Current New Yorker
Ken Kaplan
I wrote this post for the Fellowship site. Enjoy (or not).
Ken Kaplan
Again the Strats take a hit. This time it may signal the real
beginning of the end, or just a bitter setback in this point at time.
What would cause me to say this? A simple cartoon. The June 16 and 23,
2003 issue (combined) of the New Yorker has a punning cartoon on the
cover called "Shakespeares in the Park." Central Park is drawn and
every figure is Will of Stratford according to the Droeshout portrait.
There is a Shakespeare playing bongos on a bench, a Shakespeare
jogging, walking a dog, musing against a tree sitting, rowing in the
lake (with another Shakespeare), and riding a bicycle. BUT, the coup
de grace is a Shakespeare sitting reading a Daily News. And what does
the paper say? The screaming headline reads "WILL WRIT WRONG". Below
that is the major headline which reads, "I Wrote Hamlet, confesses
Marlowe".
Above that in smaller, but still headline letters is," Bloom to
mediate new Tempest, asks "What's in a name?" On the back cover is a
baseball player, probably a Yankee(Jeter-#2), with the headline, "2
too solid to melt".
Its a great cartoon, but why should it cause Strats angst? Because
from an iconographic and folkloric perspective, it speaks volumes. I
took a folklore workshop with Barre Tolkien at the National
Storytelling Conference in 1992 and learned a great deal how humor,
jokes, and stories reflect the currents and changes happening in the
collective psyche of the culture.
This cartoon is incredible. For in the inner landscape of the artist's
perception of Shakespeare as a great mythic icon (Shakespeare in the
Park), smack dab in the middle is the recognition of the authorship
issue as a significant aspect of that mythos. The fact that it is on
the cover of the New Yorker mirrors the emergence of authorship
considerations as an acceptable, one may say integral aspect of
thoughts now and into the future of the culture's (not Academe's)
perception and image of Shakespeare. They are now joined.
The fact that this cartoonist was adroit enough to include the pun on
tempest knowingly with Harold Bloom indicates enormous sophistication
around engagement with the issue. It is like a gestalt dream landscape
in which the icon of authorship intercedes prominently. I doubt
seriously whether this cartoon would even have been a glint in the
cartoonist's eye, or considered at all by the New Yorker as recently
as five or even three years ago for the cover.
Two years ago I said on HLAS that a paradigm shift around acceptance
of authorship change would happen in ten years. At that time I also
said it would be a "pick em" with Oxford. Whether that happens is less
important than at the moment the fundamental shift in the culture's
mind is OVER. DONE. There is no going back. Nada.
Literalist Strats will argue that this is just poking fun at the
ignorance of the question by lampooning it. Fat chance. They don't
understand the function of humor like this in folklore. People don't
do puns on things like this unless there is _substance_ to base the
pun on. If, as Alan Nelson wishes to argue, we are as "creationists",
then a knowing and witty joke of this magnitude would never, ever have
been made. The joke's on you Alan. Keep slogging away in your ever
increasing denial.
Ken Kaplan
PWDBard
another well-known cartoon about a woman at a cocktail party asking a question
about who who wrote Shakespeare. All this points back to the original national
joke as found in The Book of Jeasts (Jests) published in 1630 which makes the
first explicit linkage to Stratford town in the context of a fantastical,
bizarre inscription on a grave stone. The whole Stratford (Warwickshire)
association was a big joke and known as such in the 1630s and 1640s before the
big rupture with the English Civil War.
Buckeye Pete
Alan Jones
"PWDBard" <pwd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030617121111...@mb-m19.aol.com...
But the Jeast itself has nothing to do with Shakespeare, who is mentioned
with his place of residence merely to authenticate the joke. It's
interesting the the author/compiler identifies Stratford, in case it may be
a placename unfamiliar to the reader, as being WS's birthplace: "Stratford
upon Avon, a Towne most remarkeable for the birth of famous William
Shakespeare".
Alan Jones
richard kennedy
kenka...@yahoo.com (Ken Kaplan) wrote in message news:<75f2d918.03061...@posting.google.com>...
Greg Reynolds
> Well, I rarely visit here anymore, but this was too tasty to pass up.
> I wrote this post for the Fellowship site. Enjoy (or not).
> Ken Kaplan
I enjoyed.
> Again the Strats take a hit.
For the record, when was the preceding time?
> This time it may signal the real
> beginning of the end, or just a bitter setback in this point at time.
> What would cause me to say this? A simple cartoon. The June 16 and 23,
> 2003 issue (combined) of the New Yorker has a punning cartoon on the
> cover called "Shakespeares in the Park." Central Park is drawn and
> every figure is Will of Stratford according to the Droeshout portrait.
> There is a Shakespeare playing bongos on a bench, a Shakespeare
> jogging, walking a dog, musing against a tree sitting, rowing in the
> lake (with another Shakespeare), and riding a bicycle. BUT, the coup
> de grace is a Shakespeare sitting reading a Daily News. And what does
> the paper say? The screaming headline reads "WILL WRIT WRONG". Below
> that is the major headline which reads, "I Wrote Hamlet, confesses
> Marlowe".
> Above that in smaller, but still headline letters is," Bloom to
> mediate new Tempest, asks "What's in a name?" On the back cover is a
> baseball player, probably a Yankee(Jeter-#2), with the headline, "2
> too solid to melt".
The joke is not on the historical Shakespeare, it is on the
cottage industry of antis--people who actually pay to be told that
Shakespeare wasn't schooled enough to write his works!
Thirty bucks, please! (No school taught Shakespeare or his
classmates could do it, too, but don't tell Ken!)
Here is the real joke: the Marlites cancel the
Baconians cancel the Oxfordians cancel the
Marlites with Shakespeare not even getting involved!
HA!
The New Yorker is not doubting Shakespeare, it's laughing
at the doubters. That's why it is a cartoon and not an
editorial. It is for laughing.
We mustn't take it seriously, Ken.
> Its a great cartoon, but why should it cause Strats angst?
Name an instance of it causing a Strat angst if you can.
> Because
> from an iconographic and folkloric perspective, it speaks volumes. I
> took a folklore workshop with Barre Tolkien at the National
> Storytelling Conference in 1992 and learned a great deal how humor,
> jokes, and stories reflect the currents and changes happening in the
> collective psyche of the culture.
When an encyclopaedia retracts history to make
way for this joke in the New Yorker, let us know.
Fiction isn't credible and needn't be.
Shakespeare and antiStrats both deal in fiction.
Only the antiStrats get it confused for the truth.
> This cartoon is incredible. For in the inner landscape of the artist's
> perception of Shakespeare as a great mythic icon (Shakespeare in the
> Park), smack dab in the middle is the recognition of the authorship
> issue as a significant aspect of that mythos. The fact that it is on
> the cover of the New Yorker mirrors the emergence of authorship
> considerations as an acceptable, one may say integral aspect of
> thoughts now and into the future of the culture's (not Academe's)
> perception and image of Shakespeare. They are now joined.
So Charles Schulz could have created any reality he wanted but
luckily he confined his powers to a cute group of kids making
observations. Whew, lucky planet earth!
> The fact that this cartoonist was adroit enough to include the pun on
> tempest knowingly with Harold Bloom indicates enormous sophistication
> around engagement with the issue.
You're surprised the New Yorker is aware of Bloom?
> It is like a gestalt dream landscape
> in which the icon of authorship intercedes prominently. I doubt
> seriously whether this cartoon would even have been a glint in the
> cartoonist's eye, or considered at all by the New Yorker as recently
> as five or even three years ago for the cover.
What progress has antiStratfordianism made at all? There is
no evidence for it, just conflicting gibberish and now a cartoon.
You really can't call that progress, can you?
> Two years ago I said on HLAS that a paradigm shift around acceptance
> of authorship change would happen in ten years.
I say in 400 years, the encyclopaedias will reflect
the historical record, not your sketchy wishes.
> At that time I also
> said it would be a "pick em" with Oxford.
You are pretending there is some election to be held. What's
next, voting on a new atmosphere?
> Whether that happens is less
> important than at the moment the fundamental shift in the culture's
> mind is OVER. DONE. There is no going back. Nada.
No serious encyclopaedia will change it's historical evidence for a
New Yorker cartoon.
> Literalist Strats will argue that this is just poking fun at the
> ignorance of the question by lampooning it. Fat chance.
Can't laugh at yourself, Ken?
> They don't
> understand the function of humor like this in folklore.
You are a bigot to claim Strats cannot understand something
AntiStrats can. Is that how your antiStratfordianism functions?
> People don't
> do puns on things like this unless there is _substance_ to base the
> pun on. If, as Alan Nelson wishes to argue, we are as "creationists",
> then a knowing and witty joke of this magnitude would never, ever have
> been made. The joke's on you Alan. Keep slogging away in your ever
> increasing denial.
Most Oxfordians want 20 years to get that one piece of evidence ready
but you have proclaimed you only need ten and that two of them have
already ticked away. Get busy, Ken--those eight years are coming fast
and you will really need more than a cartoon.
Seriously,
Greg Reynolds
KQKnave
on the Daily News more than anything about anti-Stratfordianism.
See the Daily News website:
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
"richard kennedy" <stai...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:32b2d000.03061...@posting.google.com...
> And very nicely writ, Ken.
If you like overheated inaccurate blathering. You're not the only person who
needs to consult a dictionary. Kaplan reminds me of the kid in the fifth
grade who could ape the pronunciation of words but who didn't know what they
meant.
"the icon of authorship intercedes prominently." Indeed.
TR
lyra
> Well, I rarely visit here anymore, but this was too tasty to pass up.
> I wrote this post for the Fellowship site. Enjoy (or not).
> Ken Kaplan
>
> Again the Strats take a hit. This time it may signal the real
> beginning of the end, or just a bitter setback in this point at time.
> What would cause me to say this? A simple cartoon. The June 16 and 23,
> 2003 issue (combined) of the New Yorker has a punning cartoon on the
> cover called "Shakespeares in the Park." Central Park is drawn and
> every figure is Will of Stratford according to the Droeshout portrait.
> There is a Shakespeare playing bongos on a bench, a Shakespeare
> jogging, walking a dog, musing against a tree sitting, rowing in the
> lake (with another Shakespeare), and riding a bicycle. BUT, the coup
> de grace is a Shakespeare sitting reading a Daily News. And what does
> the paper say? The screaming headline reads "WILL WRIT WRONG". Below
> that is the major headline which reads, "I Wrote Hamlet, confesses
> Marlowe".
> Above that in smaller, but still headline letters is," Bloom to
> mediate new Tempest, asks "What's in a name?" On the back cover is a
> baseball player, probably a Yankee(Jeter-#2), with the headline, "2
> too solid to melt".
A very interesting post by Ken.
Those wondering just what on earth the cover looks like
can visit
and see it as I just have.
Art Neuendorffer
> When an encyclopaedia retracts history to make
> way for this joke in the New Yorker, let us know.
> I say in 400 years, the encyclopaedias will reflect
> the historical record, not your sketchy wishes.
> No serious encyclopaedia will change it's historical evidence
> for a New Yorker cartoon.
I believe that most encyclopedias today at least acknowledge the existence
of a legitimate authorship debate.
Art Neuendorffer
Ken Kaplan
Ken
Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:<3EEF4948...@core.com>...
Ken Kaplan
haven't seen that in such a long time. How quaint.
Ken
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<V%IHa.52310$Io.49...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Greg Reynolds
> Great job. You responded exactly as I predicted. Congratulations.
> Ken
You confuse humor with reality, Ken.
No wonder you find it painful to post here.
The cartoon is saying we're all Shakespeare in the Park nowadays.
It is not an Oxfordian tool, as are you, Ken.
It is using the lovable Kit as an authorship prank
however the faces are all of the historical Stratfordian paradigm.
You know, the one that gives you nightmares, Ken!
Keep writing to your Fellowship then, where there isn't a
mind to make up anyway. Bunch of bigots who can't stand
a commoner making good EVEN THOUGH KING JAMES
APPOINTED HIM AS ROYAL ENTERTAINER.
How much can a man ignore, Ken? Trying to set a world record,
are you?
How come you don't answer my charge that you are a bigot
who claims antiStrats understand jokes that Strats can't? Is
it because I have you defined correctly and you don't like the
consequences of the truth? Try communicating your charge
or is it just cheap slander?
I'm not a toughie, I just don't like you degrading Shakespeare
when you have no JUST CAUSE. If he were alive, he'd answer
maybe but since he's dead, I want you to justify your words.
I take it that you cannot, so maybe keep them to yourself next time
and don't explain what it is that Strats can or cannot understand.
We're a newsgroup, not a hate club.
You have eight years to flip over the past 415. Good luck!
It was your idea.
No, please, don't skulk off... What did I say? What...?
Greg Reynolds
Tom Reedy
news:75f2d918.03061...@posting.google.com...
> You're still doing your pseudo English professor routine? Wow. I
> haven't seen that in such a long time. How quaint.
> Ken
Wow! You showed me! I bet you even slammed the keyboard when you knocked
that one out! (Not too hard, though, you don't want to wake up Mother!)
"There! That'll show that darn smarty-pants Reedy!" he said, his chin
quivering.
So you think every person who pays attention to the meanings of words is a
"pseudo English professor?" How is that a substitute for not knowing the
meaning of a word such as "intercede?"
TR
Spam Scone
(SNIPPED essay on NY cartoon)
Ken, isn't that an awfully small donkey on which to pin your tail? Do
you think when you hear the phrase "Oxford Street" that it is a sign
of the (nonexistent) authorship issue? Couldn't it just be a street
sign?
There have been references to your hobby in the popular media before.
Most of them probably were on the order of the New Yorker cartoon -
mocking the anti-Shakespeare movement. (I would mention as an example
of "the movement" appearing in the popular press the mocking of Bacon
in the April 23, 1916 chess column of the Pittsburgh Gazette-Times,
but since I haven't cleared it first with Troll Reynolds the HLAS
Monitor I won't mention it.) I have no doubt that any such references
to the anti-Shakespeare movement drew excessive claims like yours -
the times change, people don't.
Neil Brennen
chessnews at mindspring dot com
Bob Grumman
> Ken Kaplan wrote:
>
> > Great job. You responded exactly as I predicted. Congratulations.
> > Ken
>
> You confuse humor with reality, Ken.
> No wonder you find it painful to post here.
>
> The cartoon is saying we're all Shakespeare in the Park nowadays.
> It is not an Oxfordian tool, as are you, Ken.
It's an illustration, not a cartoon, but its point is clearly what
Greg says it is. And there IS a lot of comedy in the joke on the
Daily News--Shakespeare reading about his not being Shakespeare as
Mark Twain once read about his death. I think it would have been
funnier if he'd been reading it in the NY Times, myself.
> How come you don't answer my charge that you are a bigot
> who claims antiStrats understand jokes that Strats can't?
