Shakespeare portrait? Or just crying wolf?
hj
clipping interesting -- especially the second half.
*****
"Is this the true face of Shakespeare? Experts say so:
Tests point to portrait by little-known artist"
JILL LAWLESS
Associated Press
LONDON - Britain's National Portrait Gallery announced Wednesday that a
canvas by an obscure 17th-century artist is probably the one true
likeness of William Shakespeare that was painted in his lifetime.
"I suspect this is the closest we're ever going to get to looking at
the face of Shakespeare," said Tarnya Cooper, curator of the gallery's
16th-century collection.
She said there was strong evidence but no conclusive proof that the
so-called Chandos portrait depicted Shakespeare. Scholars have argued
for centuries about his appearance.
The portrait is the center of the "Searching for Shakespeare" exhibit,
which opens today.
Attributed to a little-known artist named John Taylor and dated by
experts to between 1600 and 1610, the Chandos portrait provides an
unusually bohemian image of Shakespeare. The Bard is shown dressed in
black, with a gold hoop earring and the strings on his white collar
untied.
Earrings were worn then by "people of wit and ingenuity and creative
ambition," Cooper said.
Similarities in style to portraits of other Elizabethan writers
strengthened the argument that the painting is of Shakespeare, who died
in 1616, she said.
There is no definitive portrait of Shakespeare painted in his lifetime.
Only two likenesses, both posthumous, are widely accepted as authentic:
a bust on his tomb in Stratford's Holy Trinity Church and an engraving
used as a frontispiece to the Folio edition of his plays in 1623.
The National Portrait Gallery has spent a year and a half conducting
tests on several alleged Shakespeare portraits.
The gallery concluded that one of the best-known images, the Flower
portrait owned by the Royal Shakespeare Company, was a fake, painted
200 years after the writer's death. The work, which shows the
playwright gazing out at an angle and wearing a wide white collar, has
been widely reproduced and is often printed on the covers of his plays.
Analysis uncovered chrome yellow paint from about 1814 embedded deeply
in the work, and revealed it was painted atop a 16th-century Italian
Madonna and child.
Tests also ruled out the Grafton portrait, which shows a dark-haired,
highbrowed young man in a rich scarlet jacket. Although gallery experts
dated the painting to 1588 -- when Shakespeare was 24 -- they found no
evidence that it depicted the playwright.
Representatives of the 'Marlowe Society' were unimpressed with the
announcement. "Obviously, this is really a portrait of Kit Marlowe in
middle age," said a spokesman. "The wool-trader would never wear an
earring, and we contend this is the man from the 1685 portrait of
Marlowe -- from Corpus Christi College -- aged two decades."
This immediately raised a storm of disagreement from supporters of the
argument that the 17th Earl of Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare.
"The man is much too swarthy and Italian to be the author of the
sonnets," argued I. M. Looney of the 'De Vere Society.' "Even the
illiterate simpleton from Stratford would look more English. However,
the presence of the man is one more piece of evidence in favor of
Oxford's authorship of the canon, as it is certain he could only have
come to to England with the Earl, after Oxford's youthful visit to
Italy."
A highly placed source in the 'Shakespeare-Oxford Society' speculated
that since both the Chandos portrait and the bust of 'Shakspeare' in
Stratford are swarthy, "this is a clever clue, left to tell us that the
real author is not buried there."
The strongest response was from computer expert Lily Von Schtupp. "The
same computer analysis that proved the Droeshout portrait was based on
Queen Elizabeth I, shows that this one is as well."
When questioned about the apparently male characteristics of the person
in the portrait, Dr. Von Schtupp admitted that one would have to make
the assumption that the queen suffered from a condition such as
hypertrichosis, or excessive hairiness. "Older women often get some
facial hair," said Dr. Von Schtupp. "The queen might have had it in
excess. Of course it would have to be hidden from the public. That
would explain why she wore so much white make-up, to cover her
five-o'clock shadow."
A regular contributer to the 'humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare'
discussion group, who wished to remain anonymous, speculated that the
Elizabeth might actually have suffered from Lycanthropy, or
werewolfism, and that the portrait was painted at night, during a full
moon, shortly before she ate the painter. "If that is so, she could
never die. She might be centuries old. Her famous line, 'I am Richard
II, know you not?' may be literally true!"
Supporters of Francis Bacon's claim to the canon were similarly
unimpressed. "Why you can get a corrupt official to swear to anything,"
said one.
Peter Farey
"hj" quoted:
<snip>
> Representatives of the 'Marlowe Society' were unimpressed
> with the announcement. "Obviously, this is really a portrait
> of Kit Marlowe in middle age," said a spokesman. "The wool-
> trader would never wear an earring, and we contend this is
> the man from the 1685 portrait of Marlowe -- from Corpus
> Christi College -- aged two decades."
If someone did say this purporting to represent the views of
the Marlowe Society, they are likely to get a fairly strong
ticking off for it. There is no question of the Society
officially contending any such thing, as it maintains a
strict neutrality on such matters - and a good thing too.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
adam...@yahoo.com
Why, she could still be alive!
Hide!
Art Neuendorffer
Peter Farey
Peter Farey wrote:
>
> "hj" quoted:
<snip>
> > Representatives of the 'Marlowe Society' were unimpressed
> > with the announcement. "Obviously, this is really a portrait
> > of Kit Marlowe in middle age," said a spokesman. "The wool-
> > trader would never wear an earring, and we contend this is
> > the man from the 1685 portrait of Marlowe -- from Corpus
> > Christi College -- aged two decades."
>
> If someone did say this purporting to represent the views of
> the Marlowe Society, they are likely to get a fairly strong
> ticking off for it. There is no question of the Society
> officially contending any such thing, which maintains a
> strict neutrality on such matters - and a good thing too.
Oh, lest you wonder. I did get the joke! Nice one.
Your post did remind me, however, of a book I am reading at
the moment - "History Play", by Ronald Bolt, in which things
which we think of as historical facts are mixed up with
inventions of his own in such a way that it is very difficult
for anyone other than someone who has specialised in Marlowe's
biography to detect any "join". Only at the end does he come
clean about which were (apparent) facts, and which were
figments of his own imagination. I felt a bit like someone
must do when they give in and look at the last few pages of
a whodunit to see if they are right. But thank God I did,
because I was *hating* it up until then! Now I know what it's
all about, I can read the rest in comfort.
Recommended (as far as I have got so far) as an antidote to
anyone who thinks there is any such thing as certainty in
literary biography. The majority of those posting here, I
suspect?
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2/prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Groundling
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article348699.ece
Art Neuendorffer
> Vertue's deception may have been on target after all!
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article348699.ece
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Was Oxford's Portrait Shakespeare's?
by Richard Whalen
http://www.everreader.com/manindep.htm
<<About a decade after the Shakespeare Jubilee occurred a third
indication that someone may have believed that Oxford was Shakespeare.
This clue was in a portrait inventory that seemed to imply that
a portrait of Oxford was thought to be that of Shakespeare.
Derran Charlton, an archival researcher of South Yorkshire, England,
made the discovery at Wentworth Woodhouse and published his finding
in the De Vere Society Newsletter last May 1995.
The inventory of portraits, dated 1782, lists all the heirloom portraits
mentioned in the 1696 will of William, Earl of Wentworth --except one.
Missing from the inventory list is a portrait of Edward de Vere, 17th
earl of Oxford. Where did that portrait go?
Scanning the inventory, Derran Charlton also noted that a portrait of
the same dimensions was described simply as "Shakespeare". No portrait
of Shakespeare was mentioned in the will, nor has any been found, nor
has the inventory reference been linked to any of the other purported
portraits of Shakespeare the Stratford man.
Furthermore, the listing of the Shakespeare portrait was alongside
listings of portraits of Oxford's cousin, Lord Horace Vere, and his
grandson, James Stanley. Since Oxford's portrait is omitted from the
list and one called "Shakespeare" turns up among Oxford's relatives, it
seems quite possible that whoever drew up the inventory called the
Oxford portrait "Shakespeare". Otherwise the disappearance of the one
and emergence of the other, as described by Derran Charlton, is quite
unaccountable.
Finally, a convergence of pictures of "Shakspeare" and of Oxford in the
18th century may someday fit the pattern. At the point of convergence
is Edward Harley, whose library became the Harleian Collection. In 1737
Harley took the engraver George Vertue with him to see Stratford and the
monument in Trinity Church. Vertue sketched the monument but declined to
show the face of the monument's "Shakspeare" in his sketch. Instead,
he substituted a likeness based on the so-called Chandos portrait of
Shakespeare. He also put Harley into his sketch, as a lone spectator
of this bust with a substitute face.
As it happens, Harley was the 2nd earl of Oxford (second creation),
while his wife had connections to the 17th earl of Oxford.
She was the great-great-granddaughter of Oxford's favorite cousin,
the famous Horace de Vere. Also, she had inherited the so-called
Welbeck portrait of the 17th Earl of Oxford, now at the National
Portrait Gallery.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
hj
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> Oh, lest you wonder. I did get the joke! Nice one.
-- Whew! I was going to wonder if people in this newsgroup had a
sense of the absurd ...
>
> Your post did remind me, however, of a book I am reading at
> the moment - "History Play", by Ronald Bolt, in which things
> which we think of as historical facts are mixed up with
> inventions of his own in such a way that it is very difficult
> for anyone other than someone who has specialised in Marlowe's
> biography to detect any "join".
-- Bolt seems to have worked harder at it than necessary. "The Da
Vinci Code" is a best seller because almost no one even bothers to
check out its statements given as fact, or pays attention when
corrected information is provided on television or radio or in the
press. It is now part of the culture and will spawn sequels. Soon we
will be told that Kennedy was assassinated to keep him from going
public, as the CIA had told him the Catholic church was suppressing the
truth about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. It was Cardinal Spellman on the
grassy knoll.
-- Now I'll stop interrupting, so people here can get back to their
regularly-scheduled flame war.
hj
seaker
Shakespeare, Whalen doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
Art Neuendorffer
> Art - Quoting Richard Whalen is a waste of time. When it comes to
> Shakespeare, Whalen doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
Shakespeare's ass?
