SHAKE-SCENE: 'Some Scholars Think He Was A Scene-shifter Or Stagehand.
Elizabeth Weir
Closet Stratfordian and uncloseted obsessive compulsive
David Webb has slandered his way through 96 posts
Searched Groups for SHAKESCENE OR SHAKE-SCENE
group:humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare author:DAVID author:WEBB.
Results 1 - 54 of about 96. Search took 1.84 seconds.
in regard to a remark I made in passing several years ago
that 'shake-scene' referred to scene shifter or scenery mover
in the Elizabethan theatre.
Here's a reference.
It has been contended that this is an
allusion to Shakespeare, because of the
word "Shake-scene", and because the
words "Tygers hart wrapt in a Players
hyde" are similar to the passage in
3 Henry VI, "O tiger's heart wrapt in
a woman's hide". As for the word
"Shake-scene", some scholars believe it
means a "scene-shifter" or "stagehand".
Shakespeare Cross-Examination: A Compilation of Articles First
Appearing in the American Bar Association Journal. Tappan
Gregory; Cuneo Press, 1961 p. 68
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Peter Groves
news:efbc3534.04021...@posting.google.com...
Let's get this straight: you're quoting an *unnamed* author (in what looks
like a crackpot antistrat publication, editor *unnamed*) who refers to other
*unnamed* (therefore uncheckable and possibly non-existent) authors, without
even citing the *grounds* of their supposed belief? I suppose it's about
par for the course for you.
Peter G.
Bob Grumman
says...
Right. And she cites this quotation to support her statement that "Shakescene"
was a term used to describe a stagehand, or something to that effect--NOT that
some scholars thought it might mean something like that but that it DID.
> I suppose it's about par for the course for you.
>
>Peter G.
I have always been in awe at her scholarship, myself.
--Bob G.
Whittbrantley
really. When you make statements like that...what are trying to do?
It defeats your purpose and reveals a serious lack of critical thought and
scholarship on your part. I think being a scholar means being objective.
Taking things out of context to support a vague or absurb theory is such an
easy way out.
Dave Kathman
I have this volume on my shelf, and this passage was written by
Richard Bentley, a lawyer and crackpot antistratfordian, but
most definitely *not* an Elizabethan scholar by any stretch
of the imagination. The entire article is full of the typical
distortions and invented "facts" that characterize most
antistratfordian writings. Of course, Bentley gives no citation
for these "scholars" who believe that "Shake-scene" means
"stagehand", an assertion which he either pulled out of his ass
or saw in the writings of some Baconian who pulled it out of
*his* ass. Elizabeth citing Bentley is an example of the usual
antistrat circle-jerk, where antistrats just cite each other rather
than real scholars.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
LynnE
"Dave Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:12f70862.04021...@posting.google.com...
That's a rather unfortunate turn of phrase set in an unpleasant sentence,
David. Are you suggesting that anti-Stratfordians *cannot* be real scholars?
In that case, what constitutes a *real* scholar? Must one be orthodox? If
so, must one be at a university, teaching Shakespeare and/or with a
dissertation on Shakespeare? (Or will any orthodox person who sets
himself/herself up as a scholar do?)
I've asked a similar question on hlas before and had some interesting
responses. I would not suggest, of course, that you are not a real scholar,
even though you satisfy none of the above conditions. However, I can think
of anti-Stratfordians who do satisfy the above conditions and whom I would
also consider "real" scholars. It's rather a knotty problem, and a shame we
have to go on bad-mouthing one another because we have different points of
view.
I'd also like to point out to all who have replied so far that Elizabeth has
been asked for a reference dozens of times, and she has come up with one. In
other words, if there is a mistake here (and I believe there is), it
originates with her source, and not with her. It's a poor source, to be
sure, but there are lots of orthodox sources that are equally fuzzy. For
example, Rowse names Emilia the Dark Lady, basically on the strength of
Forman's testimony and the fact that she is half Jewish. But Forman never
actually says that Emilia is dark and many Jews are fair. I'm not suggesting
that Emilia is not the Dark Lady, only that Rowse's scholarship is shoddy. I
can give many more examples, and in fact you, David, remember Nelson's
excoriation of another orthodox "scholar" at the Sanders symposium.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
> Dave Kathman
> dj...@ix.netcom.com
LynnE
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:GAMWb.13353$y07.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
[...]
This is really a red-letter day! After a lapse of *21 months* almost
to the day, and after having been prodded to do so literally scores of
times, Elizabeth has *finally* found a source for her assertion that
"The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang for the factotum
who toted scenery around between acts." Now readers can check the
citation themselves and draw their own conclusions about it.
Unfortunately, the book does not appear to be in any library to which I
have ready access, but I will try to obtain a copy and check it.
In the meantime, this citation raises some troubling questions.
First, the author stops well short of asserting that "shake-scene" WAS a
word of Elizabethan theatrical argot meaning a stagehand, as Elizabeth
claimed; rather, the author notes merely that "some scholars believe"
that the term meant a stagehand. Does he or she ever specify *who*
those scholars are, or why they believe it? If so, the identification
of the "scholars" in question and the grounds for their conjecture are
omitted entirely from the selection that Elizabeth quoted. Some
scholars also believe that space aliens are abducting and sexually
abusing people, but unless one can identify the scholars in question and
examine the evidence (if any) for their beliefs, the assertion that
"some scholars believe" in alien abduction and abuse is unpersuasive.
However, Elizabeth is to be commended for *finally* furnishing a
source. Usually, her attempts to furnish sources miscarry rather
spectacularly -- her citations of Akrigg and of Hsu are particularly
noteworthy in this regard -- so one hopes that on this occasion she may
be more successful.
Christine Cooper
***************
"Shakespeare Cross-Examination: A Compilation Of Articles First
Appearing In The American Bar Association Journal," Tappan Gregory,
ed., Cuneo Press, Chicago, Ill., 1961. 128 pgs.
I'd hardly refer to the American Bar Association Journal as a
"crackpot antistrat publication."
There were ten articles, purported to be a survey of the controversy:
Richard Bentley (Oxfordian): "Elizabethan Whodunit: Who Was William
Shakespeare?"
Charleon Ogburn (Oxfordian): "A Mystery Solved: The True Identity Of
Shakespeare."
William W. Clary (Stratfordian): "The Case For The Defense: DeVere
et al v. Shakespeare."
John N. Hauser (Stratfordian): "The Shakespeare Controversy: A
Stratfordian Rejoinder."
Dorothy & Charlton Ogburn (Oxfordian): "The True Shakespeare:
England's "Great And Complete Man."
Richard Bentley (Oxfordian): "Elizabethan Whodunit: Supplementary
Notes."
Commander Martin R.N. Pares (Baconian): "Francis Bacon And The
Knights Of The Helmet."
Arthur E. Briggs (Baconian): "Did Shaxper Write Shakespeare?"
Benjamin Wham (Marlovian): "Marlowe's Mighty Line: Was Marlowe
Murdered At Twenty-Nine?"
Louis P. Benezet (Oxfordian): "A Hoax Three Centuries Old."
The articles which were selected for inclusion in the book are
predominantly Anti-Stratfordian, with an emphasis on the Oxfordian
view-point, allowing multiple articles to both Ogburn and Bentley, but
the reason may be that the included articles were the most
comprehensive or most interesting.
Elizabeth, you cited the quotation at "p. 68." Will you properly
expand your citation to include the article from which the quote is
derived?
Regardless of who the "some scholars" might be, these same "some
scholars" merely "believe" that the term shake-scene may refer to a
"scene-shifter" or "stage-hand," thereby qualifying the statement as
speculation. By referring to this statement as the source of your
authority for the proposition, are you retro-actively qualifying your
own assertion as speculation as well?
Cordelialy,
Christine
Peter Farey
Christine Cooper wrote:
>
> Benjamin Wham (Marlovian): "Marlowe's Mighty Line:
> Was Marlowe Murdered At Twenty-Nine?"
I honestly thought that I'd read all of them by now!
Are there any more old-timers likely to appear out of
the woodwork like this?
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Elizabeth Weir
> news:efbc3534.04021...@posting.google.com...
> > _______________________________________________________________
> >
> Let's get this straight: you're quoting an *unnamed* author
[...]
Get this straight, Groves.
You're supposed to be able to do a certain amount of
DETECTION without my assistance yet you pile on the
ignorant questions when the answers are right in front
of your face.
Can you DETECT, by any chance, that the article was
taken from the American Bar Association Journal?
Since the citation includes the word 'compilation' you might
be correct to assume that Tappan Gregory was an editor
of the article and in fact was the Editor-in-chief of the
American Bar Association Journal in 1961.
Shakespeare was not routinely taught in law school then
as Shakespeare is today but even in 1961 lawyers wanted
to know how it was that an actor who went home to Stratford
to barter corn and malt could have written the sophisticated
legal tropes in the Shakespeare works.
Furthermore, you might have noted that I stated that 'Shakes-scene'
was something I had seen online and I mentioned it in passing.
I wasn't required to produce a citation.
Had I been required to cite a source and failed to do so--I could
post on Kathman's failure to properly credit Gayley's wholly original
work on the Strachey letter and The Tempest (I don't see Webb
frantic about that)--my failure to do so might have merited a post
or two out of Dr. Dementia's
96 raving posts
but since Webb apparently has an untreatable medical condition
Webb instantly fixated on it.
> (in what looks
> like a crackpot antistrat publication,
I hardly think that the American Bar Association Journal
is a 'crackpot antistrat publication' and Tappan Gregory,
who was a leading conservationist and author of a work
on the Nuremberg trials as well as works on law was hardly
'some crackpot.'
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Peter Groves
news:efbc3534.04021...@posting.google.com...
> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
news:<ruGWb.52696$Wa.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:efbc3534.04021...@posting.google.com...
> > > _______________________________________________________________
> > >
>
> > Let's get this straight: you're quoting an *unnamed* author
> [...]
>
> Get this straight, Groves.
>
> You're supposed to be able to do a certain amount of
> DETECTION without my assistance yet you pile on the
> ignorant questions when the answers are right in front
> of your face.
>
So the author *is* named in your post? I'm afraid you're hallucinating
again. Either that, or you retain enough of a grip on reality to attempt to
conceal the name of the crackpot antistrat (Richard Bentley) responsible for
your worthless citation. Have a look at the MLA handbook sometime and see
how scholars cite publications.
Peter G.
Elizabeth Weir
[...]
>
> This is really a red-letter day!
I'm sure it's already marked on your calendar, Dr. Fetish.
> After a lapse of *21 months* <---<
> almost
> to the day, <----<
Diagnosis would be superfluous.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Greg Reynolds
LynnE wrote:
Lynne, GET REAL. When you start with a conclusion (look
in the mirror, Oxfordian) then ALL of your *work* is concerned
only with reaching your end. You go to great lengths to
misread and misinterpret the obvious. (Read your mission
statement--you declared you are working toward an end.)
Your own DESEARCH is very obvious, Lynne, and your
dishonesty drives your own writing primarily to defame
Shakespeare and to coronate the murdering child molestor
instead. That is not scholarship and you are foolish to think
anyone could accept it as such. (Look at how Dr. Altrocchi
botched his world-class discovery -- all for the sake of
Oxfordian
DESEARCH.)
It is pathetic to publicly expect anyone here to mistake
your mischievous lies as scholarship. We are not children,
Lynne. Show a little respect.
>In that case, what constitutes a *real* scholar?
>
Here is one distinction, Sweetie:
Scholars are curious -- Oxfordians are scurrilous.
> Must one be orthodox? If
>so, must one be at a university, teaching Shakespeare
and/or with a
>dissertation on Shakespeare? (Or will any orthodox
person who sets
>himself/herself up as a scholar do?)
>
Oxfordians START with the conclusion and they
don't care how many disjointed explanations it takes
to undo the historical record.
You cannot fool anyone here that you are honestly
pursuing history. You are paid AND you spend a
lot of money to defame Shakespeare and elevate
Oxford. That is not scholarly and you cannot honestly
confuse it for anything other than what it is--deliberate
misinterpretation in order to reach the goals as spelled
out on your SF website.
>I've asked a similar question on hlas before and had
some interesting
>responses.
>
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
>I would not suggest, of course, that you are not a real
scholar,
>even though you satisfy none of the above conditions.
>
You made them up, Johnnie Cochran, I mean, Lynne.
>However, I can think
>of anti-Stratfordians who do satisfy the above
conditions and whom I would
>also consider "real" scholars. It's rather a knotty
problem, and a shame we
>have to go on bad-mouthing one another because we have
different points of
>view.
>
You badmouth Shakespeare by lying about him to
children and I hope you are ashamed of corrupting
his image in the eyes of the unknowing innocent.
Correct your own bad deeds before you weep that
you are being badmouthed. You started it. I have
never bought your victim routine. You are the attacker.
>I'd also like to point out to all who have replied so
far that Elizabeth has
>been asked for a reference dozens of times, and she has
come up with one. In
>other words, if there is a mistake here (and I believe
there is), it
>originates with her source, and not with her. It's a
poor source, to be
>sure, but there are lots of orthodox sources that are
equally fuzzy.
Lynne, you could learn a lot from Elizabeth.
She takes a lot of outright abuse but boldly walks
right back up to the plate.
When you are met with legitimate criticism you hightail
it out of here and hope everyone weeps for your poor soul.
Elizabeth actually deals with the issues, and she
is a must-read even for her detractors, whereas your
drippy self-indulgence and dull smiley-smiles are a
waste of a double-click.
Here is this instance, you are openly pretending to
delve into the true definition of scholarship, yet in
your mind you are looking for the next way you can
diminish the image of Shakespeare in the eyes of
the world.
How dare you think that your defamation, as declared
on your website, resembles a valuable contribution to
scholarship.
>For
>example, Rowse names Emilia the Dark Lady, basically on
the strength of
>Forman's testimony and the fact that she is half Jewish.
But Forman never
>actually says that Emilia is dark and many Jews are
fair. I'm not suggesting
>that Emilia is not the Dark Lady, only that Rowse's
scholarship is shoddy. I
>can give many more examples, and in fact you, David,
remember Nelson's
>excoriation of another orthodox "scholar" at the Sanders
symposium
Lynne, as long as you...
wrongly insult Shakespeare with dishonest claims,
provide no evidence for the Earl of Oxford,
pretend you are honestly seeking information, and
pose as though you are the one being victimized...
you have no credibility as a scholar.
I'd really like to know whom on HLAS is your intended
audience, whomever it is here you see as so stupid
as to not see right through your devious propaganda and
your cruel misinterpretations of Shakespeare. Your
society proclaimed it wants to rewrite literary history.
Well, if you had any basis for a credible understanding, the
world would bow to you! But you don't, do you? So you have
taken it upon yourself to hurt the image of Shakespeare
with cheap shots, distortions, and outright lies.
"Scholarship" does not have any new exciting definition that
will help accommodate your character assassination.
Sincerely,
Greg Reynolds
Dave Kathman
No, as I've said before (if not directly to you, then to others in this
newsgroup). Antistratfordians can, in theory, be real scholars,
though very few of them demonstrate even the rudiments of
scholarly behavior. There are some who are capable of doing
pretty good scholarly work (as in Diana Price's RES article on
the Shakespeare monument), but in virtually every case I'm aware
of, they lapse into pseudoscholarship when they start to deal
directly with the authorship question (as in Diana's book).
> In that case, what constitutes a *real* scholar? Must one be orthodox? If
> so, must one be at a university, teaching Shakespeare and/or with a
> dissertation on Shakespeare? (Or will any orthodox person who sets
> himself/herself up as a scholar do?)
I'm sure I've discussed this before, and I'm not going to go into
all of that again. One need not be at a university, or the holder
of an advanced degree, to be a scholar; one needs to know the
field thoroughly, both the facts and the methods, and be capable
of adding to the collective knowledge of that field. The main
deficiency I see in most antistratfordians is their badly deficient
and/or distorted notions of the methods used in literary history,
though some of them are shockingly deficient in their factual
knowledge of Elizabethan literary history as well.
> I've asked a similar question on hlas before and had some interesting
> responses. I would not suggest, of course, that you are not a real scholar,
> even though you satisfy none of the above conditions. However, I can think
> of anti-Stratfordians who do satisfy the above conditions and whom I would
> also consider "real" scholars. It's rather a knotty problem, and a shame we
> have to go on bad-mouthing one another because we have different points of
> view.
I get rather sick of dealing with all this over and over and over again, and
so sometimes I get snippy, as I did in this post. But I don't regret the
substance of what I said, which is similar to what I've said many times
before in various contexts.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Elizabeth Weir
> So the author *is* named in your post? I'm afraid you're hallucinating
> again. Either that, or you retain enough of a grip on reality to attempt to
> conceal the name of the crackpot antistrat (Richard Bentley)
I'm not concealing anything. I searched the Bar Association article
and took the citation off the page. I didn't bother looking up the
author, Groves, because the only criteria required for this
inconsequential proof in support of a trivial statement was
'some scholars.'