I disagree that Kaplan's claim is necessarily bigotry. I feel I can
claim that all Shakespeare-rejecters are poor close-readers of poems,
for instance, without necessarily being a bigot--because I'm basing my
claim on a fair amount of familiarity with Shakespeare-rejecters'
attempts to close-read poems. (I feel I can similarly claim that most
Shakespeare-rejecters are idiots without being a bigot, but I'll be
polite and not.) Kaplan may be mistaken, but that doesn't make him a
bigot.
On the other hand, I do think Richard Kennedy and a few others are
simple hate-mongers.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
> EVEN THOUGH KING JAMES APPOINTED
> HIM AS ROYAL ENTERTAINER.
----------------------------------------------------
"The fool, the meddling idiot! As though his ape's
brain could contain the secrets of the Krell."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.mo-net.com/~mlindste/socrates.html
<<Athens put Socrates on trial in 399 B.C. when he was 70, a ripe
old age at the time. Socrates boasted about how the Oracle
at Delphi declared that Socrates was the wisest, most free,
just, and prudent man in the world. In other words,
"I am a fool, but I know I'm a fool
and that makes me smarter than you."
The jury convicted him on both counts. Then Socrates asked
that his penalty be that he be declared a civic hero and
fed at the public table for life! That did not go over too well.
The jury, incensed, gave out the death penalty.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIAH 17:11
As the PARTRIDGE sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not;
so he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them
in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool.
----------------------------------------------------------
"(To the m)emory of my beloved "
(To the m)[-eMOry of my beloVED]
(To them) [my OM, by fo(DEVere)ol-]
" To them, my OM, by fo(DEVere)ol- "
------------------------------------------------------------
A shuffle permutation of 10 objects in five decks:
only 10!/(3!*1!*1!*4!*1!) = 25,200 possibilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------
[my OM, by fo(DEVere)ol-] => [-eMOry of my beloved]
[m-y-OM-by-fo-DEV-e-r-e-ol-] => [-e-MO-r-y-of-m-yb-e-lo-VED]
--------------------------------------------------------------
m-y-OM- => -MO -y -m
by- => -yb
fo- => -of
DEV-e-r-e- => -e -r -e -VED
ol- => -lo
--------------------------------------------------------------
[m-y-OM-by-fo-DEV-e-r-e-ol-] => [-e-MO-r-y-of-m-yb-e-lo-VED]
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Shacespeare circle set"
"Ecclesiastes:preacher"
------------------------------------------------------------
ECCLE 7:3 Sorrow is better than laughter:
for by the SADNESS of the countenance the heart is made better.
ECCLE 7:4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning;
but the heart of fools is in the house of MIRTH.
ECCLE 7:5 It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
than for a man to hear the song of fools.
ECCLE 7:6 For as the crackling of thorns under a pot,
so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fool Thy asses are gone about 'em. The reason why the
seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason.
KING LEAR Because they are not eight?
Fool Yes, indeed: thou wouldst make a good fool.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jupiter OCCULTATION of 8th 'planet' UR-ANVs: August 5, 1623
Maffeo Barberini elected Pope URbANVIII: August 6, 1623
Anne Hathaway dies 14 years before Jonson August 6, 1623
-----------------------------------------------------------
[F]alling in love with Shak
[I]s falling for make - believe.
[F]alling in love with Shak
[I]s playing the fool.
[C]aring too much
[I]s such as you now fancy.
[L]earning to trust
[I]s just for children at school
I fell in love with Shak
One night when the moon was full.
I wasn't wise with eyes unable to see.
I fell in love with Shak "our ever-living"
But Shak fell out of me.
---------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
"The wise man's folly is anatomized
Even by the squandering glances of the fool.
Invest me in my motley; give me leave
To speak my mind, and I will through and through
Cleanse the foul body of the infected world,
If they will patiently receive my medicine."
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
Most encyclopedias today acknowledge the exitence of
anti-Stratfordians, which is a different matter -- just as they
acknowledge the existence of Special Creationists, adherents of
Velikovsky, and indeed of many other fringe cults.
From the online _Britannica_
(<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117521>):
"In spite of recorded allusions to Shakespeare as the author of many
plays in the canon, made by about 50 men during his lifetime, it is
arguable that his greatness was not as clearly recognized in his own
day as one might expect. But on the other hand, the difficulties are
not so great as many disbelievers have held, and their proposals have
all too often raised larger problems than they have resolved.
Shakespeare's contemporaries, after all, wrote of him unequivocally
as the author of the plays. Ben Jonson, who knew him well,
contributed verses to the First Folio of 1623, where (as elsewhere)
he criticizes and praises Shakespeare as the author. John Heminge and
Henry Condell, fellow actors and theatre owners with Shakespeare,
signed the dedication and a foreword to the First Folio and described
their methods as editors. In his own day, therefore, he was accepted
as the author of the plays. Throughout his lifetime, and for long
after, no person is known to have questioned his authorship. In an
age that loved gossip and mystery as much as any, it seems hardly
conceivable that Jonson and Shakespeare's theatrical associates
shared the secret of a gigantic literary hoax without a single leak
or that they could have been imposed upon without suspicion.
Unsupported assertions that the author of the plays was a man of
great learning and that Shakespeare of Stratford was an illiterate
rustic no longer carry weight, and only when a believer in Bacon or
Oxford or Marlowe produces sound evidence will scholars pay close
attention to it...."
Also:
"The claims put forward for Bacon
The first suggestion that the author of Shakespeare's plays might be
Francis Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, seems to have been made in the
middle of the 19th century, inquiry at first centring on textual
comparison between Bacon's known writings and the plays. A discovery
was made that references to the Bible, the law, and the classics were
given similar treatment in both canons. In the later 19th century a
search was made for ciphered messages embedded in the dramatic texts.
In Love's Labour's Lost, for example, it was found that the Latin
word ³honorificabilitudinitatibus² is an anagram of Hi ludi F. Bacon
is nati tuiti orbi (³These plays, the offspring of F. Bacon, are
preserved for the world.²). Professional cryptographers of the 20th
century, however, examining all the Baconian ciphers, have rejected
them as invalid, and interest in the ShakespeareBacon controversy
has diminished.
Other candidates
A theory that the author of the plays was Edward de Vere, 17th earl
of Oxford, receives some circumstantial support from the coincidence
that Oxford's known poems apparently ceased just before Shakespeare's
work began to appear. It is argued that Oxford assumed a pseudonym in
order to protect his family from the social stigma then attached to
the stage and also because extravagance had brought him into
disrepute at court. Another candidate is William Stanley, 6th earl of
Derby, who was keenly interested in the theatre and was patron of
his own company of actors. Several poems, written in the 1580s and
exhibiting signs of an immature Shakespearean style, cannot well have
been written by Shakespeare himself. One of these is in Derby's
handwriting, and three of them are signed ³W.S.² These initials are
thought by some to have been a concealment for Derby's identity (for
some such motives as were attributed to Oxford) and to have been
later expanded into ³William Shakespeare.²
Shakespeare has also been identified with Christopher Marlowe, one
theory even going so far as to assert that Marlowe was not killed in
a tavern brawl in 1593 (the corpse of another being represented as
his own) but was smuggled to France and thence to Italy where he
continued to write in exile‹his plays being fathered on Shakespeare,
who was paid to keep silent."
Compare these accounts to the following (see
<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=76199>):
"UFO's became a major subject of interest with the developments in
aeronautics and astronautics following World War II.
In 1948 the U.S. Air Force began maintaining a file of UFO reports
called Project Blue Book. A series of radar detections coincident
with visual sightings near the National Airport in Washington, D.C.,
in July 1952, led the U.S. government to establish a panel of
scientists headed by H.P. Robertson, a physicist of the California
Institute of Technology (Pasadena), and including engineers,
meteorologists, physicists, and an astronomer. The thrust of public
and governmental concern was indicated by the fact that the panel was
organized by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and was briefed on
U.S. military activities and intelligence and that its report was
originally classified Secret. Later declassified, the report revealed
that 90 percent of UFO sightings could be readily identified with
astronomical and meteorologic phenomena ( e.g., bright planets,
meteors, auroras, ion clouds) or with aircraft, birds, balloons,
searchlights, hot gases, and other phenomena, sometimes complicated
by unusual meteorologic conditions.
The publicity given to early sightings in the press undoubtedly
helped stimulate further sightings not only in the United States but
also in western Europe, the Soviet Union, Australia, and elsewhere.
A second panel, organized in February 1966, reached conclusions
similar to those of its predecessor. This left a number of sightings
admittedly unexplained, and in the mid-1960s a few scientists and
engineers, notably James E. McDonald, a University of Arizona
(Tucson) meteorologist, and J. Allen Hynek, a Northwestern University
(Evanston, Ill.) astronomer, concluded that a small percentage of the
most reliable UFO reports gave definite indications of the presence
of extraterrestrial visitors.
This sensational hypothesis, promoted in newspaper and magazine
articles, met with prompt resistance from other scientists. The
continuing controversy led in 1968 to a UFO study sponsored by the
U.S. Air Force and conducted at the University of Colorado under the
direction of E.U. Condon, a noted physicist. The Condon Report, ³A
Scientific Study of UFO 's,² was reviewed by a special committee of
the National Academy of Sciences and released in early 1969. A total
of 37 scientists wrote chapters or parts of chapters for the report,
which covered investigations of 59 UFO sightings in detail. Condon's
own ³Conclusions and Recommendations² firmly rejected ETH‹the
extraterrestrial hypothesis‹and declared that no further
investigation was needed.
This left a wide variety of opinions on UFO's. A large fraction of
the American public, and a few scientists and engineers, continued to
support ETH. A middle group of scientists felt that the possibility
of extraterrestrial visitation, however slight, justified continued
investigation, and still another group favoured continuing
investigation on the grounds that UFO reports are useful in
sociopsychological studies. In 1973 a group of American scientists
organized the Center for UFO Studies in Northfield, Ill., to conduct
further work."
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > When an encyclopaedia retracts history to make
> > > way for this joke in the New Yorker, let us know.
> >
> > > I say in 400 years, the encyclopaedias will reflect
> > > the historical record, not your sketchy wishes.
> >
> > > No serious encyclopaedia will change it's historical
> > > evidence for a New Yorker cartoon.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I believe that most encyclopedias today at least
> > acknowledge the existence of a legitimate authorship debate.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> Most encyclopedias today acknowledge the exitence of
> anti-Stratfordians, which is a different matter -- just as they
> acknowledge the existence of Special Creationists, adherents
> of Velikovsky, and indeed of many other fringe cults.
>
> From the online _Britannica_
> (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117521>):
>
> "In spite of recorded allusions to Shakespeare as the author of
> many plays in the canon, made by about 50 men during his lifetime,
Recorded ILLUSIONS to Shakspere as the author.
Only Ben Jonson (aka Heminge, Condell, etc.) said much.
> it is
> arguable that his greatness was not as clearly recognized in his own
> day as one might expect. But on the other hand, the difficulties are
> not so great as many disbelievers have held, and their proposals have
> all too often raised larger problems than they have resolved.
> Shakespeare's contemporaries, after all, wrote of him unequivocally
> as the author of the plays. Ben Jonson, who knew him well,
> contributed verses to the First Folio of 1623, where (as elsewhere)
> he criticizes and praises Shakespeare as the author. John Heminge and
> Henry Condell, fellow actors and theatre owners with Shakespeare,
> signed the dedication and a foreword to the First Folio and described
> their methods as editors. In his own day, therefore, he was accepted
> as the author of the plays. Throughout his lifetime, and for long
> after, no person is known to have questioned his authorship.
Throughout his lifetime, and for long after, no person
OTHER than Jonsonis known to have promoted his authorship.
> In an
> age that loved gossip and mystery as much as any, it seems hardly
> conceivable that Jonson and Shakespeare's theatrical associates
> shared the secret of a gigantic literary hoax without a single leak
> or that they could have been imposed upon without suspicion.
Jonson and Shakespeare's theatrical associates shared
the secret of a gigantic literary hoax without a single leak.
> Unsupported assertions that the author of the plays was a man of
> great learning and that Shakespeare of Stratford was an illiterate
> rustic no longer carry weight, and only when a believer in Bacon or
> Oxford or Marlowe produces sound evidence will scholars pay close
> attention to it...."
Supported assertions that the author of the plays was a man of
great learning and that Shakespeare of Stratford was an illiterate
rustic carry considerable weight, and many believers in Bacon,
Oxford & Marlowe produce sound evidence that so called
"scholars" continue to ignore.
> Also:
>
> "The claims put forward for Bacon
>
> The first suggestion that the author of Shakespeare's plays might be
> Francis Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, seems to have been made in the
> middle of the 19th century, inquiry at first centring on textual
> comparison between Bacon's known writings and the plays. A discovery
> was made that references to the Bible, the law, and the classics were
> given similar treatment in both canons. In the later 19th century a
> search was made for ciphered messages embedded in the dramatic texts.
> In Love's Labour's Lost, for example, it was found that the Latin
> word ³honorificabilitudinitatibus² is an anagram of Hi ludi F. Bacon
> is nati tuiti orbi (³These plays, the offspring of F. Bacon, are
> preserved for the world.²
>
> Other candidates
>
> A theory that the author of the plays was Edward de Vere, 17th earl
> of Oxford, receives some circumstantial support from the coincidence
> that Oxford's known poems apparently ceased just before Shakespeare's
> work began to appear. It is argued that Oxford assumed a pseudonym in
> order to protect his family from the social stigma then attached to
> the stage and also because extravagance had brought him into
> disrepute at court. Another candidate is William Stanley, 6th earl of
> Derby, who was keenly interested in the theatre and was patron of
> his own company of actors. Several poems, written in the 1580s and
> exhibiting signs of an immature Shakespearean style, cannot well have
> been written by Shakespeare himself. One of these is in Derby's
> handwriting, and three of them are signed ³W.S.² These initials are
> thought by some to have been a concealment for Derby's identity (for
> some such motives as were attributed to Oxford) and to have been
> later expanded into ³William Shakespeare.²
>
> Shakespeare has also been identified with Christopher Marlowe, one
> theory even going so far as to assert that Marlowe was not killed in
> a tavern brawl in 1593 (the corpse of another being represented as
> his own) but was smuggled to France and thence to Italy where he
> continued to write in exile."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
> > > "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > When an encyclopaedia retracts history to make
> > > > way for this joke in the New Yorker, let us know.
> > >
> > > > I say in 400 years, the encyclopaedias will reflect
> > > > the historical record, not your sketchy wishes.
> > >
> > > > No serious encyclopaedia will change it's historical
> > > > evidence for a New Yorker cartoon.
>
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > I believe that most encyclopedias today at least
> > > acknowledge the existence of a legitimate authorship debate.
Debates are decided on a time basis to the satisfaction of a
judge or jury. Any one faction devoid of facts loses by default.
Nonsense is not a debate. "You are pushing it, little man."
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > Most encyclopedias today acknowledge the exitence of
> > anti-Stratfordians, which is a different matter -- just as they
> > acknowledge the existence of Special Creationists, adherents
> > of Velikovsky, and indeed of many other fringe cults.