We'll have to cover that sucker with a *LAPIS manalis* !
---------------------------------------------------
Coriolanus Act 4, Scene 5
Second Servingman: *I KNEW* by his face that ther was
something in him: he had, sir, a kind of face, methought,
---------------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part ii Act 3, Scene 2
SHALLOW: *I KNEW* him a good *BACKSWORD MAN*
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/epitaph.htm
" READ IF THOU *GANST* "
may imply reading some of the words BACKSWORD:
*aGAiNST* , prep. [OE. agens, ageynes, AS. ongegn. The 's' is
adverbial, orig. a genitive ending.] From an opposite direction
-----------------------------------------------------------
*N(a)TUREDIDE* : WHo-SE@NAM-E DOth
________________ : SI-eH all
..................................................
________________ : He-IS all
(E. So)uthampton - (H)enry(W)riothesley *EDIDERUT(a)N*
*EDO* , edere, EDIDI, EDITum, *EDIDERUNT* :
give out, put forth; bring forth, beget, produce;
relate, tell, utter; publish,
---------------------------------------------------
Hamlet Act 5, Scene 2
HORATIO: *I KNEW* you must be *EDIFIED* by the margent
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUICK NATURE DIDE
WHO- SE@NAM -E,DO-TH DECK YS TOMBE,
*MAN@ES E,DO*
*EDO-uardus veierus*
-------------------------------------------------------------
*MAN@ES E,DO*
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<Whenever a town was founded a round hole would first be dug.
In the bottom of it a STONE, LAPIS manalis, which represented
a gate to the Underworld, would then be embedded.
On August 23rd, this STONE would be removed
to permit the *MANES* to pass through.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 23, 1600, Shakespeare 1st appears in Stationer's Register
when *ANDREW WISE* enters "II Henry IV"
and "[M]uch ADO [A]bout [N]othing".
---------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part i Act 1, Scene 2
FALSTAFF: I would to God thou and *I KNEW* where a
commodity of good names were to be bought. An old
lord of the council rated me the other day in the
street about you, sir, but I marked him not; and yet
he talked *VERy WISEly*, but I regarded him not; and
yet he talked *WISEly*, and in the street too.
Gabriel Harvey (nlt 1603): "The younger sort
takes much delight in Shakespeares Venus, & Adonis:
but his Lucrece, & his tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of
Denmarke, have it in them, to please the *WISER* sort,"
-------------------------------------------------------------
_THIS STAR OF ENGLAND_ Chap. 8
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Star/ch08.html
by Dorothy & Charlton Ogburn
<<IN JANUARY 7, 1575, Lord Oxford set forth with his retinue,
Before the end of May the traveller reached Venice, where he
declined a generous offer on the part of [titular Grand Prior]
Sir RICHARD SHELLEY of a furnished house, to continue his journey.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
THE KNIGHTS OF SAINT JOHN IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND & IRELAND
http://www.saintjohn.org/priory.htm
<<By 1567 the only English knights remaining on Malta were the
titular Grand Prior RICHARD SHELLEY (who was an active participant
in several plots against Elizabeth) and Oliver Starkey (commander
of Quenington), later titular BAILIFF of Egle (from 1569).>>
<<Starkey, who had been La Valette's Latin Secretary
and was the only Englishman at the Great Siege,
died in 1588 & SHELLEY in 1590, when a French knight
was appointed to the titular Grand Priory.
This appointment was challenged by an Irish knight resident
in the convent, one *ANDREW WISE* from Waterford who,
after complaining, was appointed BAILIFF of Egle.>>
............................................................
Twelfth Night Act 2, Scene 5
*SIR ANDREW* : *I KNEW* 'twas I; for many do call me *FOOL*.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fbrt.org.uk/pages/athena/frameset-athena.html
<<Inscribed on Athena's shield is a Latin motto,
*ObscuriS VERA INVOLVENS*
meaning ' *TRUTH* is enveloped in obscurity', which explains
the imagery on the shield-the central sun representing *TRUTH*
and the surrounding clouds obscurity.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
_________ *O(bscuri)S VERA INVOLVENS*
________________ {anagram}
_________ *BACON *SVS* NIL VERO VERIUS*
----------------------------------------------------------
_________________ *SVS* : a swine or hog (Latin)
_________________ *SVS* : *I KNEW* / you knew (French)
.............................................
*IE SUS* = *I KNEW* {French}
---------------------------------------------------
All's Well That Ends Well Act 5, Scene 3
DIANA: By Jove, if *EVER* *I KNEW* man, 'twas you.
.............................................
The Taming of the Shrew Act 5, Scene 1
VINCENTIO: His name! as if *I KNEW* not his name:
I have brought him up *EVER* ...
.............................................
HAMLET: *I KNEW* him, Horatio:
a fellow of infinite *IE-ST*,
...*HERE* hung *Those LiPS* that I have kissed
--------------------------------------------------
Good friend, for [IE] *SVS* ' sake, forbear
To [DIG] the du[ST] enclosed *HERE* :
Blest be the man that spa[RE]s these stones,
And curst be he that mo[VE]s my *BONES*
*ECO*: *HERE* (Venetian)
[E]douardus [C]omes [O]XONIAE, Vic[ECO]mes BULBECK
.................................................
Timon of Athens Act 2, Scene 2
FLAVIUS: For that *I KNEW* it the most general way--
To them to use your signet and your name;
But they do *SHAKE* their heads, and I am *HERE*
Antony and Cleopatra Act 3, Scene 13
MARK ANTONY: You were half blasted ere *I KNEW* you: ha!
-------------------------------------------------
Now Peter makes the point that *IESVS* = *christ*
'decks the tomb' .... but then so does:
_________ *RE*
_________ *VE*
and in a manner highly reminiscent of Ben Jonson's
" *2 feet by 2 feet* will do for all I *WANT* "
http://westminster-abbey.org/library/burial/jonson.htm
Sonnet 55
[W]hen wastefull warre shall Statues oUER-turne,
[A]nd broiles roote out *the worke of masonry* ,
[N]or *MARS his SWORD* , nor warres *quick fire shall burn*
[T]he liuing record of your memory.
*GAINST DEATH* , and all obliuious emnity
------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Harvey on Edward de Vere:
"Courage animates thy brow, *MARS* lives in thy tongue,
Minerva strengthens thy right hand, BELLONA reigns
in thy body, *within thee burns the fire* of *MARS*.
*Thine eyes flash fire*, thy *will shakes a spear*;
---------------------------------------------------
Peter Farey wrote:
> Adopting Art Neuendorffer's methodology, of course,
> the choice of Olympus is essential to provide the end
> "ly", linking the two MARs in the top line. :o)
[m,ar]te[ Mar]
t, O[ly]mpvs
---------------------------------------------------
The Comedy of Errors Act 2, Scene 2
OF SYRACUSE: *I KNEW* 'twould be a bald conclusion:
---------------------------------------------------
The Taming of the Shrew Act 1, Scene 1
KATHARINA: *I KNEW* not what to take and what to leave, ha?
---------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part ii Act 3, Scene 2
SHALLOW: *I KNEW* him a good *BACKSWORD MAN*
______ [m,ar]te Mar
_______ [Ol]ympvs
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/shpear~1.gif
---------------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida Act 4, Scene 5
NESTOR: '*LO* , Jupiter is yonder, dealing life!'
And I have seen thee pause and take thy breath,
When that a ring of Greeks have hemm'd thee in,
Like an *Olympian* wrestling: this have I seen;
But this thy countenance, still lock'd in steel,
I *NEVER* saw till now. *I KNEW* thy grandsire,
And once fought with him: he was a soldier good;
But, by great *MARS* , the captain of us all,
*NEVER* saw like thee. Let an old man embrace thee;
And, worthy warrior, welcome to our tents.
----------------------------------------------
*MARS*
-----------------------------------------------
John M. Rollett THE OXFORDIAN Volume II 1999
http://www.oxfordian.com/99-Rollet-Dedication.pdf
<<Acrostic poem by Anthony Munday,
[E]xcept I should in freendship seeme ingrate,
[D]enying duty, where to I am bound;
[W]ith letting slip your Honour's worthy state,
[A]t all assayes, which I have Noble found
[R]ight well I might refrayne to handle PEN:
[D]enouncing aye the COMPANY of men.
[D]owne dire despayre, let courage come in place,
[E]xalt his FAME whom Honour doth imbrace.
[V]ertue hath aye adornd your valiant hart,
[E]xampled by your deeds of lasting FAME:
[R]egarding such as take *God MARS* his part,
[E]che where by proofe, in Honnor and in name.>>
---------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part iii Act 2, Scene 5
Son: *PARDON ME* , God, *I KNEW* not what I did!
And *PARDON* , father, for *I KNEW* not thee!
My tears shall wipe away these bloody marks;
And no MORE WORDS till they have flow'd their fill.
------------------------------------------------------------
*vultus/Tela vibrat*
(Thy) Will Shakes Spears or (Thy) WEB Shakes WILLs.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Harvey and the Genesis of "William Shakespeare"
by Andrew Hannas
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/essays/harvey.html
<<Gabriel Harvey printed his 168-line poem
in which he styled an Apostrophe ad eundem
(Apostrophe to the same man, i.e. De Vere),
printed in Gratulationis Valdinensis Liber Quartus
(The Fourth Book of Walden Rejoicing), London, 1578, in September.
Virtus fronte habitat: *MARS* occupat ora; Minerva
In dextra latitat: Bellona in corpore regnat:
[MAR]tius *ARDOR InEST* ; scintillant lumina: *vultus*
*Tela vibrat* : quis non redivivum iuret Achillem?
O age, magne *COMES* ,
---------------------------------------------------
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 1, Scene 2
HORATIO: *In dreadful secrecy impart they did*
And I with them the third night kept the watch;
WHERE, as they had *DEliVER'd* , both in time,
Form of the thing, each word made *TRUE* and good,
The apparition *COMES* : *I KNEW* your father;
---------------------------------------------------
Romeo and Juliet Act 4, Scene 1
FRIAR LAURENCE:
I would *I KNEW* not why it should be slow'd.
*LOok* , sir, *HERE COMES* the lady towards my cell.
..................................................
