The Woolpack Man
Richard Kennedy
The cushion in the Stratford monument was morphed from a woolsack, and
the sitter who is writing on the cushion (!), was morphed from the
original sculpted figure of John Shakespeare, the Stratford man's
father, a "considerable dealer in wool."
book...@yahoo.com
The two Arguments at Times Literary Supplement of June, 2006, about
Shakespeare "representations" are still to be seen at
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article2342666.ece,
although readers' letters from Bob Grumman and Tom Reedy which were up
until recently are gone now.
In "Shakespeare's true face," it seems like Brian Vickers should get
credit for advancing the "woolsack argument", mentioning for all the
world to see one Richard Kennedy, "the scholar who first identified
John Ford as author of the 'Funerall Elegye', (who) has put all these
facts together and drawn the conclusion that the original monument
represented Shakespeare's father, John. . . ." That's two big kudos
for RK, enough to have him lionized, even grow a mane, maybe.
Considering the Shakespeare scholars weighing in, the likes of
heavyweights Katherine Duncan-Jones, Beter Beal, Stanley Wells, and
Jonathan Bate, as well as Brian Vickers, this series of letters in the
TLS Argument section has to be a real critical touchstone and seminal
point in Shakespeare scholarship. It's also about one of the funniest
literary controversies ever,IMO; wonderfully lit-Brit, too.
Jonathan Bate doesn't like Vicker's use of the "Woolsack" argument in
context of any Shakespeare authorship attribution controversy, it
appears, and mentions that the essay by Richard Kennedy "incorrectly
claims that George Vertue was "not an eyewitness" of the monument. . .
. Vertue's original drawing, . . . is clearly an eyewitness sketch
of the chancel of Holy Trinity, complete with original head (and
quill).
Wondering if Bate's point has legs or if RK thinks it's buried now?
Wondering if RK has commented on the Bob Grumman and Tom Reedy's TLS
letters?
bookburn
art
http://mh.cla.umn.edu/ShakTrin.jpg
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/eyck/rolin.jpg
Check out:
1) The two tone Red & Blue/Green tasselled cushion
(reversed for Shakespere) for holding "the word".
2) The Black Corinthian columns supporting an arch.
3) Shakespere's nose, mouth, eyes, curly hair,
. thick neck & sour apple expression as
. an amalgam of that of Rolin & the christ child
. (and possibly the madonna as well).
4) The breast shaped disks over Shakespere's head representing
the breast shaped disks in the windows that frame the painting.
5) Shakspere's right middle & forefinger extended in writing
as Jesus's right middle & forefinger extended in blessing.
----------------------------------------------------------
[*EYCK* means *OAK* (EYCK painted with Oil on *OAK*)]
.
JAN Van Eyck was born in the province of Limberg, in the region
. between the Netherlands and what is now called Belgium.
.
. [Gerard JANssen / Spearman Jonson:
. a *Flemish* neighbor of JAN Van Eyck]
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
mylear
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:21:32 -0800 (PST), Richard Kennedy
>
>
> >The cushion in the Stratford monument was morphed from a woolsack, and
> >the sitter who is writing on the cushion (!), was morphed from the
> >original sculpted figure of John Shakespeare, the Stratford man's
> >father, a "considerable dealer in wool."
>
> >webpages.charter.net/stairway/WOOLPACKMAN.htm
>
> The two Arguments at Times Literary Supplement of June, 2006, about
Bob G and Nigel must be worried that Brian Vickers and Peter Beal,
according to their critera, have become "anti-Stratfordians". Quite
obviously the case made by Brian and Peter is an "anti-Stratfordian
argument". And presumably Brian and Peter have also lost their status
as "scholars". The price to be paid for having the temerity to
challenge the views of Jonathan Bate and Stanley Wells.
JH
ignoto
Actually Einstein, the Woolpack Man is anotehr very bad argument, for
reasons that have been discussed here many times.
O, and BTW, I never said *anyone* had 'lost their status as scholars',
indeed I am specifically on record as saying that anti-stratfordians can
write scholarly papers (and indeed they have). What I was in fact
discussing was the validity of a methodology that is grounded in
unreasonable speculation as opposed to a methodology that is grounded in
fact, ie the historical record. If you had actually bothered to read
some part of Harold Love's book rather than ignorantly fawn to your
beloved anti-stratfordian audience, then you would know this is an issue
he touches on.