> >
> > From the online _Britannica_
> > (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117521>):
> >
> > "In spite of recorded allusions to Shakespeare as the author of
> > many plays in the canon, made by about 50 men during his lifetime,
>
> Recorded ILLUSIONS to Shakspere as the author.
> Only Ben Jonson (aka Heminge, Condell, etc.) said much.
aka?
Prove it!
Nowhere was Jonson aka Heminge or Condel. He didn't need their
names and they didn't need his ideas. They edited the canon, they
were the only ones knowledgeable, he was plenty busy without that,
and you have no evidence that Johnson was ever known as Condel
or Heminge. Are you attempting to say Condel and Heminge are
antiStrats? Another convenient copout that has no basis but would
help explain your unexplainable rearrangement of the authorship.
I won't let your nonsense clog up the pure intents of these two
reliable witnesses, King's Men publishing with the graces of the crown
and the Stationer's Office. "You're pushing it, little man."
> > it is
> > arguable that his greatness was not as clearly recognized in his own
> > day as one might expect. But on the other hand, the difficulties are
> > not so great as many disbelievers have held, and their proposals have
> > all too often raised larger problems than they have resolved.
> > Shakespeare's contemporaries, after all, wrote of him unequivocally
> > as the author of the plays. Ben Jonson, who knew him well,
> > contributed verses to the First Folio of 1623, where (as elsewhere)
> > he criticizes and praises Shakespeare as the author. John Heminge and
> > Henry Condell, fellow actors and theatre owners with Shakespeare,
> > signed the dedication and a foreword to the First Folio and described
> > their methods as editors. In his own day, therefore, he was accepted
> > as the author of the plays. Throughout his lifetime, and for long
> > after, no person is known to have questioned his authorship.
>
> Throughout his lifetime, and for long after, no person
> OTHER than Jonsonis known to have promoted his authorship.
So you are satisfied that "Throughout his lifetime, and for long
after, no person is known to have questioned his authorship."
It is quite compelling.
> > In an
> > age that loved gossip and mystery as much as any, it seems hardly
> > conceivable that Jonson and Shakespeare's theatrical associates
> > shared the secret of a gigantic literary hoax without a single leak
> > or that they could have been imposed upon without suspicion.
>
> Jonson and Shakespeare's theatrical associates shared
> the secret of a gigantic literary hoax without a single leak.
Then how did you get included in it? Who do you know?
There was no leak so you cannot be aware of such a thing.
Your testimony prevents your knowledge of it--sorry!
> > Unsupported assertions that the author of the plays was a man of
> > great learning and that Shakespeare of Stratford was an illiterate
> > rustic no longer carry weight, and only when a believer in Bacon or
> > Oxford or Marlowe produces sound evidence will scholars pay close
> > attention to it...."
>
> Supported assertions that the author of the plays was a man of
> great learning and that Shakespeare of Stratford was an illiterate
> rustic carry considerable weight, and many believers in Bacon,
> Oxford & Marlowe produce sound evidence that so called
> "scholars" continue to ignore.
Maybe the FACT that these three theories make each other stupidly
impossible has something to do with it. Ever wonder how all three
can't make sense? Scholars probably sensed that even if you cannot.
The more contradicting theories, the less sensible they can be, Art.
> > Also:
> >
> > "The claims put forward for Bacon
> >
> > The first suggestion that the author of Shakespeare's plays might be
> > Francis Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, seems to have been made in the
> > middle of the 19th century, inquiry at first centring on textual
> > comparison between Bacon's known writings and the plays. A discovery
> > was made that references to the Bible, the law, and the classics were
> > given similar treatment in both canons. In the later 19th century a
> > search was made for ciphered messages embedded in the dramatic texts.
> > In Love's Labour's Lost, for example, it was found that the Latin
> > word 3honorificabilitudinitatibus2 is an anagram of Hi ludi F. Bacon
> > is nati tuiti orbi (3These plays, the offspring of F. Bacon, are
> > preserved for the world.2
> >
> > Other candidates
> >
> > A theory that the author of the plays was Edward de Vere, 17th earl
> > of Oxford, receives some circumstantial support from the coincidence
> > that Oxford's known poems apparently ceased just before Shakespeare's
> > work began to appear. It is argued that Oxford assumed a pseudonym in
> > order to protect his family from the social stigma then attached to
> > the stage and also because extravagance had brought him into
> > disrepute at court.
The child molesting, the divorces, the catholicism, the cowardly
retreat from battle, the extramarital affairs, and the ostracism by the
Order of the Garter were just dandy with his "family" but oh don't
mention playwriting EVEN THOUGH ELIZABETH and JAMES
patronized Shakespeare's troupe! Got any more garbage to feed us, Oxies?
> Another candidate is William Stanley, 6th earl of
> > Derby, who was keenly interested in the theatre and was patron of
> > his own company of actors. Several poems, written in the 1580s and
> > exhibiting signs of an immature Shakespearean style, cannot well have
> > been written by Shakespeare himself. One of these is in Derby's
> > handwriting, and three of them are signed 3W.S.2 These initials are
> > thought by some to have been a concealment for Derby's identity (for
> > some such motives as were attributed to Oxford) and to have been
> > later expanded into 3William Shakespeare.2
Look up concealment sometime. It is concealed, not the fare of usenet.
> > Shakespeare has also been identified with Christopher Marlowe, one
> > theory even going so far as to assert that Marlowe was not killed in
> > a tavern brawl in 1593 (the corpse of another being represented as
> > his own) but was smuggled to France and thence to Italy where he
> > continued to write in exile."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer
Happy are the idiots who can just choose whatever they want to believe.
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer
> > > >
> > > > > When an encyclopaedia retracts history to make
> > > > > way for this joke in the New Yorker, let us know.
> > > >
> > > > > I say in 400 years, the encyclopaedias will reflect
> > > > > the historical record, not your sketchy wishes.
> > > >
> > > > > No serious encyclopaedia will change it's historical
> > > > > evidence for a New Yorker cartoon.
> >
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > I believe that most encyclopedias today at least
> > > > acknowledge the existence of a legitimate authorship debate.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> Debates are decided on a time basis to the satisfaction of a
> judge or jury. Any one faction devoid of facts loses by default.
> Nonsense is not a debate. "You are pushing it, little man."
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Most encyclopedias today acknowledge the exitence of
> > > anti-Stratfordians, which is a different matter -- just as they
> > > acknowledge the existence of Special Creationists, adherents
> > > of Velikovsky, and indeed of many other fringe cults.
> > >
> > > From the online _Britannica_
> > > (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117521>):
> > >
> > > "In spite of recorded allusions to Shakespeare as the author of
> > > many plays in the canon, made by about 50 men during his lifetime,
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Recorded ILLUSIONS to Shakspere as the author.
> > Only Ben Jonson (aka Heminge, Condell, etc.) said much.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> aka?
> Prove it!
> Nowhere was Jonson aka Heminge or Condel. He didn't need their
> names and they didn't need his ideas. They edited the canon, they
> were the only ones knowledgeable, he was plenty busy without that,
> and you have no evidence that Johnson was ever known as Condel
> or Heminge. Are you attempting to say Condel and Heminge are
> antiStrats? Another convenient copout that has no basis but would
> help explain your unexplainable rearrangement of the authorship.
> I won't let your nonsense clog up the pure intents of these two
> reliable witnesses, King's Men publishing with the graces of the crown
> and the Stationer's Office. "You're pushing it, little man."
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.att.net/~tleary/bentley2.htm
<<The dedicatory epistle addressed to the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery
is in substantial part an apparent paraphrase of the dedication of Pliny's
Natural History. This indicates classical learning far beyond that which
could be expected of two ordinary actors such as Heminge and Condell. It
adds to the suspicion that their names were used, probably because they had
some association with the man of Stratford. The view, concurred in by
Chambers, that Ben Jonson was the actual writer of at least part of the
epistle, merely using the names of Heminge and Condell, is credible because
of Jonson's own familiarity with the classics which he often paraded, as
when he spoke disparagingly of Shakespeare's learning.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elliott H. Stone <BandE...@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 28 Mar 2003 12:58:07 EST
Subject: 14.0589 Re: Heminge and Condell
Comment: Re: SHK 14.0589 Re: Heminge and Condell
I do not understand why anyone would think, that Heminge and Condell had
anything more to do with the First Folio then to be the shepherds of the
collection, is to be considered new news Sir George Greenwood concluded
that the "dedication to the incomparable pair" drawing as it does on
Pliny and Horace may reasonably be supposed to have been written by
Jonson. Malone 200 years ago stated that Jonson had written at least
half of the address. Chambers and Steevens were both inclined to favor
the claim for Jonson. The two dedicatees of the First Folio were William
and Philip Herbert the sons of the 2nd Earl of Pembroke and of Mary
Sidney. Mary Sidney is the famous Countess of Pembroke the devoted
sister of Philip Sidney. She collaborated with her brother on one of his
poetical works, was his literary executor, and was the patroness of the
poets that her brother had taken under his wing including Spencer. Her
son William surrounded himself with poets and scholars. John Donne was
one of his closest friends and Ben Jonson was his protege. In a bow to
the feminists on this site, it might well be believed that Lady Pembroke
was of great assistance to Jonson in the editing of the First Folio!
_____________________________________________________
> > > From the online _Britannica_
> > > (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117521>):
> > >
> > > it is
> > > arguable that his greatness was not as clearly recognized in his
own
> > > day as one might expect. But on the other hand, the difficulties
are
> > > not so great as many disbelievers have held, and their proposals
have
> > > all too often raised larger problems than they have resolved.
> > > Shakespeare's contemporaries, after all, wrote of him unequivocally
> > > as the author of the plays. Ben Jonson, who knew him well,
> > > contributed verses to the First Folio of 1623, where (as elsewhere)
> > > he criticizes and praises Shakespeare as the author. John Heminge
and
> > > Henry Condell, fellow actors and theatre owners with Shakespeare,
> > > signed the dedication and a foreword to the First Folio and
described
> > > their methods as editors. In his own day, therefore, he was
accepted
> > > as the author of the plays. Throughout his lifetime, and for long
> > > after, no person is known to have questioned his authorship.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Throughout his lifetime, and for long after, no person
> > OTHER than Jonson is known to have promoted his authorship.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> So you are satisfied that "Throughout his lifetime, and for long
> after, no person is known to have questioned his authorship."
If you are satisfied that "Throughout his lifetime, and for long after, no
person OTHER than Jonson is known to have promoted his authorship."
> > > From the online _Britannica_
> > > (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117521>):
> > >
> > > In an
> > > age that loved gossip and mystery as much as any, it seems hardly
> > > conceivable that Jonson and Shakespeare's theatrical associates
> > > shared the secret of a gigantic literary hoax without a single leak
> > > or that they could have been imposed upon without suspicion.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Jonson and Shakespeare's theatrical associates shared
> > the secret of a gigantic literary hoax without a single leak.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> Then how did you get included in it? Who do you know?
http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/aneuendorffer.php
> > > From the online _Britannica_
> > > (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117521>):
> > >
> > > Unsupported assertions that the author of the plays was a man of
> > > great learning and that Shakespeare of Stratford was an illiterate
> > > rustic no longer carry weight, and only when a believer in Bacon or
> > > Oxford or Marlowe produces sound evidence will scholars pay close
> > > attention to it...."
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Supported assertions that the author of the plays was a man of
> > great learning and that Shakespeare of Stratford was an illiterate
> > rustic carry considerable weight, and many believers in Bacon,
> > Oxford & Marlowe produce sound evidence that so called
> > "scholars" continue to ignore.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> Maybe the FACT that these three theories make each other stupidly
> impossible has something to do with it. Ever wonder how all three
> can't make sense?
All three can not be totally true; yet they all contain some truth.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> The more contradicting theories, the less sensible they can be, Art.
The more contradicting theories, the quicker one can reach the truth,
Greg.
> > > From the online _Britannica_
> > > (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117521>):
> > >
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> The child molesting, the divorces, the catholicism, the cowardly
> retreat from battle, the extramarital affairs, and the ostracism by the
> Order of the Garter were just dandy with his "family" but oh don't
> mention playwriting EVEN THOUGH ELIZABETH and JAMES
> patronized Shakespeare's troupe!
"And that which should accompany old age,
As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,
I must not look to have; but, in their stead,
Curses, not loud but deep, mouth-honour, breath,
Which the poor heart would fain deny, and dare not."
> > > From the online _Britannica_
> > > (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117521>):
> > >
> > >Another candidate is William Stanley, 6th earl of
> > > Derby, who was keenly interested in the theatre and was patron of
> > > his own company of actors. Several poems, written in the 1580s and
> > > exhibiting signs of an immature Shakespearean style, cannot well
have
> > > been written by Shakespeare himself. One of these is in Derby's
> > > handwriting, and three of them are signed 3W.S.2 These initials are
> > > thought by some to have been a concealment for Derby's identity
(for
> > > some such motives as were attributed to Oxford) and to have been
> > > later expanded into 3William Shakespeare.2
>
> Look up concealment sometime.
-------------------------------------------------------
Concealment, n. [OF. concelement.] 1. The act of concealing; the state of
being concealed.
But let concealment, like a worm i' the bud, Feed on her damask
cheek. --Shak.
Some dear cause Will in concealment wrap me up awhile. --Shak.
2. A place of hiding; a secret place; a retreat frem observation.
The cleft tree Offers its kind concealment to a few. --Thomson.
3. A secret; out of the way knowledge. [Obs.]
Well read in strange concealments. --Shak.
4. (Law) Suppression of such facts and circumstances as in justice ought to
be made known. --Wharton.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > From the online _Britannica_
> > > (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117521>):
> > >
> > > Shakespeare has also been identified with Christopher Marlowe, one
> > > theory even going so far as to assert that Marlowe was not killed
in
> > > a tavern brawl in 1593 (the corpse of another being represented as
> > > his own) but was smuggled to France and thence to Italy where he
> > > continued to write in exile."
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> Happy are the idiots who can just choose whatever they want to believe.
Sad are the poor school children who are forced to learn false history.
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
> I wrote this post for the Fellowship site. Enjoy (or not).
> Ken Kaplan
Like Ken, I've really stopped posting to HLAS (I don't have the time),
and only very very occasionally come in to Google to check the
postings (mostly those by major and sensible people like Kathman and
Ross). Since Ken has a habit of getting over-excited about things
that he hasn't understood in the press, however, I thought I would
check out what Mark Ulriksen, the artist, had to say about his own New
Yorker cover.