*ECO*: *HERE* (Venetian)
[E]douardus [C]omes [O]XONIAE, Vic[ECO]mes BULBECK
---------------------------------------------------
Much Ado About Nothing Act 3, Scene 3
DOGBERRY: *I KNEW* it would be your answer. Well, for
your favour, sir, why, give God thanks, and make
no boast of it; and for your writing and reading,
let that appear when tHERE is no need of such
vanity. You are thought *HERE* to be the most
senseless and fit man for the constable of the
watch; tHEREfore bear you the lantern. This is
your charge: you shall comprehend all vagrom men;
you are to bid any man stand, in the prince's name.
---------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part i Act 2, Scene 4
FALSTAFF: By the Lord, *I KNEW* ye as well as he that made ye.
Why, hear you, my masters: was it for me to kill the
heir-apparent? should I turn upon the *TRUE* prince?
why, thou knowest I am as valiant as Hercules: but
beware instinct; the lion will not touch the *TRUE*
prince. Instinct is a great matter; I was now a
coward on instinct. I shall think the better of
myself and thee during my life; I for a valiant
lion, and thou for a *TRUE* prince.
---------------------------------------------------
The Two Gentlemen of Verona Act 1, Scene 2
JULIA: I would *I KNEW* his mind.
---------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part ii Act 1, Scene 1
NORTHUMBERLAND:
*I KNEW* of this before; but, to speak *TRUTH*,
This present grief had wiped it from my mind.
Go in with me; and counsel *EVERy man*
The aptest way for safety and REVEnge:
Get posts & letters, and make friends with speed:
*NEVER* so few, and *NEVER* yet more need.
---------------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida Act 4, Scene 2
PANDARUS: my Lord AEneas! By my *TROTH*,
*I KNEW* you not:
PANDARUS: would thou hadst *NE'ER* been born!
*I KNEW* thou wouldst be his *DEATH*
--------------------------------------------------
The Comedy of Errors Act 5, Scene 1
ANGELO: *I KNEW* he was not in his perfect wits.
---------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Mouse
seaker wrote:
> Art - Quoting Richard Whalen is a waste of time. When it comes to
> Shakespeare, Whalen doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
You know, seaker, I really don't care what you say about me. But
Richard Whalen is one of the sweetest, kindest men I've ever known, and
quite frankly, you're not fit to shine his shoes. It is a disgrace that
you speak of someone you've never met in this disgusting way.
Lynne
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>Art - Quoting Richard Whalen is a waste of time. When it comes to
>>Shakespeare, Whalen doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
Mouse wrote:
> You know, seaker, I really don't care what you say about me. But
> Richard Whalen is one of the sweetest, kindest men I've ever known, and
> quite frankly, you're not fit to shine his shoes. It is a disgrace that
> you speak of someone you've never met in this disgusting way.
You take this stuff too seriously/personally , Lynne.
Seaker is just doing his job just as Bob Grumman is doing his job.
(Someone, no doubt, is even assigned to the task of preventing
you & Rog from publishing in a peer reviewed journal.
It's a dirty job but I guess someone has to do it.
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
news:1141507850.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Now there's an on-point argument!
TR
John W. Kennedy
Some of the sweetest, kindest people I have ever known have been
retarded children.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Mouse
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Mouse wrote:
> > seaker wrote:
> >> Art - Quoting Richard Whalen is a waste of time. When it comes to
> >> Shakespeare, Whalen doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
> >
> > You know, seaker, I really don't care what you say about me. But
> > Richard Whalen is one of the sweetest, kindest men I've ever known, and
> > quite frankly, you're not fit to shine his shoes. It is a disgrace that
> > you speak of someone you've never met in this disgusting way.
>
> Some of the sweetest, kindest people I have ever known have been
> retarded children.
1. And so would it be ok to say that they didn't know their a** from a
hole in the ground?
2. Richard Whalen is not mentally handicapped.
Lynne
gangleri
> Some of the sweetest, kindest people I have ever known have been
> retarded children.
Seaker doesn't impress me as either sweet or kind.
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
What makes you think (if I may use the word loosely, as I habitually
do in your case, Art) that their paper will not appear in due course in
a peer REViewed journal? You haven't even read the paper -- not that a
(hypothetical) attempt by aneuendor...@comicass.nut to read is
apt to be VERy successful, judging by past performance.
> It's a dirty job but I guess someone has to do it.
Your parody of paranoia is priceless, Art!
> Art Neuendorffer
seaker
doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. My comment was based
on his writings. Whalen pushes the same Oxford sh .. ( crap) that has
been pushed from Looney to Anderson.
What passes for Oxfordian scholarship doesn't measure up to the first
drafts of Chambers, Wilson, Schoenabum, Greenblatt, Garber, etc.
seaker
blushing if I said Richard Whalen has shit for brains?
seaker
piece of literature, is an asshole!
Art Neuendorffer
>>>
>>>>Art - Quoting Richard Whalen is a waste of time. When it comes to
>>>>Shakespeare, Whalen doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
>>Mouse wrote:
>>
>>>You know, seaker, I really don't care what you say about me. But
>>>Richard Whalen is one of the sweetest, kindest men I've ever known, and
>>>quite frankly, you're not fit to shine his shoes. It is a disgrace that
>>>you speak of someone you've never met in this disgusting way.
>>
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> You take this stuff too seriously/personally , Lynne.
>>
>> Seaker is just doing his job just as Bob Grumman is doing his job.
>> (Someone, no doubt, is even assigned to the task of preventing
>> you & Rog from publishing in a peer reviewed journal.
David L. Webb wrote:
> What makes you think (if I may use the word loosely, as I habitually
> do in your case, Art) that their paper will not appear in due course in
> a peer REViewed journal? You haven't even read the paper -- not that a
> (hypothetical) attempt by aneuendor...@comicass.nut to read is
> apt to be VERy successful, judging by past performance.
>
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> It's a dirty job but I guess someone has to do it.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Your parody of paranoia is priceless, Art!
When a busy mathematics professor living 400 miles away actually
finds the time to keep track of what I have & haven't read I think I
have the right to feel paranoid.
Art N.
John W. Kennedy
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>> Mouse wrote:
>>> seaker wrote:
>>>> Art - Quoting Richard Whalen is a waste of time. When it comes to
>>>> Shakespeare, Whalen doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
>>> You know, seaker, I really don't care what you say about me. But
>>> Richard Whalen is one of the sweetest, kindest men I've ever known, and
>>> quite frankly, you're not fit to shine his shoes. It is a disgrace that
>>> you speak of someone you've never met in this disgusting way.
>> Some of the sweetest, kindest people I have ever known have been
>> retarded children.
>
> 1. And so would it be ok to say that they didn't know their a** from a
> hole in the ground?
When someone is clownish enough to cite one as an academic authority, yes.
> 2. Richard Whalen is not mentally handicapped.
He's an Oxfordian. He is either mentally handicapped or he is a
contemptible vendor of garbage for profit.
Bianca Steele
> >>>> Shakespeare, Whalen doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
> >>> You know, seaker, I really don't care what you say about me. But
> >>> Richard Whalen is one of the sweetest, kindest men I've ever known, and
> >>> quite frankly, you're not fit to shine his shoes. It is a disgrace that
> >>> you speak of someone you've never met in this disgusting way.
> >> Some of the sweetest, kindest people I have ever known have been
> >> retarded children.
> > 1. And so would it be ok to say that they didn't know their a** from a
> > hole in the ground?
> When someone is clownish enough to cite one as an academic authority, yes.
This thread sure shows the best of HLAS, always appropriate in word and
act.
----
Bianca Steele
"No hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow,
Who's once been set his tryst with Trystero."
---- Richard Wharfinger
wate...@financier.com
i like the Chandos portrait
put it along side the Droeshout engraving,
and you see what i mean
it's true, i would "like" it to be him,
simply because we have no "good" likeness
well..at least we have the Droeshout,
which is way better than none
waterboy
Tom Reedy
news:1141541141.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Gee, Tom Reedy, you are such a delicate flower. Would it keep you from
> blushing if I said Richard Whalen has shit for brains?
>
I don't think I've ever seen anyone miss the point so hugely as you have.
I'm not even going to try to explain it to you. Let Bob Grumman do it for
you.
TR
Topos
Hmmm, I don't know about it's authenticity but the "old player"
portrait looks a pretty good match, see:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~shakespeare/poet/portraits/old_player/index.htm
Mouse
seaker wrote:
> Good Lord Lynne, I said when it comes to Shakespeare, Richard Whalen
> doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. My comment was based
> on his writings. Whalen pushes the same Oxford sh .. ( crap) that has
> been pushed from Looney to Anderson.
So you've actually read it? That's good. I commend you. Really. Always
better to have an opinion when you've read the work in question.
>
> What passes for Oxfordian scholarship doesn't measure up to the first
> drafts of Chambers, Wilson, Schoenabum, Greenblatt, Garber, etc.
You've read their first drafts, have you?
L.
Mouse
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Mouse wrote:
> > John W. Kennedy wrote:
> >> Mouse wrote:
> >>> seaker wrote:
> >>>> Art - Quoting Richard Whalen is a waste of time. When it comes to
> >>>> Shakespeare, Whalen doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
> >>> You know, seaker, I really don't care what you say about me. But
> >>> Richard Whalen is one of the sweetest, kindest men I've ever known, and
> >>> quite frankly, you're not fit to shine his shoes. It is a disgrace that
> >>> you speak of someone you've never met in this disgusting way.
> >> Some of the sweetest, kindest people I have ever known have been
> >> retarded children.
> >
> > 1. And so would it be ok to say that they didn't know their a** from a
> > hole in the ground?
>
> When someone is clownish enough to cite one as an academic authority, yes.
>
> > 2. Richard Whalen is not mentally handicapped.
>
> He's an Oxfordian. He is either mentally handicapped or he is a
> contemptible vendor of garbage for profit.
Surely you can do better than that, John. Please don't hold back on my
account.
L.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Commander Reedy was making fun of LynnE for responding to your position
that Whalen was not bright with the irrelevant rejoinder that Whalen
was a wonderful person, and you are not.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
What does distance have to do with anything?