Not, of course, that I would expect you to understand any of this- you
can't even figure out why you believe Shakespeare of Stratford wrote
Shakespeare.
Ign.
> JH
mylear
>
> for reasons that have been discussed here many times.
>
> O, and BTW, I never said *anyone* had 'lost their status as scholars',
> indeed I am specifically on record as saying that anti-stratfordians can
> write scholarly papers (and indeed they have).
>
such as:
1. " antistratfordian arguments = bad arguments "
2. " the methodology employed by anti-stratfordians is unscholarly "
Is this an exercise in double-think, or are you simply revising your
story as you go along?
>
> What I was in fact
> discussing was the validity of a methodology that is grounded in
> unreasonable speculation as opposed to a methodology that is grounded in
> fact, ie the historical record. If you had actually bothered to read
> some part of Harold Love's book
>
How do you know I am unfamiliar with Harold Love's work? The manner in
which you handle debate is simply loaded with "unreasonable
speculation".
>
> rather than ignorantly fawn to your
> beloved anti-stratfordian audience
>
This is of course a loaded statement, a logical fallacy.
>
, then you would know this is an issue
> he touches on.
>
> Not, of course, that I would expect you to understand any of this -
>
If you think I am so stupid, why do you bother talking to me?
>
> you can't even figure out why you believe Shakespeare
> of Stratford wrote Shakespeare.
>
Hilarious! Do I really need to point out the logical fallacy of this
statement? Why would anybody refer to the works in question as
'Shakespearean' if they thought Shakespeare played no role in their
creation?
>
> Ign.
>
>
>
> > JH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
JH
mylear
>
> > you can't even figure out why you believe Shakespeare
> > of Stratford wrote Shakespeare.
>
believing Shakespeare wrote the works bearing his name which outweigh
reasons for believing other authors wrote those works. Is that what
you intended? If so, then allow me to enlighten you.
I acknowledge that there are omissions, anomalies and inconsistencies
in the historical record, in regard to the connection between
William's personal life, business life and literary life. However I am
not convinced by any of the arguments advanced thus far for the
proposition that any combination of Bacon, de Vere, Marlowe, Stanley,
Derby, Jonson, Middleton, Peele, Greene, Nashe, Fletcher, Heywood,
Kyd, Wilkins, Raleigh, or Queen Elizabeth wrote a majority of the
works generally attributed to Shakespeare, or even collaborated with
Shakespeare on a majority of those works.
Moreover stylometric and other studies have established the existence
of an authorial hand in the Shakespearean works which may not be
identified with the written style of any of the above authors. I am
well aware of the counter argument that authorial styles change over
time, and that the apparent existence of two different styles could
reflect different phases in the life of a single author. However this
argument breaks down where several works exist with a variety of
hands, including especially where several hands are evident within the
same work.
If there was any credence in the theory that Shakespeare was a front
for another author, then Marlowe would have to be the best candidate
(I don't have sufficient time or space to defend that assertion here).
However the point is somewhat academic, since I see no compelling or
convincing reason (despite considerable anomalies in the coronial
record) for believing Marlowe lived beyond 1593. Which of course would
be necessary in order to accommodate at least two thirds of the
Shakespearean works. The second best candidate in terms of
qualifications and skills would be Jonson, but unfortunately there are
chronological and stylistic problems to account for, not to mention
the need for a conspiracy which would be even more difficult to
contain than would a Marlowe conspiracy. As for de Vere, unfortunately
he has no prior record as a playwright. And apart from any other
consideration the chronology for de Vere simply does not work, as
recently demonstrated by Peter Farey.
There are many other reasons for my position, but perhaps this
collection will suffice here. That statement should be clear
enough.
JH
Peter Farey
Richard Kennedy wrote:
>
> The cushion in the Stratford monument was morphed from a
> woolsack, and the sitter who is writing on the cushion (!),
> speare, the Stratford man's father, a "considerable dealer
> in wool."