Of course anti-Stratfordians misread just about every source that they
come across, but usually they stick to people who are safely dead, so
that their delusions cannot be easily corrected (you can't dig up
Shakespeare and ask him who wrote the plays, or ask Robert Greene to
explain his "upstart crow" reference). Ken Kaplan has repeatedly made
the mistake of trying to use the same techniques to (mis-)read the
works of people who are still alive. Remember that PMLA article that
Kaplan (quoting Dan Wright) put forward as wonderful evidence of the
new academic respectability of anti-Stratfordianism? - when I asked
the author what his article meant, he told me it had nothing to do
with anti-Stratfordianism at all. This was fairly obvious from the
article, but having spoken to the author made it impossible for Kaplan
and Wright to argue about it. Kaplan ended up muttering about how
hard it was to understand what the article said, but strangely I
understood it well enough, as must just about every one of its readers
(except for Kaplan and Wright).
> Its a great cartoon, but why should it cause Strats angst? Because
> from an iconographic and folkloric perspective, it speaks volumes. I
> took a folklore workshop with Barre Tolkien at the National
> Storytelling Conference in 1992 and learned a great deal how humor,
> jokes, and stories reflect the currents and changes happening in the
> collective psyche of the culture.
>
> This cartoon is incredible. For in the inner landscape of the artist's
> perception of Shakespeare as a great mythic icon (Shakespeare in the
> Park), smack dab in the middle is the recognition of the authorship
> issue as a significant aspect of that mythos. The fact that it is on
> the cover of the New Yorker mirrors the emergence of authorship
> considerations as an acceptable, one may say integral aspect of
> thoughts now and into the future of the culture's (not Academe's)
> perception and image of Shakespeare. They are now joined.
Well, that's Ken's view of the painting. It isn't that of the artist
who painted it. Mark Ulriksen asked for the web address of this
discussion and I gave him details of how to do a Google Groups search,
so he will probably be reading my post (Hello Mark!) and I am sure he
will correct any misreadings that I make of his E-Mail. Mark Ulriksen
tells me (and I will give his own words in a moment) that he is
agnostic on authorship issues, but thinks that Shakespeare is the
greatest author in the world.
His reason for including the Daily News with an authorship headline
was that he wanted to "bring Shakespeare down from his lofty heights"
and show him reading a "trashy tabloid". That is not at all the same
thing as suggesting that Shakespeare never wrote the works, which
seems to be Ken's idea of the cover. Instead Ulriksen says that he
was noting that authorship was the "most common 'newsworthy' aspect of
contemporary feelings about the bard". Kaplan might be satisfied with
this, as long as he doesn't consider the fact that - for Ulriksen -
this is "newsworthy" in the sense of the sort of thing that is written
about (with "inflammatory" "overly dramatic" headlines) by "trashy
tabloid(s)". He is not saying that anti-Stratfordianism is
necessarily right, nor that it should be treated with any particular
respect, but he is saying that it is out there and people are selling
papers with it (they are doing the same, by the way, with stories
about Princess Diana being murdered by the Royal Family, JFK being
assasinated by the CIA, and other such material).
> The fact that this cartoonist was adroit enough to include the pun on
> tempest knowingly with Harold Bloom indicates enormous sophistication
> around engagement with the issue.
Mark Ulriksen makes it fairly clear in his reply to me that he just
picked Harold Bloom because he is the most famous modern Shakespearean
scholar. That doesn't mean that Ulriksen is a Shakespeare expert, he
just reads the same books and broadsheets as the rest of Middle Class
America.
> It is like a gestalt dream landscape
> in which the icon of authorship intercedes prominently. I doubt
> seriously whether this cartoon would even have been a glint in the
> cartoonist's eye, or considered at all by the New Yorker as recently
> as five or even three years ago for the cover.
Unfortunately for Kaplan, he's writing nonsense. I've seen plenty of
cartoons that deal with the subject of anti-Stratfordianism (most
evidently drawn by people like Mark Ulriksen who were not personally
anti-Stratfordians and were at most agnostic on authorship issues, and
often probably Stratfordian) and these were published about
Baconianism in the 19th Century. This rather obviously wasn't a sign
that Baconianism was about to gain respectability among the common
people or in academia, and I'm sure that Kaplan would agree that
Baconianism never was taken particularly seriously by anybody
significant. Despite this, Baconianism drew much greater attention to
itself than Oxfordianism ever has. Modern Oxfordians are struggling
desperately to hold on to the position that Baconianism had in the
1890s, and I would say they are failing. Apart from the occasional
very rare prominent article or TV programme, the only things that
Kaplan can use to fuel his obviously mistaken belief that Oxfordianism
is about to catch up with the belief that Shakespeare wrote the plays
are things like the PMLA article (that wasn't about the authorship
debate at all) or Ulriksen's cover (which gives a very small and
humorous nod towards the existence of anti-Stratfordianism, but is
predominantly about how great Shakespeare - the author represented by
the Droueshout engraving - is). If Oxfordianism can't do better than
this (and Ulriksen even gives that "trashy tabloid" mention to
Marlovianism, not to Kaplan's baby at all) then in eight years it will
stand much where it ever stood, in the fringes with Creationism (a
much more strongly supported belief in the US) and UFO hunters.
Contrary to Kaplan's naive muttering, plenty of prominent cartoons and
illustrations have been published about both those subjects.
> Two years ago I said on HLAS that a paradigm shift around acceptance
> of authorship change would happen in ten years. At that time I also
> said it would be a "pick em" with Oxford. Whether that happens is less
> important than at the moment the fundamental shift in the culture's
> mind is OVER. DONE. There is no going back. Nada.
So what happened to Baconianism? Although we can't expect Kaplan to
go back and read the Victorian newspapers and see, Baconianism was
every bit as strong (and probably stronger) in its press coverage than
modern Oxfordianism. Unfortunately for Kaplan, this shift (small as
it was) was not OVER and DONE with "no going back". People realised
that Baconian cyphermongering was worthless, and Baconianism
shrivelled.
> Literalist Strats will argue that this is just poking fun at the
> ignorance of the question by lampooning it. Fat chance.
The artist who created the cover says that he wanted to show "trashy
tabloid" coverage of Shakespeare in the Daily News headline. Although
he isn't directly opposed to anti-Stratfordianism, he is certainly
poking a good deal of fun at the Daily News, and he thinks
anti-Stratfordianism is just the sort of thing that this sort of
"trashy tabloid" would cover.
> They don't
> understand the function of humor like this in folklore.
Since Kaplan has never been able to say one sensible thing about any
document, constantly misunderstands everything, and everything that he
does say is contradicted by the facts, or by the word of the people
who actually created the sources (in the case of the PMLA article and
Ulriksen's New Yorker cover) this is rather amusing.
> People don't
> do puns on things like this unless there is _substance_ to base the
> pun on. If, as Alan Nelson wishes to argue, we are as "creationists",
> then a knowing and witty joke of this magnitude would never, ever have
> been made. The joke's on you Alan. Keep slogging away in your ever
> increasing denial.
Ulriksen thinks that anti-Stratfordianism is "newsworthy" in the sense
that it will sell "trashy tabloid(s)", but he doesn't really care
about the argument at all and just thinks that Shakespeare was the
world's greatest author. Again, Kaplan may think that being on the
front page of a "trashy" newspaper in the imagination of an artist is
a wonderful thing, but it is hardly evidence that Marlovianism (and
certainly not Oxfordianism, which this painting doesn't even mention)
is about to take over the world.
I would suggest that before Kaplan wets his pants with excitement and
writes essays extolling the new-found respectability of Oxfordianism
in future, he actually takes time to ask the people who wrote the
essay, article, or painted the painting, what they think of the
subject. These are real living people who, unlike Shakespeare and his
Renaissance contemporaries, can be asked exactly what they think.
Mark Ulriksen is not a supporter of the theory that Marlowe wrote
Shakespeare. His cartoon is not intended to suggest that Shakespeare
of Stratford did not write Shakespeare. It doesn't advance the
Oxfordian cause one jot.
Anyway, here is Ulriksen himself.
"Dear Thomas,
Well I must say it's fun to stir up a tempest of sorts. To set the
record
straight my intention with this painting (it's an oil and acrylic
painting on
canvas, not a "cartoon") was to turn the annual New York Shakespeare
in the
Park event into an actual park populated by Shakespeares doing things
people do
in Central Park, i.e. jog, row, eat, bike, play bongos, walk dogs and
read the
paper. In this case I wanted to bring Shakespeare down from his lofty
heights
and have him read one of the local trashy tabloids, in this case The
Daily News
(and not the NY Post as that is owned by Rupert Murdoch who I
personally can't
stand).
I wanted all the copy on the paper to reflect Shakespeare's influence
on
contemporary language and culture. Thus the noted Shakespearean
academic Harold
Bloom is quoted above the headline and the back cover, which is always
about
sports, has fun with the Yankees Derek Jeter (he's number 2 on the
team , hence
2 is too solid to melt). Unreadable on the magazine itself is a line
below
Jeter's portrait that says "agent demands pound of flesh".
Now, regarding the controversial headline. I'm aware that a rift
exists among
Shakespeare's followers that some of his work may be incorrectly
attributed to
him and that Christopher Marlowe has been mentioned as a possible
author so I
wanted to have the Daily News front page reflect the most common
"newsworthy"
aspect of contemporary feelings regarding the Bard. I'm afraid it's as
simple
as that. Remember that the Daily News is an inflammatory paper that
shouts out
it's headlines in overly dramatic tones. Personally I have no idea who
wrote
what , but I stand among the millions who regard Shakespeare as the
world's
greatest author.
Thomas can you please send me a link to the site where all this
chatter is
occurring. I'm completely oblivious to any feedback and would love to
hear
what's being said about this painting.
Kindest regards,
Mark Ulriksen"
Of course Kaplan might want to claim that Ulriksen doesn't understand
the real significance of his own painting, and that the fact that he
thinks anti-Stratfordianism is "the most common 'newsworthy' aspect of
contemporary feelings regarding the Bard" is evidence that
Oxfordianism is about to take over the world, but this idea is rather
obviously Kaplan's and not Ulriksen's. Ulriksen's main point is a
superior (but entirely justified) dig at a "trashy tabloid". He
apparently doesn't have any personal opinion about
anti-Stratfordianism or its significance at all.
Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk
Art Neuendorffer
> Mark Ulriksen
> tells me (and I will give his own words in a moment) that he is
> agnostic on authorship issues, but thinks that Shakespeare is the
> greatest author in the world.
>
> His reason for including the Daily News with an authorship headline
> was that he wanted to "bring Shakespeare down from his lofty heights"
> and show him reading a "trashy tabloid". That is not at all the same
> thing as suggesting that Shakespeare never wrote the works, which
> seems to be Ken's idea of the cover. Instead Ulriksen says that he
> was noting that authorship was the "most common 'newsworthy' aspect of
> contemporary feelings about the bard". Kaplan might be satisfied with
> this, as long as he doesn't consider the fact that - for Ulriksen -
> this is "newsworthy" in the sense of the sort of thing that is written
> about (with "inflammatory" "overly dramatic" headlines) by "trashy
> tabloid(s)".
But Mark has chosen a "local trashy tabloid" that he likes:
<<To set the record straight my intention with this painting (it's an oil
and acrylic painting on canvas, not a "cartoon") was to turn the annual New
York Shakespeare in the Park event into an actual park populated by
Shakespeares doing things people do in Central Park, i.e. jog, row, eat,
bike, play bongos, walk dogs and read the paper. In this case I wanted to
bring Shakespeare down from his lofty heights and have him read one of the
local trashy tabloids, in this case The
Daily News (and not the NY Post as that is owned by Rupert Murdoch who I
personally can't stand)... I'm aware that a rift exists among Shakespeare's
followers that some of his work may be incorrectly attributed to him and . .
.I wanted to have the Daily News front page reflect the most common
"newsworthy" aspect of contemporary feelings regarding the Bard. .
.Personally I have no idea who wrote what , but I stand among the millions
who regard Shakespeare as the world's greatest author.>>
--------------------------------------------
That a typical intelligent New Yorker like Mark Ulriksen
1) has a very high opinion of Shakespeare,
2) recognizes that a rift exists among
Shakespeare's followers which is newsworthy
3) but has no idea, himself, who wrote it.
is, IMO, admirable.
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
Trying to be not a "cartoon," Art???
The conditions you list describe almost everyone I know.
I don't know why I say "almost" because I don't know of
ANY acquaintances of mine suffering through authorphobia.
I have to come to HLAS or something similar to actually
find a person involved in reassigning Shakespeare's authorship,
as corrupt and devious as that can be.
Your number 3), though is inaccurate, I think. It would
be more apt to say "but has no bother, himself, who wrote it"
or 'but has no doubts, himself, who wrote it" or "but has
no unwieldy concerns, himself, who wrote it". I do believe
he has an idea because he isn't questioning it.
Greg Reynolds
I know why I liked it so much...
It's
a
ZIGGY
!
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Mark Ulriksen
> > > tells me (and I will give his own words in a moment) that he is
> > > agnostic on authorship issues, but thinks that Shakespeare
> > > is the greatest author in the world.
> > >
> > > His reason for including the Daily News with an authorship headline
> > > was that he wanted to "bring Shakespeare down from his lofty heights"
> > > and show him reading a "trashy tabloid". That is not at all the same
> > > thing as suggesting that Shakespeare never wrote the works, which
> > > seems to be Ken's idea of the cover. Instead Ulriksen says that he
> > > was noting that authorship was the "most common 'newsworthy' aspect of
> > > contemporary feelings about the bard". Kaplan might be satisfied with
> > > this, as long as he doesn't consider the fact that - for Ulriksen -
> > > this is "newsworthy" in the sense of the sort of thing that is written
> > > about (with "inflammatory" "overly dramatic" headlines) by "trashy
> > > tabloid(s)".
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> Trying to be not a "cartoon," Art???
I'm an oil and acrylic painting on canvas,
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> The conditions you list describe almost everyone I know.
Good.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> I don't know why I say "almost" because I don't know of
> ANY acquaintances of mine suffering through authorphobia.
> I have to come to HLAS or something similar to actually
> find a person involved in reassigning Shakespeare's
> authorship, as corrupt and devious as that can be.
>
> Your number 3), though is inaccurate, I think.
It is almost verbatum what Ulriksen says
(and what Larque says that Ulriksen says).
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> It would be more apt to say
> "but has no bother, himself, who wrote it"
> or 'but has no doubts, himself, who wrote it" or
> "but has no unwieldy concerns, himself, who wrote it".
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a 1615 verse-letter to Ben Jonson,
F.B.(Francis Beaumont?) wrote:
"Here I would let slip
(If I had any in me) scholarship,
And from all learning keep these lines as clear
as Shakespeare's BEST are, which our heires shall
HEARE PREACHERS APTE TO THEIR AUDITORS TO SHOWE
how farr sometimes a mortall man may goe
by the dimme light of NATURE..."
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> I do believe he has an idea because he isn't questioning it.
He isn't questioning the anti-Strat assumption EITHER!
He has EQUAL respect (or lack of respect)
for those on BOTH SIDES!
Ulriksen recognizes that Shakespeare followers disagree on this subject
and he is not taking sides one way or the other. This whole silly argument
that EVERYBODY who doesn't actively complain about the Stratman's authorship
credentials is in consenting agreement with Stratman's authorship
credentials is LUDICROUS.