> actually
> finds the time to keep track of what I have & haven't read
It is not hard at all to keep track of what you have read, Art --
mathematicians denote that set by a zero with a slash through it.
HoweVER, I make no attempt to keep track of what you have and haven't
grepped.
> I think I
> have the right to feel paranoid.
VERy wise, Art -- the mere fact you're paranoid doesn't mean that our
conspiracy isn't out to get you.
> Art N.
The Historian
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>> Mouse wrote:
>>> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>>>> Mouse wrote:
>>>>> seaker wrote:
>>>>>> Art - Quoting Richard Whalen is a waste of time. When it comes to
>>>>>> Shakespeare, Whalen doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
>>>>> You know, seaker, I really don't care what you say about me. But
>>>>> Richard Whalen is one of the sweetest, kindest men I've ever known, and
>>>>> quite frankly, you're not fit to shine his shoes. It is a disgrace that
>>>>> you speak of someone you've never met in this disgusting way.
>>>> Some of the sweetest, kindest people I have ever known have been
>>>> retarded children.
>>> 1. And so would it be ok to say that they didn't know their a** from a
>>> hole in the ground?
>> When someone is clownish enough to cite one as an academic authority, yes.
>>
>>> 2. Richard Whalen is not mentally handicapped.
>> He's an Oxfordian. He is either mentally handicapped or he is a
>> contemptible vendor of garbage for profit.
>
> Surely you can do better than that, John. Please don't hold back on my
> account.
>
> L.
Besides, it's not accurate. Some Oxfordians are not after a profit.
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>>
>>>>>>Art - Quoting Richard Whalen is a waste of time. When it comes to
>>>>>>Shakespeare, Whalen doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
>>>>>
>>>>Mouse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You know, seaker, I really don't care what you say about me. But
>>>>>Richard Whalen is one of the sweetest, kindest men I've ever known, and
>>>>>quite frankly, you're not fit to shine his shoes. It is a disgrace that
>>>>>you speak of someone you've never met in this disgusting way.
>>>>
>>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>> You take this stuff too seriously/personally , Lynne.
>>>>
>>>> Seaker is just doing his job just as Bob Grumman is doing his job.
>>>> (Someone, no doubt, is even assigned to the task of preventing
>>>> you & Rog from publishing in a peer reviewed journal.
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> What makes you think (if I may use the word loosely, as I habitually
>>>do in your case, Art) that their paper will not appear in due course in
>>>a peer REViewed journal? You haven't even read the paper -- not that a
>>>(hypothetical) attempt by aneuendor...@comicass.nut to read is
>>>apt to be VERy successful, judging by past performance.
>>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>> It's a dirty job but I guess someone has to do it.
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>> Your parody of paranoia is priceless, Art!
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> When a busy mathematics professor living 400 miles away
David L. Webb wrote:
> What does distance have to do with anything?
An algebraic topologist just wouldn't understand.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>actually finds the time
>> to keep track of what I have & haven't read
David L. Webb wrote:
> It is not hard at all to keep track of what you have read, Art --
> mathematicians denote that set by a zero with a slash through it.
Well that explains all those funny signs
with pets, cigarettes, etc. on them.
David L. Webb wrote:
> HoweVER, I make no attempt to keep track
> of what you have and haven't grepped.
Are you kidding...?
Your stock in trade is keeping a running list
of what each and EVERy anti-Strats have "grepped."
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>I think I have the right to feel paranoid.
Tom Reedy
news:1141608409.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Well done! Our April meeting is coming up, and you'll be recognized, fear
not.
TR
Mouse
I don't know a single Oxfordian who has made big money, or in fact,
much small money, on his or her book. I've been around the block on
this one with JK before. Nor do I know a single Oxfordian who's in it
for the money. RW certainly is not. If there are any who are
money-chasers, my feeling is that they're sadly misguided.
Traditionalists such as Greenblatt, on the other hand, are rumoured to
have made millions. This is not to impugn Greenblatt's motives, of
course, as I have no idea they were.
L.
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> >>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >>
> >>>> You take this stuff too seriously/personally , Lynne.
> >>>>
> >>>> Seaker is just doing his job just as Bob Grumman is doing his job.
> >>>> (Someone, no doubt, is even assigned to the task of preventing
> >>>> you & Rog from publishing in a peer reviewed journal.
[...]
> >>>> It's a dirty job but I guess someone has to do it.
> >>David L. Webb wrote:
>
> >>> Your parody of paranoia is priceless, Art!
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >> When a busy mathematics professor living 400 miles away
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > What does distance have to do with anything?
> An algebraic topologist just wouldn't understand.
I'm not an algebraic topologist Art; what does algebraic topology
have to do with it?
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >>actually finds the time
> >> to keep track of what I have & haven't read
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > It is not hard at all to keep track of what you have read, Art --
> > mathematicians denote that set by a zero with a slash through it.
> Well that explains all those funny signs
> with pets, cigarettes, etc. on them.
If you had not yet figured those out, then I'm glad that I could be
of help to you, Art.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > HoweVER, I make no attempt to keep track
> > of what you have and haven't grepped.
> Are you kidding...?
Would I kid you, Art?!
> Your stock in trade is keeping a running list
> of what each and EVERy anti-Strats [sic] have [sic] "grepped."
Is English your native tongue, Art?
[...]
David L. Webb
"Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> > >> He's an Oxfordian. He is either mentally handicapped or he is a
> > >> contemptible vendor of garbage for profit.
> > > Surely you can do better than that, John. Please don't hold back on my
> > > account.
> > >
> > > L.
> > Besides, it's not accurate. Some Oxfordians are not after a profit.
> I don't know a single Oxfordian who has made big money, or in fact,
> much small money, on his or her book. I've been around the block on
> this one with JK before. Nor do I know a single Oxfordian who's in it
> for the money.
One of your coreligionists professes to know at least one Oxfordian
who's "in it for the money," Lynne: indeed, Stephanie Caruana has said
exactly that of Mr. Streitz, and even quotes Mr. Streitz to that effect:
"So what's wrong with Scratchmatter's hiring Streitz to try and get
the big bucks for his thesis? Streitz told me the first (and only)
time I met him that he was in it for the money.
[Note that Stephanie employs exactly your wording, Lynne!]
"He showed it early
on Phaeton when he proposed a dinner at the NYC Player's Club for
something around $125 a head, where the proposed 'entertainment'
would be a Harold Bloom imitator who would be chased around by
'Oxfordians' beating him with inflated pig's bladders, or something
like that. Streitz uses 'selling techniques.'"
<http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/6a
a6e8c4e08d3961?dmode=source&hl=en>
Elsewhere, Stephanie elaborates:
"The details of that meeting [with Mr. Streitz] are mercifully
blurred, but did not include any of Paul's 'Shakespearean knowledge.'
Rather, it was his ignorance of contemporary reality that struck me.
"1. As I recall, he started off our meeting by telling me about his
plans for a gala Oxfordian Dinner to be held in NYC for the ____nth
Anniversary of Oxford's Birthday (???), to be held at a prominent NYC
location. For this, he proposed to charge guests $125 or $150 (or
something like that), and his plans for the 'entertainment' included
'Oxfordians' in costume, chasing someone around who represented
Harold Bloom, and pummeling this target with 'inflated pig's
bladders.' He assured me that there would be no problem attracting a
full house for this 'Roman' spectacle, because he would go after the
theatrical world. (I think it turned out eventually to be a meeting
at the Williams Club, for a more normal ticket price, but I don't
know really, since I did not attend.)
"I was I assure you 100% nonplussed in contemplation of this plan.
And I probably hadn't even closed my mouth when he told me more of
his plans:
"2. He told me that his reason for planning such an expensive event
(compared to the usual Oxfordian events at that time) were simple: he
expected to make money out of being an Oxfordian. This was indeed the
signal that a new 'generation' of Oxfordians was coming into play.
Formerly, none of us that I knew of expected to make money out of
what was an enjoyable but time-consuming and at times, expensive,
hobby. With one or two exceptions: Lord Burford, who used his
election as President of the Shakespeare Oxford Society to remodel it
according to his desire: as a permanent meal ticket, and Bill Boyle,
who did the same for a number of years. The result had been the
near-destruction of the S.O.S. (It has since gone through several
generations of evolution, and an influx of grant money has provided
room for reorganization and realignment. As a result, the Oxfordian
movement, no longer limited to the Shakespeare Oxford Society, has
room to grow that it never had before; old grievances and enmities are
somewhat resolved, by parties agreeing to disagree, and people more
or less go their own way and do as they prefer, which is ultimately
all to the good, though probably confusing from the outside.)"
<http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/32
ab7662a7f687e6?dmode=source&hl=en>
> RW certainly is not. If there are any who are
> money-chasers, my feeling is that they're sadly misguided.
I cannot comment upon Lord Burford or Mr. Boyle, but if you are
referring to Mr. Streitz, then the phrase "sadly misguided" does not
even begin to do his eccentricities justice; see his recent ignorant and
xenophobic fulminations concerning immigration. Indeed, Mr. Streitz
even earns a passing mention in the Southern Poverty Law Center's latest
Intelligence Report -- not that the SPLC is unwise enough to impute any
intelligence to Mr. Streitz:
<http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589>
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>
>>>>>> You take this stuff too seriously/personally , Lynne.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Seaker is just doing his job just as Bob Grumman is doing his job.
>>>>>>(Someone, no doubt, is even assigned to the task of preventing
>>>>>> you & Rog from publishing in a peer reviewed journal.
>>>>>> It's a dirty job but I guess someone has to do it.
>>>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Your parody of paranoia is priceless, Art!
>> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>> When a busy mathematics professor living 400 miles away
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>> What does distance have to do with anything?
>>
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> An algebraic topologist just wouldn't understand.
David L. Webb wrote:
> I'm not an algebraic topologist Art;
> what does algebraic topology have to do with it?
Say...that would make a great movie title!
>> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>> actually finds the time
>>>> to keep track of what I have & haven't read
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>> It is not hard at all to keep track of what you have read, Art --
>>>mathematicians denote that set by a zero with a slash through it.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> Well that explains all those funny signs
>> with pets, cigarettes, etc. on them.
David L. Webb wrote:
> If you had not yet figured those out, then
> I'm glad that I could be of help to you, Art.
I was born before they started teaching "New Math."
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>>HoweVER, I make no attempt to keep track
>>> of what you have and haven't grepped.
>>
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> Are you kidding...?
>
David L. Webb wrote:
> Would I kid you, Art?!
Yes.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> Your stock in trade is keeping a running list of
>> what each and EVERy anti-Strats [sic] have [sic] "grepped."
>
David L. Webb wrote:
> Is English your native tongue, Art?
Not at 6 AM.
Your stock in trade is keeping a running list
of what each and EVERy anti-Strat has "grepped."
Art Neuendorffer
Mouse
> In article <1141656354.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > >> He's an Oxfordian. He is either mentally handicapped or he is a
> > > >> contemptible vendor of garbage for profit.
>
> > > > Surely you can do better than that, John. Please don't hold back on my
> > > > account.
> > > >
> > > > L.
>
> > > Besides, it's not accurate. Some Oxfordians are not after a profit.
>
> > I don't know a single Oxfordian who has made big money, or in fact,
> > much small money, on his or her book. I've been around the block on
> > this one with JK before. Nor do I know a single Oxfordian who's in it
> > for the money.
>
> One of your coreligionists professes to know at least one Oxfordian
> who's "in it for the money," Lynne: indeed, Stephanie Caruana has said
> exactly that of Mr. Streitz, and even quotes Mr. Streitz to that effect:
>
> "So what's wrong with Scratchmatter's hiring Streitz to try and get
> the big bucks for his thesis? Streitz told me the first (and only)
> time I met him that he was in it for the money.
Well, as I also said, David, any Oxfordian who's in it for the money is
sadly misguided. I don't know Mr. Streitz, but understand he has, for
the most part, except for his unfortunate sally into politics, stuck to
his day job.
Nor did Dr. Stritmatter expect big bucks for his thesis. I do know Dr.
Stritmatter and I can attest to that.
>
> [Note that Stephanie employs exactly your wording, Lynne!]
>
> "He showed it early
> on Phaeton when he proposed a dinner at the NYC Player's Club for
> something around $125 a head, where the proposed 'entertainment'
> would be a Harold Bloom imitator who would be chased around by
> 'Oxfordians' beating him with inflated pig's bladders, or something
> like that. Streitz uses 'selling techniques.'"
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/6a
> a6e8c4e08d3961?dmode=source&hl=en>
>
> Elsewhere, Stephanie elaborates:
>
> "The details of that meeting [with Mr. Streitz] are mercifully
> blurred, but did not include any of Paul's 'Shakespearean knowledge.'
> Rather, it was his ignorance of contemporary reality that struck me.
>
> "1. As I recall, he started off our meeting by telling me about his
> plans for a gala Oxfordian Dinner to be held in NYC for the ____nth
> Anniversary of Oxford's Birthday (???), to be held at a prominent NYC
> location. For this, he proposed to charge guests $125 or $150 (or
> something like that), and his plans for the 'entertainment' included
> 'Oxfordians' in costume, chasing someone around who represented
> Harold Bloom, and pummeling this target with 'inflated pig's
> bladders.'
Ah, so that's where your preoccupation with pigs' bladders at Oxfordian
conferences comes from. Enquiring minds are pleased to know. And you
really should make time for this year's conference, David. Pig bladders
aside (as I sincerely hope they will be) it's going to be fabulous.
We're going to see two plays by the RSC.
With regard to Charles Beauclerk (who is no longer Lord Burford) and
Bill Boyle, neither, as far as I know, has made a financial killing
from Oxfordian studies.
L.
syna...@hotmail.com
>
> LONDON - Britain's National Portrait Gallery announced Wednesday that a
> canvas by an obscure 17th-century artist is probably the one true
> likeness of William Shakespeare that was painted in his lifetime.
>
> "I suspect this is the closest we're ever going to get to looking at
> the face of Shakespeare," said Tarnya Cooper, curator of the gallery's
> 16th-century collection.
>
> She said there was strong evidence but no conclusive proof that the
> so-called Chandos portrait depicted Shakespeare. Scholars have argued
> for centuries about his appearance.
I much prefer the Grafton portrait:
http://atlantarofters.blogspot.com/2006/03/portrait-of-william-shakespeare.html
--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
-- The Jam
John W. Kennedy
That's why I said "either...or".
David L. Webb
"Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> > > I don't know a single Oxfordian who has made big money, or in fact,
> > > much small money, on his or her book. I've been around the block on
> > > this one with JK before. Nor do I know a single Oxfordian who's in it
> > > for the money.
> > One of your coreligionists professes to know at least one Oxfordian
> > who's "in it for the money," Lynne: indeed, Stephanie Caruana has said
> > exactly that of Mr. Streitz, and even quotes Mr. Streitz to that effect:
> >
> > "So what's wrong with Scratchmatter's hiring Streitz to try and get
> > the big bucks for his thesis? Streitz told me the first (and only)
> > time I met him that he was in it for the money.
> Well, as I also said, David, any Oxfordian who's in it for the money is
> sadly misguided.
Oh, I certainly don't dispute that, Lynne; indeed, the same could be
said of many Oxfordians who are *not* in it for the money. :-)
> I don't know Mr. Streitz, but understand he has, for
> the most part, except for his unfortunate sally into politics, stuck to
> his day job.
What *is* his day job? In any case, it appears that his "unfortunate
sally into politics" is ongoing, and that it is garnering him some
rather dubious notoriety. The Southern Poverty Law Center, in its
article on Lou Dobbs's prime-time CNN show, writes:
"On Oct. 4, Dobbs had PAUL STREITZ, a co-founder of Connecticut
Citizens for Immigration Control, as a guest on his show. Streitz
denounced Mayor John DeStefano Jr. for 'turning New Haven into a
banana republic' by favoring identification cards for undocumented
workers. Two days later, newspapers revealed that two of the group's
other founders had just quit, saying Streitz had led it in a racially
charged direction. Dobbs has never reported this."
> Nor did Dr. Stritmatter expect big bucks for his thesis. I do know Dr.
> Stritmatter and I can attest to that.
I didn't claim that he did; that was Stephanie Caruana whose words I
was quoting. (Stephanie's antipathy for Dr. Stritmatter is well known,
and dates back to several Oxfordian schisms ago.)
> > [Note that Stephanie employs exactly your wording, Lynne!]
> >
> > "He showed it early
> > on Phaeton when he proposed a dinner at the NYC Player's Club for
> > something around $125 a head, where the proposed 'entertainment'
> > would be a Harold Bloom imitator who would be chased around by
> > 'Oxfordians' beating him with inflated pig's bladders, or something
> > like that. Streitz uses 'selling techniques.'"
> >
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/6a
> > a6e8c4e08d3961?dmode=source&hl=en>
> >
> > Elsewhere, Stephanie elaborates:
> >
> > "The details of that meeting [with Mr. Streitz] are mercifully
> > blurred, but did not include any of Paul's 'Shakespearean knowledge.'
> > Rather, it was his ignorance of contemporary reality that struck me.
> >
> > "1. As I recall, he started off our meeting by telling me about his
> > plans for a gala Oxfordian Dinner to be held in NYC for the ____nth
> > Anniversary of Oxford's Birthday (???), to be held at a prominent NYC
> > location. For this, he proposed to charge guests $125 or $150 (or
> > something like that), and his plans for the 'entertainment' included
> > 'Oxfordians' in costume, chasing someone around who represented
> > Harold Bloom, and pummeling this target with 'inflated pig's
> > bladders.'
> Ah, so that's where your preoccupation with pigs' bladders at Oxfordian
> conferences comes from. Enquiring minds are pleased to know.
You mean that you didn't know about this, Lynne?! By all means, read
Stephanie's whole post. In fact, take a look at the entire thread -- it
is uproariously funny!
> And you
> really should make time for this year's conference, David. Pig bladders
> aside (as I sincerely hope they will be)
I think that you can rest assured that the pig bladders will not be
flying, Lynne; Mr. Streitz is evidently much too busy with his ignorant
anti-immigration rants at present to contemplate enlivening the upcoming
Oxfordian festivities -- not that I have any doubts that that event will
furnish plenty of spectacular amusement even without availing itself of
Mr. Streitz's considerable talents as impresario.
> it's going to be fabulous.
> We're going to see two plays by the RSC.
Which ones?
Really? How did that come about?
> and
> Bill Boyle, neither, as far as I know, has made a financial killing
> from Oxfordian studies.
I would not expect that particular misguided eccentricity to be
especially remunerative, but according to Stephanie, Mr. Streitz
evidently had other ideas (to use the word loosely). The question is
not whether he (or Charles Beauclerk, etc.) was *successful* in making
money (one certainly would not expect him to be), but whether he was, in
your words, "in it for the money." You wrote:
"Nor do I know a single Oxfordian who's in it for the money."
I am merely reporting that your coreligionist Stephanie Caruana *does*
profess to know several such persons (she even used your exact wording),
all of them apparently known to you, although perhaps not personally.
[...]
Mouse
David L. Webb wrote:
> In article <1141668302.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > > I don't know a single Oxfordian who has made big money, or in fact,
> > > > much small money, on his or her book. I've been around the block on
> > > > this one with JK before. Nor do I know a single Oxfordian who's in it
> > > > for the money.
>
> > > One of your coreligionists professes to know at least one Oxfordian
> > > who's "in it for the money," Lynne: indeed, Stephanie Caruana has said
> > > exactly that of Mr. Streitz, and even quotes Mr. Streitz to that effect:
> > >
> > > "So what's wrong with Scratchmatter's hiring Streitz to try and get
> > > the big bucks for his thesis? Streitz told me the first (and only)
> > > time I met him that he was in it for the money.
>
> > Well, as I also said, David, any Oxfordian who's in it for the money is
> > sadly misguided.
>
> Oh, I certainly don't dispute that, Lynne; indeed, the same could be
> said of many Oxfordians who are *not* in it for the money. :-)
Stratfordians too. Take Mr. Lackpurity, for example. In fact, I wish
you would.
>
> > I don't know Mr. Streitz, but understand he has, for
> > the most part, except for his unfortunate sally into politics, stuck to
> > his day job.
>
> What *is* his day job?
Something to do with NY transit? I'm afraid the details, in my mind at
least, are somewhat fuzzy as I haven't paid particular attention to
them.
>In any case, it appears that his "unfortunate
> sally into politics" is ongoing, and that it is garnering him some
> rather dubious notoriety. The Southern Poverty Law Center, in its
> article on Lou Dobbs's prime-time CNN show, writes:
>
> "On Oct. 4, Dobbs had PAUL STREITZ, a co-founder of Connecticut
> Citizens for Immigration Control, as a guest on his show. Streitz
> denounced Mayor John DeStefano Jr. for 'turning New Haven into a
> banana republic' by favoring identification cards for undocumented
> workers. Two days later, newspapers revealed that two of the group's
> other founders had just quit, saying Streitz had led it in a racially
> charged direction. Dobbs has never reported this."
>
> > Nor did Dr. Stritmatter expect big bucks for his thesis. I do know Dr.
> > Stritmatter and I can attest to that.
>
> I didn't claim that he did; that was Stephanie Caruana whose words I
> was quoting. (Stephanie's antipathy for Dr. Stritmatter is well known,
> and dates back to several Oxfordian schisms ago.)
I realised, but thought perhaps you agreed as you were quoting her.
>
> > > [Note that Stephanie employs exactly your wording, Lynne!]
Astonishing. Such an unusual turn of phrase, too.
> > >
> > > "He showed it early
> > > on Phaeton when he proposed a dinner at the NYC Player's Club for
> > > something around $125 a head, where the proposed 'entertainment'
> > > would be a Harold Bloom imitator who would be chased around by
> > > 'Oxfordians' beating him with inflated pig's bladders, or something
> > > like that. Streitz uses 'selling techniques.'"
> > >
> > > <http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/6a
> > > a6e8c4e08d3961?dmode=source&hl=en>
> > >
> > > Elsewhere, Stephanie elaborates:
> > >
> > > "The details of that meeting [with Mr. Streitz] are mercifully
> > > blurred, but did not include any of Paul's 'Shakespearean knowledge.'
> > > Rather, it was his ignorance of contemporary reality that struck me.
> > >
> > > "1. As I recall, he started off our meeting by telling me about his
> > > plans for a gala Oxfordian Dinner to be held in NYC for the ____nth
> > > Anniversary of Oxford's Birthday (???), to be held at a prominent NYC
> > > location. For this, he proposed to charge guests $125 or $150 (or
> > > something like that), and his plans for the 'entertainment' included
> > > 'Oxfordians' in costume, chasing someone around who represented
> > > Harold Bloom, and pummeling this target with 'inflated pig's
> > > bladders.'
>
> > Ah, so that's where your preoccupation with pigs' bladders at Oxfordian
> > conferences comes from. Enquiring minds are pleased to know.
>
> You mean that you didn't know about this, Lynne?!
No, I thought it was solely your wacky obsession with pigs' bladders.
Now I see that it was only partly your wacky obsession.
>By all means, read
> Stephanie's whole post. In fact, take a look at the entire thread -- it
> is uproariously funny!
>
> > And you
> > really should make time for this year's conference, David. Pig bladders
> > aside (as I sincerely hope they will be)
>
> I think that you can rest assured that the pig bladders will not be
> flying, Lynne; Mr. Streitz is evidently much too busy with his ignorant
> anti-immigration rants at present to contemplate enlivening the upcoming
> Oxfordian festivities -- not that I have any doubts that that event will
> furnish plenty of spectacular amusement even without availing itself of
> Mr. Streitz's considerable talents as impresario.
>
> > it's going to be fabulous.
> > We're going to see two plays by the RSC.
>
> Which ones?
Patrick Stewart is starring in Antony and Cleopatra and The Tempest,
and attendees will be seeing both. I believe the third play the RSC is
doing is Julius Caesar. Perhaps Mr. Lackpurity might like to see it. I
always feel it's so helpful to one's understanding to clothe a naked
quote in its own play.
I do not pretend to be an expert on what Mr. Beauclerk does or does not
do, but believe he renounced his titles.
>
> > and
> > Bill Boyle, neither, as far as I know, has made a financial killing
> > from Oxfordian studies.
>
> I would not expect that particular misguided eccentricity to be
> especially remunerative, but according to Stephanie, Mr. Streitz
> evidently had other ideas (to use the word loosely). The question is
> not whether he (or Charles Beauclerk, etc.) was *successful* in making
> money (one certainly would not expect him to be), but whether he was, in
> your words, "in it for the money." You wrote:
I do not get the feeling that Mr. Beauclerk is "in it for the money,"
either. I expect he became interested in the authorship question
because the Earl of Oxford is his ancestor.
>
> "Nor do I know a single Oxfordian who's in it for the money."
>
> I am merely reporting that your coreligionist Stephanie Caruana *does*
> profess to know several such persons (she even used your exact wording),
> all of them apparently known to you, although perhaps not personally.
Both Mr. Beauclerk and Mr. Boyle are acquaintances of mine in the sense
that I have spoken to each of them on occasion. I saw Mr. Streitz
across a crowded room once, but it was not an enchanted evening, and I
would hardly call catching sight of him knowing him personally. I do
know most people in the Oxfordian movement, though--please note that
this is not "movement" in Mr. Crowley's sense of the word--including
Mr. Richard Kennedy and Mr. Neuendorffer, who ear the barren land of
hlas even though fearing it will yield them a bad harvest. But their
harvest, poor as it might be, would be in terms of converts, not
financial remuneration.
I do not know Mr. Crowley at all, though, for which I must admit I am
truly grateful. Perhaps *he* is in it for the money...I fear he will be
disappointed...
L.
>
> [...]
David L. Webb
"Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> David L. Webb wrote:
> > In article <1141668302.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > > > I don't know a single Oxfordian who has made big money, or in fact,
> > > > > much small money, on his or her book. I've been around the block on
> > > > > this one with JK before. Nor do I know a single Oxfordian who's in it
> > > > > for the money.
> > > > One of your coreligionists professes to know at least one Oxfordian
> > > > who's "in it for the money," Lynne: indeed, Stephanie Caruana has said
> > > > exactly that of Mr. Streitz, and even quotes Mr. Streitz to that
> > > > effect:
> > > >
> > > > "So what's wrong with Scratchmatter's hiring Streitz to try and get
> > > > the big bucks for his thesis? Streitz told me the first (and only)
> > > > time I met him that he was in it for the money.
> > > Well, as I also said, David, any Oxfordian who's in it for the money is
> > > sadly misguided.
> > Oh, I certainly don't dispute that, Lynne; indeed, the same could be
> > said of many Oxfordians who are *not* in it for the money. :-)
Perhaps I should rephrase that: the same could be said of *most*
Oxfordians, among them those who are not in it for the money. :-)
> Stratfordians too. Take Mr. Lackpurity, for example. In fact, I wish
> you would.
That's only one example, Lynne; in any case, he is cancelled out by
Percy Allen, who evidently employed very similar methods.
> > > I don't know Mr. Streitz, but understand he has, for
> > > the most part, except for his unfortunate sally into politics, stuck to
> > > his day job.
> > What *is* his day job?
> Something to do with NY transit? I'm afraid the details, in my mind at
> least, are somewhat fuzzy as I haven't paid particular attention to
> them.
I see; so, as expected, neither his epoch-making book on Oxford as
son and lover of the Queen nor his talents as an impresario arranging
eccentric entertainments for Oxfordians has left him with independent
means. Pity.
> >In any case, it appears that his "unfortunate
> > sally into politics" is ongoing, and that it is garnering him some
> > rather dubious notoriety. The Southern Poverty Law Center, in its
> > article on Lou Dobbs's prime-time CNN show, writes:
> >
> > "On Oct. 4, Dobbs had PAUL STREITZ, a co-founder of Connecticut
> > Citizens for Immigration Control, as a guest on his show. Streitz
> > denounced Mayor John DeStefano Jr. for 'turning New Haven into a
> > banana republic' by favoring identification cards for undocumented
> > workers. Two days later, newspapers revealed that two of the group's
> > other founders had just quit, saying Streitz had led it in a racially
> > charged direction. Dobbs has never reported this."
> > > Nor did Dr. Stritmatter expect big bucks for his thesis. I do know Dr.
> > > Stritmatter and I can attest to that.
> > I didn't claim that he did; that was Stephanie Caruana whose words I
> > was quoting. (Stephanie's antipathy for Dr. Stritmatter is well known,
> > and dates back to several Oxfordian schisms ago.)
> I realised, but thought perhaps you agreed as you were quoting her.
I take no position on the question; I merely note that, if Stephanie
is reporting Mr. Streitz's conversation with her accurately, then Mr.
Streitz is an example of an Oxfordian who is in it for the money by his
own disarmingly candid admission.
> > > > [Note that Stephanie employs exactly your wording, Lynne!]
> Astonishing. Such an unusual turn of phrase, too.
Well, some Oxfordians don't believe in coincidences. Perhaps Art
will conclude that you and Stephanie are the same person, Lynne.
I cannot claim credit, Lynne, although I wish that I could; the idea
and the obsession are both Mr. Streitz's. I fear that I lack the outré
imagination displayed by many of the more eccentric anti-Stratfordians.
> >By all means, read
> > Stephanie's whole post. In fact, take a look at the entire thread -- it
> > is uproariously funny!
> > > And you
> > > really should make time for this year's conference, David. Pig bladders
> > > aside (as I sincerely hope they will be)
[...]
> > > it's going to be fabulous.
> > > We're going to see two plays by the RSC.
> > Which ones?
> Patrick Stewart is starring in Antony and Cleopatra and The Tempest,
> and attendees will be seeing both. I believe the third play the RSC is
> doing is Julius Caesar. Perhaps Mr. Lackpurity might like to see it.
I doubt it; he doesn't have time even to read the plays, let alone to
watch them performed.
> I
> always feel it's so helpful to one's understanding to clothe a naked
> quote in its own play.
It might even enhance the likelihood (although not by much) that he
might actually get the quotation right.
...except, no doubt, the title that Lear's fool assures his employer
that the latter was born with -- but do tell us more, Lynne. Why on
earth did he renounce his other titles? How did you learn this news?
Do you have any further information?
> > > and
> > > Bill Boyle, neither, as far as I know, has made a financial killing
> > > from Oxfordian studies.
> > I would not expect that particular misguided eccentricity to be
> > especially remunerative, but according to Stephanie, Mr. Streitz
> > evidently had other ideas (to use the word loosely). The question is
> > not whether he (or Charles Beauclerk, etc.) was *successful* in making
> > money (one certainly would not expect him to be), but whether he was, in
> > your words, "in it for the money." You wrote:
> I do not get the feeling that Mr. Beauclerk is "in it for the money,"
> either. I expect he became interested in the authorship question
> because the Earl of Oxford is his ancestor.
Again, I have no reason to believe so either; I am merely reporting
Stephanie's post.
> > "Nor do I know a single Oxfordian who's in it for the money."
> >
> > I am merely reporting that your coreligionist Stephanie Caruana *does*
> > profess to know several such persons (she even used your exact wording),
> > all of them apparently known to you, although perhaps not personally.
> Both Mr. Beauclerk and Mr. Boyle are acquaintances of mine in the sense
> that I have spoken to each of them on occasion. I saw Mr. Streitz
> across a crowded room once, but it was not an enchanted evening,
Why not? A decanted evening, perhaps?
> and I
> would hardly call catching sight of him knowing him personally. I do
> know most people in the Oxfordian movement, though--please note that
> this is not "movement" in Mr. Crowley's sense of the word
...just what I was about to ask. (I assume that in that case, you
would have said that you had the "privilege" of knowing, etc.)
> --including
> Mr. Richard Kennedy and Mr. Neuendorffer, who ear the barren land
And where's the newsgroup whose unearéd womb
Disdains the billage of Art's Druidry?
Or, so as not to exclude unfairly Mr. Kennedy,
And where's the newsgroup whose unearéd womb
Disdains the billage of their grout-headry?
> of
> hlas even though fearing it will yield them a bad harvest. But their
> harvest, poor as it might be, would be in terms of converts,
Converts? Or Ver cons?
> not
> financial remuneration.
>
> I do not know Mr. Crowley at all, though, for which I must admit I am
> truly grateful.
I second that gratitude. He is perhaps the only Oxfordian (with the
possible exception of "Willedever" and Sobran) with whom I suspect that
personal acquaintance would be unrewarding.
> Perhaps *he* is in it for the money...I fear he will be
> disappointed...
Indeed. Can you imagine Mr. Crowley as a salesman?
Mr. Crowley: Can I interest you in discussing ways of meeting your
insurance needs?
Potential client: I don't think I have time today...
Mr. Crowley: You $%#@* lying quasi-Strat Yank idiot!
> L.
>
> >
> > [...]
Art Neuendorffer
>>>
>>> "The details of that meeting [with Mr. Streitz] are mercifully
>>> blurred, but did not include any of Paul's 'Shakespearean knowledge.'
>>> Rather, it was his ignorance of contemporary reality that struck me.
>>>
>>> "1. As I recall, he started off our meeting by telling me about his
>>> plans for a gala Oxfordian Dinner to be held in NYC for the ____nth
>>> Anniversary of Oxford's Birthday (???), to be held at a prominent NYC
>>> location. For this, he proposed to charge guests $125 or $150 (or
>>> something like that), and his plans for the 'entertainment' included
>>> 'Oxfordians' in costume, chasing someone around who represented
>>> Harold Bloom, and pummeling this target with 'inflated pig's
>>> bladders.'
> "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>Ah, so that's where your preoccupation with
>> pigs' bladders at Oxfordian conferences comes from.
David L. Webb wrote:
> You mean that you didn't know about this, Lynne?!
------------------------------------------------------------------
[FW 1:7 212.5] *whoEVER you chance to meet knocking around;
and *a pig's BLADDER balloon* for Selina *SUSquehanna* Stakelum.
--------------------------------------------------------------
[1:4 90.12] Mickmichael's soords shrieking shrecks
through the wilkinses and neckanicholas' toastingforks
pricking prongs up the *tunnyBLADDERs* . Let there be fight? And
there was. Foght. On the site of the Angel's, you said? Guinney's
Gap, he said, between what they said and the pussykitties.
------------------------------------------------------------------
[1:6 169.27] a *BLADDER* tristended, so much so
that young Master Shemmy on his *VERy first DEBOUCH* at
the VERy dawn of protohistory seeing himself such and such,
when playing with *thistlewords* in their garden nursery,
Griefotrofio, at *PhIG* Streat III Shuvlin,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[2:10 355.32] his showdows fellah, Misto Tee wiley Spillitshops,
who keepeth watch in Khummer-Phett, whose spouse is An-Lyph,
the dog's *BLADDER* , warmer of his couch in fore. We all,
for whole men is lepers, have been nobbut wonterers
in that chill childerness which is *OUR TRUE NAME*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[3:13 467.20] *Sam knows MILES bettern me* how to work the
miracle. And I see by his diarrhio he's dropping the stammer
out of his silenced *BLADDER* since I bonded him off more as a
friend and as a brother to try and grow a muff and canonise his
dead feet down on the *river airy* by thinking himself into
the fourth dimension and place the ocean between his and ours,
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> >>> Stephanie elaborates:
> >>>
> >>> "The details of that meeting [with Mr. Streitz] are mercifully
> >>> blurred, but did not include any of Paul's 'Shakespearean knowledge.'
> >>> Rather, it was his ignorance of contemporary reality that struck me.
> >>>
> >>> "1. As I recall, he started off our meeting by telling me about his
> >>> plans for a gala Oxfordian Dinner to be held in NYC for the ____nth
> >>> Anniversary of Oxford's Birthday (???), to be held at a prominent NYC
> >>> location. For this, he proposed to charge guests $125 or $150 (or
> >>> something like that), and his plans for the 'entertainment' included
> >>> 'Oxfordians' in costume, chasing someone around who represented
> >>> Harold Bloom, and pummeling this target with 'inflated pig's
> >>> bladders.'
> > "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >>Ah, so that's where your preoccupation with
> >> pigs' bladders at Oxfordian conferences comes from.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > You mean that you didn't know about this, Lynne?!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> [FW 1:7 212.5] *whoEVER you chance to meet knocking around;
> and *a pig's BLADDER balloon* for Selina *SUSquehanna* Stakelum.
Please elaborate, Art -- are you suggesting that James Joyce actually
*foresaw* the inimitable Mr. Streitz and his comic ideas for Oxfordian
dinner entertainment? Or are you intimating that Mr. Streitz, with the
encyclopedic knowledge of Joyce's _oeuvre_ demanded of all initiates in
our conspiracy, chose his proposed form of entertainment knowingly?
Which is it, Art? Inquiring minds want to know.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>>
>>>>> "The details of that meeting [with Mr. Streitz] are mercifully
>>>>> blurred, but did not include any of Paul's 'Shakespearean knowledge.'
>>>>> Rather, it was his ignorance of contemporary reality that struck me.
>>>>>
>>>>> "1. As I recall, he started off our meeting by telling me about his
>>>>> plans for a gala Oxfordian Dinner to be held in NYC for the ____nth
>>>>> Anniversary of Oxford's Birthday (???), to be held at a prominent NYC
>>>>> location. For this, he proposed to charge guests $125 or $150 (or
>>>>> something like that), and his plans for the 'entertainment' included
>>>>> 'Oxfordians' in costume, chasing someone around who represented
>>>>> Harold Bloom, and pummeling this target with 'inflated pig's
>>>>> bladders.'
>>>>
>> > "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ah, so that's where your preoccupation with
>>>> pigs' bladders at Oxfordian conferences comes from.
>>>
>> David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> You mean that you didn't know about this, Lynne?!
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>[FW 1:7 212.5] *whoEVER you chance to meet knocking around;
>> and *a pig's BLADDER balloon* for Selina *SUSquehanna* Stakelum.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Please elaborate, Art -- are you suggesting that James Joyce actually
> *foresaw* the inimitable Mr. Streitz and his comic ideas for Oxfordian
> dinner entertainment? Or are you intimating that Mr. Streitz, with the
> encyclopedic knowledge of Joyce's _oeuvre_ demanded of all initiates in
> our conspiracy, chose his proposed form of entertainment knowingly?
> Which is it, Art? Inquiring minds want to know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Twain: <<The bust, too--there in the Stratford Church.
The precious bust, the priceless bust, the calm bust,
the serene bust, the emotionless bust, with the DANDY MUSTACHE,
and the putty face, unseamed of care--that face which has looked
passionlessly down upon the awed pilgrim for a hundred and fifty years
and will still look down upon the awed pilgrim three hundred more, with
the deep, deep, deep, subtle, subtle, subtle expression of a BLADDER.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part i Act 2, Scene 4
FALSTAFF: a plague of sighing and grief!
_______ it blows a man up like a BLADDER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The Fool generally wears an outlandish costume similar
to what we now know as one worn by the *ROBIN HOOD* character
(though traditionally known as Jack in the Green or *the Green Man*).
His instrument of choice is frequently a *PIG's BLADDER* on a stick,
which he wields to keep both the dancers & the audience well-behaved.>>
----------------------------------------------------
_As You Like It_ Act 1, Scene 1
CHARLES They say he is already in the forest of Arden, and
a many merry men with him; and there they live like
the old *ROBIN HOOD* of England: they say many young
gentlemen flock to him every day, and fleet the time
carelessly, as they did in the golden world.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://familykinship.com/magnachartabarons.htm
<<One of King John Lackland's greatest adversaries was Robert
deVere, Magna Charta Baron. As legend goes, he was the
inspiration for the notorious *ROBIN HOOD* who fought against
the King's oppression and gave back to the people the wealth
the King had took. Robert deVere married Isabel, daughter of
Hugh, 2nd Baron deBolebec, in Northumberland, who died in 1261.
Isabel died February 3, 1245. Robert deVere was second
son of Aubrey deVere, and succeeded and became heir to his
brother, Aubrey, who died without issue before September,
1214, reputed to be one of the "evil coucillors" of King John.>>
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?authorlord&bookÊnterbury&sto...
<<Archbishop Stratford ...was one of the twelve guardians appointed to
look after little King Edward III. while he was still a child. But
Queen Isabella the King's mother, and her counsellor, the Earl of
Mortimer, were jealous of these twelve men; they wished to get rid
of them, and themselves rule the King and the kingdom, and they were
constantly plotting and planning as to how this was to be done. At
last Stratford, who was then Bishop of Winchester, was obliged to fly
for his life.
*With a little band of faithful friends he took refuge in the forests*
*where, in those days, outlaws & thieves lived by robbing travellers*
It was a curious life for a bishop, but the robbers never
harmed him or his followers. On the contrary, they used to come
to the services which the bishop held every day in the woods,
after which the whole congregation went a-hunting, for otherwise they
would have starved. For some time this went on; then Mortimer died,
and then once again Stratford was safe. Once again he left the forest,
and very glad he must have been that for him, at any rate,
the wild life in the woods was over at last. Not long
afterwards he was made Archbishop of Canterbury.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
The *Green Man* in Canterbury
http://www.canterburygreenman.fsnet.co.uk/Canterbury.htm
O all ye *Green* Things upon the Earth, bless ye the Lord :
praise him, and magnify him for *ever*
<<Canterbury Cathedral has at least 70 "Green Men" ;
I think this Green Man is laughing, rather than screaming:
http://www.canterburygreenman.fsnet.co.uk/photo%20(1)%20Copy%20(6).jpg
It looks like a roof boss but is in fact only an inch
or so in diameter - it forms part of the 'ceiling'
or canopy over the tomb of Archbishop Stratford. >>
-------------------------------------------------------
"(To the m)[eMOry of my beloVED]" - Ben Jonson
"(To them) [my OM, by fo(DEVere)ol]"
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://everything2.org/index.pl?node=fool
................................................................
As the name would suggest, the role of the Fool in Morris dancing is
a playful one. Rather than being in the Morris team itself, the Fool
weaves in and out of the dance, cavorting, clowning, and shouting to
the audience. His antics mask his TRUE purpose: to act as a barker
and to collect bag money. This, of course, is a cynical view of the
Fool, and many Morris afficionados would loudly protest that the
Fool serves the simple purpose of reminding the audience
(quite vocally) that it is "OK to have fun."
The Fool generally wears an outlandish costume similar
to what we now know as one worn by the *ROBIN HOOD* character
(though traditionally known as Jack in the Green or *the Green Man*).
His instrument of choice is frequently a *PIG's BLADDER* on a stick,
which he wields to keep both the dancers and the audience well-behaved.
While it may appear
that the role is ideally suited to a beginning or inexperienced
Morris dancer, this is not the case. The Fool requires an extensive
and intimate knowledge of EVERy dance so that his pratfalls and
buffoonery do not interfere in any way with the intricate movements
of the dancers. The Fool must weave through the side gracefully, and
occasionally is called upon to replace a dancer forced to leave.
Given the number of flamboyant kicks and hops, the extensive waving
of white hankerchiefs, and violent bashing of sticks in Moriss
dancing, this is no small task. In fact, a good deal of the
audience's enjoyment is due to the continual danger of
the Fool being hit in the head with a flying stick.
Some surmise that the Fool is a remnant of pagan fertility myths
(which were subsequently incorporated into Christianity): in the
closely related "Sword Dance", the Fool is ritually "killed"
in a ring of swords and then resurrected (to the delight of the
crowd). This is frequently performed in the spring, with all the
attendant associations of rebirth, natural growth, and fertility.
Some Morris dances contain trace elements of the Eucharist, with
the Fool becoming a "Cake and Sword Bearer", offering small
pieces of cake upon a sword to all onlookers, and symbolizing
a piece of the dance to be taken home for good luck.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The History of the Valorous & Witty Knight-Errant Don Quixote
of the Mancha The Second Part ( by Thomas Shelton ?)
http://hhh.gavilan.edu/fmayrhofer/spanish/shelton/index.html
To conclude, the last day of Don Quixote came, after he had
received all the sacraments, and had by many and godly reasons
made demonstration to abhor all the books of errant chivalry.
The notary was present at his death, and reporteth how he had never
read or found in any book of chivalry that any errant knight died in
his bed so mildly, so quietly, and so Christianly as did Don Quixote.
Amidst the wailful plaints and blubbering tears of the bystanders
he yielded up the ghost; that is to say, he died; which the curate
perceiving, he desired the notary to make him an attestation or
certificate how *ALONSO* Quixano, surnamed the Good, and who was
commonly called Don Quixote de la Mancha, he was deceased out of
this life unto another, and died of a natural death. Which
testificate he desired, to remove all occasions from some authors,
except Cid Hamet Benengeli, falsely to raise him from death again,
and write endless histories of his famous acts.
This was the end of the Ingenious Gentleman de Je Mancha, of whose
birthplace Cid Hamet hath not been pleased to declare manifestly the
situation unto us, to the end that all villages, towns, boroughs,
and hamlets of La Mancha should contest, quarrel, and dispute among
themselves the honour to have produced him, as did the seven cities of
Greece for the love of Homer. We have not been willing to make mention,
and relate in this place the doleful plaints of Sancho, nor those of
the niece and maidservant of Don Quixote, nor likewise the sundry
new and quaint epitaphs which were graven over his tomb; content
yourself with this which the bachelor Samson Carrasco placed there:
*[H]ERE LIES* the gentle knight, and stout,
_ [T]hat to that height of valour got,
_ [A]s if you mark his deeds throughout,
_ [DE]eath on his life triumphed not
With bringing of his *DEATH* about.
The world as nothing he did prize,
For as a *scareCROW* in men's eyes
He lived, and was their bugbear too;
And had the luck, with *MUCH ADO* ,
To live a *FOOL* , and yet die *WISE*
----------------------------------------------
______ *fo(DEVere)ol's ISCHIA*
______ *of HeroICAl DEVISes*
---------------------------------------------
A Garden *of HeroICAl DEVISes*
or Henry Peacham's Minerva Britanna
http://home.att.net/~tleary/minerva.htm
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mandragora.it/english/titles/vittoria1.html
http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/SCANSb/b-8193.jpg
<<Vittoria Colonna, the Castle of *ISCHIA* & the culture of courts.
After the premature loss of her husband, Vittoria divided her time
between her palace in Rome and the beloved castle on the island
of *ISCHIA* , surrounding herself with scholars and artists;
her literary début, her encounter with Pietro Bembo
and the first steps of the religious journey that will
profoundly affect her later life date from this period.
'Vittoria Colonna and Mary Magdalen' (Barbara Agosti) deals with
Vittoria's wish to collect images of Mary Magdalen and with the
paintings of this subject she requested from Titian & Michelangelo.
Michelangelo eventually executed a cartoon for a Noli Me Tangere>>
------------------------------------------------------------
http://everything2.org/index.pl?node=fool
fool n. As used by hackers, specifically describes a person who
habitually reasons from obviously or demonstrably incorrect premises
and cannot be persuaded by evidence to do otherwise; it is not
generally used in its other senses, i.e., to describe a person with a
native incapacity to reason correctly, or a clown. Indeed, in hackish
experience many fools are capable of reasoning all too effectively in
executing their errors. The Algol 68-R compiler used to initialize its
storage to the character string "F00LF00LF00LF00L..." because as a
pointer or as a floating point number it caused a crash, and as an
integer or a character string it was very recognizable in a dump.
Sadly, one day a very senior professor at Nottingham Univ. wrote
a program that called him a fool. He proceeded to demonstrate the
correctness of this assertion by lobbying the university (not
quite successfully) to forbid the use of Algol on its computers.
-----------------------------------------------------------
> Geralyn Horton wrote:
> There is a local figure [DOCTOR HUGH MORGAN HILL]
> of that name who dresses entirely in that color and
> accompanied by tabor and bells recites doggerel on
> themes of brotherhood and justice-- has been doing
> this on the streets of BOSTON for 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------
DOCTOR HUGH MORGAN HILL
(ALGOL THROUGH RICHMOND):
--------------------------------------------------------
<< Upon his birth in BOSTON on January 19, 1809, his parents-
regular members of the troupe then performing at the Federal
Street Theater-named him Edgar Poe. Shortly before his
mother's death in RICHMOND, Virginia on December 8, 1811,
his father abandoned the family.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[Remaining screenfuls of similar lunatic logorrhea snipped]
You didn't answer the question, Art. Let me repeat it: are you
suggesting that James Joyce actually *foresaw* the inimitable Mr.
Streitz and his comic ideas for Oxfordian dinner entertainment? Or are
you intimating that Mr. Streitz, with the encyclopedic knowledge of
Joyce's _oeuvre_ demanded of all initiates in our conspiracy (and if Mr.
Streitz is a Templar, then it is certainly news to the Grand Master),
Art Neuendorffer
>>David L. Webb wrote:
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Mark Twain: <<The bust, too--there in the Stratford Church.
>>The precious bust, the priceless bust, the calm bust,
>>the serene bust, the emotionless bust, with the DANDY MUSTACHE,
>>and the putty face, unseamed of care--that face which has looked
>>passionlessly down upon the awed pilgrim for a hundred and fifty years
>>and will still look down upon the awed pilgrim three hundred more, with
>>the deep, deep, deep, subtle, subtle, subtle expression of a BLADDER.>>
David L. Webb wrote:
> [Remaining screenfuls of similar lunatic logorrhea snipped]
>
> You didn't answer the question, Art. Let me repeat it: are you
> suggesting that James Joyce actually *foresaw* the inimitable Mr.
> Streitz and his comic ideas for Oxfordian dinner entertainment?
No.
> Or are
> you intimating that Mr. Streitz, with the encyclopedic knowledge of
> Joyce's _oeuvre_ demanded of all initiates in our conspiracy (and if Mr.
> Streitz is a Templar, then it is certainly news to the Grand Master),
> chose his proposed form of entertainment knowingly?
No.
Streitz, Joyce, & Twain are independently making
reference to Elizabethan fools like Shakspere.
(For a more complete analysis read Dwebb's "snipped" part.)
Art Neuendorffer