>
> webpages.charter.net/stairway/WOOLPACKMAN.htm
The idea that there was at one time a monument in Holy Trinity
Church Stratford with the bust of a man holding a woolsack (or
a sack of some other commodity) is derived exclusively from
three illustrations.
The first is the engraving (almost certainly by Wenceslaus Hollar)
in Dugdale's 1656 tome *Antiquities of Warwickshire*.
<http://hollowaypages.com/images/HOLLAR.jpg>
The second was in Nicholas Rowe's 1709 *Some Account of the
Life &c. of Mr. William Shakespear*.
<http://hollowaypages.com/images/ROWE1.jpg>
The third was Charles(?) Grignion's 1786 engraving in John Bell's
edition of Shakespeare.
<http://hollowaypages.com/images/GRIG1.JPG>
Whilst there are many relatively insignificant details in which
they differ, there are two important features which they all have
in common, and which are not as the monument is today. The
less obvious difference is that the figure portrayed appears to
be leaning upon a sack of some sort rather than the cushion
which today's figure is using as a surface to rest his paper on.
It is this fact which has given rise to a belief that there was an
earlier version of a monument, dedicated to a dealer in wool
or grain of some sort.
There is a second feature the three share which is much more
significant, however. The monument is shown as free-standing
on the floor on three legs, two at the front and a single one in
the middle at the back. If (solely on the evidence of these eng-
ravings) we accept that the original effigy was resting upon a
sack rather than a cushion, then we must *also* accept that the
monument was originally a three-legged monstrosity presum-
ably standing on the floor in a corner somewhere.
And if that were the case, the change from what it was then to
what it is today would be a massive undertaking, certainly
involving huge expenditure and the employment of an architect,
stonemasons and building workers in large numbers. Definitely
not the single painter who was proposed for the work in 1748.
In 1725 (<http://hollowaypages.com/images/VERTUE1.JPG>)
and 1737 (<http://hollowaypages.com/images/VERTUES1.JPG>)
George Vertue in any case provided illustrations of the
monument wall-mounted and "cushion-resting" much as it is
today.
So what was going on? Fortunately, the answer was found for us
when Diana Price discovered the original sketch which Dugdale
had made of the monument and with the current owner's perm-
ission got Gerald Downs to photograph it for her.
<http://hollowaypages.com/images/HOLLAR.jpg>
In this sketch we can see quite clearly how the misunderstanding
arose. It is a very rough sketch indeed! And whilst it is clearly
intended to be a representation of the monument as it is today
(wall-mounted and with a cushion) his draftsmanship is so amb-
iguous it is quite easy to see how somebody who had never seen
the monument itself but who was relying solely upon Dugdale's
sketch might *imagine* that this is what it looked like.
That the Rowe's engraver and Grignion simply did their own
versions of the Hollar engraving without ever seeing the monu-
ment itself is perfectly obvious.
Now it seems very clear to me that anyone who argues that the
original monument showed a wool (or whatever) sack of some
kind must also explain either
(1) why it wasn't also at one time free-standing on three legs,
or
(2) if it was, then precisely how the huge business of converting
it into a wall-mounted monument (with cushion) occurred
without there being the slightest indication of such major
works in the Stratford records.
The Dugdale *sketch* (c.1634) itself even says "In the north
wall of the quire is this monument fixed for William Shake-
speare the famous poet", and this does need some explanation
too, don't you think?
Believe me, my friends. The "woolpack man" (just like the Francis
Archer who was believed for ages to have slain Marlowe) is just
such stuff as dreams are made on.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Paul Crowley
<http://hollowaypages.com/images/HOLLAR.jpg>
<http://hollowaypages.com/images/ROWE1.jpg>
<http://hollowaypages.com/images/GRIG1.JPG>
> There is a second feature the three share which is much
> more significant, however. The monument is shown as free-
> standing on the floor on three legs, two at the front and
> a single one in the middle at the back.