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
> for those on BOTH SIDES!
Except that he sees "Shakespeare" as the man in the Droeshout, and
gives the anti-Stratfordian voice to a "trashy tabloid" newspaper
(apparently not one that he likes, by the way, just not one owned by a
man that he detests whose pockets he has no intention of filling by
advertising, however obliquely, his newspaper). The painting
certainly makes it appear that he is neutral but leaning towards the
orthodox or at least the status quo. It certainly isn't what Ken
pretends that it is (a confirmation of the importance and
respectability of the Oxfordian, or even just the plain
anti-Stratfordian, thesis).
> Ulriksen recognizes that Shakespeare followers disagree on this subject
> and he is not taking sides one way or the other. This whole silly argument
> that EVERYBODY who doesn't actively complain about the Stratman's authorship
> credentials is in consenting agreement with Stratman's authorship
> credentials is LUDICROUS.
I'm not sure that it is. Kaplan wants Ulriksen on his side, but
Ulriksen is not. This isn't quite as stupid as Kaplan pretending that
a PMLA article by a Stratfordian Professor is on his side, or Whalen
pretending that arch-Stratfordian David Garrick was really an
Oxfordian (because he once used the word "ever" in a poem about
Shakespeare), but Ulriksen is still not one of Kaplan's fellow
travellers and his painting doesn't boost Kaplan's point of view at
all. Ulriksen apparently supports the status quo, where all the
academics say that Shakespeare is Shakespeare of Stratford and
everybody imagines Shakespeare as the man in the Droeshout engraving,
but where anti-Stratfordians scream their theories in "trashy
tabloid(s)" and entertain the public, despite not gaining any
respectability or real belief.
There may be an equivalent to this in the British Royal Family. A
substantial minority, possibly even a majority, of Britons would say
"I don't really care whether there is a Queen or not. There are good
arguments on both sides, but I don't really care enough to do anything
about it". This being the case, the Republicans cannot claim to have
enough support to knock the Queen from her dominant position and
replace her with somebody else. I'm a Republican at heart, so unlike
Mark Ulriksen on Shakespeare Authorship I do sort-of take a side on
the debate about the Royal Family. If the British Government had a
referendum on whether she should go or stay then I would vote to have
the Queen removed. However, I am not bothered enough by this debate
to do anything to bring such a thing to pass, and am really quite
happy with the status quo until such time that somebody else does
something about my latent desires. Kaplan claims that Ulriksen's
cartoon is a sign of the long slide towards Oxfordianism becoming
equal to or taking over from Stratfordianism, but Ulriksen himself
says he doesn't know who wrote Shakespeare's plays and implies that he
doesn't really care. Ulriksen is not even a latent anti-Stratfordian
and he thinks the status quo is fine. Kaplan is simply deluding
himself when he thinks that this image is a folkloric indication (of
course, Kaplan hasn't actually learnt on his course what folklore is,
but what do you expect? - Ken is stupid) that Oxfordianism is on the
rise.
I had a brief look at Schoenbaum's "Shakespeare's Lives" for some
evidence for my claim that Baconianism in the 1890s was more popular
and more prevalent than Oxfordianism in the 2000s, and found it
easily. Schoenbaum tells us that "Everywhere the controversy, now a
cause celebre, caught the popular imagination. Newspapers, magazines,
and lecture halls reverberated with echoes of the great debate ... In
1888 the [Bacon] Society's Honourable Secretary, R.M. Theobald, was
able to garner enough letters from the correspondence columns of the
"Daily Telegraph" over a period of six weeks to fill a volume,
"Dethroning Shakespeare"; and those constituted only a sampling".
So here's a challenge for Kaplan, and one that I know he will never
take up, because he couldn't possibly ever do it. On the day that
Kaplan manages to publish a book filled entirely with letters
advocating the Oxfordian point of view from the correspondence pages
from a single intelligent, well-reputed, broadsheet daily newspaper
over a six week period, then I will admit that Oxfordianism has
managed to crawl back to the same position that Baconianism held in
the 1880s. Of course, Kaplan would still be nowhere near his
delusional goal of equalling or eclipsing Stratfordianism by 2011, but
at least he could hold his head up next to Ignatious Donelly and
Durning-Lawrence, the crazed fanatics who achieved more publicity and
public regard for Bacon as Shakespeare than Kaplan and all his allies
have ever achieved for Oxford.
I searched the Daily Telegraph archives from April 1996 to the present
day, and for good measure threw in the Sunday Telegraph archives as
well (despite the fact that these are two different newspapers).
There seem to have been only two short letters about the authorship
debate in the modern Telegraph in six years, and these both seem (in
one case probably, in the other unquestionably) to be Stratfordians
attacking the Marlowe Society and its stupid question-mark on the
memorial window for Marlowe (the Marlowe Society, partly made up of
loons like Peter Farey, wants us all to believe that there is some
doubt about when Marlowe died. Of course there isn't). The words
"Edward de Vere" or "Earl of Oxford" do not appear in any letter in
the whole six years. Even if we allow Ken to cheat and use the whole
paper, not just its letter page (which is hardly keeping up with the
Baconians) then we find less than half-a-dozen references to
Oxfordianism in six years. You couldn't make a book out of that.
Kaplan's chief example of the wonderful advance of the Oxfordian cause
is Niederkorn's article in the New York Times, but that newspaper
doesn't have a whole lot more Oxfordianism in it than the "Daily
Telegraph". Searches for "Edward de Vere" and "Earl of Oxford" turn
up six articles, four reviews, ten short letters, and an obituary (of
Charlton Ogburn) in six years of New York Times. If we restrict it to
the six weeks in which Theobald made a book from the "Daily
Telegraph"'s letter page, then the best six weeks (after Niederkorn's
main article) produces just one article, one review, and ten letters.
A total of 5434 words (just longer than an undergraduate essay, and
about half the size of a small taught MA dissertation; nothing near
the size of a book) and not all of these on behalf of Oxford.
So I suggest Kaplan sets himself a new target. Forget equalling
Stratfordianism, you'll never do it - not in ten years, not in a
thousand. Forget ten years. The new Kaplan aim should be that in the
next hundred years (by 2013) he and his fellow Oxfordians will gain
just as much publicity and respect as the Baconians had in the 1880s
and 1890s. It will be hard gruelling work, they probably won't manage
it, and if they do it will be of no benefit to them at all (the
Baconians were never more than a Fringe group, although a more
powerful Fringe group than modern Oxfordians). However, Kaplan could
take a pride in having just as much respect as the crazed no-hopers
who formed the Baconian movement. At the moment he hasn't even got
that.
Art Neuendorffer
> > [Mark Ulriksen] has EQUAL respect (or lack of respect)
> > for those on BOTH SIDES!
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Except that he sees "Shakespeare" as the man in the Droeshout,
Because everyone has a stupid looking mask on?
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> and
> gives the anti-Stratfordian voice to a "trashy tabloid" newspaper
> (apparently not one that he likes, by the way, just not one owned by a
> man that he detests whose pockets he has no intention of filling by
> advertising, however obliquely, his newspaper).
Not a legitimate respected paper like
The New York Times that ALWAYS prints the truth!
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> The painting certainly
> makes it appear that he is neutral but leaning towards the
> orthodox or at least the status quo.
Ulriksen tells us (or you) that he is neutral with NO LEANINGS.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> It certainly isn't what Ken
> pretends that it is (a confirmation of the importance and
> respectability of the Oxfordian, or even just the plain
> anti-Stratfordian, thesis).
It would have been worse if Ulriksen actually had been a Marlovian.
Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Ulriksen recognizes that Shakespeare followers disagree on this
subject
> > and he is not taking sides one way or the other. This whole silly
argument
> > that EVERYBODY who doesn't actively complain about the Stratman's
authorship
> > credentials is in consenting agreement with Stratman's authorship
> > credentials is LUDICROUS.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> I'm not sure that it is.
> Ulriksen apparently supports the status quo, where all the
> academics say that Shakespeare is Shakespeare of Stratford and
> everybody imagines Shakespeare as the man in the Droeshout engraving,
> but where anti-Stratfordians scream their theories in "trashy
> tabloid(s)" and entertain the public, despite not gaining any
> respectability or real belief.
Ulriksen apparently is delighted by Shake-speare and amused by the whole
controversy.
Perhaps Ulriksen would chime in and clarify his stance.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> So I suggest Kaplan sets himself a new target. Forget equalling
> Stratfordianism, you'll never do it - not in ten years, not in a
> thousand. Forget ten years. The new Kaplan aim should be that in the
> next hundred years (by 2013) he and his fellow Oxfordians will gain
> just as much publicity and respect as the Baconians had in the 1880s
> and 1890s. It will be hard gruelling work, they probably won't manage
> it, and if they do it will be of no benefit to them at all (the
> Baconians were never more than a Fringe group, although
> a more powerful Fringe group than modern Oxfordians).
A hundred years sounds like a good target. I doubt that Ulriksen would
have even included the authorship issue if the Michael Wood book/documentary
had come out a month earlier. The combination of Paster as head of the
Folger and Wood's work will put the anti-Strat movement back at least 10
years.
But truth will out in the end.
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
> Stratfordianism, you'll never do it - not in ten years, not in a
> thousand. Forget ten years. The new Kaplan aim should be that in the
> next hundred years (by 2013)
OK. A bad case of touch-typists fingers. Obviously my "0" finger
beat my "1" finger to the punch. That should read "by 2103". Of
course Kaplan might want to make a plan of a kind that he will know
whether it succeeds, so perhaps we should give Kaplan until the end of
his life to reach the same level of publicity for the Oxfordians as
the Baconians had in the 1880s and 1890s. That's a bit unfair,
though, since Kaplan isn't going to make it either way, so it might be
merciful to extend the period in question to such an extent that he
will never know about his own failure. Ken wasn't so kind to himself
in his five years prediction, of course. Anyone want to bet he will
have conveniently disappeared from HLAS completely just before 2007,
when his "prediction" expires?
Just in case anybody is wondering why Kaplan's prediction expires in
2007, not in 2011 as he has stated in this thread, he changed his
prediction in a burst of misplaced confidence on 9th January 2002.
"You claim to know Oxfordians, as Reedy, Kathman, Ross, and others
have
claimed to know them. I don't think you have a clue. And I have bad
news. Five years until the paradigns are condidered equal. I used to
think ten. I've shortened my prediction. Why? I can see the movement
of history."
What evidence did Kaplan give that the change had begun? Only the
PMLA article by Professor M. Thomas Inge, which Kaplan thought proved
that Oxfordianism had a new respectability among academics. Of course
I rather dented Kaplan's (and Daniel Wright's) witless misreadings of
this article by writing to the author and asking him whether he meant
what Kaplan and Wright said he did. He was horrified by the idea that
anybody had mistaken him for an Oxfordian, and was very keen to tell
me that Kaplan and Wright were completely wrong. Wright's article
contains major misreadings and evidently deliberate lies about the
article, but it still contained enough information that Kaplan should
have been able to tell that Wright was wrong, as I pointed out before
reading the full PMLA article myself. Kaplan's fantasy Oxfordianism
rests on such ephemeral castles in the air, take away the lies and
distortions and nothing much is left. Kaplan can "see the movement of
history", but only when he is hallucinating. The PMLA article was yet
another sign that Oxfordianism is considered a ludicrous fringe theory
that nobody in academia, of any significance, wants to associate
themselves with.
So Ken, you've got until 2007, not 2011. You're running out of time
faster than you remembered.
Perhaps somebody would be kind enough to point us to your original ten
year prediction, which I can't find on Google, since I seem to
remember that it sets out the terms of your prediction in greater
detail. Part of your prediction, I have a feeling, was that 50% of
academics would be teaching that Oxford wrote the plays by 2011 (and
then you brought that down to 2007 in the posting above). Now unless
there are mass conversions very soon, that has already become
impossible, since today's students and Professors will form the vast
majority of the Professors in 2007 (and even in 2011), and since
99.999% of Professors specialising in Shakespeare are currently
Stratfordian (with the sole exception of Dan Wright), and only a small
number of these people will retire before 2007, you don't have a cat
in hell's chance of being right in your claim that 50% of
Shakespearean academics would be Oxfordian by this time.
Of course, you won't be right by any real measure - let alone that one
- only by the Kaplan system of measurement (one painting mentioning
anti-Stratfordianism = "Paradigms are nearly equal"). And I think
just about everybody would agree that this peculiar measure of success
is rampantly idiotic and fake. The only people who might agree with
you are your fellow loons (Streitz might just add it to his theories
about everybody in the Renaissance committing incest), but by 2007
nobody will be taking much more notice of them than they are now, or
than they were in 2001, or than they ever have.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > So I suggest Kaplan sets himself a new target. Forget equalling
> > Stratfordianism, you'll never do it - not in ten years, not in a
> > thousand. Forget ten years. The new Kaplan aim should be that in the
> > next hundred years (by 2013) he and his fellow Oxfordians will gain
> > just as much publicity and respect as the Baconians had in the 1880s
> > and 1890s. It will be hard gruelling work, they probably won't manage
> > it, and if they do it will be of no benefit to them at all (the
> > Baconians were never more than a Fringe group, although
> > a more powerful Fringe group than modern Oxfordians).
> A hundred years sounds like a good target. I doubt that Ulriksen would
> have even included the authorship issue if the Michael Wood book/documentary
> had come out a month earlier. The combination of Paster as head of the
> Folger and Wood's work will put the anti-Strat movement back at least 10
> years.
No, anti-Stratfordians' wounds are virtually always self-inflicted.
Mr. Streitz's book will set the movement back incalculably, and Dr.
Stritmatter's error-ridden thesis certainly hasn't helped either. If a
forum like h.l.a.s. were more widely read, you ALONE could set the
movement back centuries, Art, even WITHOUT the help of Mr. Streitz,
Elizabeth Weird, Okay Fine, Stephanie Caruana, "Dr." Faker, _et al_.
> But truth will out in the end.
Certainly it has thus far, and there is little reason to doubt that
this trend will continue. Charismatic nutcases may make a temporary
stir (e.g., Velikovsky, von Däniken, the Ogburns, etc.), and even some
intellectuals of real ability may be temporarily deluded (e.g., by cold
fusion), but what Bertrand Russell characterized as "intellectual
rubbish" is generally discarded eventually, and the anti-Stratfordian
scenarios suggested thus far will almost surely suffer that fate.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> > > --------------------------------------------
> > > That a typical intelligent New Yorker like Mark Ulriksen
> > >
> > > 1) has a very high opinion of Shakespeare,
> > >
> > > 2) recognizes that a rift exists among
> > > Shakespeare's followers which is newsworthy
> > >
> > > 3) but has no idea, himself, who wrote it.
> > >
> > > is, IMO, admirable.
[...]
> "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
[...]
> > Your number 3), though is inaccurate, I think.
> It is almost verbatum [sic] what Ulriksen says
> (and what Larque says that Ulriksen says).