Here's a statement on Bentley who looks like he had more going
for him that his HLAS critics:
Lawyers and judges, and the best of them, have been attracted to
"The Controversy." Such a one was the late Richard Bentley. After
graduating from Yale University and Northwestern University, he
was a captain of infantry in WWI and a Navy captain in WWII. He
began the practice of law in Chicago in 1922 and, among other
professional honors, he became President of the Chicago Bar
Association. He was a member of the Board of Editors of the
American Bar Association Journal beginning in 1946.
<http://home.att.net/~tleary/bentley.htm>
> responsible for
> your worthless citation.
The citation, Groves, was adequate to my trifling statement
made in passing.
What is not inconsequential is the unethical way that Strats--and
we can now include Webb in that category since I outed him--
treat other posters in HLAS.
I assume that as an academic you have a professional code
of ethics which must say something about encouraging
intellectual freedom as well as requiring civil treatment of
students and colleages.
I'm sure Webb has to subscribe to at least two if not more
professional codes of ethics yet he comes into HLAS and
harasses and insults other posters.
If Webb behaved on the Darthmouth campus as he does in
HLAS he'd get fired.
> Have a look at the MLA handbook sometime and see
> how scholars cite publications.
I don't see anything in the HLAS FAQ about the
MLA handbook.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Art Neuendorffer
"Dave Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> The main
> deficiency I see in most antistratfordians is their badly deficient
> and/or distorted notions of the methods used in literary history,
The main deficiency I see in most medical doctors is their badly
deficient and/or distorted notions of the methods used successfully for
thousands of years by shamans.
Art N.
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> > > Here's a reference.
> > >
> > > It has been contended that this is an
> > > allusion to Shakespeare, because of the
> > > word "Shake-scene", and because the
> > > words "Tygers hart wrapt in a Players
> > > hyde" are similar to the passage in
> > > 3 Henry VI, "O tiger's heart wrapt in
> > > a woman's hide". As for the word
> > > "Shake-scene", some scholars believe it
> > > means a "scene-shifter" or "stagehand".
> > >
> > > Shakespeare Cross-Examination: A Compilation of Articles First
> > > Appearing in the American Bar Association Journal. Tappan
> > > Gregory; Cuneo Press, 1961 p. 68
[...]
> > I have this volume on my shelf, and this passage was written by
> > Richard Bentley, a lawyer and crackpot antistratfordian, but
> > most definitely *not* an Elizabethan scholar by any stretch
> > of the imagination. The entire article is full of the typical
> > distortions and invented "facts" that characterize most
> > antistratfordian writings. Of course, Bentley gives no citation
> > for these "scholars" who believe that "Shake-scene" means
> > "stagehand", an assertion which he either pulled out of his ass
> > or saw in the writings of some Baconian who pulled it out of
> > *his* ass.
Thanks, Dave -- that's about par for the course for Elizabeth's
sources.
> > Elizabeth citing Bentley is an example of the usual
> > antistrat circle-jerk, where antistrats just cite each other rather
> > than real scholars.
> That's a rather unfortunate turn of phrase set in an unpleasant sentence,
> David. Are you suggesting that anti-Stratfordians *cannot* be real scholars?
Are you suggesting that Bentley is a real scholar? Or that the
apparently unnamed "scholars" whom he cites are?
> In that case, what constitutes a *real* scholar? Must one be orthodox? If
> so, must one be at a university, teaching Shakespeare and/or with a
> dissertation on Shakespeare? (Or will any orthodox person who sets
> himself/herself up as a scholar do?)
>
> I've asked a similar question on hlas before and had some interesting
> responses. I would not suggest, of course, that you are not a real scholar,
> even though you satisfy none of the above conditions.
You're a little vague here, Lynne; you assert that Dave satisfies
*none* of the above conditions? Surely he is at least what you call
"Orthodox" above!
Jesting aside, I don't think that you would gainsay Dave's scholarly
standing. Presumably, that is in part because you know that he is very
well-informed and his done highly regarded original work in the area.
The ingredient you may be missing is his mastery of the methodology of
the discipline, an attribute in which many anti-Stratfordian "scholars"
are evidently sadly deficient. That's not to say that many of of them
are not lacking in basic knowledge as well -- indeed, one of the leading
Oxfordian researchers stated that Caxton did not print the first book in
English on English soil until well into Shakespeare's youth, and another
confused two celebrated but very different Marys, as well as two of
Oxford's own immediate family members.
> However, I can think
> of anti-Stratfordians who do satisfy the above conditions and whom I would
> also consider "real" scholars.
Can you be specific?
> It's rather a knotty problem, and a shame we
> have to go on bad-mouthing one another because we have different points of
> view.
>
> I'd also like to point out to all who have replied so far that Elizabeth has
> been asked for a reference dozens of times, and she has come up with one. In
> other words, if there is a mistake here (and I believe there is), it
> originates with her source, and not with her.
By no means. Elizabeth stated -- flatly -- that the word
"shake-scene" **WAS** "Elizabethan theatre slang for the factotum who
toted scenery around between acts." She did *NOT* qualify her assertion
as mere reported speculation of certain unnamed "scholars" based upon
still unspecified evidence.
Had Elizabeth merely reported that she had read, in some unspecified
place, that some unnamed "scholars" had speculated, for some unspecified
reason, that the word "shake-scene" might have meant a stage hand, then
the error could reasonably be said to have originated in Elizabeth's
unspecified source, and in that case I doubt that there would have been
much response to Elizabeth's pronouncement, other than some amused
chortling at its vapid vagueness. However, Elizabeth said something
very different.
Indeed, a persistent pattern -- Elizabeth wildly distorting, wantonly
misrepresenting, or recklessly reproducing as "fact" her own moronic
misunderstandings of things that she has misread or misremembered -- is
a hallmark of her posts, and it is therefore not at all surprising that
she is asked to cite her sources explicitly. For example, Elizabeth
cited Akrigg's book, ostensibly as evidence of Southampton's supposed
transvestism and his putative performance in the theatre; to my
incredulous query about her source (as Akrigg says nothing of the kind),
Elizabeth replied,
"Why else would a site on queer studies have a book on Southampton
listed in the biography [sic -- she means 'bibliography']?"
However, quite apart from Elizabeth's comic confusion of homosexuality
and androgyny with transvestism, Elizabeth is quite wrong about Akrigg,
whom she plainly has never read; indeed, Akrigg writes, in the very book
that Elizabeth assumes must support her contention:
"It all adds up to one thing: nothing would be less surprising than
to learn that during certain periods of his early life
Southampton passed through homosexual phases but, until better
evidence is found, only a fool will declare that he did."
Or, consider the series of posts in which Elizabeth, on at least
*four occasions*, claims that Dave Kathman's essay on dating _The
Tempest_ affirms that Richard Field delivered the Strachey letter to
Shakespeare. Dave's essay does not even mention Richard Field *at all*,
yet Elizabeth *repeatedly* makes this claim, on at least two occasions
actually fabricating *BOGUS QUOTATIONS* which she recklessly attributes
to Dave Kathman!
Or, consider her farcical misrepresentation of the
Wang-Kuzmich-Dogariu superluminal light propagation experiment:
"Did you read about the cesium cell experiment done at Princeton
a year or so ago? The Princeton physicists don't have a theory
for the phenomena they produced. They admit, like Stephanie, that
'they're still loooooking.' Aether theory describes why a strand
of light wave would accelerate inside a cesium cell...."
Yet at either Lijun Wang's or Arthur Dogariu's web page,
<http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/lwan/faq.htm#relativity> or
<http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/arthur/>, you can find an explicit
denial of the notion that these physicists have no explanation for their
own experiment; quoting from Dogariu's page:
"Our experiment is *not* at odds with Einstein's special
relativity. The experiment can be well explained using existing
physics theories that are consistent with Relativity. In fact,
the experiment was designed based on calculations using existing
physics theories." [Emphasis in the original]
Astonishingly, however, Elizabeth *still* insists that Wang, Kuzmich and
Dagariu have no explanation for their observation, and insists that the
locution "still loooooking" constitutes "Their very words."(!) I am not
making this up. See Elizabeth's post at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=efbc3534.0402041409.6a8676a1%40post
ing.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>
for the following hilarious affirmation:
-----------------------------
> (7)
> "Did you read about the cesium cell experiment done at Princeton
> a year or so ago? The Princeton physicists don't have a theory
> for the phenomena they produced.
Their very words.
> They admit, like Stephanie, that
> 'they're still loooooking.'
Their very words.
-----------------------------
Can Elizabeth furnish a citation from Wang-Kuzmich-Dogariu containing
these very words? Of course not!
Or, consider Elizabeth's irresponsible misrepresentation of the
papers of Eliyahu Rips, which Elizabeth has not read, and which she
confuses with the sensationalized popularization of Michael Drosnin.
Rips's own public statement at
<http://www.thei.aust.com/torah/coderips.html>
avers quite explicitly that Rips does *not* believe that so-called Torah
codes can be used for divination, a belief that Elizabeth erroneously
ascribes to Rips and even to me. While I personally do not think much
of the supposed Torah codes, I do think that Rips is entitled to have
his ideas characterized accurately, not farcically misrepresented by a
crank who has not even read any of his papers.
Or, consider Elizabeth's wanton misrepresentations of the work of
J.-P. Hsu, which she also has not read. I need scarcely remind you that
Hsu himself wrote, upon seeing a sample of a few of Elizabeth's
misrepresentations of his work, that "You are absolutely correct in
thinking that our work on Taiji Relativity is not a repudiation of
Einstein's work at all," and added
"I do feel that trying to argue with cranks is hopeless task....
I can only hope that readers of her posts will take note of the
source and view her claims about the work of others in a skeptical
light."
Professor Hsu, a distinguished theoretical physicist, certainly deserves
to have his work fairly characterized, not farcically misrepresented by
an ignorant crank who has not even read his papers.
There are *many* more examples, but these suffice to establish the
pattern. Many people will take a very skeptical view the next time
George W. Bush declares a foreign nation to be an imminent threat; he
has cried "wolf" once too often, and the prudent will insist upon hard
data rather than reposing trust in his assurances. Elizabeth's track
record is very well known and is based upon so many wild distortions,
misrepresentations, misunderstandings, misreadings, misattributions,
misconstructions, mistranslations, etc. that the prudent will insist
upon precise citations rather than reposing trust in Elizabeth's
assurances when evaluating her claims. That she is so often unable to
produce any (or that she takes nearly two years in doing so) yet *still*
neither retracts nor qualifies her assertions does little to enhance her
credibility.
> It's a poor source, to be
> sure,
To be sure! But at least it *is* a source (such as it is) -- most of
Elizabeth's bland assertions of fact lack even that (and even this one
was nearly two years in coming). Usually, Elizabeth merely responds by
assuring us that whatever she is currently hallucinating is "on record."
> but there are lots of orthodox sources that are equally fuzzy. For
> example, Rowse names Emilia the Dark Lady,
Does he actually state it forthrightly as *fact*, as Elizabeth did?
Or does he clearly qualify it as speculation?
> basically on the strength of
> Forman's testimony and the fact that she is half Jewish. But Forman never
> actually says that Emilia is dark and many Jews are fair. I'm not suggesting
> that Emilia is not the Dark Lady, only that Rowse's scholarship is shoddy. I
> can give many more examples, and in fact you, David, remember Nelson's
> excoriation of another orthodox "scholar" at the Sanders symposium.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
I fully reciprocate your redoubled best wishes, Lynne.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
May I take it, then, that your mental health care is oVERseen by a
shaman, Art? That would explain a good deal.
David L. Webb
dj...@ix.netcom.com (Dave Kathman) wrote:
This is an apt characterization of the cranks one often encounters in
my field as well (circle squarers, angle trisectors, etc.). Generally,
their most glaring deficiency is an almost complete unfamiliarity with
the fundamental methodology of mathematics -- they generally cannot even
recognize, let alone produce, a correct mathematical proof, as they have
scant (if any) idea what constitutes one. This is not to say, of
course, that mathematical cranks, like anti-Stratfordian ones, don't
quite often exhibit shocking deficiencies in factual knowledge and
understanding of the rudiments of the subject as well. In mathematics,
ignorance of the rudiments may well contribute directly to a failure to
understand the methodology, as an understanding of what constitutes a
correct mathematical proof is usually developed via a thorough study of
basic mathematics. I wonder if the same might be true of historical
cranks -- an understanding of the methodology of history seems unlikely
to arise in one ignorant of history and unversed in its study.
Occasionally, a mathematical crank has a vague glimmer of an original
idea (although generally an idea that has been thoroughly understood for
centuries), but it is usually buried amid so much dross that it requires
real effort to dredge it out. I recall one such guy whom I encountered
as a student. He had devised a very elaborate theory -- based upon the
axiomatic assumption of the existence of a nonconstant real-valued
function on the real line that was both linear and periodic(!) -- that
was supposed to revolutionize number theory. Among other things, he had
a notion that every prime number was either "left handed" or "right
handed." After listening patiently to his bizarre, baroque explanations
for quite a while, I realized that his needlessly complicated definition
of his left/right dichotomy boiled down to whether or not an odd prime
was congruent to 1 or to 3 modulo 4. Since this was about the only
reasonable (let alone correct) insight in his incoherent ramblings, I
seized upon it, praised it, and tactfully suggested to him that he learn
something about modular arithmetic (in particular, arithmetic modulo 4);
I added that there were some celebrated theorems that hinged upon
whether a prime is congruent to 1 (mod 4) or to 3 (mod 4). To my
amazement, he informed me that he already knew that material, and
described where he had learned it -- evidently he actually knew (at some
level) the basic algebra underlying his "discovery," but he hadn't the
foggiest notion that his complicated contortions merely reproduced it.
One feels compelled at least to give such people a hearing, on the
off chance that one of them might prove to be the next Ramanujan --
certainly some great mathematicians have had prescient insights that
they struggled, not always successfully, to make precise and to
communicate to others. However, all my interactions with such persons
thus far have been profoundly disappointing. The best, like the
would-be number theorist above, were fundamentally honest, were willing
to admit their lack of background and to consider that they might be
completely wrong, and were not prone to accuse the entire profession of
intellectual dishonesty and outright fraud. By contrast, the worst were
*sure* that they had trisected the angle or proved Fermat's Last
Theorem, and they were quite certain that the "orthodox" mathematical
"establishment" was dishonestly suppressing their great discovery,
generally either because of acute embarrassment or for some purely
mercenary motive.
Regrettably, many h.l.a.s. anti-Stratfordians appear to fall into the
second category. Mr. Streitz has publicly accused the Folger Library of
malfeasance, and he has been joined by others (e.g., Stephanie Caruana)
in questioning that institution's integrity. He has also accused you --
absurdly -- of omitting many records in your survey of spellings of
Shakespeare's name (oddly enough, he is unable to identify the missing
records!). Elizabeth Weird has repeatedly accused "Stratfordians" of
having a racist, imperialist agenda, of having suppressed Baconian
"evidence" (perhaps that explains why Elizabeth cannot find any!), etc.,
and PWDBard's and Mr. Crowley's fulminations on this subject are too
well known to require mention.
> > I've asked a similar question on hlas before and had some interesting
> > responses. I would not suggest, of course, that you are not a real scholar,
> > even though you satisfy none of the above conditions. However, I can think
> > of anti-Stratfordians who do satisfy the above conditions and whom I would
> > also consider "real" scholars. It's rather a knotty problem, and a shame we
> > have to go on bad-mouthing one another because we have different points of
> > view.
> I get rather sick of dealing with all this over and over and over again,
I don't blame you. A huge percentage of the anti-Stratfordian
material that I have encountered has been not merely refuted rubbish but
*recycled* refuted rubbish.
> and
> so sometimes I get snippy, as I did in this post. But I don't regret the
> substance of what I said, which is similar to what I've said many times
> before in various contexts.
[...]
LynnE
No, I don't know Bentley and am not qualified to judge. I am responding to
David's sentence above: "Elizabeth citing Bentley is an example of the usual
antistrat circle-jerk, where antistrats just cite each other rather than
real scholars." His suggestion here is that anti-Stratfordians are by
definition not "real scholars."
> > In that case, what constitutes a *real* scholar? Must one be orthodox?
If
> > so, must one be at a university, teaching Shakespeare and/or with a
> > dissertation on Shakespeare? (Or will any orthodox person who sets
> > himself/herself up as a scholar do?)
> >
> > I've asked a similar question on hlas before and had some interesting
> > responses. I would not suggest, of course, that you are not a real
scholar,
> > even though you satisfy none of the above conditions.
>
> You're a little vague here, Lynne; you assert that Dave satisfies
> *none* of the above conditions? Surely he is at least what you call
> "Orthodox" above!
Yes.