It seems to me that these 'legs' are no more
than a representation of the ends of the
horizontal marble "brackets", protruding
from the wall, which support the whole
weight of the monument. See the modern:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/ShakespeareMonument_cropped.jpg
Possibly originally they were wood, and
shaped differently from today. More likely,
IMHO, is that the artist was little concerned
about such more technical features, outside
the monument itself, and was careless about
their representation. That tendency is
present even in the modern world, when we
have plenty of photographs. See:
http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/Images/Mon01.JPG
and more especially see:
[..]
> In this sketch we can see quite clearly how the
> misunderstanding arose. It is a very rough sketch
> indeed!
Little reliance should be placed on the
extraneous detail of a rough sketch -- and
it is certainly not fit to bear a theory that
makes so little sense.
[..]
> Now it seems very clear to me that anyone who argues
> that the original monument showed a wool (or whatever)
> sack of some kind must also explain either
> (1) why it wasn't also at one time free-standing on
> three legs,
An absurd piece of logic -- based largely
on a misreading of the image. Hollar (if
it was he) was simply not too bothered about
exact details outside the monument itself --
not that he got them particularly wrong.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> according to their critera, have become "anti-Stratfordians". Quite
> obviously the case made by Brian and Peter is an "anti-Stratfordian
> argument". And presumably Brian and Peter have also lost their status
> as "scholars". The price to be paid for having the temerity to
> challenge the views of Jonathan Bate and Stanley Wells.
>
I would love it if Vickers revealed himself, finally, to be an anti-
Stratfordian. He at times certainly thinks as badly as they do. I do
consider him a rigidnik, which means he ought to be an anti-
Stratfordian according to my theory of temperament types. I have to
strain to show how it's possible for him not to be one. His views
don't make him not a scholar, just a frequently highly unsound one.
As to who is a scholar, who not, I have to admit to not being sure.
Too much depends on one's definition of the term. But certainly one
can be a scholar and still be ridiculously wrong at times, or even
most of the time. I suppose I have to grant that Price's paper on the
monument was scholarly, but her book was not. What counts, though, is
who is right, who wrong.
--Bob G.
lackpurity
> Richard Kennedy wrote:
>
> > The cushion in the Stratford monument was morphed from a
> > woolsack, and the sitter who is writing on the cushion (!),
> > was morphed from the original sculpted figure of John Shake-
> > speare, the Stratford man's father, a "considerable dealer
> > in wool."
MM:
What an allegation. Why would there be a monument to a wool dealer?
I agree that the woolsack has been morphed, but who was guilty of it?
Why would there be a monument for John Shakespeare? Your allegation
doesn't help much.
> > webpages.charter.net/stairway/WOOLPACKMAN.htm
>
> The idea that there was at one time a monument in Holy Trinity
> Church Stratford with the bust of a man holding a woolsack (or
> a sack of some other commodity) is derived exclusively from
> three illustrations.
MM:
Okay. Three times should make us consider that it was the truth.
> The first is the engraving (almost certainly by Wenceslaus Hollar)
> in Dugdale's 1656 tome *Antiquities of Warwickshire*.
> <http://hollowaypages.com/images/HOLLAR.jpg>
>
> The second was in Nicholas Rowe's 1709 *Some Account of the
> Life &c. of Mr. William Shakespear*.
> <http://hollowaypages.com/images/ROWE1.jpg>
>
> The third was Charles(?) Grignion's 1786 engraving in John Bell's
> edition of Shakespeare.
> <http://hollowaypages.com/images/GRIG1.JPG>
>
> Whilst there are many relatively insignificant details in which
> they differ, there are two important features which they all have
> in common, and which are not as the monument is today. The
> less obvious difference is that the figure portrayed appears to
> be leaning upon a sack of some sort rather than the cushion
> which today's figure is using as a surface to rest his paper on.
> It is this fact which has given rise to a belief that there was an
> earlier version of a monument, dedicated to a dealer in wool
> or grain of some sort.
MM:
I believe the woolsack was real. Shakespeare's disciples probably saw
him giving discourse and using the woolsack as a cushion. That is
very likely true. He might have used a cushion, also, but the
woolsack was probably used. I can't say about an earlier version of a
monument. I suppose it's possible there was one. To me, that
wouldn't be that important anyway.
Your allegation that the so-called earlier version of a monument was
dedicated to a dealer in wool or grain of some sort, just doen't make
any sense, Mr. Farey. Neither you nor Richard Kennedy make any sense
on that. Obviously, the monument was because of some other unusual
personal characteristic, not dealing in wool or grain. Give us a
break. I know you Anti-Strats often insult our intelligence, but this
is going a little too far.
Ladies and gentlemen, what you see here is just another attempt by
Anti-Strats to jump to conclusions. Does anyone actually believe that
the so-called earlier monument would be for a dealer in wool or
grain? It appears to be an attempt to rip off the Strat Man, in favor
of his father, or some grain dealer. LOL Does anyone believe that?
This is typical Anti-Stratfordian logic, I'd say.
> There is a second feature the three share which is much more
> significant, however. The monument is shown as free-standing
> on the floor on three legs, two at the front and a single one in
> the middle at the back. If (solely on the evidence of these eng-
> ravings) we accept that the original effigy was resting upon a
> sack rather than a cushion, then we must *also* accept that the
> monument was originally a three-legged monstrosity presum-
> ably standing on the floor in a corner somewhere.
MM:
What difference would it make? If there was one earlier monument to
Shakespeare, and a later monument to Shakespeare, what difference
would it make?
> And if that were the case, the change from what it was then to
> what it is today would be a massive undertaking, certainly
> involving huge expenditure and the employment of an architect,
> stonemasons and building workers in large numbers. Definitely
> not the single painter who was proposed for the work in 1748.
MM:
This seems to be a wild goose chase, or tiptoeing through the tulips.
Sounds like Farey is writing about moving mountains or something.
LOL I can see that there would be an expenditure. I can't say how
MASSIVE that would be. It might have required a few workers. What's
the big deal?
MM:
Well, he is quite free with his use of "massive" and "major" works or
expenditures. Who can say if it was really that massive? It wouldn't
have been like building the pyramid at Giza, for example. Seems to
me, the conversion of the monument could have easily been done, and
since they adulterated the truth, naturally they would have wanted to
keep it out of the Stratford records. The woolsack was most likely
the "truth." Some interested person might have thought that a
"cushion," as the monument now appears would draw more tourists. It
might have had a reasons, such as that, behind the conversion.
> The Dugdale *sketch* (c.1634) itself even says "In the north
> wall of the quire is this monument fixed for William Shake-
> speare the famous poet", and this does need some �explanation
> too, don't you think?
MM:
Is this important? Or, is this more making a mountain out of a
molehill? We have to watch these Anti-Strats.
> Believe me, my friends. The "woolpack man" (just like the Francis
> Archer who was believed for ages to have slain Marlowe) is just
> such stuff as dreams are made on.
>
> Peter F.
> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
MM:
I don't agree. I personally think the Strat Man used the woolsack
quite often, and that is why the original monument had the woolsack
clearly seen.
Doesn anybody know what Mr. Farey's point was? I guess I missed it!
Too bad.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> <http://hollowaypages.com/images/HOLLAR.jpg>
> <http://hollowaypages.com/images/ROWE1.jpg>
> <http://hollowaypages.com/images/GRIG1.JPG>
>
> > There is a second feature the three share which is much
> > more significant, however. The monument is shown as free-
> > standing on the floor on three legs, two at the front and
> > a single one in the middle at the back.
>
> It seems to me that these 'legs' are no more
> than a representation of the ends of the
> horizontal marble "brackets", protruding
> from the wall, which support the whole
> weight of the monument. �See the modern:
>
MM:
Hmmmmmm...
> Possibly originally they were wood, and
> shaped differently from today. �More likely,
> IMHO, is that the artist was little concerned
> about such more technical features, outside
> the monument itself, and was careless about
> their representation. � That tendency is
> present even in the modern world, when we
> have plenty of photographs. �See:
>
> http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/Images/Mon01.JPG
>
> and more especially see:
>
> http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/6037979/2/istockpho...
>
> ORhttp://tinyurl.com/yarby2o
>
> [..]
>
> > In this sketch we can see quite clearly how the
> > misunderstanding arose. It is a very rough sketch
> > indeed!
>
> Little reliance should be placed on the
> extraneous detail of a rough sketch -- and
> it is certainly not fit to bear a theory that
> makes so little sense.
>
> [..]
MM:
I hope he means Farey's theory!
> > Now it seems very clear to me that anyone who argues
> > that the original monument showed a wool (or whatever)
> > sack of some kind must also explain either
> > (1) why it wasn't also at one time free-standing on
> > three legs,
>
> An absurd piece of logic -- based largely
> on a misreading of the image. �Hollar (if
> it was he) was simply not too bothered about
> exact details outside the monument itself --
> not that he got them particularly wrong.
>
> Paul.
MM:
Well, who would know, now, after 400 years. I TEND to agree with
Crowley that the image of Shakespeare and the woolsack would be far
more important.
Mr. Farey seems to be looking for some earth-shaking evidence. I
still have no clue what his point was. I've noticed that Anti-Strats
often don't want to take the literal truth. They tend to tiptoe
around the periphery making up meaningless arguments, while the truth
might be staring them directly in the face. It's sad.
Michael Martin
Michael Martin
mylear
It's not "who is right" that counts Bob, it's what explanation best
describes all of the relevant and available evidence that counts. And
that does not mean only considering evidence which is in accord with
your pet theory, while filtering out all of the other evidence from
consideration.
Let me assure you Bob that Vickers is considered to be a Stratfordian.
Its just that he does not happen to be within that part of the
spectrum you inhabit - the lunatic fringe.
JH
lackpurity
MM:
You think that a wool dealer would merit a monument? Whew! The
thinking of Anti-Strats is amazing. I agree that the cushion was
morphed from the woolsack. Your conjecture regarding John Shakespeare
seems to be highly unlikely, however. William Shakespeare was the
pride of Stratford. Let's don't forget that. He merited the
monument. His popularity is still right behind that of Jesus, so his
evidence totally eclipses that of his father. Sorry.
Michael Martin
Peter Farey
Peter Farey wrote:
>
> So what was going on? Fortunately, the answer was found for us
> when Diana Price discovered the original sketch which Dugdale
> had made of the monument and with the current owner's perm-
> ission got Gerald Downs to photograph it for her.
> <http://hollowaypages.com/images/HOLLAR.jpg>
Oops. That should have been
<http://hollowaypages.com/images/DUGDALE.jpg>
Sorry.
> In this sketch we can see quite clearly how the misunderstanding
> arose. It is a very rough sketch indeed! And whilst it is clearly
> intended to be a representation of the monument as it is today
> (wall-mounted and with a cushion) his draftsmanship is so amb-
> iguous it is quite easy to see how somebody who had never seen
> the monument itself but who was relying solely upon Dugdale's
> sketch might *imagine* that this is what it looked like.
lackpurity
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > So what was going on? Fortunately, the answer was found for us
> > when Diana Price discovered the original sketch which Dugdale
> > had made of the monument and with the current owner's perm-
> > ission got Gerald Downs to photograph it for her.
> > <http://hollowaypages.com/images/HOLLAR.jpg>
>
> Oops. That should have been
> <http://hollowaypages.com/images/DUGDALE.jpg>
> Sorry.
>
> > In this sketch we can see quite clearly how the misunderstanding
> > arose.
MM:
What misunderstanding?
It is a very rough sketch indeed! And whilst it is clearly
> > intended to be a �representation of the monument as it is today
> > (wall-mounted and with a cushion)
MM:
Where is the evidence regarding Dugdale's alleged intentions? Unless
you proved evidence, we can't call Dugdale a liar. His sketch was
what he saw. Shakespeare was holding a woolsack.
his draftsmanship is so amb-
> > iguous it is quite easy to see how somebody who had never seen
> > the monument itself but who was relying solely upon Dugdale's
> > sketch might *imagine* that this is what it looked like. �
>
> Peter F.
> �<pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> �<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
MM:
There is no proof that imagination was involved at all. The three
sketches are all very similar.
Apparently, someone took the original monument down and replaced it
with a new monument. That would be a more likely conclusion. Some
believe the monument was to John Shakespeare, which would be highly
unlikely, also.
All the evidence supports Stratfordianism. Digges' comments lend a
lot of corroboration, also.
Michael Martin