What can I say, Art? I've said all along that I, too, am agnostic
(although that doesn't mean that I'm credulous enough to be hoodwinked
by the hilarious crap generated by many ludicrously incompetent
anti-Stratfordian misreadings) -- I am indeed glad that you regard my
stance as "admirable."
[...]
> "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
>
> > I do believe he has an idea because he isn't questioning it.
> He isn't questioning the anti-Strat assumption EITHER!
I'm glad that the vestigial remnants of sanity that you still retain
suffice to enable you to recognize that the "anti-Strat assumption" is
exactly that -- an ASSUMPTION, so far devoid of any credible evidence.
> He has EQUAL respect (or lack of respect)
> for those on BOTH SIDES!
He doesn't say that, Art. Most sane persons bestow their respect not
according to authorship stance but according to demonstrated competence
and expertise -- or withhold it based upon the lack thereof.
Thus, for example, most h.l.a.s. participants, regardless of their
position on authorship or lack thereof, regard Dave Kathman, Terry Ross,
and seVERal others with respect, because they clearly know whereof they
speak, and the evidence they adduce is independently VERifiable.
Contrast their formidable expertise with that of someone who thinks that
Anne Hathaway was Shakespeare's mother and that Virgil predated
Herodotus, or someone who thinks that Caxton was Shakespeare's
contemporary, or someone who cannot distinguish Mary Tudor from Mary
Queen of Scots (or for that matter, Oxford's sister Mary Vere from his
half-sister Katherine Vere, or Terry Ross from Tom Reedy), or someone
who routinely invents "facts" out of thin air ("Southampton was overly
fond of drag and used to hang about the theatres hoping to play female
roles. He was given a few parts and was apparently very convincing as a
girl."), or someone who fabricates academic credentials and offers
crack-brained "proofs" of Fermat's Last Theorem, or someone who thinks
that only one of Shakespeare's plays is set in a foreign country other
than Italy, or someone who thinks that Dryden disdained Shakespeare (and
that Sobran is a sage, and that John Edward really does talk to dead
people), etc.
In short, most anti-Stratfordians are afforded scant respect NOT
because they are anti-Stratfordians but simply because they are
ludicrously credulous and farcically incompetent.
> Ulriksen recognizes that Shakespeare followers disagree on this subject
> and he is not taking sides one way or the other. This whole silly argument
> that EVERYBODY who doesn't actively complain about the Stratman's authorship
> credentials is in consenting agreement with Stratman's authorship
> credentials is LUDICROUS.
Precisely, Art. Now perhaps you'll have a little more respect for my
agnosticism, an agnosticism not incompatible with the pitiless debunking
of nonsense.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > So I suggest Kaplan sets himself a new target. Forget equalling
> > > Stratfordianism, you'll never do it - not in ten years, not in a
> > > thousand. Forget ten years. The new Kaplan aim should be that in the
> > > next hundred years (by 2013) he and his fellow Oxfordians will gain
> > > just as much publicity and respect as the Baconians had in the 1880s
> > > and 1890s. It will be hard gruelling work, they probably won't manage
> > > it, and if they do it will be of no benefit to them at all (the
> > > Baconians were never more than a Fringe group, although
> > > a more powerful Fringe group than modern Oxfordians).
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > A hundred years sounds like a good target. I doubt that Ulriksen
would
> > have even included the authorship issue if the Michael Wood
book/documentary
> > had come out a month earlier. The combination of Paster as head of the
> > Folger and Wood's work will put the anti-Strat movement back
> > at least 10 years.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> No, anti-Stratfordians' wounds are virtually always self-inflicted.
Hold then my words, and turne away thy face, while I do run vpon them.
> If a forum like h.l.a.s. were more widely read,
> you ALONE could set the movement back centuries, Art,
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their hard drive;
So let it be with Art.
> > But truth will out in the end.
>
> Charismatic nutcases may make a temporary
> stir (e.g., Velikovsky, von Däniken, etc.), and even
> some intellectuals of real ability may be temporarily deluded
> (e.g., by cold fusion), but what Bertrand Russell characterized
> as "intellectual rubbish" is generally discarded eventually,
I certainly hope so.
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > That a typical intelligent New Yorker like Mark Ulriksen
> > > >
> > > > 1) has a very high opinion of Shakespeare,
> > > >
> > > > 2) recognizes that a rift exists among
> > > > Shakespeare's followers which is newsworthy
> > > >
> > > > 3) but has no idea, himself, who wrote it.
> > > >
> > > > is, IMO, admirable.
> > "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> > > Your number 3), though is inaccurate, I think.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > It is almost verbatum [sic] what Ulriksen says
> > (and what Larque says that Ulriksen says).
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> What can I say, Art?
No a whole lot apparently.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> I've said all along that I, too, am agnostic
> (although that doesn't mean that I'm credulous enough to be hoodwinked
> by the hilarious crap generated by many ludicrously incompetent
> anti-Stratfordian misreadings) -- I am indeed glad that
> you regard my stance as "admirable."
You mean your 'William Wallace' stance?
The comment: "ludicrously incompetent anti-Stratfordian misreadings"
seems extremely biased in this regard.
> > "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> >
> > > I do believe he has an idea because he isn't questioning it.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > He isn't questioning the anti-Strat assumption EITHER!
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> I'm glad that the vestigial remnants of sanity that you still retain
> suffice to enable you to recognize that the "anti-Strat assumption" is
> exactly that -- an ASSUMPTION, so far devoid of any credible evidence.
I recognize that the "Strat assumption" is devoid of any credible evidence.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > He has EQUAL respect (or lack of respect)
> > for those on BOTH SIDES!
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> He doesn't say that, Art.
He implies it.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Most sane persons bestow their respect not according to
> authorship stance but according to demonstrated competence
> and expertise -- or withhold it based upon the lack thereof.
Most sane persons avoid the authorship issue.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Thus, for example, most h.l.a.s. participants, regardless of their
> position on authorship or lack thereof, regard Dave Kathman, Terry Ross,
> and seVERal others with respect, because they clearly know whereof
> they speak, and the evidence they adduce is independently VERifiable.
The cipher evidence they adduce is independently VERifiable.
You're just too damn lazy & afraid to show that statistically
this sort of stuff can't possibly be coincidental.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> In short, most anti-Stratfordians are afforded scant respect NOT
> because they are anti-Stratfordians but simply because they are
> ludicrously credulous and farcically incompetent.
In short, ALL anti-Stratfordians are treated disrespectfully
simply because Stratfordians have absolutely nothing
intelligent to relate except as regarding trivialities (see Matus).
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > Ulriksen recognizes that Shakespeare followers disagree on this
subject
> > and he is not taking sides one way or the other. This whole silly
argument
> > that EVERYBODY who doesn't actively complain about the Stratman's
authorship
> > credentials is in consenting agreement with Stratman's authorship
> > credentials is LUDICROUS.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Precisely, Art. Now perhaps you'll have a little more respect for my
> agnosticism, an agnosticism not incompatible with the
> pitiless debunking of nonsense.
An agnosticism compatible with the pitiless ad hominem
attacks on anti-Stratfordians and only anti-Stratfordians.
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
> Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > [Mark Ulriksen] has EQUAL respect (or lack of respect)
> > > for those on BOTH SIDES!
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Except that he sees "Shakespeare" as the man in the Droeshout,
>
> Because everyone has a stupid looking mask on?
Erm ... no, Art. Ulriksen doesn't say those are masks, he says that
all of the figures *are* Shakespeares. The main point of the
newspaper with an anti-Stratfordian headline is to show "Shakespeare"
reading "one of the local trashy tabloids" to "bring Shakespeare down
from the lofty heights". Those aren't supposed to be people in masks,
they are supposed to be Shakespeares, and Ulriksen's Shakespeare looks
like the man in the Folio (Shakespeare from Stratford).
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > and
> > gives the anti-Stratfordian voice to a "trashy tabloid" newspaper
> > (apparently not one that he likes, by the way, just not one owned by a
> > man that he detests whose pockets he has no intention of filling by
> > advertising, however obliquely, his newspaper).
>
> Not a legitimate respected paper like
> The New York Times that ALWAYS prints the truth!
I think even respected papers print garbage occasionally, and the New
York Times (as people have been pointing out recently) got itself a
reputation for awful editorial standards during the very same period
that it employed Niederkorn. But as I've also shown, there isn't much
Oxfordianism in six years of the New York Times. Not all that much
more than in the British "Daily Telegraph" which had virtually nothing
in the same period. Far less coverage than the Baconians were getting
more than a hundred years ago. Far less coverage than a lot of other
pseudo-sciences and pseudo-histories are getting in respected
international newspapers (take a look at the coverage that the Hitler
Diaries got, for example).
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > The painting certainly
> > makes it appear that he is neutral but leaning towards the
> > orthodox or at least the status quo.
>
> Ulriksen tells us (or you) that he is neutral with NO LEANINGS.
No. He says he doesn't know who wrote the plays. That's almost
certainly because he hasn't looked at Shakespeare's biography or the
anti-Stratfordian arguments in any depth at all. No reason why he
should have, really, he's an artist, not an expert in literary
biography. His (conscious or subconscious) leanings, however, are
fairly readily apparent from the painting. Shakespeare is the Folio
portrait. Anti-Stratfordianism is "newsworthy" in the "trashy
tabloid" sense. He doesn't overtly take sides on the authorship
debate and tell us that one group is right and the other is wrong, but
he lines up with the status quo (the Droeshout is central,
anti-Stratfordianism is an interesting but trashy side issue).
There is an easy solution to this, however. If you think I'm wrong
about the fact that Ulriksen lines up with the status quo (and
imagines Shakespeare as the man in the Droeshout), then ask him. He
really exists, and he knows what he thinks better than any of us.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > It certainly isn't what Ken
> > pretends that it is (a confirmation of the importance and
> > respectability of the Oxfordian, or even just the plain
> > anti-Stratfordian, thesis).
>
> It would have been worse if Ulriksen actually had been a Marlovian.
He probably watched or read something sparked off by the Much Ado
About Something film, which has been very prominent lately, but it
really hurts Kaplan's Oxfordian thesis that this painting he is so
excited about doesn't mention Oxford at all. If the Oxfordians and
the Marlovians are only on level-pegging, then the Oxfordians are in
trouble.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > Ulriksen recognizes that Shakespeare followers disagree on this
> subject
> > > and he is not taking sides one way or the other. This whole silly
> argument
> > > that EVERYBODY who doesn't actively complain about the Stratman's
> authorship
> > > credentials is in consenting agreement with Stratman's authorship
> > > credentials is LUDICROUS.
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > I'm not sure that it is.
>
> > Ulriksen apparently supports the status quo, where all the
> > academics say that Shakespeare is Shakespeare of Stratford and
> > everybody imagines Shakespeare as the man in the Droeshout engraving,
> > but where anti-Stratfordians scream their theories in "trashy
> > tabloid(s)" and entertain the public, despite not gaining any
> > respectability or real belief.
>
> Ulriksen apparently is delighted by Shake-speare and amused by the whole
> controversy.
Amused by us arguing about what his painting meant, certainly. He
apparently didn't intend to say anything significant about the
authorship debate at all. He certainly didn't intend to say what
Comrade Ken thinks he meant to say.
> Perhaps Ulriksen would chime in and clarify his stance.
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > So I suggest Kaplan sets himself a new target. Forget equalling
> > Stratfordianism, you'll never do it - not in ten years, not in a
> > thousand. Forget ten years. The new Kaplan aim should be that in the
> > next hundred years (by 2013) he and his fellow Oxfordians will gain
> > just as much publicity and respect as the Baconians had in the 1880s
> > and 1890s. It will be hard gruelling work, they probably won't manage
> > it, and if they do it will be of no benefit to them at all (the
> > Baconians were never more than a Fringe group, although
> > a more powerful Fringe group than modern Oxfordians).
>
> A hundred years sounds like a good target. I doubt that Ulriksen would
> have even included the authorship issue if the Michael Wood book/documentary
> had come out a month earlier. The combination of Paster as head of the
> Folger and Wood's work will put the anti-Strat movement back at least 10
> years.
Are you being sarcastic, Art? Hard to tell. Sometimes you give more
credit to people like Paster than your fellow antis, so perhaps you
are serious. Anyway, I'm glad you agree that it is going to take at
least 100 years for the Oxfordians to get back to the position that
the Baconians had reached more than a century ago (and subsequently
lost), since the Baconians - despite their publicity - were still a
meaningless Fringe group of no serious significance that very few
people took any notice of (but not quite as meaningless and ignored as
the Oxfordians today).
Of course, Oxfordianism is never going to get much further than the
dream of one day catching up with the 19th century Baconians, but
little goals should suit the little minds of the Oxfordians.
> But truth will out in the end.
Apart from inside the minds of the poor deluded anti-Stratfordians and
those they dupe, the truth never went away.
Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakepsearean.org.uk
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > [Mark Ulriksen] has EQUAL respect (or lack of respect)
> > > > for those on BOTH SIDES!
> >
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > Except that he sees "Shakespeare" as the man in the Droeshout,
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Because everyone has a stupid looking mask on?
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Erm ... no, Art. Ulriksen doesn't say those are masks,
> he says that all of the figures *are* Shakespeares.
Well, I was close. :-)
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> The main point of the
> newspaper with an anti-Stratfordian headline is to show "Shakespeare"
> reading "one of the local trashy tabloids" to "bring Shakespeare down
> from the lofty heights". Those aren't supposed to be people in masks,
> they are supposed to be Shakespeares, and Ulriksen's Shakespeare
> looks like the man in the Folio (Shakespeare from Stratford).
And what the Hell is the man in the Folio supposed to look like
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1939) Encyclopedia Britannica on "Drama"
HERODOTUS had a lot to say
about TRAGEDY (i.e., a goat-song) being
a PATHOS (i.e., the violent death of Dionysus/Osiris
by "SPARAGMOS" or dismemberment):
<<. . .we have the express testimony of HERODOTUS that the ritual
worship of Dionysus (the god of Drama) was the same as the ritual
worship of Osiris such that it involved a "sparagmos"
(dismemberment), mourning, search, discovery and resurrection.>>
However, HERODOTUS avoided directly mentioning
Dionysus OR Osiris in this regard:
"When the Egyptians lament the god
whom I may not name in this connection"
"They lament but whom they lament I must not say" -- HERODOTUS
For in the manner of ancient religion, it was always necessary
that Dionysus or Osiris be represented by some surrogate.
In fact, ALL TRAGIC HEROS are simply surrogates of Dionysus/Osiris:
<<We find a frequent sparagmos of beings who have committed some sin:
Pentheus by Maenads
Orpheus by Maenads
Lycurgus by horses
HYPPOLYTUS by horses
Dirce by a bull
Actaeon by hounds. . .
This use of a surrogate was made easier by the fact that both at Eleusis
and in the Osiris rite the myth was conveyed by *tableaux*
(i.e., 'things shown') rather than by words.
Thus the death of Pentheus, wearing Dionysiac dress,
would be shown by exactly the same tableau as that of Dionysus.
THE TRUTH COULD BE SHOWN TO THE WISE
AND AT THE SAME TIME VEILED FROM *THE UNKNOWING*
Such facts help to explain the charge of
"profaning the mysteries" brought against Aeschylus.>>
- 'Drama' in (1939) _Encyclopedia Britannica_
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/advanced.html gives
HERODOTUS as the *only* 1 word anagram for DROESHOUT.
in English, German, Spanish, French or Italian.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The DROESHOUT/HERODOTUS 'anagram' involves a
"sparagmos(dismemberment) and resurrection."
The Martin Droeshout portrait of Shakespeare
with it's two right eyes & two left shoulders
qualifies as well. In fact,
Droeshout's portrait appears to be a
"sparagmos & resurrection"
of Southampton & Oxford portraits combined:
(Printed at the bottom of the DROESHOUT:)
"MArTiN DrOeSHOUT:sculPsit"
"ris MATNOSHOUTP" + "Dreculsit"
"sir SOUTHAMPTON" + "sir Dulcet"
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > and
> > > gives the anti-Stratfordian voice to a "trashy tabloid" newspaper
> > > (apparently not one that he likes, by the way, just not one owned by a
> > > man that he detests whose pockets he has no intention of filling by
> > > advertising, however obliquely, his newspaper).
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Not a legitimate respected paper like
> > The New York Times that ALWAYS prints the truth!
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> I think even respected papers print garbage occasionally, and the New
> York Times (as people have been pointing out recently) got itself a
> reputation for awful editorial standards during the very same period
> that it employed Niederkorn. But as I've also shown, there isn't much
> Oxfordianism in six years of the New York Times. Not all that much
> more than in the British "Daily Telegraph" which had virtually nothing
> in the same period. Far less coverage than the Baconians were getting
> more than a hundred years ago. Far less coverage than a lot of other
> pseudo-sciences and pseudo-histories are getting in respected
> international newspapers (take a look at the coverage that
> the Hitler Diaries got, for example).
That's because it is NOT pseudo-science or pseudo-history.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > The painting certainly
> > > makes it appear that he is neutral but leaning towards the
> > > orthodox or at least the status quo.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Ulriksen tells us (or you) that he is neutral with NO LEANINGS.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> No. He says he doesn't know who wrote the plays. That's almost
> certainly because he hasn't looked at Shakespeare's biography or the
> anti-Stratfordian arguments in any depth at all. No reason why he
> should have, really, he's an artist, not an expert in literary
> biography. His (conscious or subconscious) leanings, however,
> are fairly readily apparent from the painting.
Are you professionally trained in psychology, Tom?
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> There is an easy solution to this, however. If you think I'm wrong
> about the fact that Ulriksen lines up with the status quo (and
> imagines Shakespeare as the man in the Droeshout), then ask him.
> He really exists, and he knows what he thinks better than any of us.
If he wishes to chime in here that would be great but it doesn't really
matter what Ulriksen thinks in this regard so far as I'm concerned; what's
important is that the cover of the New Yorker helps a little bit to keep the
authorship issue out in front of the general public (and it puts the Strats
on the defensive).
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > It certainly isn't what Ken
> > > pretends that it is (a confirmation of the importance and
> > > respectability of the Oxfordian, or even just the plain
> > > anti-Stratfordian, thesis).
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > It would have been worse if Ulriksen actually had been a Marlovian.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> He probably watched or read something sparked off by the Much Ado
> About Something film, which has been very prominent lately, but it
> really hurts Kaplan's Oxfordian thesis that this painting he is so
> excited about doesn't mention Oxford at all. If the Oxfordians and
> the Marlovians are only on level-pegging, then the Oxfordians are in
> trouble.
Well, the Marlovians were the last to get a TV special. Part of the
problem is that the general public isn't too bright about these sorts of
things and anyone who gets TV coverage will jump to the lead for a while.
> > Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > > Ulriksen recognizes that Shakespeare followers disagree on this
> > subject
> > > > and he is not taking sides one way or the other. This whole silly
> > argument
> > > > that EVERYBODY who doesn't actively complain about the Stratman's
> > authorship
> > > > credentials is in consenting agreement with Stratman's authorship
> > > > credentials is LUDICROUS.
> >
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > I'm not sure that it is.
> >
> > > Ulriksen apparently supports the status quo, where all the
> > > academics say that Shakespeare is Shakespeare of Stratford and
> > > everybody imagines Shakespeare as the man in the Droeshout engraving,
> > > but where anti-Stratfordians scream their theories in "trashy
> > > tabloid(s)" and entertain the public, despite not gaining any
> > > respectability or real belief.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Ulriksen apparently is delighted by Shake-speare and amused by the
whole
> > controversy.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Amused by us arguing about what his painting meant, certainly. He
> apparently didn't intend to say anything significant about the
> authorship debate at all. He certainly didn't intend to say what
> Comrade Ken thinks he meant to say.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Perhaps Ulriksen would chime in and clarify his stance.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > So I suggest Kaplan sets himself a new target. Forget equalling
> > > Stratfordianism, you'll never do it - not in ten years, not in a
> > > thousand. Forget ten years. The new Kaplan aim should be that in the
> > > next hundred years (by 2013) he and his fellow Oxfordians will gain
> > > just as much publicity and respect as the Baconians had in the 1880s
> > > and 1890s. It will be hard gruelling work, they probably won't manage
> > > it, and if they do it will be of no benefit to them at all (the
> > > Baconians were never more than a Fringe group, although
> > > a more powerful Fringe group than modern Oxfordians).
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > A hundred years sounds like a good target. I doubt that Ulriksen
would
> > have even included the authorship issue if the Michael Wood
book/documentary
> > had come out a month earlier. The combination of Paster as head of the
> > Folger and Wood's work will put the anti-Strat movement back
> > at least 10 years.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Are you being sarcastic, Art? Hard to tell.
I'm just being realistic.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Sometimes you give more
> credit to people like Paster than your fellow antis, so perhaps you
> are serious.
You clowns should have put your best & brightest out on the front lines a
long time ago. Old curmudgeons like Rowse & Bloom did you more harm than
good. Most people crave to believe in their institutions regardless of how
self serving & incompetent.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Anyway, I'm glad you agree that it is going to take at
> least 100 years for the Oxfordians to get back to the position that
> the Baconians had reached more than a century ago
> (and subsequently lost),
I think there is a good chance that Oxfordians will take over in the
next 20 years; I also think there is a good chance the Strats will still be
in firm control a 100 years from now. Then again maybe something else will
happen.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Of course, Oxfordianism is never going to get much further than the
> dream of one day catching up with the 19th century Baconians, but
> little goals should suit the little minds of the Oxfordians.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > But truth will out in the end.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Apart from inside the minds of the poor deluded anti-Stratfordians
> and those they dupe, the truth never went away.
That's not what Digges thought:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
The world thy Workes : thy Workes, by which, out-live
Thy Tombe, thy name must when that stone is rent,
*And Time DISSOLVES thy Stratford MONIMENT*,
Here we alive shall view thee still." - Digges
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
A Tsar Is Born
> beginning of the end, or just a bitter setback in this point at time.
The authorship controversy has been going on since the 19th century.
The popular candidate may change, but the general perception never does:
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.
The anti-Strats are as querulous and unconvincible as creationists: there is
no argument they'd ever accept, so why bother to offer any? Editors need
something to print, and the Internet encourages every author of
disinformation.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Thomas Larque
> > > > > for those on BOTH SIDES!
> > >
> > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > Except that he sees "Shakespeare" as the man in the Droeshout,
>
> > Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > Because everyone has a stupid looking mask on?
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Erm ... no, Art. Ulriksen doesn't say those are masks,
> > he says that all of the figures *are* Shakespeares.
>
> Well, I was close. :-)
Not really, Art - but at least you weren't posting what David Webb
calls lunatic logoherrea, so you were as close to coherent as you ever
get.
Whoops ... there goes that lunatic logoherrea. Time to take the
tablets, Art. As people have suggested on this list recently, this
sort of "research" of yours is the work of an Internet Troll. It has
no connection to any rational thinking and has nothing to do with
Shakespeare or even the authorship debate.
> > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > gives the anti-Stratfordian voice to a "trashy tabloid" newspaper
> > > > (apparently not one that he likes, by the way, just not one owned by a
> > > > man that he detests whose pockets he has no intention of filling by
> > > > advertising, however obliquely, his newspaper).
>
> > Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > Not a legitimate respected paper like
> > > The New York Times that ALWAYS prints the truth!
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > I think even respected papers print garbage occasionally, and the New
> > York Times (as people have been pointing out recently) got itself a
> > reputation for awful editorial standards during the very same period
> > that it employed Niederkorn. But as I've also shown, there isn't much
> > Oxfordianism in six years of the New York Times. Not all that much
> > more than in the British "Daily Telegraph" which had virtually nothing
> > in the same period. Far less coverage than the Baconians were getting
> > more than a hundred years ago. Far less coverage than a lot of other
> > pseudo-sciences and pseudo-histories are getting in respected
> > international newspapers (take a look at the coverage that
> > the Hitler Diaries got, for example).
>
> That's because it is NOT pseudo-science or pseudo-history.
You're being a bit hard on yourself, Art. You *are* a
pseudo-historian. Anti-Stratfordianism isn't all that much more
stupid than the theory that water has a memory, or the belief that JFK
was assassinated by the FBI, or even than Holocaust Denial. If you
are NOT a pseudo-science or pseudo-history, then you are something of
even less value. You don't really think anti-Stratfordianism is real
History, do you, Art? Real History doesn't just involve making things
up and misreading or lying about sources, which is all that
anti-Stratfordians ever do.
> > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > The painting certainly
> > > > makes it appear that he is neutral but leaning towards the
> > > > orthodox or at least the status quo.
>
> > Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > Ulriksen tells us (or you) that he is neutral with NO LEANINGS.
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > No. He says he doesn't know who wrote the plays. That's almost
> > certainly because he hasn't looked at Shakespeare's biography or the
> > anti-Stratfordian arguments in any depth at all. No reason why he
> > should have, really, he's an artist, not an expert in literary
> > biography. His (conscious or subconscious) leanings, however,
> > are fairly readily apparent from the painting.
>
> Are you professionally trained in psychology, Tom?
No, but two members of my family are, so maybe its rubbed off.
Ulriksen's use of the status quo is fairly obvious, however. He tells
us that he knows that some people question whether Shakespeare wrote
the plays, but he differentiates between Shakespeare (the man who most
people think wrote the plays) and Marlowe (who the anti-Stratfordians
suggest in Ulriksen's imagined "trashy tabloid" headline wrote the
plays), and Ulriksen's painting suggests that, despite newsworthy
questions from the fringes, the standard assumption would be that
Shakespeare wrote them. There are Shakespeares everywhere in his
painting, and his main aim was to show the man who wrote the plays
being brought down from his "lofty heights" by reading a "trashy
tabloid". The form that the man who wrote the plays takes in
Ulriksen's drawing is the Droeshout engraving of Shakespeare of
Stratford. Ulriksen may not be sure who wrote the plays, and so may
be agnostic on the authorship debate, but given a choice of how to
present the man behind the works he plumps primarily for the
traditional figure of the Folio's Shakespeare of Stratford.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > There is an easy solution to this, however. If you think I'm wrong
> > about the fact that Ulriksen lines up with the status quo (and
> > imagines Shakespeare as the man in the Droeshout), then ask him.
> > He really exists, and he knows what he thinks better than any of us.
>
> If he wishes to chime in here that would be great
I don't think he plans to, although he enjoyed reading the posts, and
the attention that his painting is getting here.
> but it doesn't really
> matter what Ulriksen thinks in this regard so far as I'm concerned; what's
> important is that the cover of the New Yorker helps a little bit to keep the
> authorship issue out in front of the general public (and it puts the Strats
> on the defensive).
Not really. It doesn't really change anything. Anti-Stratfordianism
has been hanging around at the back of public consciousness since the
19th century (without having any real significance in any important
way), and a mention from somebody who isn't an anti-Stratfordian, in a
cover that most people won't contemplate for very long is far less of
a boost to anti-Stratfordian propaganda than a programme like "Much
Ado About Something" (and that's probably more significant than
something like the New York Times article, especially since Niederkorn
did a very bad job of appearing intelligent or academic while writing
for an intelligent audience, Much Ado has a much less challenging TV
audience [even if they were the same people, they will be more relaxed
and passively accepting while watching television than reading an
intelligent newspaper] and is probably more skilfully produced than
Niederkorn's diatribe - I'm trying to get a copy of the film, so I'll
be more certain of this later on). As you admit in a moment, however,
anti-Stratfordianism is only "newsworthy" in the "trashy tabloid"
sense, and normally only attracts people who don't know much about the
Renaissance, Shakespeare, or Literary History and then only until
something else comes along. The number of people who dedicate their
lives to anti-Stratfordianism is understandably tiny, and - as you can
tell by reading this newsgroup - consists of largely the most
ignorant, incompetent, and unworldly of those who are touched by
anti-Stratfordian propaganda. Most people don't care much about
anti-Stratfordianism at all, but are fooled into thinking it more
significant than it is because they have no real interest in or
understanding of the issues behind it.
In the same way that most British parents will tell you that MMR could
be dangerous (when there is no scientific evidence that it is) or that
asylum seekers are flooding Britain and stealing our resources to an
extent that threatens national security (when they aren't, according
to any impartial study), those laymen who believe that there is a real
question about whether Shakespeare wrote the plays on the basis of
newspaper and TV anti-Stratfordianism are simply being fooled that
"newsworthy" means "serious", while the media organisations are just
churning out challenging and attractive nonsense rather than the less
"trashy tabloid" headline-worthy truth. "Shakespeare wrote
Shakespeare" isn't a headline. Everybody already knows that he did.
"Great New Discovery Unmasks True Bard" is a great headline, even if
when you read the story the Great New Discovery turns out to be the
product of a frenzied and unhinged imagination. That's why false
stories are usually more newsworthy - in the short term - than true
ones. Compared to other such false stories, however, (like the ones
about MMR and asylum seekers) anti-Stratfordianism gets virtually no
publicity at all.
> > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > It certainly isn't what Ken
> > > > pretends that it is (a confirmation of the importance and
> > > > respectability of the Oxfordian, or even just the plain
> > > > anti-Stratfordian, thesis).
>
> > Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > It would have been worse if Ulriksen actually had been a Marlovian.
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > He probably watched or read something sparked off by the Much Ado
> > About Something film, which has been very prominent lately, but it
> > really hurts Kaplan's Oxfordian thesis that this painting he is so
> > excited about doesn't mention Oxford at all. If the Oxfordians and
> > the Marlovians are only on level-pegging, then the Oxfordians are in
> > trouble.
>
> Well, the Marlovians were the last to get a TV special. Part of the
> problem is that the general public isn't too bright about these sorts of
> things and anyone who gets TV coverage will jump to the lead for a while.
So you understand why anti-Stratfordianism attracts the small amount
of attention that it does get. It is only the members of the "general
public" who aren't "too bright about these things" who are usually
convinced by anti-Stratfordian propaganda, and then not usually in the
form of academic arguments, but in the form of "soundbite" media
presentations like "Much Ado" or the NYT article. Apart from the
seriously unhinged, anybody who looks at the question in detail will
find that anti-Stratfordians are self-contradictory, dishonest, and
base their major claims on fantasy and fantastical misreadings.
Anti-Stratfordianism only sounds good if it covers up or skims over
the arguments against it, and like any false propaganda it works on
the assumption that the vast majority of people won't do what Kathman,
Ross, and others on this newsgroup do, which is go away and look up
the books and historical information behind the grandiose claims to
see whether they stand up. Most people don't have the time or
resources to do that on a subject that they consider of marginal
interest, so some of them are convinced by the anti-Strat soundbites,
just as lots of people are convinced by the dishonest British tabloids
and their political soundbites (on things like asylum seekers, see
above).
The fact that the impact of anti-Stratfordianism on the public at
large only lasts until the next TV programme or the next major
PR-drive, is good evidence of the superficiality of
anti-Stratfordianism. Kaplan rejoices every time a new wind seems to
be blowing in his direction, but ignores all the times that the wind
blows the other way, and keeps himself ignorant of the fact that the
vast majority of those who are (temporarily) attracted to
anti-Stratfordianism are those who are blowing in the wind of media
speculation, because they don't know enough or care enough to have
developed an informed and fixed viewpoint.
Not often that you come in touch with reality, Art. Well done.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Sometimes you give more
> > credit to people like Paster than your fellow antis, so perhaps you
> > are serious.
>
> You clowns should have put your best & brightest out on the front lines a
> long time ago. Old curmudgeons like Rowse & Bloom did you more harm than
> good. Most people crave to believe in their institutions regardless of how
> self serving & incompetent.
Rowse was awful, in the sense that he often had a lot in common with
anti-Stratfordian thinking (his arrogant conviction that only he saw
the truth about Shakespearean biography, and that all previous
scholars were ignorant and deluded, and his willingness to make up
history and then present it as an unquestionable truth - as he did
with his Dark Lady theories - was very anti-Stratfordian in mindset).
I'm not unhappy to see the back of him as a "Stratfordian"
representative, although of course it is sad that he died.
I've never had much time for Bloom either (who is also immeasurably
arrogant in his pronouncements, and dependent on his massive
self-belief).
I don't know Paster, and haven't yet read much of Wood (beyond one
article) but as long as they are following in the tradition of
Schoenbaum rather than Rowse, that sounds good to me.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Anyway, I'm glad you agree that it is going to take at
> > least 100 years for the Oxfordians to get back to the position that
> > the Baconians had reached more than a century ago
> > (and subsequently lost),
>
> I think there is a good chance that Oxfordians will take over in the
> next 20 years;
On what basis? What have the Oxfordians done now that the Baconians
didn't do in 1880? The only difference is that our current media are
mass-media, so a TV programme or cinema film about Oxfordianism can
have a lot more impact for a single event than anything happening in
the 19th century, but even taking this into account, Oxfordianism is
not keeping up with the 19th century Baconians for media presentation
or public relations. Baconianism touched many more people much more
deeply in the 19th century (at least in Britain and America) than
Oxfordianism ever has. Yet Baconianism never came anywhere near
"taking over" from Stratfordianism, and Oxfordianism won't ever do
that either. Your 20 years is a bit more conservative than Kaplan's 4
or 8, but you still haven't got a cat in hell's chance of making it
come true. Even after a new generation has grown up and one has died,
the majority of Shakespearean specialists will be either the ones who
are there today (but a bit older) or taught by the ones who were there
today, and everybody who is anybody at present is Stratfordian.
Anti-Stratfordianism, since its foundation, has depended on the
delusion that change is just around the corner, but it is genuinely
impossible that such change could take place within your lifetime, and
there is no reason to believe that it will ever come. On the day that
society is convinced that the Holocaust never happened on the basis of
testimony from Holocaust deniers working more than 50 years after the
event, then society might decide that Shakespeare didn't write his
plays on the basis of the testimony of people working more than four
hundred years after the event. Unless society loses its marbles in
this way, then anti-Stratfordianism and other pseudo-histories (based
on lies, misreadings, and distortions) will never get anywhere.
>I also think there is a good chance the Strats will still be
> in firm control a 100 years from now. Then again maybe something else will
> happen.
You can never be absolutely certain, perhaps everybody will be
Scientologists by 2103 (that's certainly more likely than everybody
being Oxfordians - Scientology is a much more successful movement than
Oxfordianism). The only rational prediction, however, is that
Stratfordianism is here to stay.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Of course, Oxfordianism is never going to get much further than the
> > dream of one day catching up with the 19th century Baconians, but
> > little goals should suit the little minds of the Oxfordians.
>
> > Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > But truth will out in the end.
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Apart from inside the minds of the poor deluded anti-Stratfordians
> > and those they dupe, the truth never went away.
>
> That's not what Digges thought:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
> The world thy Workes : thy Workes, by which, out-live
> Thy Tombe, thy name must when that stone is rent,
> *And Time DISSOLVES thy Stratford MONIMENT*,
> Here we alive shall view thee still." - Digges
> ------------------------------------------------------------
The monument may dissolve, but the Shakespeare who owned it will go on
into eternity. Note "thy Stratford monument". The monument belongs
to the author. Since the monument is that of Shakespeare of
Stratford, that means the author is Shakespeare of Stratford.
Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > But truth will out in the end.
> >
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > Apart from inside the minds of the poor deluded anti-Stratfordians
> > > and those they dupe, the truth never went away.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > That's not what Digges thought:
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
> > The world thy Workes : thy Workes, by which, out-live
> > Thy Tombe, thy name must when that stone is rent,
> > *And Time DISSOLVES thy Stratford MONIMENT*,
> > Here we alive shall view thee still." - Digges
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> The monument may dissolve, but the Shakespeare who owned it will go on
> into eternity. Note "thy Stratford monument". The monument belongs
> to the author.
The monument OWNS Shakespeare.
The monument IS Shakspeare:
-----------------------------------------------------------
STAY passenger, why goest thou by so fast,
Read if THOU CANST whom ENVIOUS death
hath plast within this *monument Shakspeare*
----------------------------------------------------------------
SNOUT-THOMA(s): You can never bring in a *WALL*
[SOUTHAM(p)TON] What say you, BOTTOM?
BOTTOM: Some man or other must present *WALL* : and let him
have some *PLASTER* , or some loam, or some rough-cast
about him, to signify *WALL*; and let him hold his
fingers thus, and through that cranny shall
Pyramus and Thisby whisper.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Anyway, I'm glad you agree that it is going to take at
> > > least 100 years for the Oxfordians to get back to the position that
> > > the Baconians had reached more than a century ago
> > > (and subsequently lost),
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > I think there is a good chance that Oxfordians will take over in the
> > next 20 years;
Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> On what basis? What have the Oxfordians done now
> that the Baconians didn't do in 1880?
Chosen the right guy as author
(; Bacon was simply in charge of the coverup).
Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> The only difference is that our current media are
> mass-media, so a TV programme or cinema film about Oxfordianism can
> have a lot more impact for a single event than anything happening in
> the 19th century, but even taking this into account, Oxfordianism is
> not keeping up with the 19th century Baconians for media presentation
> or public relations. Baconianism touched many more people much more
> deeply in the 19th century (at least in Britain and America) than
> Oxfordianism ever has. Yet Baconianism never came anywhere near
> "taking over" from Stratfordianism, and Oxfordianism won't ever do
> that either. Your 20 years is a bit more conservative than Kaplan's 4
> or 8, but you still haven't got a cat in hell's chance of making it
> come true. Even after a new generation has grown up and one has died,
> the majority of Shakespearean specialists will be either the ones who
> are there today (but a bit older) or taught by the ones who were there
> today, and everybody who is anybody at present is Stratfordian.
Not to mention the censorship in profession journals.
> Anti-Stratfordianism, since its foundation, has depended on the
> delusion that change is just around the corner,
POST TENEBRAS SPERO LUCEM
> but it is genuinely
> impossible that such change could take place within your lifetime, and
> there is no reason to believe that it will ever come. On the day that
> society is convinced that the Holocaust never happened on the basis of
> testimony from Holocaust deniers working more than 50 years after the
> event, then society might decide that Shakespeare didn't write his
> plays on the basis of the testimony of people working more than four
> hundred years after the event.
The Holocaust Museum just a dozen miles from me is bulging at the seams
with evidence (including thousands of eyewitness testimonies) that the
Holocaust actually took place. The nearby Folger contains NO eyewitness
testimony and the few facts tenuously connecting the Stratman to authorship
can easily be written on a single piece of paper.
Art Neuendorffer
johnreyn...@yahoo.com
Scott met Amber Frey in a bar on 11/20, and that is what his critics
call his 1st date. His last date was the very same bar for a Christmas
party 12/14, 2002, a very convenient set-up, if you consider the
number of "family album" snapshots that this casual encounter
produced.
The talking heads claim that Scott visited Amber once a week, and if
they are correct, he was with her 3 or 4 times. Her Dad & sister said
they never met him. During their final encounter, Scott told Amber he
was spending 2 weeks in Maine with his family before going on a 4-6
week, extended trip to Europe. It sounds like he was trying to find a
way to dump Amber without hurting her feelings. When Scott told Amber
that he would be in "France" for an extended period of time, he was
making it very clear that he did not want to see Amber, following the
12/14 Christmas party that produced all kinds of incriminating
photographs that were so embarrassing, he wanted to buy them off the
photographer.
No doubt, most people would freak to learn that is is not even clear
if Scott met Amber more than 3 or 4 times, because the common
impression, with all the "family album portraits" and all the gossip,
is that Scott and Amber had a serious relationship going. The truth
is, there was no relationship.
Amber is reportedly an escort and she understands her role very well.
She even had Christmas cards printed up as a couple with their picture
on it [Scott & Amber] and she probably even dressed up as a school
girl, if that was what her role called for. I hate to be rude, but the
only safe bet about discussing the life of a "whore" is that she will
play any role for money. I am therefore more interested in learning
about who pays for her time, for her private investigators, for her
photographers, for her makeovers and for her lawyers, because the rest
of her life is rather transparent. Scott Peterson is not the only
married man who has rolled in the hay with Amber Frey.
Amber Frey is a very manipulative and a very stupid young woman who
trusted Scott Peterson with her own child, and the effort to use her
to demonize Scott Peterson has fallen flat on its face. Amber Frey is
not a victim. Amber Frey is a whore. Laci, Connor and Scott Peterson
are the victims.
I think that the most prescient thread I have read about Amber claimed
that she was hired to replace Laci because;
"An escort like Amber does not spend 2 months posing for family album
pictures, the cost is prohibitive unless somebody is footing the bill.
There are enough photographs of Amber and Scott together, to justify
all the lies that Gennifer Flowers promoted, for getting laid, one
time -remember when she claimed an 11 year relationship with a married
man or something stupid like that. Amber Frey is just another bimbo
pawn of some vast network of CON-servative sleazeballs. Follow the
money trail. Who is paying for Amber's makeover and for Gloria Allred?
No doubt, it's so well concealed, that Gloria whispers and Amber moves
her lips."
It's funny, but there's truth in humor, isn't there? To be sure, the
poster did not even understand the simple fact that all those "family
album" pictures were taken in 2 or 3 staged encounters. It may feel
like the relationship could not have possibly been less than 2 months
old, but it wasn't even one.
Despite all the lies, the ignorance and the disinformation, Scott was
too busy to deal with Amber Frey and he invented an imaginary trip to
europe to dump her in what he thought would be the path of least
resistance. The following excerpt from an article published in the
Modesto Bee on April 21, describes the real life that preoccupied
Scott Peterson:
"After several years of trying, Laci became pregnant last summer. She
was so excited when she found out that she began calling family and
friends at 7 a.m. after taking a pregnancy test. As the holiday season
progressed, the Petersons held several parties at their home. Guests
walking in noticed that the house no longer resembled the place that
the Petersons had purchased. "Scott remodeled the entire house, doing
woodwork, tile, plumbing, a little bit of everything," said Guy
Miligi, a friend of the Petersons'. "I know he put a lot of hours into
making that baby room just right. He was real excited about having his
first child. He talked about that all the time."
Now that you know the truth, you will understand the fiction.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > The main point of the
> > > newspaper with an anti-Stratfordian headline is to show "Shakespeare"
> > > reading "one of the local trashy tabloids" to "bring Shakespeare down
> > > from the lofty heights". Those aren't supposed to be people in masks,
> > > they are supposed to be Shakespeares, and Ulriksen's Shakespeare
> > > looks like the man in the Folio (Shakespeare from Stratford).
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > And what the Hell is the man in the Folio supposed to look like
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/advanced.html gives
> > HERODOTUS as the *only* 1 word anagram for DROESHOUT.
> > in English, German, Spanish, French or Italian.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > The DROESHOUT/HERODOTUS 'anagram' involves a
> > "sparagmos(dismemberment) and resurrection."
> >
> > The Martin Droeshout portrait of Shakespeare
> > with it's two right eyes & two left shoulders
> > qualifies as well. In fact,
> > Droeshout's portrait appears to be a
> >
> > "sparagmos & resurrection"
> > of Southampton & Oxford portraits combined:
> >
> > (Printed at the bottom of the DROESHOUT:)
> > "MArTiN DrOeSHOUT:sculPsit"
> > "ris MATNOSHOUTP" + "Dreculsit"
> > "sir SOUTHAMPTON" + "sir Dulcet"
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Whoops ... there goes that lunatic logoherrea. Time to take the
> tablets, Art. As people have suggested on this list recently, this
> sort of "research" of yours is the work of an Internet Troll.
People!! The Goon Squad aint no People!
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> It has no connection to any rational thinking
> and has nothing to do with
> Shakespeare or even the authorship debate.
It's transcendental thinking and it has EVERything
to do with Shakespeare and the authorship debate.
> > > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > gives the anti-Stratfordian voice to a "trashy tabloid" newspaper
> > > > > (apparently not one that he likes, by the way, just not one owned
by a
> > > > > man that he detests whose pockets he has no intention of filling
by
> > > > > advertising, however obliquely, his newspaper).
> >
> > > Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > > Not a legitimate respected paper like
> > > > The New York Times that ALWAYS prints the truth!
> >
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > I think even respected papers print garbage occasionally, and the New
> > > York Times (as people have been pointing out recently) got itself a
> > > reputation for awful editorial standards during the very same period
> > > that it employed Niederkorn. But as I've also shown, there isn't much
> > > Oxfordianism in six years of the New York Times. Not all that much
> > > more than in the British "Daily Telegraph" which had virtually nothing
> > > in the same period. