wrote:-
"We tormented poor John. We were very unkind. We were obnoxious.
We sensed he had a mental problem."
--------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Wiener was one of the first to recognize that Nash's extreme
eccentricities and personality problems were actually symptoms of a
medical disorder.
--------------------------------------------------------
John F. Nash, Jr. – Autobiography
From Les Prix Nobel 1994.
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1994/nash-autobio.html
Now I must arrive at the time of my change from
scientific rationality of thinking into the delusional
thinking characteristic of persons who are psychiatrically
diagnosed as "schizophrenic" or "paranoid
schizophrenic".
But after my return to the dream-like delusional
hypotheses in the later 60's I became a person of
delusionally influenced thinking but of relatively
moderate behavior and thus tended to avoid
hospitalization and the direct attention of psychiatrists.
Thus further time passed. Then gradually I began to
intellectually reject some of the delusionally influenced
lines of thinking which had been characteristic of my
orientation. This began, most recognizably, with the
rejection of politically-oriented thinking as essentially a
hopeless waste of intellectual effort.
So at the present time I seem to be thinking rationally
again in the style that is characteristic of scientists.
However this is not entirely a matter of joy as if
someone returned from physical disability to good
physical health. One aspect of this is that rationality of
thought imposes a limit on a person's concept of his
relation to the cosmos. For example, a non-Zoroastrian
could think of Zarathustra as simply a madman who led
millions of naive followers to adopt a cult of ritual fire
worship. But without his "madness" Zarathustra would
necessarily have been only another of the millions or
billions of human individuals who have lived and then
been forgotten.
Statistically, it would seem improbable that any
mathematician or scientist, at the age of 66, would be
able through continued research efforts, to add much to
his or her previous achievements. However I am still
making the effort and it is conceivable that with the gap
period of about 25 years of partially deluded thinking
providing a sort of vacation my situation may be atypical.
Thus I have hopes of being able to achieve something of
value through my current studies or with any new ideas
that come in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------
John W. Kennedy
Like most anti-Strats' learning, his dramaturgy seems to terminate in
the late 19th century. As imitation Ibsen-Archer, it's almost good, in
spots.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
Richard Nathan
attributed to William Shakespeare MUST have been written by a
nobleman, because only a courtier could have written so well about
life at Court. And yet, Oxfordians love to write scripts about the
Earl of Oxford?
Do they think that they themselves are somehow exempt from their rule
that only an Elizabethan nobleman can write well about life in the
Elizabethan Court?
Do they imagine that somehow they are Elizabethan noblemen?
Or do they think their scripts will be poor because they aren't
writing from their own life experience, but they don't mind writing
poor scripts on the subject of Oxford.
Probably the ONLY sensible thing Paul Streitz ever did in connection
with his view that Oxford wrote the plays was to give up on his
pathetic attempt to write a play about Oxford. I assume Paul realized
he had neither the knowledge nor the skill to complete his play, so he
gave up on it. Other Oxfordians keep making the attempt, and failing
miserably.
Tom Reedy
news:3C8D2329...@attglobal.net...
At least he knows how to spell "lose." Kaplan or Baker would have Elizabeth
say, "If you loved another I would loose you, if you married for love I
would loose you."
TR
Greg Reynolds
> One change I am considering, which is significant.
So you are fallible, okay then, we're getting somewhere.
> That is the definition of Oxford on the cover.
Have you tried him inside the back cover (like Orazio did)?
> Shakspere is not Shakespeare, and de Vere is not de Vere.
> That is, de Vere is truly Edward Seymour, that is the
> argument of the book.
Since your book is a comedy, why not have Ed wear
a big S on his shirt, and everyone can wonder whether
he's mild-mannered Seymour or powerful Shakespeare,
able to construct complex characterizations in a single bound.
> Titles can be conferred, by princes are born.
Heck, great authors can be anointed at your house,
whenever you damn well feel like it.
> So using the
> English custom of hyphens to signify the joining of important
> families, Oxford will be:
>
> Edward Tudor-Seymour
> Prince of England
> 17th Earl of Oxford
> Author of Hamlet, Macbeth, Sonnets, Metamorphoses
> and Romeus & Juliet.
There is no evidence that Oxford even read Shakespeare, is there, Paul?
Greg Reynolds
Ken Kaplan
position and extrapolate it to the whole or some example of the
interest in Oxford by the film community? Hollywood right now has
genuine interest in a Devere film.
A year or so ago in the Oxford Society newsletter, a recent biography
of Shakespeare was reviewed. The author was
Richard...@att.net (Richard Nathan) wrote in message news:<f1a7073a.02031...@posting.google.com>...
Ken Kaplan
the wrong button by mistake. If Kathman wants to continue with these
kinds of games, its his business. There will be an Oxfordian film from
Hollywood within five years and it will be another major factor in the
erosion of the support for the traditional attribution.
Ken Kaplan
Richard...@att.net (Richard Nathan) wrote in message news:<f1a7073a.02031...@posting.google.com>...
Roundtable
>Roundtable wrote:
> > The name on the title pages was after all Will's name.
> > The dedications in the Folio were not to some noble-lord-
> > in-an-actor's-hide, nothing cryptic about those dedications.
>
> I disagree. The opening lines of Jonson's dedicatory poem are
> extremely indirect and confusing. I think he was trying to indicate
> that his poem contained a second layer of meaning.
Well, I'll have to re-read it then. I always thought it was
extremely touching and a very strong proof of who WS was...actor
and playwright from Stratford.
> > Do you know how many people are gay?
>
> Maybe as many as a tenth of all males? That's what we usually hear.
They say 48% of all males have had at least one encounter leading
to "physical satisfaction" (I deleted the "O" word)
with a member of the same sex, often during puberty.
Would that be a Close Encounter of the Same Kind?
I have no comment on these statistics, though.
...
> It was like the Mexican singing group Menudo. They could stay so long
> as their stones didn't drop.
You have a sense of humour! Wow!
> > Why are Will's sexual preferences so important?
>
> Because it's important to know the man in full. And that applies to
> gender, preference, race, nationality, religion, etc.
Yes, but you wrote originally that "Stratfordians try to explain
WS's homoeroticism".
So my real question would be - WHY would we have to explain it?
>Are you saying that a
> heterosexual isn't allowed to explore and find relevance in the
> homosexuality or bisexuality of an artist who interests him?
No. If he's interested in the sexual aspect of the artist, he/she can
explore as much as he likes. I wasn't saying that, anyway.
> (I don't
> know about in your country, but over here, black kids will tell you
> that only THEY are allowed to call each other niggers. I enjoy hearing
> their explanations, but I say they're wrong.)
Well, my country would be Britain, but the country I live in is
Switzerland, and the Yugoslavians here have been known to call other
Yugoslavians they don't like a "Jugo" and the Italians here have been
known to call other Italians they don't like a "Tschingg" (Swiss-
German expression,...don't ask...) but all get real mad if someone
else calls them that.
> > That's why she's the Dark Horse, sorry, Dark Lady. Probably even not
> > many people around WS knew who she was. Some affairs are secret,
> > and remain so till the few people who knew are gone, and their
> > knowledge with them.
>
> So, as a Stratfordian, you are saying that the Dark Lady was an actual
> human being and that the Sonnets are not literary exercises, but poems
> inspired by real events and emotions? Excellent.
What an idea - and how boring. Literary exercises, I mean.
I doubt that a person as lusty as Will would be able to write these
Dark Lady poems just as exercises. No, I feel there was someone
there he was fascinated, even obsessed with and although his head
told him she wasn't all that wonderful, his breath came faster
when he just heard her name spoken. Haven't you ever had feelings
like that? I have. It has nothing to do with love. So I believe
these were real people, real events he was writing about, though
perhaps not each ad every one of them his own experience, maybe
something he had observed...
> > Perhaps the Dark Lady was not the kind of woman a man would write
> > to. Maybe it was just obsessive love/lust.
>
> Alas, too true. I wrote a poem to a girl I had just met while in
> college. It was the last time she ever came near me.
I write letters and postcards. Too many. To people who don't
appreciate them, don't even read them probably.
Oh, poor, poor me.
Of course, on the other hand, I can be really mean, too, so
not-poor-me, not-poor-me, but poor them!
>
> If biography qualifies a candidate for the Authorship, Oxford wins,
> hands down.
Err...if Oxford kept his hands down, how did he manage to write
anything?
Roundtable
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Tad Davis
> Forget it. I started to reply then realized it wasn't worth it. I hit
> the wrong button by mistake. If Kathman wants to continue with these
> kinds of games, its his business. There will be an Oxfordian film from
> Hollywood within five years and it will be another major factor in the
> erosion of the support for the traditional attribution.
....Once again confusing "supported by the people" with "supported by
evidence."
--
Tad Davis
dav...@voicenet.com
Gary Kosinsky
Kenka...@yahoo.com (Ken Kaplan) wrote:
SNIP
Ken, while you're here, can I ask you a question?
You're an Oxfordian. Do you think Oxford was Elizabeth's son?
David Kathman
>To Kathman. Why do you do this? To take the lowest denominator of a
>position and extrapolate it to the whole or some example of the
>interest in Oxford by the film community?
Uh, what are you talking about? I can't see that I did these
things you're accusing me of; all I did was point out one
specific Oxfordian video, and express how funny I found
the shooting script posted on the web. I said nothing about
"the whole" or "the film community". Are you, by chance,
misattributing Richard Nathan's remarks to me? If so (and this
seems a likely interpretation), I am once again led to marvel
at the inability of so many Oxfordians to keep straight the
attribution of Usenet posts which are right in front of their
faces; I can't imagine why they expect anybody to take seriously
their attributions of texts written 400 years ago.
>Hollywood right now has
>genuine interest in a Devere film.
Hollywood also has genuine interest in films about alien
abductions and all kinds of pseudoscientific and pseudohistorical
crap. Sensationalism and conspiracy theories are much more
exciting than cold, hard, facts, and Hollywood is in the
business of exciting people.
>A year or so ago in the Oxford Society newsletter, a recent biography
>of Shakespeare was reviewed. The author was
Oh, no! Ken's been taken down by the Trust in mid-sentence
because he knew too much!
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
paul streitz
> with his view that Oxford wrote the plays was to give up on his
> pathetic attempt to write a play about Oxford. I assume Paul realized
> he had neither the knowledge nor the skill to complete his play, so he
> gave up on it. Other Oxfordians keep making the attempt, and failing
> miserably.
>
Should ask before you make such assumptions.
paul streitz
Paul Crowley
> In article <5daf239d.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> SNIP
>
> Paul, while I await responses from other Oxfordians
> on this newsgroup as to whether they believe Oxford was the
> son of Elizabeth (how 'bout it, Art? Stephanie? Richard K.?
> Paul C.?
I do not believe that Queen Elizabeth had any sons.
The idea that she did is no more than a modern
fantasy put about by those who have no conception
of the extent to which she was constantly under the
most intense kind of scrutiny from the public and
her courtiers.
PT theories tell us absolutely nothing about
Elizabethan England. They tell us a lot about
modern America.
Paul.
--
Email: pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)
Richard Kennedy
the Arthur Dudley adventure? Or does anyone, it was all
a very strange episode whether or not the man was Eliza's
and Leiscester's son. Evidently the Spanish believed it, and
the man had been kicking about Europe claiming it to be so.
Wasn't the idea that the Spanish, after conquering England
with the Armada, were going to use Arthur to somehow
further their conquest? And then when the Armada lost it
all in 1588....Arthur disappeares into history.
Stephanie Caruana
"Richard Kennedy" <stai...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3C8F0A16...@teleport.com...
What I know about it comes from the Sr. Ogburns' "This Star of England."
Just a couple of pages and a source reference as I recall. It's in the
Index, if you have a copy or can get one through a library.
Stephanie
--