>
> Jesting aside, I don't think that you would gainsay Dave's scholarly
> standing. Presumably, that is in part because you know that he is very
> well-informed and his done highly regarded original work in the area.
Yes. I have never been rude enough to suggest that Dave is not a scholar. I
believe he is; however, he has suggested above that there are no
anti-Stratfordian "real scholars," and I believe he is mistaken.
> The ingredient you may be missing is his mastery of the methodology of
> the discipline, an attribute in which many anti-Stratfordian "scholars"
> are evidently sadly deficient. That's not to say that many of of them
> are not lacking in basic knowledge as well -- indeed, one of the leading
> Oxfordian researchers stated that Caxton did not print the first book in
> English on English soil until well into Shakespeare's youth, and another
> confused two celebrated but very different Marys, as well as two of
> Oxford's own immediate family members.
One orthodox scholar appears to think that a man is a fish. Another appears
to believe that a gift of red cloth made Shakespeare of Stratford a personal
friend of King James. Yet another thinks that all Jews are dark and
therefore Emilia must have been the Dark Lady. Michael Wood seems to
theorise all sorts of interesting things, such as that a man called
Shak(e)speare, wishing to disguise himself, would call himself Shake-shafte
so no one would recognise him. That one is so funny as to be Monty
Pythonish. We can go round and round on this for ever, David, if you wish.
But perhaps you could think up some new examples rather than citing the same
ones over and over again.
>
> > However, I can think
> > of anti-Stratfordians who do satisfy the above conditions and whom I
would
> > also consider "real" scholars.
>
> Can you be specific?
I've been specific many times. Again, we can go around the mulberry bush
forever, but I don't think it will get us very far as it tends to be a
circular movement.
>
> > It's rather a knotty problem, and a shame we
> > have to go on bad-mouthing one another because we have different points
of
> > view.
> >
> > I'd also like to point out to all who have replied so far that Elizabeth
has
> > been asked for a reference dozens of times, and she has come up with
one. In
> > other words, if there is a mistake here (and I believe there is), it
> > originates with her source, and not with her.
>
> By no means. Elizabeth stated -- flatly -- that the word
> "shake-scene" **WAS** "Elizabethan theatre slang for the factotum who
> toted scenery around between acts." She did *NOT* qualify her assertion
> as mere reported speculation of certain unnamed "scholars" based upon
> still unspecified evidence.
I agree with you. However, this is a newsgroup, not an academic forum, and
most of us tend to see things which we fix in our mind while forgetting
either the exact citation, or the words therein, or both. I don't think it's
a very good source, but it is a source, and she came up with it. I'm glad
you thanked her.
>
>
snip lots of stuff I've seen many times before about Elizabeth.
> > but there are lots of orthodox sources that are equally fuzzy. For
> > example, Rowse names Emilia the Dark Lady,
>
> Does he actually state it forthrightly as *fact*, as Elizabeth did?
> Or does he clearly qualify it as speculation?
He edits a book of her poetry and therein states she was the Dark Lady. To
be absolutely sure whether he states it forthrightly or qualifies it, I'd
have to return to the text as I haven't read it for two years. Nevertheless,
there can be no doubt that he asserts it in the title: _The Poems of
Shakespeare's Dark Lady_.
>
> > basically on the strength of
> > Forman's testimony and the fact that she is half Jewish. But Forman
never
> > actually says that Emilia is dark and many Jews are fair. I'm not
suggesting
> > that Emilia is not the Dark Lady, only that Rowse's scholarship is
shoddy. I
> > can give many more examples, and in fact you, David, remember Nelson's
> > excoriation of another orthodox "scholar" at the Sanders symposium.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Lynne
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Lynne
>
> I fully reciprocate your redoubled best wishes, Lynne.
Thank you, David. Thank you, David.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > The main
> > > deficiency I see in most antistratfordians is their badly deficient
> > > and/or distorted notions of the methods used in literary history,
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > The main deficiency I see in most medical doctors is their badly
> > deficient and/or distorted notions of the methods used successfully for
> > thousands of years by shamans.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> May I take it, then, that your mental health care is oVERseen by a
> shaman, Art? That would explain a good deal.
I would no more trust a shaman with my health than I would trust a
literary history scholar with my understanding of literary history.
Art
Art Neuendorffer
> > I'm sure I've discussed this before, and I'm not going to go into
> > all of that again. One need not be at a university, or the holder
> > of an advanced degree, to be a scholar; one needs to know the
> > field thoroughly, both the facts and the methods, and be capable
> > of adding to the collective knowledge of that field. The main
> > deficiency I see in most antistratfordians is their badly deficient
> > and/or distorted notions of the methods used in literary history,
> > though some of them are shockingly deficient in their factual
> > knowledge of Elizabethan literary history as well.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> This is an apt characterization of the cranks one often encounters in
> my field as well (circle squarers, angle trisectors, etc.). Generally,
> their most glaring deficiency is an almost complete unfamiliarity with
> the fundamental methodology of mathematics -- they generally cannot even
> recognize, let alone produce, a correct mathematical proof, as they have
> scant (if any) idea what constitutes one.
Wasn't Cantor considered a mathematics crank at one time?
Art N.
L Wood
<snip>
>>>but there are lots of orthodox sources that are equally fuzzy. For
>>>example, Rowse names Emilia the Dark Lady,
>>
>> Does he actually state it forthrightly as *fact*, as Elizabeth
did?
>>Or does he clearly qualify it as speculation?
>
>
> He edits a book of her poetry and therein states she was the Dark Lady. To
> be absolutely sure whether he states it forthrightly or qualifies it, I'd
> have to return to the text as I haven't read it for two years. Nevertheless,
> there can be no doubt that he asserts it in the title: _The Poems of
> Shakespeare's Dark Lady_.
Rowse also states Emilia Lanier is the Dark Lady in chapter 3 ("The
Discovery of the Dark Lady") of *Discovering Shakespeare*. He sounds
very sure of his identification and complains about those who question
his findings.
>>>basically on the strength of
>>>Forman's testimony and the fact that she is half Jewish. But Forman
>
> never
>
>>>actually says that Emilia is dark and many Jews are fair. I'm not
>
> suggesting
>
>>>that Emilia is not the Dark Lady, only that Rowse's scholarship is
>
> shoddy.
For more information about Lanier, I recommend the introduction to
*The Poems of Aemilia Lanyer* edited by Susanne Woods. In a footnote
on p xix, she writes:
"Rowse deserves thanks for directing us to evidence about Lanyer's
life, though his work is riddled with errors and was written in
distracting service to the thesis that she was the 'Dark Lady' of
Shakespeare's sonnets. From the slimmest evidence - the association
with the Lord Chamberlain, Simon Forman's recorded attendance at
Shakespearean plays, Lanyer's Italian background and therefore
presumably dark complexion - Rowse weaves a romance of the *Salve Deus
Rex Judaeorum* as Lanyer's revenge for the 1609 publication of
Shakespeare's sonnets. Lanyer may have known Shakespearae, since the
world of middle class artistic servants of the crown was not large,
but there is no direct evidence. . . ."
Lyn
John W. Kennedy
> The main
> deficiency I see in most antistratfordians is their badly deficient
> and/or distorted notions of the methods used in literary history,
The problem with this is that it leaves you open to the rejoinder,
"Well, the methods used by the Establishment are wrong, and that's why
the Stratford story is accepted."
As someone untrained in literary history, myself, I see in them much
more fundamental lapses in elementary logic, usually combined with
People-Magazine understandings of art, history, and politics, together
with most weak EMnE.
> though some of them are shockingly deficient in their factual
> knowledge of Elizabethan literary history as well.
Eliminate any one or two words from "Elizabethan literary history" (with
the necessary grammatical fixups) and it's still usually true.
--
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"
John W. Kennedy
> I wonder if the same might be true of historical
> cranks -- an understanding of the methodology of history seems unlikely
> to arise in one ignorant of history and unversed in its study.
I suppose that would apply to a new school of crankery I've just
discovered on the 'Net, which apparently rejects all history prior to
the Renaissance as a fiction carefully constructed during that era.
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> > > > Elizabeth citing Bentley is an example of the usual
> > > > antistrat circle-jerk, where antistrats just cite each other rather
> > > > than real scholars.
> > > That's a rather unfortunate turn of phrase set in an unpleasant
> sentence,
> > > David. Are you suggesting that anti-Stratfordians *cannot* be real
> scholars?
> > Are you suggesting that Bentley is a real scholar? Or that the
> > apparently unnamed "scholars" whom he cites are?
> No, I don't know Bentley and am not qualified to judge. I am responding to
> David's sentence above: "Elizabeth citing Bentley is an example of the usual
> antistrat circle-jerk, where antistrats just cite each other rather than
> real scholars."
Dave wrote "usual," NOT "invariable." Therefore, unless you object
specifically to Dave's characterization of Bentley, I am not sure what
is the basis of your complaint -- it is perfectly true that, if one
surveys the history of anti-Stratfordian beliefs (and an amusing and
colorful history it is, too, even before the contemporary Streitzes,
Fakers, Weirs, etc.!), one finds that the phenomenon to which Dave so
trenchantly alludes is indeed quite usual.
> His suggestion here is that anti-Stratfordians are by
> definition not "real scholars."
No, he doesn't say that anti-Stratfordians *by definition* cannot be
real scholars; rather, he says that Elizabeth's citation of Bentley is
an example of the *usual* anti-Stratfordian practice of citing other
anti-Stratfordians whose scholarship is demonstrably deficient rather
than citing real scholars (some of whom *might* be anti-Stratfordian,
although it is unlikely).
> > > In that case, what constitutes a *real* scholar? Must one be orthodox?
> If
> > > so, must one be at a university, teaching Shakespeare and/or with a
> > > dissertation on Shakespeare? (Or will any orthodox person who sets
> > > himself/herself up as a scholar do?)
> > >
> > > I've asked a similar question on hlas before and had some interesting
> > > responses. I would not suggest, of course, that you are not a real
> scholar,
> > > even though you satisfy none of the above conditions.
> > You're a little vague here, Lynne; you assert that Dave satisfies
> > *none* of the above conditions? Surely he is at least what you call
> > "Orthodox" above!
> Yes.
> > Jesting aside, I don't think that you would gainsay Dave's scholarly
> > standing. Presumably, that is in part because you know that he is very
> > well-informed and his done highly regarded original work in the area.
> Yes. I have never been rude enough to suggest that Dave is not a scholar. I
> believe he is; however, he has suggested above that there are no
> anti-Stratfordian "real scholars," and I believe he is mistaken.
Can you name some?
> > The ingredient you may be missing is his mastery of the methodology of
> > the discipline, an attribute in which many anti-Stratfordian "scholars"
> > are evidently sadly deficient. That's not to say that many of of them
> > are not lacking in basic knowledge as well -- indeed, one of the leading
> > Oxfordian researchers stated that Caxton did not print the first book in
> > English on English soil until well into Shakespeare's youth, and another
> > confused two celebrated but very different Marys, as well as two of
> > Oxford's own immediate family members.
> One orthodox scholar appears to think that a man is a fish.
That is scarcely of the magnitude of confusing two monarchs. It's
more like confusing a Monarch with a Viceroy.
> Another appears
> to believe that a gift of red cloth made Shakespeare of Stratford a personal
> friend of King James.
Who believes that?
> Yet another thinks that all Jews are dark and
> therefore Emilia must have been the Dark Lady. Michael Wood seems to
> theorise all sorts of interesting things, such as that a man called
> Shak(e)speare, wishing to disguise himself, would call himself Shake-shafte
> so no one would recognise him. That one is so funny as to be Monty
> Pythonish.
It doesn't seem *nearly* as funny as the suggestion that a
high-ranking peer of the realm, in an attempt to conceal his authorship
of plays and poetry of genius that supposedly pleased his sovereign and
nearly everyone else as well, adopted as a pseudonym the name of a *real
person* active in the company that performed those plays, and chose
moreover as ostensible author an illiterate buffoon who was manifestly,
even four hundred years later, unqualified and whose disqualification
would have been even more glaringly obvious to his contemporaries!
> We can go round and round on this for ever, David, if you wish.
> But perhaps you could think up some new examples rather than citing the same
> ones over and over again.
*Whom* precisely do you propose as anti-Stratfordian scholars?
> > > However, I can think
> > > of anti-Stratfordians who do satisfy the above conditions and whom I
> would
> > > also consider "real" scholars.
> > Can you be specific?
> I've been specific many times. Again, we can go around the mulberry bush
> forever, but I don't think it will get us very far as it tends to be a
> circular movement.
Well, the two whom you have named thus far have not been resoundingly
successful, even in commanding the respect of mere uninformed Usenet
amateurs; I suspect that their standing among genuine scholars is even
more precarious, as real scholars have far more exacting standards than
ignorant amateurs. Have you any others to suggest?
> > > It's rather a knotty problem, and a shame we
> > > have to go on bad-mouthing one another because we have different points
> of
> > > view.
> > >
> > > I'd also like to point out to all who have replied so far that Elizabeth
> has
> > > been asked for a reference dozens of times, and she has come up with
> one. In
> > > other words, if there is a mistake here (and I believe there is), it
> > > originates with her source, and not with her.
> > By no means. Elizabeth stated -- flatly -- that the word
> > "shake-scene" **WAS** "Elizabethan theatre slang for the factotum who
> > toted scenery around between acts." She did *NOT* qualify her assertion
> > as mere reported speculation of certain unnamed "scholars" based upon
> > still unspecified evidence.
> I agree with you.
Then the error does not lie solely with her "source" (such as it is).
> However, this is a newsgroup, not an academic forum, and
> most of us tend to see things which we fix in our mind
Only a very few of us hallucinate. Elizabeth certainly seems to be
one.
> while forgetting
> either the exact citation, or the words therein, or both. I don't think it's
> a very good source,
I haven't seen it yet, but it is indeed the case that the author does
not even *name* the "scholars" to whom he alludes, far less enumerate
their reasons for reaching such a conclusion, then it seems a poor
source indeed for Elizabeth's purpose.
> but it is a source, and she came up with it.
After nearly two years....
> I'm glad
> you thanked her.
And I'm glad that she *finally* came up with *something*, meager
though it now appears to be. She could have spared herself a lot of
grief by qualifying her flat assertion as speculation long ago.
> snip lots of stuff I've seen many times before about Elizabeth.
>
> > > but there are lots of orthodox sources that are equally fuzzy. For
> > > example, Rowse names Emilia the Dark Lady,
> > Does he actually state it forthrightly as *fact*, as Elizabeth did?
> > Or does he clearly qualify it as speculation?
> He edits a book of her poetry and therein states she was the Dark Lady. To
> be absolutely sure whether he states it forthrightly or qualifies it, I'd
> have to return to the text as I haven't read it for two years. Nevertheless,
> there can be no doubt that he asserts it in the title: _The Poems of
> Shakespeare's Dark Lady_.
Book titles sometimes adumbrate ambitious and controversial theses
that the author may or may not claim to have established in the book
itself.
> > > basically on the strength of
> > > Forman's testimony and the fact that she is half Jewish. But Forman
> never
> > > actually says that Emilia is dark and many Jews are fair. I'm not
> suggesting
> > > that Emilia is not the Dark Lady, only that Rowse's scholarship is
> shoddy. I
> > > can give many more examples, and in fact you, David, remember Nelson's
> > > excoriation of another orthodox "scholar" at the Sanders symposium.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Lynne
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Lynne
> > I fully reciprocate your redoubled best wishes, Lynne.
> Thank you, David. Thank you, David.
You're not double dealing, are you, Lynne?
David L. Webb
allm...@pacbell.net (L Wood) wrote:
Thanks! Very informative and right on topic.
LynnE
"L Wood" <allm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ec74794d.0402...@posting.google.com...
Yes, I have that book too, Lyn, and need to read it again. I've just been
lazy about getting back to my research. Thanks for all the info. There is,
by the way, no evidence I know of that suggests that Emilia Lanier was
dark--and even if her father was Italian and Jewish and *possibly* dark, she
did have an English mother.
However, when all's said and done, she makes a wonderful Dark Lady to hang a
novel on. :)
The other Lynne
LynnE
I don't agree, David. Or at least, I would say that the phenomenon to which
Dave alludes is at least as common among orthodox scholars.
>
> > His suggestion here is that anti-Stratfordians are by
> > definition not "real scholars."
>
> No, he doesn't say that anti-Stratfordians *by definition* cannot be
> real scholars; rather, he says that Elizabeth's citation of Bentley is
> an example of the *usual* anti-Stratfordian practice of citing other
> anti-Stratfordians whose scholarship is demonstrably deficient rather
> than citing real scholars (some of whom *might* be anti-Stratfordian,
> although it is unlikely).
I'm really not sure I wish to get into this discussion again, but I guess
Iwould have to say that you are looking at the work of anti-Stratfordians
with a kind of skepticism that you reserve only for them and not for
Stratfordian scholars. I am interested in this because you say you are
agnostic.
Yes. Daniel Wright, Roger Stritmatter, Ren Draya, Michael Delahoyde,
Christopher Paul, Mark Anderson, etc. That you may not agree that they're
scholars and that you may find holes to pick in them does not shake my
belief in their scholarship.
>
> > > The ingredient you may be missing is his mastery of the methodology of
> > > the discipline, an attribute in which many anti-Stratfordian
"scholars"
> > > are evidently sadly deficient. That's not to say that many of of them
> > > are not lacking in basic knowledge as well -- indeed, one of the
leading
> > > Oxfordian researchers stated that Caxton did not print the first book
in
> > > English on English soil until well into Shakespeare's youth, and
another
> > > confused two celebrated but very different Marys, as well as two of
> > > Oxford's own immediate family members.
>
> > One orthodox scholar appears to think that a man is a fish.
>
> That is scarcely of the magnitude of confusing two monarchs. It's
> more like confusing a Monarch with a Viceroy.
No, two monarchs are both people. A man and a fish? Please. But I use this
example only to illustrate that perfectly good orthodox scholars also make
egregious errors, not to ridicule anyone.
>
> > Another appears
> > to believe that a gift of red cloth made Shakespeare of Stratford a
personal
> > friend of King James.
>
> Who believes that?
Andrew Gurr has insinuated it. Michael Wood said it outright in Toronto. He
made an enormous fuss of the gift of red cloth, saying how how high ranking
it showed Shakespeare of Stratford was, how close to the king, while
omitting to explain that it was given to many people, perhaps hundreds.
>
> > Yet another thinks that all Jews are dark and
> > therefore Emilia must have been the Dark Lady. Michael Wood seems to
> > theorise all sorts of interesting things, such as that a man called
> > Shak(e)speare, wishing to disguise himself, would call himself
Shake-shafte
> > so no one would recognise him. That one is so funny as to be Monty
> > Pythonish.
>
> It doesn't seem *nearly* as funny as the suggestion that a
> high-ranking peer of the realm, in an attempt to conceal his authorship
> of plays and poetry of genius that supposedly pleased his sovereign and
> nearly everyone else as well, adopted as a pseudonym the name of a *real
> person* active in the company that performed those plays, and chose
> moreover as ostensible author an illiterate buffoon who was manifestly,
> even four hundred years later, unqualified and whose disqualification
> would have been even more glaringly obvious to his contemporaries!
First, I don't agree that Shakespeare of Stratford was necessarily an
illiterate buffoon. Second, I assume this means you're not an agnostic. Dr.
Stritmatter and I, in our response to Dr. Kathman and Mr. Reedy, gave
several examples of other similar situations, and we know of at least one
other case which we may use later. If you cannot believe that such things
happen, you surely cannot be an agnostic.
>
> > We can go round and round on this for ever, David, if you wish.
> > But perhaps you could think up some new examples rather than citing the
same
> > ones over and over again.
>
> *Whom* precisely do you propose as anti-Stratfordian scholars?
I've told you above.
If you feel Elizabeth hallucinates, then clearly you believe she is ill, in
which case the kindest thing to do would be to leave her alone.
Well, now you also appear to have Lyn's testimony also with regard to Rowse.
My memory is still a bit hazy so I appreciate his/her help.
>
> > > > basically on the strength of
> > > > Forman's testimony and the fact that she is half Jewish. But Forman
> > never
> > > > actually says that Emilia is dark and many Jews are fair. I'm not
> > suggesting
> > > > that Emilia is not the Dark Lady, only that Rowse's scholarship is
> > shoddy. I
> > > > can give many more examples, and in fact you, David, remember
Nelson's
> > > > excoriation of another orthodox "scholar" at the Sanders symposium.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Lynne
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Lynne
>
> > > I fully reciprocate your redoubled best wishes, Lynne.
>
> > Thank you, David. Thank you, David.
>
> You're not double dealing, are you, Lynne?
Funny you should say that. Someone else asked me an almost identical
question a few days ago.
Funny you should say that. Someone else asked me an almost identical
question a few days ago.
Best wishes,
Jacob Two Two
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weird has repeatedly accused "Stratfordians" of
> having a racist, imperialist agenda . .
That is incorrect Dr. Punctilio. One would think that as a
micromanager of my every post you would at least state that
Elizabeth Weird has repeatedly accused "Stratfordians"
of having had a racist, imperialist agenda . .
Best regards and try to
be more precise,
Elizabeth
Neil Brennen
Sorry to turn your duet into a trio...
If I am reading this thread correctly, you are objecting to Dave K.'s claim
about (fill in the blank) quoting other (fill in the blank) instead of "real
scholars". You then claim that "the phenomenon to which Dave alludes is at
least as common among orthodox scholars." That's a profound truism, Lynne.
Since orthodoxy is by far the dominant thought on authorship, who else is to
be quoted? Or should a writer go out of his way to quote a "scholar" such as
Elizabeth Weir, despite the laughable nature of her "contributions"?
I think you may be taking Dave K.'s remarks personally, Lynne, as you and
Dr. Stritmatter repeatedly cite Looney and Ogburn in your response to the
Kathman and Reedy essay. It's almost as if you are saying "You have your
scholars, we have ours."
> >
> > > His suggestion here is that anti-Stratfordians are by
> > > definition not "real scholars."
> >
> > No, he doesn't say that anti-Stratfordians *by definition* cannot be
> > real scholars; rather, he says that Elizabeth's citation of Bentley is
> > an example of the *usual* anti-Stratfordian practice of citing other
> > anti-Stratfordians whose scholarship is demonstrably deficient rather
> > than citing real scholars (some of whom *might* be anti-Stratfordian,
> > although it is unlikely).
>
> I'm really not sure I wish to get into this discussion again, but I guess
> Iwould have to say that you are looking at the work of anti-Stratfordians
> with a kind of skepticism that you reserve only for them and not for
> Stratfordian scholars. I am interested in this because you say you are
> agnostic.
At the risk of earning Dr. Webb's eternal scorn and derision, let me explain
agnosticism. One can be agnostic on authorship and recognize that the vast
majority of respected scholars believe Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. One
can compare the scholarship of, say, Dave Kathman and Sam Sloan (who called
the Folio engraving a "painting") and, regardless of the fact that Kathman
is Orthodox and Sloan is Oxfordian, come to the conclusion that Kathman is
the better scholar.
Unfortunatly Lynne, most of the laughs on HLAS are provided by your fellow
travelers. The only "orthodox" views I've seen mocked on HLAS have been on
dating the sonnets and various additions to the canon.
(snip)
> > > One orthodox scholar appears to think that a man is a fish.
Lynne, how long do you plan to keep dining out on that fish?
> >
> > That is scarcely of the magnitude of confusing two monarchs. It's
> > more like confusing a Monarch with a Viceroy.
>
> No, two monarchs are both people. A man and a fish? Please. But I use this
> example...
Again and again and again...
only to illustrate that perfectly good orthodox scholars also make
> egregious errors, not to ridicule anyone.
> >
> > > Another appears
> > > to believe that a gift of red cloth made Shakespeare of Stratford a
> personal
> > > friend of King James.
> >
> > Who believes that?
>
> Andrew Gurr has insinuated it. Michael Wood said it outright in Toronto.
He
> made an enormous fuss of the gift of red cloth, saying how how high
ranking
> it showed Shakespeare of Stratford was, how close to the king, while
> omitting to explain that it was given to many people, perhaps hundreds.
I think Mr. Wood has been mocked on HLAS before.
LynnE
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
news:gJnXb.5030$hm4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
You're always welcome, Neil. Hi.
>
> If I am reading this thread correctly, you are objecting to Dave K.'s
claim
> about (fill in the blank) quoting other (fill in the blank) instead of
"real
> scholars". You then claim that "the phenomenon to which Dave alludes is at
> least as common among orthodox scholars." That's a profound truism, Lynne.
> Since orthodoxy is by far the dominant thought on authorship, who else is
to
> be quoted? Or should a writer go out of his way to quote a "scholar" such
as
> Elizabeth Weir, despite the laughable nature of her "contributions"?
Of course not. Nor should a writer quote me, not for my work on Shakespeare,
anyhow.
I am complaining about Dave suggesting that anti-Stratfordians are not
"real" scholars and as they only quote one another they never get anywhere.
There are many orthodox "scholars" I could put in the same camp.
>
> I think you may be taking Dave K.'s remarks personally, Lynne, as you and
> Dr. Stritmatter repeatedly cite Looney and Ogburn in your response to the
> Kathman and Reedy essay. It's almost as if you are saying "You have your
> scholars, we have ours."
We've quoted others too. We tend to quote Looney and Ogburn on this subject
because they have written about it most. I almost always use orthodox
scholars too. In another thread on bawdry in Shakespeare, for example, I
have held up David Bevington as an expert. The other day I used Terry when
someone appeared with an undecipherable cipher. I have great respect for
some orthodox scholars. That I don't agree with them on certain points is
another matter.
Forgive me, but why would anyone compare Dave Kathman to Sam Sloan? It's
like my comparing Daniel Wright to, well, I don't wish to be rude so I'll
just say to...take your pick of several orthodox hlas revellers.
>
> Unfortunatly Lynne, most of the laughs on HLAS are provided by your fellow
> travelers. The only "orthodox" views I've seen mocked on HLAS have been on
> dating the sonnets and various additions to the canon.
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > One orthodox scholar appears to think that a man is a fish.
>
> Lynne, how long do you plan to keep dining out on that fish?
As long as Dave keeps regurgitating the same anti-Stratfordian stories. I do
not choose to do it. In fact I have suggested he stop and I certainly am
going to. I am just making a point in return for his point. My point is that
he can keep bringing up the same mistakes over and over again, but as Alan
is widely recognised as a scholar (and rightly so), our experts should be
allowed mistakes and yet also the appellation of scholar.
>
> > >
> > > That is scarcely of the magnitude of confusing two monarchs. It's
> > > more like confusing a Monarch with a Viceroy.
> >
> > No, two monarchs are both people. A man and a fish? Please. But I use
this
> > example...
>
> Again and again and again...
I would be interested to hear you say this to David, who always initiates
the conversation with a litany of the same anti-Stratfordian errors. In
fact, he has brought up the same errors far more times than I've ever dined
on fish, or anything else for that matter.
>
> only to illustrate that perfectly good orthodox scholars also make
> > egregious errors, not to ridicule anyone.
> > >
> > > > Another appears
> > > > to believe that a gift of red cloth made Shakespeare of Stratford a
> > personal
> > > > friend of King James.
> > >
> > > Who believes that?
> >
> > Andrew Gurr has insinuated it. Michael Wood said it outright in Toronto.
> He
> > made an enormous fuss of the gift of red cloth, saying how how high
> ranking
> > it showed Shakespeare of Stratford was, how close to the king, while
> > omitting to explain that it was given to many people, perhaps hundreds.
>
> I think Mr. Wood has been mocked on HLAS before.
I hope he has, although I really like the pictures he found of Tudor London,
which were taken in Victorian times. And he's very charming...
Can't upset me today, Neil. I just got a starred review in Kirkus for my
forth-coming book. :) And as I write, a huge arrangement of flowers has just
arrived for me from my husband for Valentine's Day. It feels like Christmas.
And I think this must be the last I have to say on this subject either to
you or David or David. After all, you wouldn't want me to dine on fish
again, would you? I think actually I'm being taken out to lunch.
Happy Valentine's Day, everyone.
Best wishes,
LynnE
>
>
>
>
Bob Grumman
>> The main
>> deficiency I see in most antistratfordians is their badly deficient
>> and/or distorted notions of the methods used in literary history,
>
>The problem with this is that it leaves you open to the rejoinder,
>"Well, the methods used by the Establishment are wrong, and that's why
>the Stratford story is accepted."
Except that the anti-Stratfordians use the methods of the Establishment any time
the results come out the way they want them to, and they never question their
use in any kind of literary study other than the study of Shakespeare's works.
>As someone untrained in literary history, myself, I see in them much
>more fundamental lapses in elementary logic, usually combined with
>People-Magazine understandings of art, history, and politics, together
>with most weak EMnE.
>
>> though some of them are shockingly deficient in their factual
>> knowledge of Elizabethan literary history as well.
>
>Eliminate any one or two words from "Elizabethan literary history" (with
>the necessary grammatical fixups) and it's still usually true.
Throw in the fact that sophistry is fun! What could be more challenging than
finding a way, however implausible, to interpret a text to mean the opposite of
what it seems to mean? See new thread at the Shakespeare fellowship about
Thomas Heywood's statement that Shakespeare was annoyed with Jaggard for
publishing some of Shakespeare's poems under Heywood's name for a demonstration
of this.
--Bob G.
Neil Brennen
Examples?
Because he posts, and poses, as an authority on newsgroups and
message-boards, and is anti-Stratfordian. Just like the Weir-bot, the
"scholar" who started this thread.
It's
> like my comparing Daniel Wright to, well, I don't wish to be rude so I'll
> just say to...take your pick of several orthodox hlas revellers.
Have any of the orthodox hlas revelers proposed revolutionary ideas
regarding authorship?
> > (snip)
> >
> > > > > One orthodox scholar appears to think that a man is a fish.
> >
> > Lynne, how long do you plan to keep dining out on that fish?
>
> As long as Dave keeps regurgitating the same anti-Stratfordian stories. I
do
> not choose to do it. In fact I have suggested he stop and I certainly am
> going to. I am just making a point in return for his point. My point is
that
> he can keep bringing up the same mistakes over and over again, but as Alan
> is widely recognised as a scholar (and rightly so), our experts should be
> allowed mistakes and yet also the appellation of scholar.
> >
> > > >
> > > > That is scarcely of the magnitude of confusing two monarchs.
It's
> > > > more like confusing a Monarch with a Viceroy.
> > >
> > > No, two monarchs are both people. A man and a fish? Please. But I use
> this
> > > example...
> >
> > Again and again and again...
>
> I would be interested to hear you say this to David, who always initiates
> the conversation with a litany of the same anti-Stratfordian errors.
I've posted that David needs to get out more after he graced HLAS with one
of his "Elizabeth said..." posts. I am fond of toffee, but not toffee for
breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
In
> fact, he has brought up the same errors far more times than I've ever
dined
> on fish, or anything else for that matter.
> Can't upset me today, Neil.
That wasn't the goal, Lynne.
I just got a starred review in Kirkus for my
> forth-coming book. :)
Kositsky, Lynne THE THOUGHT OF HIGH WINDOWS
February 15, 2004 - Superb, wrenching Holocaust fiction. Esther is a Jewish
teen snatched out of Germany at the beginning of WWII by the Swiss Red Cross
to live briefly in Belgium and later in a castle in France, under the nose
of the Vichy government.
Yes, I read the review with a friend, who chided me. "See Neil, she can
write a book, why can't you finish yours?" :-(
Congratulations, Lynne.
Neil Brennen
> Can't upset me today, Neil. I just got a starred review in Kirkus for my
> forth-coming book. :)
This deserves its own thread.
http://www.kirkusreviews.com/kirkusreviews/magazine/childrens.jsp
Kositsky, Lynne THE THOUGHT OF HIGH WINDOWS
February 15, 2004 - Superb, wrenching Holocaust fiction. Esther is a Jewish
teen snatched out of Germany at the beginning of WWII by the Swiss Red Cross
to live briefly in Belgium and later in a castle in France, under the nose
of the Vichy government. Lice and other
The Thought Of High Windows
Lynne Kositsky
When trapped or frightened, Esther sees windows--and flying out of them--as
her only salvation. Young, Jewish, and on the run from the Nazis, Esther is
one of a group of children who manage to flee Germany at the beginning of
World War II.
Kids Can Press, Ages 12-17, 176 pp., 3/1/2004
1553376218 TR $16.95
141552498X BW $19.98
David L. Webb
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> David L. Webb wrote:
> > I wonder if the same might be true of historical
> > cranks -- an understanding of the methodology of history seems unlikely
> > to arise in one ignorant of history and unversed in its study.
> I suppose that would apply to a new school of crankery I've just
> discovered on the 'Net, which apparently rejects all history prior to
> the Renaissance as a fiction carefully constructed during that era.
Are you referring to the site that Neil Brennen mentioned,
<http://www.new-tradition.org/>?
Or is there actually *another* nursery (one hesitates to use the word
"school") of cranks with a superficially similar monomania?
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:<3cRWb.53542$Wa.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
> > So the author *is* named in your post? I'm afraid you're hallucinating
> > again. Either that, or you retain enough of a grip on reality to attempt
> > to
> > conceal the name of the crackpot antistrat (Richard Bentley)
> I'm not concealing anything. I searched the Bar Association article
> and took the citation off the page. I didn't bother looking up the
> author, Groves, because the only criteria required for this
> inconsequential proof in support of a trivial statement was
> 'some scholars.'
In other words, Elizabeth hasn't read the article. If that is the
case, then the article can scarcely have been the original source of her
assertion about the word "shake-scene." One still wonders what her
original source, if any, may have been. Some nutcase Baconian web page?
[...]
> > responsible for
> > your worthless citation.
> The citation, Groves, was adequate to my trifling statement
> made in passing.
If it was indeed a "trifling statement made in passing," and one
lacking any credible souce at that, then why did Elizabeth state it as
*fact* rather than as the reported conjecture of unnamed (and possibly
nonexistent) "scholars" on unspecified grounds in an article by an
unknown author?
> What is not inconsequential is the unethical way that Strats--and
> we can now include Webb in that category since I outed him--
> treat other posters in HLAS.
>
> I assume that as an academic you have a professional code
> of ethics which must say something about encouraging
> intellectual freedom as well as requiring civil treatment of
> students and colleages.
Students and colleagues are expected to have read the text. Students
who do not or cannot read generally fail. And speaking of ethics,
students and colleagues are also expected to substantiate scurrilous
charges of intellectual dishonesty, racism, sexism, etc.; Elizabeth
fails by *all* these criteria.
[...]
Neil Brennen
Here's a mirror site:
http://www.revisedhistory.org/Investigation-eng-history.htm
and some more on Wall Street Journal columnist Gary Kasparov's connection to
the "new chronology":
http://flyingchihuahuas.editthispage.com/discuss/msgReader$158?mode=day
http://www.world-mysteries.com/garrykasparov.htm
www.pims.math.ca/pi/issue6/page03-04.pdf
"British television is planning a series based on this "New Chronology" to
be presented by Russian chess master Gary Kasparov. "
LynnE
>
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:DFqXb.21376$y07.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> >
>>
> > Can't upset me today, Neil.
>
> That wasn't the goal, Lynne.
I know it.
>
> I just got a starred review in Kirkus for my
> > forth-coming book. :)
>
> Kositsky, Lynne THE THOUGHT OF HIGH WINDOWS
> February 15, 2004 - Superb, wrenching Holocaust fiction. Esther is a
Jewish
> teen snatched out of Germany at the beginning of WWII by the Swiss Red
Cross
> to live briefly in Belgium and later in a castle in France, under the nose
> of the Vichy government.
>
> Yes, I read the review with a friend, who chided me. "See Neil, she can
> write a book, why can't you finish yours?" :-(
>
> Congratulations, Lynne.
Thanks so much, Neil. I'm sure you can finish a book. We all get stuck
sometimes. I'm finally back in the groove with my new novel, thank goodness
and actually thanks to someone on hlas who wrote me an email and unknowingly
gave me a plot idea. I wish I could see the whole review of *Windows*, but
will have to wait for the clipping service to come up with it. I'm very
pleased. Canadian fiction rarely gets mentioned on Kirkus and any kind of
review would have been more than acceptable.
Now just waiting for the book to come out, after it got this review and a
*pick of the month* on another American site.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
>
>
>
LynnE
Once again, thank you very much.
Lynne
>
>
>
Tom Reedy
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:david.l.webb-62F9...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
<snip>
> > > believe he is; however, he has suggested above that there are no
> > > anti-Stratfordian "real scholars," and I believe he is mistaken.
> >
> > Can you name some?
>
> Yes. Daniel Wright, Roger Stritmatter, Ren Draya, Michael Delahoyde,
> Christopher Paul, Mark Anderson, etc. That you may not agree that they're
> scholars and that you may find holes to pick in them does not shake my
> belief in their scholarship.
A touching and firm declaration of faith as I've ever seen.
<snip>
> > Only a very few of us hallucinate. Elizabeth certainly seems to be
> > one.
>
> If you feel Elizabeth hallucinates, then clearly you believe she is ill,
in
> which case the kindest thing to do would be to leave her alone.
I for one would certainly endorse that option. It does no good to constantly
point out her idiotic assertions -- or so far it certainly has not -- and it
may be keeping her from seeking the help for her condition she so obviously
needs, therefore unnecessarily prolonging her mental distress.
<snip>
Elizabeth Weir
> I'd also like to point out to all who have replied so far that Elizabeth has
> been asked for a reference dozens of times, and she has come up with one. In
> other words, if there is a mistake here (and I believe there is), it
> originates with her source, and not with her.
I satisfied the slight criteria.
1. I've never represented myself to be a scholar.
2. I made it clear that it was a remark made in the spirit
of 'for what it's worth.'
3. I said that if I ever came across the source I would
post it.
Webb is cranky because he will have to re-edit
his cut-and-past cant.
Besides, Elizabeth is not worth the time required for more than
"cut and paste" composition. -- July 6, 2003 by David L. Webb
> but there are lots of orthodox sources that are equally fuzzy.
I think the problem goes deeper than mere 'fuzziness,'
Lynne.
I'm writing a post on an article by Prof. Lukas Erne (Lincoln
College, Oxford) who exposes the fact that Strat biographers
distort readings of Greene's Shakescene to make it appear that
Chettle was apologizing to the Stratford actor in Kind Heart's
Dream.
This problem is not limited to Groatsworth. Erne has blown the
cover on a problem I detected while reading mid-19th century
Strats who were quite critical of the raw data of the Strat
biographical record.
After reading Grant White and others I realized that Shakespeare
studies fell into two sometimes hostile camps, the Shakespearean
scholars who are dedicated to the texts, and the Shakespeare
biographers who are devoted to the myth.
Many scholars (including Early Modern and Renaissance) who
specialize in the Elizabethan (Tudor-Stuart) era are unhappy
with Strat biographers because they sell the books and have
the clout to distort the reading of history. Distorted history
in turn distorts the reading of the Shakespeare texts.
You'll note that Kathman and Reedy, et al, rely entirely on
Strat biographers.
> For
> example, Rowse names Emilia the Dark Lady, basically on the strength of
> Forman's testimony and the fact that she is half Jewish. But Forman never
> actually says that Emilia is dark and many Jews are fair. I'm not suggesting
> that Emilia is not the Dark Lady, only that Rowse's scholarship is shoddy.
You're right because Rowse is abandoning his field of expertise--
literary criticism--by entering into the biographical/authorship area
which has nothing to do with literary criticism and is fraught with
Strat politics as well.
The identity of the Dark Lady really has nothing to do
with literary criticism and in fact there is no academic specialty
in 'Authorship Dispute' or even 'Shakespeare biography.'
The authorship dispute is increasingly offered as a
sidebar in lit courses but it has no place in literary studies.
If it is ever made part of any discipline--which I doubt--it will
be law. Shakespeare is now routinely taught in law schools.
The body of authorship evidence can only be properly
ruled on using the science of evidence and the methodology
derived from legal procedures (law became scientific after the
Novum Organum).
The only way Shakespeare authorship will ever be settled is
through mock trials featuring all the candidates.
Informal debates are never conclusive because structurally
argument can never come to a conclusion. The question can
only be resolved by formal debate (which isn't very convincing
since it has the characteristics of argument) or mock trials which
can reach conclusions.
I think it will be 'decided' by public relations and the Oxfordians
are better at public relations than the Strats who think they
have the advantage by acting like academics (they're cheating
because the authorship dispute doesn't belong in academia).
The problem is that the debate isn't going to be resolved by
public relations. Public relations is capable of creating opinion
but it has no method for truth-finding.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Weir
> Can't upset me today, Neil. I just got a starred review in Kirkus for my
> forth-coming book. :) And as I write, a huge arrangement of flowers has just
> arrived for me from my husband for Valentine's Day. It feels like Christmas.
Congratulations! I knew you could write (the flowers
are 'cause you're a good lookin' woman).
Very best,
Elizabeth
LynnE
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.04021...@posting.google.com...
Thanks much, Elizabeth. And a Happy Valentine's Day to you too.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Neil Brennen
Now Elizabeth, even if Lynne were are ugly as sin, I think she would still
get flowers from her husband. But aside from that quibble, we agree for
once.
Neil Brennen
John W. Kennedy
>>I suppose that would apply to a new school of crankery I've just
>>discovered on the 'Net, which apparently rejects all history prior to
>>the Renaissance as a fiction carefully constructed during that era.
> Are you referring to the site that Neil Brennen mentioned,
> <http://www.new-tradition.org/>?
> Or is there actually *another* nursery (one hesitates to use the word
> "school") of cranks with a superficially similar monomania?
It looks to me like the same group, though it's not the actual website I
saw. I just hit it by chance the other day when googling on another
subject and dismissed it at once, and now I can't seem to recall the
right invocation to recall it.
This new-tradition gang seems to have it all over the Shakespeare
deniers. The latter, even at their worst, usually maintain at least a
superficial semblance of logic, even though it is often of the "Some A
are B, therefore all B are A" variety. These new guys, on the other
hand, read almost like a sample of automatic writing.
Perhaps the Apocalypse will come when there are no more sane people left
on Earth. Oh well. I suppose it will shorten my time in Purgatory.
Elizabeth Weir
> This new-tradition gang seems to have it all over the Shakespeare
> deniers.
Shakespeare-deniers. I love that. It's so orthodoxly cultic.
Success stems from the existence of a community
which is solid in its adherence to an Unholy Grail (messy,
disputable). -- Kuhn.
> The latter, even at their worst, usually maintain at least a
> superficial semblance of logic,
I think exposing Kathman and Reedy's Fourth Fallacy qualifies
as more than a mere 'superficial semblance of logic.'
> even though it is often of the "Some A
> are B, therefore all B are A" variety. These new guys, on the other
> hand, read almost like a sample of automatic writing.
>
> Perhaps the Apocalypse will come
There isn't any Apocalypse in Catholic doctrine,
Kennedy. The Church made the Church the Kingdom
of God on Earth. Christ returns to His kingdom.
No, I'm not a Catholic. I only love the Catholic
Encyclopedia. What intense scholarship.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm>
> when there are no more sane people left
> on Earth. Oh well. I suppose it will shorten my time in Purgatory.
Or you could just think more kindly of others and pare a few
thousand years off.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
Take a look at the history of anti-Stratfordian cults.
> > > His suggestion here is that anti-Stratfordians are by
> > > definition not "real scholars."
> > No, he doesn't say that anti-Stratfordians *by definition* cannot be
> > real scholars; rather, he says that Elizabeth's citation of Bentley is
> > an example of the *usual* anti-Stratfordian practice of citing other
> > anti-Stratfordians whose scholarship is demonstrably deficient rather
> > than citing real scholars (some of whom *might* be anti-Stratfordian,
> > although it is unlikely).
> I'm really not sure I wish to get into this discussion again, but I guess
> Iwould have to say that you are looking at the work of anti-Stratfordians
> with a kind of skepticism that you reserve only for them and not for
> Stratfordian scholars. I am interested in this because you say you are
> agnostic.
No, I subject both to the same skepticism. However, the works of
most scholars contain so few of the sort of hilarious howlers that
riddle anti-Stratfordian publications that I am not apt to spot them. I
*might* have scratched my head in bewilderment at the Wytheringes/white
herrings lapse that you pointed out, but it is such a minor matter that
it is also possible that I might have have read right over it without
even noticing. By contrast, the anti-Stratfordian tracts I have read or
even perused have been extraordinarily rich sources of the ridiculous,
often exhibiting farcical blunders on nearly every page.
Your "belief" appears to be something of the nature of a confession
of faith.
> > > > The ingredient you may be missing is his mastery of the methodology of
> > > > the discipline, an attribute in which many anti-Stratfordian
> "scholars"
> > > > are evidently sadly deficient. That's not to say that many of of them
> > > > are not lacking in basic knowledge as well -- indeed, one of the
> leading
> > > > Oxfordian researchers stated that Caxton did not print the first book
> in
> > > > English on English soil until well into Shakespeare's youth, and
> another
> > > > confused two celebrated but very different Marys, as well as two of
> > > > Oxford's own immediate family members.
> > > One orthodox scholar appears to think that a man is a fish.
> > That is scarcely of the magnitude of confusing two monarchs. It's
> > more like confusing a Monarch with a Viceroy.
> No, two monarchs are both people. A man and a fish? Please. But I use this
> example only to illustrate that perfectly good orthodox scholars also make
> egregious errors, not to ridicule anyone.
> > > Another appears
> > > to believe that a gift of red cloth made Shakespeare of Stratford a
> personal
> > > friend of King James.
> > Who believes that?
> Andrew Gurr has insinuated it.
"Insinuated"?
> Michael Wood said it outright in Toronto. He
> made an enormous fuss of the gift of red cloth, saying how how high ranking
> it showed Shakespeare of Stratford was, how close to the king, while
> omitting to explain that it was given to many people, perhaps hundreds.
> > > Yet another thinks that all Jews are dark and
> > > therefore Emilia must have been the Dark Lady. Michael Wood seems to
> > > theorise all sorts of interesting things, such as that a man called
> > > Shak(e)speare, wishing to disguise himself, would call himself
> Shake-shafte
> > > so no one would recognise him. That one is so funny as to be Monty
> > > Pythonish.
> > It doesn't seem *nearly* as funny as the suggestion that a
> > high-ranking peer of the realm, in an attempt to conceal his authorship
> > of plays and poetry of genius that supposedly pleased his sovereign and
> > nearly everyone else as well, adopted as a pseudonym the name of a *real
> > person* active in the company that performed those plays, and chose
> > moreover as ostensible author an illiterate buffoon who was manifestly,
> > even four hundred years later, unqualified and whose disqualification
> > would have been even more glaringly obvious to his contemporaries!
> First, I don't agree that Shakespeare of Stratford was necessarily an
> illiterate buffoon.
Many of coreligionists who so colorfully limn this ludicrous scenario
are quite emphatic about his illiteracy.
> Second, I assume this means you're not an agnostic.
No, of course it means nothing of the kind. It means that I regard
*the above scenario* and many of its variants as ridiculous. As I have
said many times before, I am agnostic concerning the possibility of
extraterrestrial intelligence; that agnosticism by no means implies that
I view *particular* scenarios that I have seen suggested (space aliens
in UFOs abducting and sexually abusing unsuspecting humans, etc.)
favorably.
> Dr.
> Stritmatter and I, in our response to Dr. Kathman and Mr. Reedy, gave
> several examples of other similar situations,
If so, then I must have missed that particular installment of your
rejoinder. Can you direct me to it?
> and we know of at least one
> other case which we may use later. If you cannot believe that such things
> happen, you surely cannot be an agnostic.
[...]
Bob Grumman
>>>I suppose that would apply to a new school of crankery I've just
>>>discovered on the 'Net, which apparently rejects all history prior to
>>>the Renaissance as a fiction carefully constructed during that era.
>
>> Are you referring to the site that Neil Brennen mentioned,
>
>> <http://www.new-tradition.org/>?
>
>> Or is there actually *another* nursery (one hesitates to use the word
>> "school") of cranks with a superficially similar monomania?
>
>It looks to me like the same group, though it's not the actual website I
>saw. I just hit it by chance the other day when googling on another
>subject and dismissed it at once, and now I can't seem to recall the
>right invocation to recall it.
>
>This new-tradition gang seems to have it all over the Shakespeare
>deniers. The latter, even at their worst, usually maintain at least a
>superficial semblance of logic, even though it is often of the "Some A
>are B, therefore all B are A" variety. These new guys, on the other
>hand, read almost like a sample of automatic writing.
>
>Perhaps the Apocalypse will come when there are no more sane people left
>on Earth. Oh well. I suppose it will shorten my time in Purgatory.
>
>--
>John W. Kennedy
Surely this new-tradition thing is a prank, perhaps even a parody of
anti-Stratfordianism or Creationism? Is there any indication that anyone takes
it seriously?
--Bob G.
Neil Brennen
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c0o0u...@drn.newsguy.com...
A fellow by the name of Gary Kasparov, a columnist for the Wall Street
Journal, and reportedly a good chessplayer, endorses the theory. Allegedly
Kasparov is going to provide narration for a TV series about the "new
chronology".
According to the reports I've read, the "new chronology" is gaining
popularity in Russia, partly because of a general distrust of historians due
to their support for the Communist regime, and due to Kasparov's popularity
in Russia (Kasparov has marketed himself for decades as a person who battled
the Communist party, and as a former World Chess Champion is considered a
respected public figure).
LynnE
snip
>
> >
> > Dr.
> > Stritmatter and I, in our response to Dr. Kathman and Mr. Reedy, gave
> > several examples of other similar situations,
>
> If so, then I must have missed that particular installment of your
> rejoinder. Can you direct me to it?
Certainly, David. All responses are on the Fellowship public boards. The
installment you're looking for is
Response to Kathman/Reedy Essay part 5/draft
which you will find on *The Authorship Debate* board. I believe I gave a url
for it previously on hlas.
You might like to look at the rest of Alex McNeil's article, which is in
Shakespeare Matters. I would offer to email the article to you, but
unfortunately I've had remarkably little luck trying to copy the other
article I promised you. :( One day you will get a big parcel from me (unless
Canada Post loses it).
As I said before:
> >and we know of at least one
> > other case which we may use later.
I have now thought of another one, which I may have mentioned before. A
well-known Canadian children's writer, Teddy Jam, turned out to be a famous
winner of the Governor General's Award, adult author Matt Cohen. This was
not known (or even suspected) by anyone except his agent until after his
death, whereupon the deception was revealed. This is more in the way of an
author having a pseudonym rather than a front man, however. I've never
really taken a firm stand on which I believe to be the case, much to Paul's
distress.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
> [...]
Neil Brennen
And here's another one, Lynne:
"[Walter Penn Shipley] ghost-wrote chess columns for both Gustavus Reichhelm
and Harry Nelson Pillsbury during their final illnesses, so as to not
deprive these masters of their only source of income."
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030222.htm
In the case of Pillsbury, it wasn't known at the time that Shipley was
writing using Pillsbury's name. The secret lay buried in Shipley's
scrapbooks in the White Collection at the Cleveland Public Library until
John Hilbert's Shipley biography was published in 2003. After Pillsbury's
death in 1906, Shipley wrote the Philadelphia Inquirer chess column for
another 34 years.
Phil Innes
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> You're right because Rowse is abandoning his field of expertise--
> literary criticism--by entering into the biographical/authorship area
> which has nothing to do with literary criticism and is fraught with
> Strat politics as well.
Elizabeth, this is incorrect. My fellow Cornishman and fellow Grammar School
boy was primarily an Elizabethan Historical commentator.
Oddly, as a confirmed 'Strat' he actually suggested the idea of
collaborations in the Work (rather than merely reacting toother's ideas on
this theme). This is an incongenial thing to say, no? And apolitical in the
context of this newsgroup.
> The identity of the Dark Lady really has nothing to do
> with literary criticism and in fact there is no academic specialty
> in 'Authorship Dispute' or even 'Shakespeare biography.'
Hughes thought she was interesting. Of course he was merely a poet. His wife
also thought 'she' was interesting, though she too was only a poet, but what
was interesting for both of them was not the external identity of the woman,
but the mythic and internal sense of what she evoked in the Writer. What
Hughes and Plath did was attempt to illuminate our understanding of the
issue the Author addressed, by addressing it in the same way, poetically.
This is a more difficult undertaking than any other.
<.> snip
> Informal debates are never conclusive because structurally
> argument can never come to a conclusion. The question can
> only be resolved by formal debate (which isn't very convincing
> since it has the characteristics of argument) or mock trials which
> can reach conclusions.
Since no-one understands the term as evidenced by their writing here, do
/you/ know what a Socratic dialogue is?
> I think it will be 'decided' by public relations and the Oxfordians
> are better at public relations than the Strats who think they
> have the advantage by acting like academics (they're cheating
> because the authorship dispute doesn't belong in academia).
Actually a point anticipated by Rowse in 1947 when he wrote that the
digested content of the scholars of his age would not likely emerge for 50
years academically.
> The problem is that the debate isn't going to be resolved by
> public relations. Public relations is capable of creating opinion
> but it has no method for truth-finding.
To which I would not disagree, but extend this way:- that the motivation of
the researcher needs also be as consciously evident as their processes and
consclusion; and perhaps as significantly that John Fowles said that only in
a machine-age can people think that words have precise meanings at all, and
in fact their principal worth is otherwise! That is a very writerly
assertion, one it seems A.S.Byatt would also aver.
I might even return to Rowse who had his doubts about this sort of inquiry
in toto, writing in the only working-class biography to appear 1919-1939
that the quality of his academic thought was of no comparison to his native
appreciation of the text, or of any other subject, as he experienced them
walking his favorite moor.
That people write here either pro or con the authorship issue is already a
strange, even eccentric, past-time compared with most Shakespearean interest
which fixes itself on the actual content of the work, nevermind attempts by
even such as Tolstoy to deprecate it. I know that non-Strats are usually
responding to the bait or taunt of 'deviancy' however as an unexplained
psychological fixation this is as true for Strats themselves.
Only Lynne has ever attempted to write anything on /why/ she writes here, in
the context I give above, and in that she was unspecific, mentioning only
that authorship would change her understanding of the Work. [I hope I have
rendered her opinion decently, it is not meant as criticism, only
observation].
Cordially, Phil Innes
> Best regards,
>
> Elizabeth
Gary Kosinsky
<lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
David Webb wrote:
Lynne wrote:
>> > Dr.
>> > Stritmatter and I, in our response to Dr. Kathman and Mr. Reedy, gave
>> > several examples of other similar situations,
>>
>> If so, then I must have missed that particular installment of your
>> rejoinder. Can you direct me to it?
>
>Certainly, David. All responses are on the Fellowship public boards. The
>installment you're looking for is
>
>Response to Kathman/Reedy Essay part 5/draft
>
>which you will find on *The Authorship Debate* board. I believe I gave a url
>for it previously on hlas.
You can also find my response to Lynne Kositsky and
Roger Stritmatter's critique of Part 5 in the archives for
this newsgroup. The thread was "GK's response to S&K's
critique of Part 5 of R&K's essay".
I'd also be interested in your response to Part 5 of
their critique, David. I'm surprised it didn't attract more
attention around here than it did.
- Gary Kosinsky
Paul Crowley
news:0wOXb.1807$Cd6....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> This is more in the way of an
> author having a pseudonym rather than a front man, however. I've never
> really taken a firm stand on which I believe to be the case, much to Paul's
> distress.
You have taken a firm stand -- on a case you
have declined to defend. As you (and Roger S)
wrote in "Response to Kathman/Reedy Essay"
you said:
> Anti-Stratfordians concede . . .
> that "William Shakespeare" was a sharer in the Lord Chamberlain's
> Men;
and
> and they concede that this same "William Shakespeare" was the
> Stratford businessman immortalized in the monument in Holy Trinity
> Church.
Neither statement is true and together
they make concessions that are (a) idiotic
and (b) fatal to the Oxfordian case.
Paul.
John W. Kennedy
>>>>discovered on the 'Net, which apparently rejects all history prior to
>>>>the Renaissance as a fiction carefully constructed during that era.
> Surely this new-tradition thing is a prank, perhaps even a parody of
> anti-Stratfordianism or Creationism? Is there any indication that anyone takes
> it seriously?
Unfortunately, it seems that it is being taken quite seriously in
Russia. There has even been talk of it being made compulsory in schools
(I do not know how likely it is at present that this could actually
happen). It seems to be, in part, a lunatic apotheosis of the "Third
Rome" theory.
It is also a dangerous theory, in a way that Shakespeare denial (in its
pure forms) is not, casting Russians in the role of victimized Herrenvolk.
Elizabeth Weir
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> > You're right because Rowse is abandoning his field of expertise--
> > literary criticism--by entering into the biographical/authorship area
> > which has nothing to do with literary criticism and is fraught with
> > Strat politics as well.
>
> Elizabeth, this is incorrect. My fellow Cornishman and fellow Grammar School
> boy was primarily an Elizabethan Historical commentator.
It's interesting that you and Rowse are from Cornwell but I don't
know how to deal with Elizabethan HIstorical commentator. A
social critic?
> Oddly, as a confirmed 'Strat' he actually suggested the idea of
> collaborations in the Work (rather than merely reacting toother's ideas on
> this theme). This is an incongenial thing to say, no? And apolitical in the
> context of this newsgroup.
Yes, it would have been politically incorrect for Rowse to
suggest collaboration in an era which demanded a supreme
genius who never plagiarized, never overwrote old plays and
always worked alone, but today Shakespeare scholars are
moving toward Rowse's postion.
I think they're wrong, however. I don't think the author ever
collaborated--he was utterly aloof even if you assume he was
the actor--but I do believe he overwrote old plays and borrowed
from every conceivable source.
> > The identity of the Dark Lady really has nothing to do
> > with literary criticism and in fact there is no academic specialty
> > in 'Authorship Dispute' or even 'Shakespeare biography.'
>
> Hughes thought she was interesting. Of course he was merely a poet. His wife
> also thought 'she' was interesting, though she too was only a poet, but what
> was interesting for both of them was not the external identity of the woman,
> but the mythic and internal sense of what she evoked in the Writer. What
> Hughes and Plath did was attempt to illuminate our understanding of the
> issue the Author addressed, by addressing it in the same way, poetically.
I don't doubt that the Dark Lady evoked the mythic and poetic in
the writer but that's in the realm of literary criticism. I'm trying
to make the unpoetic point that the authorship dispute can only
be decided with material facts.
> This is a more difficult undertaking than any other.
> <.> snip
>
> > Informal debates are never conclusive because structurally
> > argument can never come to a conclusion. The question can
> > only be resolved by formal debate (which isn't very convincing
> > since it has the characteristics of argument) or mock trials which
> > can reach conclusions.
>
> Since no-one understands the term as evidenced by their writing here, do
> /you/ know what a Socratic dialogue is?
Yes, and it's good for probing a question. I don't know how well
it works for dealing with the facts generated by the probing. I suppose
if it could we'd be talking about the scientific method.
> > I think it will be 'decided' by public relations and the Oxfordians
> > are better at public relations than the Strats who think they
> > have the advantage by acting like academics (they're cheating
> > because the authorship dispute doesn't belong in academia).
>
> Actually a point anticipated by Rowse in 1947 when he wrote that the
> digested content of the scholars of his age would not likely emerge for 50
> years academically.
I'm not sure the 1950s has that much to offer but I don't doubt
Rowse was correct.
> > The problem is that the debate isn't going to be resolved by
> > public relations. Public relations is capable of creating opinion
> > but it has no method for truth-finding.
>
> To which I would not disagree, but extend this way:- that the motivation of
> the researcher needs also be as consciously evident as their processes and
> consclusion;
That's a very Baconian assumption.
> and perhaps as significantly that John Fowles said that only in
> a machine-age can people think that words have precise meanings at all, and
> in fact their principal worth is otherwise! That is a very writerly
> assertion, one it seems A.S.Byatt would also aver.
Orwell wrote political satires on that very point. Orthodoxy
is about enforcing the precise meaning of words and little else.
I like Fowles insight 'in fact their principle worth is otherwise.'
I think the trope-laden Shakespeare plays were written in defiance of
the Tudors attributing the precise meaning to words like
'conformity' and 'uniformity.'
> I might even return to Rowse who had his doubts about this sort of inquiry
> in toto, writing in the only working-class biography to appear 1919-1939
> that the quality of his academic thought was of no comparison to his native
> appreciation of the text, or of any other subject, as he experienced them
> walking his favorite moor.
We need more 'native appreciation of the text and walking of the
moors' in literary criticism. I've retreated into 19th century criticism
for the most part.
> That people write here either pro or con the authorship issue is already a
> strange, even eccentric, past-time compared with most Shakespearean interest
> which fixes itself on the actual content of the work, nevermind attempts by
> even such as Tolstoy to deprecate it.
The identity of the author shapes the reading of the work. Ironically,
despite the fact that Bacon was a true genius and the rarest of all things,
a polymath philosopher, the works are smaller and finer with Bacon
as the author. They become what they are, literary works of the English
Renaissance.
The works are out of control, recklessly arbitrary with the actor
as the author. The leading literary critics seize the works and make
them over as their own. There's no author to stop them.
> I know that non-Strats are usually
> responding to the bait or taunt of 'deviancy' however as an unexplained
> psychological fixation this is as true for Strats themselves.
They're feeling a little panicky.
> Only Lynne has ever attempted to write anything on /why/ she writes here, in
> the context I give above, and in that she was unspecific, mentioning only
> that authorship would change her understanding of the Work. [I hope I have
> rendered her opinion decently, it is not meant as criticism, only
> observation].
Lynne is right about authorship changing the understanding
of the Work.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Phil Innes
> "Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote in message
news:<ouPXb.1753$VP1.1...@newshog.newsread.com>...
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > You're right because Rowse is abandoning his field of expertise--
> > > literary criticism--by entering into the biographical/authorship area
> > > which has nothing to do with literary criticism and is fraught with
> > > Strat politics as well.
> >
> > Elizabeth, this is incorrect. My fellow Cornishman and fellow Grammar
School
> > boy was primarily an Elizabethan Historical commentator.
>
> It's interesting that you and Rowse are from Cornwell
John CornwEll (John LeCarre) lives in CornwAll.
It is the only English county with a French spelling, and like Wales, less
Saxon more Celt. In a county of 250,000 people Rowse was the only child to
receive a public scholarship in the year that he went to Oxford. He was
poor, often it was 'books or boots'.
> but I don't
> know how to deal with Elizabethan HIstorical commentator. A
> social critic?
He would not have thought much of any title. Of course you are right to say
that he indulged in lit.crit, (and was a very amateur poet, he made no bones
of his abilities himself,) but wrote broadly on the history of the
Elizabethan renaissance.
He once said in true celtic egalitarian fashion: 'I never called anyone
"Sir", or if I did, never meant it'.
He had rather severe health problems in his life but eventually found the
climate of California where he sometimes lived and taught congenial to him.
> > Oddly, as a confirmed 'Strat' he actually suggested the idea of
> > collaborations in the Work (rather than merely reacting toother's ideas
on
> > this theme). This is an incongenial thing to say, no? And apolitical in
the
> > context of this newsgroup.
>
> Yes, it would have been politically incorrect for Rowse to
> suggest collaboration in an era which demanded a supreme
> genius who never plagiarized, never overwrote old plays and
> always worked alone, but today Shakespeare scholars are
> moving toward Rowse's postion.
Rowse particularly suggested that Bacon eg, 'influenced' perhaps the
majority of LLL. He never said specifically that Bacon wrote it, or that
Will from Strat re-wrote it. He made other suggestion particularly of the
early plays which suggested more 'influence' by deVere, e.g.
In 1946 Sir Paul Harvey reported in the Oxford Companion to Eng. Lit Henry
VI as uncertainly Shakespeare, and cites other authorities 'had found the
hands of' Marlowe, Kyd, Peele, Greene, Lodge and Nash in it.
The analyst Frederick G. Fleay assigned Lear to Lodge and Kyd & Robt.
Goldsmith Timon of Athens as entirely derived from the Dyce mss.
> I think they're wrong, however. I don't think the author ever
> collaborated--he was utterly aloof even if you assume he was
> the actor--but I do believe he overwrote old plays and borrowed
> from every conceivable source.
Like Tolkien borrowing heavily from both Anglo-Saxon works of fourteen
hundred years before, and from Celtic mythology, the author certainly
reworked Celtic myth, and, until the later work, other precedented subject
matter. Of course, this is in the grand tradition of the Bards, to reclothe
perennial themes [mythologia] for contemporary digestion [there's a mixed
matador for you!]
> > > The identity of the Dark Lady really has nothing to do
> > > with literary criticism and in fact there is no academic specialty
> > > in 'Authorship Dispute' or even 'Shakespeare biography.'
> >
> > Hughes thought she was interesting. Of course he was merely a poet. His
wife
> > also thought 'she' was interesting, though she too was only a poet, but
what
> > was interesting for both of them was not the external identity of the
woman,
> > but the mythic and internal sense of what she evoked in the Writer. What
> > Hughes and Plath did was attempt to illuminate our understanding of the
> > issue the Author addressed, by addressing it in the same way,
poetically.
>
> I don't doubt that the Dark Lady evoked the mythic and poetic in
> the writer but that's in the realm of literary criticism. I'm trying
> to make the unpoetic point that the authorship dispute can only
> be decided with material facts.
Yes. We have different interests stemming from the same material. I am less
interested in who wrote what, as in the content of the writing. The issue of
'dark lady' and the general subject of the feminine in Shakespeare occupied
non literary people too, Jung was a fan!
> > This is a more difficult undertaking than any other.
>
> > <.> snip
> >
> > > Informal debates are never conclusive because structurally
> > > argument can never come to a conclusion. The question can
> > > only be resolved by formal debate (which isn't very convincing
> > > since it has the characteristics of argument) or mock trials which
> > > can reach conclusions.
> >
> > Since no-one understands the term as evidenced by their writing here, do
> > /you/ know what a Socratic dialogue is?
>
> Yes, and it's good for probing a question. I don't know how well
> it works for dealing with the facts generated by the probing. I suppose
> if it could we'd be talking about the scientific method.
It would at a minimum ensure that people understood what is erstwhile
criticised.
> > > I think it will be 'decided' by public relations and the Oxfordians
> > > are better at public relations than the Strats who think they
> > > have the advantage by acting like academics (they're cheating
> > > because the authorship dispute doesn't belong in academia).
> >
> > Actually a point anticipated by Rowse in 1947 when he wrote that the
> > digested content of the scholars of his age would not likely emerge for
50
> > years academically.
>
> I'm not sure the 1950s has that much to offer but I don't doubt
> Rowse was correct.
Much material could not be published in England until long after the war
because of chronic paper shortages. Much of Dickens, eg, was out of print
for years. I think you may have not read something published slightly later,
the title that only David Webb and I seem to have read from 1961, by Walter
Hart Blumenthal. It exercised or regenerated this whole authorship question
to a new crop of commentators, and somewhat reinvigorated all Shakespeare
studies. His title was Paging Mr. Shakespeare ~ and much of it anticipates
Sobran's title.
Blumenthal covers the C19th's discourses rather better than Sobran, and
shows how Shakespearean studies emerged strongly in the US after Richard
Grant White's 1865 title. There are amusing earlier reports cited on
Washington Irving's take on the Strat affair on his visit there in 1819 'the
infidel is unwelcome in Mecca.'
> > > The problem is that the debate isn't going to be resolved by
> > > public relations. Public relations is capable of creating opinion
> > > but it has no method for truth-finding.
> >
> > To which I would not disagree, but extend this way:- that the motivation
of
> > the researcher needs also be as consciously evident as their processes
and
> > consclusion;
>
> That's a very Baconian assumption.
Although, laughably, some have written here that instead of all of this,
research should be 'scientific' whereas this consciousness of the
investigator is precisely scientific, and since 1970s has been an important
factor in scientific methodology, to wit; that the investigator influences
the experiment.
> > and perhaps as significantly that John Fowles said that only in
> > a machine-age can people think that words have precise meanings at all,
and
> > in fact their principal worth is otherwise! That is a very writerly
> > assertion, one it seems A.S.Byatt would also aver.
>
> Orwell wrote political satires on that very point. Orthodoxy
> is about enforcing the precise meaning of words and little else.
> I like Fowles insight 'in fact their principle worth is otherwise.'
> I think the trope-laden Shakespeare plays were written in defiance of
> the Tudors attributing the precise meaning to words like
> 'conformity' and 'uniformity.'
Orthodoxy also contain shades of the paternal.One might say Authori-doxy.
This again has to do with what the reader willingly gives up, in fact
orthodoxy is a subjective condition of comfort rather than a more objective
condition of investigation!
> > I might even return to Rowse who had his doubts about this sort of
inquiry
> > in toto, writing in the only working-class biography to appear 1919-1939
> > that the quality of his academic thought was of no comparison to his
native
> > appreciation of the text, or of any other subject, as he experienced
them
> > walking his favorite moor.
>
> We need more 'native appreciation of the text and walking of the
> moors' in literary criticism. I've retreated into 19th century criticism
> for the most part.
Byatt particularly likes and credits George Elliot, more so than Dickens
even though Dickens had a more ascerbic tongue responding to the 'new
orthodoxies' of the industrial revolution, and hypocritic Victorian
public/private double standards.
> > That people write here either pro or con the authorship issue is already
a
> > strange, even eccentric, past-time compared with most Shakespearean
interest
> > which fixes itself on the actual content of the work, nevermind attempts
by
> > even such as Tolstoy to deprecate it.
>
> The identity of the author shapes the reading of the work. Ironically,
> despite the fact that Bacon was a true genius and the rarest of all
things,
> a polymath philosopher, the works are smaller and finer with Bacon
> as the author. They become what they are, literary works of the English
> Renaissance.
>
> The works are out of control, recklessly arbitrary with the actor
> as the author. The leading literary critics seize the works and make
> them over as their own. There's no author to stop them.
I personally do not think that we have quite exhausted all possibilities in
assessing the authorship question. Whoever the author is, there is scant
precedent.
It is interesting to read lit.crit on Rimbaud and explorations of his genius
which slew 200 years of 'empire writing'.
Henry Miller says that lit.crit has no business conducting these
examinations, since it is a false perception in any case to suppose that
Rimbaud cared about re-inventing a new literature, and Miller proposed
instead that he was reinventing a new [a spiritual] response to Life.
> > I know that non-Strats are usually
> > responding to the bait or taunt of 'deviancy' however as an unexplained
> > psychological fixation this is as true for Strats themselves.
>
> They're feeling a little panicky.
>
> > Only Lynne has ever attempted to write anything on /why/ she writes
here, in
> > the context I give above, and in that she was unspecific, mentioning
only
> > that authorship would change her understanding of the Work. [I hope I
have
> > rendered her opinion decently, it is not meant as criticism, only
> > observation].
>
> Lynne is right about authorship changing the understanding
> of the Work.
O. I do not say that she speaks untrue, only that I don't understand it.
Cordially, Phil
> Best regards,
>
> Elizabeth
Elizabeth Weir
[...]
> Rowse particularly suggested that Bacon eg, 'influenced' perhaps the
> majority of LLL. He never said specifically that Bacon wrote it, or that
> Will from Strat re-wrote it. He made other suggestion particularly of the
> early plays which suggested more 'influence' by deVere, e.g.
Strats think that Love Labor's Lost is an original plot but its source
is in the Pensioner's Book at Gray's Inn which has a ruling from
Elizabeth governing the celibacy of Divine Readers bound into its
pages.
Bacon was a member of the Pensioner's Committee and his name
is listed in the minutes of the very meeting that deliberated this
quirky ruling from the quirky Queen.
Here's 'Shakespeare' in the courtyard of Gray's Inn:
<http://www.sirbacon.org/links/statueclose.jpg>
> In 1946 Sir Paul Harvey reported in the Oxford Companion to Eng. Lit Henry
> VI as uncertainly Shakespeare, and cites other authorities 'had found the
> hands of' Marlowe, Kyd, Peele, Greene, Lodge and Nash in it.
I think that's a misinterpretation. Greene et al were not working
with the playwright himself, they were seeing their
old plays bought cheap by the Stratford play broker from the
acting companies or printer.
> The analyst Frederick G. Fleay assigned Lear to Lodge and Kyd & Robt.
> Goldsmith Timon of Athens as entirely derived from the Dyce mss.
I think Fleay is basically right but the traces of plays in
Lear and Timon are the earlier strata of overwritten plays.
I think the elusive author bought the plays fair and square
through the Stratford play broker but the acting companies
and printers which own the scripts were getting the royalties,
not the playwrights.
> Like Tolkien borrowing heavily from both Anglo-Saxon works of fourteen
> hundred years before, and from Celtic mythology, the author certainly
> reworked Celtic myth, and, until the later work, other precedented subject
> matter. Of course, this is in the grand tradition of the Bards, to reclothe
> perennial themes [mythologia] for contemporary digestion [there's a mixed
> matador for you!]
Only the historical plays aren't overwritten because they are
lifted from from Holinshed and Hall.
There's plenty of reworking of classical material but the author was
literally overwriting old plays including Italian and Roman plays.
At least one German play, The Faire Sidea, furnished material for
The Tempest according to Geoffrey Bullough.
> > I don't doubt that the Dark Lady evoked the mythic and poetic in
> > the writer but that's in the realm of literary criticism. I'm trying
> > to make the unpoetic point that the authorship dispute can only
> > be decided with material facts.
>
> Yes. We have different interests stemming from the same material. I am less
> interested in who wrote what, as in the content of the writing. The issue of
> 'dark lady' and the general subject of the feminine in Shakespeare occupied
> non literary people too, Jung was a fan!
I like Jung as a philosopher but psychoanalysis is literary criticism,
not medicine, so Jung really didn't go far afield in pursuing literary
puzzles.
> > > This is a more difficult undertaking than any other.
>
> > > <.> snip
> >
> > Yes, and it's good for probing a question. I don't know how well
> > it works for dealing with the facts generated by the probing. I suppose
> > if it could we'd be talking about the scientific method.
>
> It would at a minimum ensure that people understood what is erstwhile
> criticised.
You're right that there's not enough pondering in the world.
[...]
> Blumenthal covers the C19th's discourses rather better than Sobran, and
> shows how Shakespearean studies emerged strongly in the US after Richard
> Grant White's 1865 title. There are amusing earlier reports cited on
> Washington Irving's take on the Strat affair on his visit there in 1819 'the
> infidel is unwelcome in Mecca.'
Found this looking up Blumenthal:
<http://www.invisiblelibrary.com/Blumenthal.htm>
I like that sort of empirical micro-history.
> > > and perhaps as significantly that John Fowles said that only in
> > > a machine-age can people think that words have precise meanings at all,
> and
> > > in fact their principal worth is otherwise! That is a very writerly
> > > assertion, one it seems A.S.Byatt would also aver.
> >
> > Orwell wrote political satires on that very point. Orthodoxy
> > is about enforcing the precise meaning of words and little else.
> > I like Fowles insight 'in fact their principle worth is otherwise.'
> > I think the trope-laden Shakespeare plays were written in defiance of
> > the Tudors attributing the precise meaning to words like
> > 'conformity' and 'uniformity.'
>
> Orthodoxy also contain shades of the paternal.One might say Authori-doxy.
The word 'authoritarian' comes from L. for 'author,' 'auctoritas,'
All orthodoxies originate with some kind of received text. It's
like text-induced mental illness or something.
[...]
> > > That people write here either pro or con the authorship issue is already
> a
> > > strange, even eccentric, past-time compared with most Shakespearean
> interest
> > > which fixes itself on the actual content of the work, nevermind attempts
> by
> > > even such as Tolstoy to deprecate it.
I had to laugh because 'strange, even eccentric, past-time' is true.
[...]
> I personally do not think that we have quite exhausted all possibilities in
> assessing the authorship question. Whoever the author is, there is scant
> precedent.
Our problem is not much different than a hypothetical
one in which Solzhenitsyn would conceal his identity in
order to attack the Soviets while at the same time the
Soviets are following behind Solzhenitsyn to destroy the
very record of Solzhenitsyn's anonymous attacks.
[...]
> > Lynne is right about authorship changing the understanding
> > of the Work.
>
> O. I do not say that she speaks untrue, only that I don't understand it.
Read as Baconian works you see the English Renaissance.
Read through Oxford the plays get a romantic Victorian
reading. Looney was a romantic Victorian school teacher
who didn't have access to Oxford's archival documents.
Strats essentially have no authors so Strats always read
the English Renaissance works through the latest fad in
academia. The latest criticisms are feminist, postmodern,
anti-colonialist and Straussian.
The Strats have essentially atomized the plays as far
as criticism goes.
The Marlovians think that as a 12-year old page to Philip Sidney
Marlowe was seduced by the Countess of Pembroke who then
gave birth to Marlowe's son William Herbert. I shudder to think
how the Marlovians read the Shakespeare works.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Phil Innes
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
Elizabeth, your message deserves a longer reply, however, this immediate
point:_
> > Yes. We have different interests stemming from the same material. I am
less
> > interested in who wrote what, as in the content of the writing. The
issue of
> > 'dark lady' and the general subject of the feminine in Shakespeare
occupied
> > non literary people too, Jung was a fan!
>
> I like Jung as a philosopher but psychoanalysis is literary criticism,
> not medicine, so Jung really didn't go far afield in pursuing literary
> puzzles.
I knew Jung's non-clinical biographer, his friend Col. Sir Laurens van der
Post, who says that J's range of philosophic inquiry has far more moment for
the Life of our Times than the devolved and virtual industry of clinical
applications that use his name. Jung was interested primarily in
non-literary puzzles and philosophic systems, with the exception of an
amount of arcana that a good Baconist would appreciate!
However, he was a primary researcher, not content to act as librarian and
repeat apologia for other investigators.
A principal difference in his approach was a distrust of authoritarian
writing and ~isms, even his own! But this and other points you anticipate
elsewhere in your message - to which I should like to reply anon.
Cordially, Phil
Phil Innes
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
<.>
> > In 1946 Sir Paul Harvey reported in the Oxford Companion to Eng. Lit
Henry
> > VI as uncertainly Shakespeare, and cites other authorities 'had found
the
> > hands of' Marlowe, Kyd, Peele, Greene, Lodge and Nash in it.
>
> I think that's a misinterpretation. Greene et al were not working
> with the playwright himself, they were seeing their
> old plays bought cheap by the Stratford play broker from the
> acting companies or printer.
That would still be consistent with the language, if not exactly edifying.
~~~~~~~
> > Orthodoxy also contain shades of the paternal.One might say
Authori-doxy.
>
> The word 'authoritarian' comes from L. for 'author,' 'auctoritas,'
> All orthodoxies originate with some kind of received text. It's
> like text-induced mental illness or something.
There appear to be two types of preferential language fetish; the first is
simply to prefer texts themselves, and as soon as a text leaves off
references to other texts and mentions a non-text element, a place or a
painting eg, interest diminishes in it.
The second is an inter-disciplinary one, where interest is maintained as
long as analytical control can be; to the cusp of the familiar discipline,
no further. A result is often reluctance to logically extend result of
investigation beyond one's own control and discipline.
I think another aspect to "author-itariansim" and I note Greg Reynolds
recently encountered it in another thread, is merely a cultural
predeliction.
Some cultures are more democratic than others, and democracy involves the
no-doubt plodding place of many opinions not intent on coming to any
immediate point.
Attitudes in Europe are generally different than the US or even to Canada.
On any given subject 17% of Europeans will defer to male authority; as will
26% of Canadians, 29% of New Englanders and West Coast natives, but
generally in the centre and south of the USA 49% of people will defer to
male authority, rather than any democracy of opinion, as measured by a
recent sociology study of households across all class/income brackets.
Such a culture as the 49%ers may even have higher standards for their
authorities than others who do not depend on it to such an extent, and who
conduct their lives otherwise. I think this is why its critical, as we noted
before, to also example the researcher, as well as method and result of
research.
Cordially, Phil
~~~~~~~~
> Best regards,
>
> Elizabeth
LynnE
I don't understand this at all, Phil. Who defers to male authority in the
household? Other men? women? children? And if it's children, do they also
defer to female authority? And what kind of male authority is it? Head of
the household kind of male authority? Governmental? Authorial? Where did you
find this study?
Very mixed up.
LynnE
Tom Reedy
Since I've killfiled this moron long ago, I didn't see the original post.
But I suggest he probably got the statistics from the same place he got
this: "... 25% of the US population are functionally illiterate, and
another 25% do not have enough English to comprehend this page, and yet
another 25% cannot read [Shakespeare] with any comceptual [sic]
understanding." In other words, from his ass.
TR
Phil Innes
> > Attitudes in Europe are generally different than the US or even to
Canada.
> > On any given subject 17% of Europeans will defer to male authority; as
> will
> > 26% of Canadians, 29% of New Englanders and West Coast natives, but
> > generally in the centre and south of the USA 49% of people will defer to
> > male authority, rather than any democracy of opinion, as measured by a
> > recent sociology study of households across all class/income brackets.
>
> I don't understand this at all, Phil. Who defers to male authority in the
> household? Other men? women? children?
Not children, this was an adult survey of men and women.
> And if it's children, do they also
> defer to female authority? And what kind of male authority is it? Head of
> the household kind of male authority? Governmental? Authorial?
As mentioned, not children.
>Where did you
> find this study?
It was reported on PBS radio as I was driving over the mountains here in an
ice-strom, from a Canadian sociologist whose name I couldn't catch or
remember, who incidentally said that Vermont PBS was one of only 3 States
willingly to air his study in the US. I assume that Vermont PBS or National
PBS (radio) will by web-site have an archive of aired topics, and either of
us could look it up. You may be first because of big chess goings-on
currently in Linares.
> Very mixed up.
Why?
> LynnE
Cordially, Phil
LynnE
Because I couldn't figure out who was deferring to whom. Now I assume that
the statistics were referring to the female of the household deferring to
the male's authority. Right. Ask my husband, for example, why we've had one
natural child, two adopted children, an armful of foster children and
another armful of dogs. The only time I deferred to his authority was with
regard to not having cats. But that's because he's allergic to them. And I
did think hard about it when I was offered a very cute calico kitten. ;)
Best wishes,
LynnE, one of the 74% of Canadian women who don't defer to male authority.
David L. Webb
"Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote:
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:Oi7Zb.7486$Cd6.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
> > > Attitudes in Europe are generally different than the US or even to
> Canada.
> > > On any given subject 17% of Europeans will defer to male authority; as
> > will
> > > 26% of Canadians, 29% of New Englanders and West Coast natives, but
> > > generally in the centre and south of the USA 49% of people will defer to
> > > male authority, rather than any democracy of opinion, as measured by a
> > > recent sociology study of households across all class/income brackets.
> > I don't understand this at all, Phil. Who defers to male authority in the
> > household? Other men? women? children?
I don't understand it either; the statement was hopelessly vague.
> Not children, this was an adult survey of men and women.
> > And if it's children, do they also
> > defer to female authority? And what kind of male authority is it? Head of
> > the household kind of male authority? Governmental? Authorial?
> As mentioned, not children.
> >Where did you
> > find this study?
> It was reported on PBS [sic?] radio as I was driving over the mountains
> here in an
> ice-strom [sic],
Does Phil mean NPR (National Public Radio) rather than PBS (Public
Broadcasting System, a public television network)? One hopes that he
was not watching television while driving, let alone while driving over
the mountains in an ice storm.
> from a Canadian sociologist whose name I couldn't catch or
> remember,
That will make it rather hard to find.
> who incidentally said that Vermont PBS was one of only 3 States
Does Phil really mean "states"? Or stations? If Phil really does
have in mind NPR, then many states have multiple NPR stations whose
programming differs quite significantly from station to station, so
"states" appears to make little sense.
> willingly to air his study in the US. I assume that Vermont PBS or National
> PBS (radio) will by web-site have an archive of aired topics, and either of
> us could look it up.
This is difficult to do without some pertinent keywords, some idea
what the program was, and some idea when it aired. Just searching the
NPR site for "male authority" is fruitless.
> You may be first because of big chess goings-on
> currently in Linares.
> > Very mixed up.
> Why?
I don't presume to speak for Lynne, but the vagueness and imprecision
of Phil's report of this supposed study might have something to do with
many readers' confusion.
LynnE
Well, yes, that was the reason, but some here would likely say I'm in a
permanent state of confusion. I'm waiting for Jim to call me a sock puppet.
I wouldn't mind. It reminds me of Lamb Chop, sock puppet extraordinaire.
Best wishes,
Lynne
snip
Neil Brennen
I'm waiting for Jim to call me a sock puppet.
> I wouldn't mind. It reminds me of Lamb Chop, sock puppet extraordinaire.
The "sock puppet" comment is reserved for the many aliases "Dr." Baker has
used.
Neil Brennen
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Aa8Zb.443$aT1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:Oi7Zb.7486$Cd6.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
Tom, where else would Innes get it from?
You might be interested in this link:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=76ba5964.02
12100310.507e0b13%40posting.google.com&rnum=2
Note that the posters on soc.culture.Cornish consider Phil a phony
Cornishman, and most probably an American.
KQKnave
Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> writes:
Actually, I thought the last bunch were Peter Farey sockpuppets.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Tom Reedy
news:xKdZb.11704$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Well, there actually is a Cornish musician named Phil Innes. I don't know
whether it's the same one; not being a moron has never been a prerequisite
for being an artist, politician or novelist, competent or otherwise.
I just always thought the one that posts here suffered from some type of
drug-related syndrome, similar to other people who post here who shall not
be named.
TR
Neil Brennen
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040219213645...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> In article <TudZb.11692$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "Neil
> Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> writes:
>
> >
> >"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:M5dZb.13959$d34.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >I'm waiting for Jim to call me a sock puppet.
> >> I wouldn't mind. It reminds me of Lamb Chop, sock puppet
extraordinaire.
> >
> >The "sock puppet" comment is reserved for the many aliases "Dr." Baker
has
> >used.
>
> Actually, I thought the last bunch were Peter Farey sockpuppets.
That seems very un-Peter.
Phil Innes
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Aa8Zb.443
> Since I've killfiled this moron long ago, I didn't see the original post.
> But I suggest he probably got the statistics from the same place he got
> this: "... 25% of the US population are functionally illiterate, and
> another 25% do not have enough English to comprehend this page, and yet
> another 25% cannot read [Shakespeare] with any comceptual [sic]
> understanding." In other words, from his ass.
Those are US Government statistics from the Department of Education as
provided to me by my ex-bridge partner who was editor of an international
magazine, then president of a university and is now a state senator.
But since this is not a sincere inquiry, I am glad the gentleman has
kill-filed my writing since I will not have to read his anal-fixed
speculations further, which I must suppose, replace diligence, wit or aught
else beyond his ken.
Since "Tom Reedy" shows not the slightest interest in researching either
statistic in any objective way, I make some assumptions about his own
investigative method; that he conforms to that percentage of people with no
interest in the equities of democratic discussion and is Q.E.D. an
authoritarian illustration which he denies in his own complaint.
Though I haven't taken much notice of his posts, by his method, odds-on a
Strat?
Phil Innes
Phil Innes
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:5WfZb.945
>
> Well, there actually is a Cornish musician named Phil Innes. I don't know
> whether it's the same one; not being a moron has never been a prerequisite
> for being an artist, politician or novelist, competent or otherwise.
> I just always thought the one that posts here suffered from some type of
> drug-related syndrome, similar to other people who post here who shall not
> be named.
Mirror Mirror on the wall, who is the most fatuous one of all?
Replying to a cross-posting stalker and citing the second and third most
popular ad-hominem categories on usenet [mental competency and drugs, resp.]
"Tom Reedy" a presumed Strat & academic, continues to display his prefered
method of research, sans diligence, sans evidence... to a small
'botton-feeding' herd of cronies, who bark obediently.
Ironically, all the above in response to a point about democratic discussion
versus authoritarian male opinion.
Phil Innes
> TR
>
>
Phil Innes
the question 'who should wear the pants in the household', and already
replied that it was not children, and yes it was NPR not PBS. Phil
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Oi7Zb.7486$Cd6.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Phil Innes
> ~~~~~~~
>
> > > Orthodoxy also contain shades of the paternal.One might say
> Authori-doxy.
> >
> > The word 'authoritarian' comes from L. for 'author,' 'auctoritas,'
> > All orthodoxies originate with some kind of received text. It's
> > like text-induced mental illness or something.
So, Elizabeth, here we have a development of this thesis by observation
within this newsgroup.
We now have three recent examples of "text-induced illness", where an almost
hysterical denial stands in place of actually looking at the subject:-
1) in discussing a word ~aan I made two citations, then was challenged about
the source of the citations. The 'inquirer' then asserted that perhaps the
most famous lexicographer of the English langauge had got it wrong twice
(!) - not the interpretation of the word which I wrote here in a citation,
but presumably that the man misread the original text, and so dismissed
Halliwell then wanted to see the original material in Oxford. At no time did
this person say why he was interested in the word, what the implication of
discovery would be, and all the time placing the shifting onus of 'proof'
for his own understanding onto someone else.
I also mentioned that Halliwell was uncertain about the meaning of an
earlier citation from the C11th (which I did not offer) - and here is the
telling ommision;- the 'inquirer' had no curiosity whatever.
2) then we have the recent statistics on literacy in the US, though no-one
has offered counter statistics - I presume if they knew them they would
think it better to contradict what I wrote that way, but lacking any
knowledge or inclination to find out are content to guffaw like louts.
3) followed by new scatalogies on the balance of this post, where again, no
counter facts are presented, and I presume that like Halliwell, I must have
'mis-read' the original, and people cannot employ their preferential
language fetish. This item is also an example of the cross-disciplinary
cusp, where one must suppose that where an authority cannot be interogated
as conveniently within one's own discipline, it is dismissed out of hand by
a suggestion of its invention.
I could hardly hope for better illustrations.
Cordially, Phil Innes
LynnE
> Lynne, I already wrote that it was a survey of men and women responding to
> the question 'who should wear the pants in the household', and already
> replied that it was not children, and yes it was NPR not PBS. Phil
I know that, Phil, or at least most of it, since you posted for the second
time on this subject. You must be looking at someone else's post, perhaps
Dr. Webb's? Or looking at an old response of mine?
Lynne
KQKnave
Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> writes:
>> Actually, I thought the last bunch were Peter Farey sockpuppets.
>
>That seems very un-Peter.
Why? The original Hermione Winterstale was his first sockpuppet that I
know of.
KQKnave
Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> writes:
>> Actually, I thought the last bunch were Peter Farey sockpuppets.
>
>That seems very un-Peter.
Why? The original Hermione Winterstale was his first sockpuppet that I
Neil Brennen
>
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:5WfZb.945
>
> >
> > Well, there actually is a Cornish musician named Phil Innes. I don't
know
> > whether it's the same one; not being a moron has never been a
prerequisite
> > for being an artist, politician or novelist, competent or otherwise.
>
> > I just always thought the one that posts here suffered from some type of
> > drug-related syndrome, similar to other people who post here who shall
not
> > be named.
>
> Mirror Mirror on the wall, who is the most fatuous one of all?
Phil Innes.
Neil Brennen
> In article <%EjZb.12737$hm4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "Neil
> Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> writes:
>
> >> Actually, I thought the last bunch were Peter Farey sockpuppets.
> >
> >That seems very un-Peter.
>
> Why? The original Hermione Winterstale was his first sockpuppet that I
> know of.
I agree there's a likeness - they both insult without name-calling, for
instance - but I'd need more to be persuaded. Peter's my favorite Marlovian.
Neil Brennen
>
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Aa8Zb.443
>
> > Since I've killfiled this moron long ago, I didn't see the original
post.
> > But I suggest he probably got the statistics from the same place he got
> > this: "... 25% of the US population are functionally illiterate, and
> > another 25% do not have enough English to comprehend this page, and yet
> > another 25% cannot read [Shakespeare] with any comceptual [sic]
> > understanding." In other words, from his ass.
>
The US Department of Education published a claim that 75% of the US
population cannot understand Shakespeare?
... as
> provided to me by my ex-bridge partner who was editor of an international
> magazine, then president of a university and is now a state senator.
Now that's an authoritative citation, Phil. Does this fellow have a name, or
is he in hiding because of his wicked past as your bridge-partner?
> But since this is not a sincere inquiry, I am glad the gentleman has
> kill-filed my writing since I will not have to read his anal-fixed
> speculations further, which I must suppose, replace diligence, wit or
aught
> else beyond his ken.
The irony of Phil Innes calling someone "anal-fixed" is delicious.
>
> Since "Tom Reedy" shows not the slightest interest in researching either
> statistic in any objective way, I make some assumptions about his own
> investigative method; that he conforms to that percentage of people with
no
> interest in the equities of democratic discussion and is Q.E.D. an
> authoritarian illustration which he denies in his own complaint.
>
> Though I haven't taken much notice of his posts,
Aside from the ones you reply to.
Tom Reedy
TR
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
news:5bxZb.12508$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
LynnE
There should be prizes given each year: favourite Marlovian, favourite
Oxfordian, favourite Baconian, favourite Traditionalist, favourite Skeptic,
favourite Sock Puppet, favourite...
LynnE
>
>
Neil Brennen
> When did I ever claim to be an academic?
>
> TR
Philsy has insights that are beyond mere mortals like you and I, Tom. If
Philsy says you are an academic, then you must be an academic. Just remember
that you can't call yourself "Dr" unless you are headmaster at a college....
Neil Brennen
There is the HLAS Wack of the Year Award. It's usually a tossup between
Crowley and the Weir-bot, but Innes is a contender this year....
John W. Kennedy
> The US Department of Education published a claim that 75% of the US
> population cannot understand Shakespeare?
To be perfectly frank, speaking as an actor with one foot in the pro
world and one in the amateur, it wouldn't surprise me.
--
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"
Peter Farey
>
> Neil Brennen wrote:
> >
> > "KQKNave" wrote:
> > >
> > > Neil Brennen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > LynnE wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm waiting for Jim to call me a sock puppet.
> > > > > I wouldn't mind. It reminds me of Lamb Chop, sock
> > > > > puppet extraordinaire.
> > > > The "sock puppet" comment is reserved for the many
> > > > aliases "Dr." Baker has used.
> > > Actually, I thought the last bunch were Peter Farey
> > > sockpuppets.
> > That seems very un-Peter.
> Why? The original Hermione Winterstale was his first
> sockpuppet that I know of.
I didn't think the term 'sockpuppet' had anything to
do with aliases, which I have only ever used for one
post here, just to see how it might be done. I can
understand why some of our regulars might not want it
known who was actually responsible for their dafter
posts, but I'm usually quite happy to acknowledge mine.
My understanding of 'sockpuppet', however, comes from
David Webb, who first used the term here, saying "It's a
variation on the "sockpuppet" argument people use, where
when they're obviously confronted by more than one or
two people telling them they're wrong, they wad up all
the "extra" opponents into "sockpuppets" of the main
antagonist."
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Lorenzo4344
>Stagehand.
>From: "LynnE" lynnek...@sympatico.ca
>Date: 2/19/2004
>Ask my husband, for example, why we've had one
>natural child, two adopted children, an armful of foster children and
>another armful of dogs. The only time I deferred to his authority was with
>regard to not having cats. But that's because he's allergic to them. And I
>did think hard about it when I was offered a very cute calico kitten. ;)
>
>Best wishes,
>LynnE, one of the 74% of Canadian women who don't defer to male authority.
An English woman, as I recall. Lynne, you are apparently dark in passionate
nature and pious but head-strong - just where where you in the latter part of
the 16th century?
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Lorenzo4344
>Stagehand.
>Date: 2/20/2004
>Replying to a cross-posting stalker and citing the second and third most
>popular ad-hominem categories on usenet [mental competency and drugs,
resp.]...
Y'know, I have never heard a symptom for mental illness that I do not possess
(the symptom, that is). Too, I have done as many drugs as you might expect from
a guy who's been a California musician since the early 60s, and I'm OK. When
attacked at these levels it's like chucking me into the nearest briar patch.
"That which hath made them drunk hath made me bold;
What hath quench'd them hath given me fire."
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Lorenzo4344
>Date: 2/20/2004
>Neil Brennen wrote:
>> The US Department of Education published a claim that 75% of the US
>> population cannot understand Shakespeare?
>
>To be perfectly frank, speaking as an actor with one foot in the pro
>world and one in the amateur, it wouldn't surprise me.
Nor me. Not at all. I think it's a bit optimistic. I've been working at it and
there is maybe 75% of Shake-speare that I don't understand. Yet.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Lorenzo4344
>From: "LynnE" lynnek...@sympatico.ca
>Date: 2/20/2004
>There should be prizes given each year: favourite Marlovian, favourite
>Oxfordian, favourite Baconian, favourite Traditionalist, favourite Skeptic,
>favourite Sock Puppet, favourite...
I was Neil's favortite "anti-Shakespearean" at one time but am not sure how I
rate these days. Fame fleets.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Neil Brennen
"Lorenzo4344" <loren...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040221032937...@mb-m01.aol.com...
I still like you, Lorenzo, and I assume you still like me, despite the
label/libel of "stalker" the Vermont lunatic applies to me. You and Lynne
share the title.
Neil Brennen
> >Subject: Re: SHAKE-SCENE: 'Some Scholars Think He Was A Scene-shifter Or
> >Stagehand.
> >From: "Phil Innes" aong...@sover.net
> >Date: 2/20/2004
>
> >Replying to a cross-posting stalker and citing the second and third most
> >popular ad-hominem categories on usenet [mental competency and drugs,
> resp.]...
>
> Y'know, I have never heard a symptom for mental illness that I do not
possess
> (the symptom, that is). Too, I have done as many drugs as you might expect
from
> a guy who's been a California musician since the early 60s, and I'm OK.
When
> attacked at these levels it's like chucking me into the nearest briar
patch.
Lorenzo, you are new to Phil, so you aren't aware of his habits. Phil has
accused people of libel because they mocked his posting style. He also
conducted a nasty campaign against a man with severe health problems because
he mentioned the name of the town that Phil lived in. (Phil apparently now
has no problem with public release of this information, because he posted it
to HLAS this week.) Please note he claims I am a "stalker", a baseless claim
he's made since 2002. Meanwhile, Phil's repeatedly violated the following:
United States Code Title 18, Part I , Chapter 41, § 875.
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18, Chapter 55, § 5504
Neil Brennen
Does that include authorship?
Neil Brennen
Doing field research for "A Question of Will".
Lorenzo4344
>Date: 2/21/2004
Lorenzo wrote:
>I've been working at it
>and
>> there is maybe 75% of Shake-speare that I don't understand. Yet.
>
>Does that include authorship?
Well, some of his licks are so hot I don't understand how anyone could have
authored them.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
LynnE
Yes, I'm English too, and I was Emilia. ;)
Lynne
>
>
Phil Innes
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JdAZb.25062$ac.32...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Neil Brennen wrote:
> > The US Department of Education published a claim that 75% of the US
> > population cannot understand Shakespeare?
>
> To be perfectly frank, speaking as an actor with one foot in the pro
> world and one in the amateur, it wouldn't surprise me.
I think the /official statistic/ which I quoted, and the context of which
has now been somewhat traduced by uncertain repetition, speak of 23% of
citizens who are 'functionally illiterate' which I think means that they
cannot read these phrases, nor follow written instuctions in English. These
numbers do not include guest-workers whose primary language is usually
other-than-English, and whose English literacy is attested by States who at
vast expense are bi-lingual.
The contentious part of the statistics might be the 75% number. Unknown if
you are familiar with the comprehension of undergraduate students [who
represent 18% of high-school graduates], however, its no gimme that they can
render Shakespeare in their own words, which is a fair test of comprehension
ability. I don't think there is a /strict/ correlation of college to
comprehension, but a general one.
I have recently been helping a diagnosed ADHD American-born post-graduate
student who can't write a sysnopsis of the daily newspaper.
Cordially, Phil Innes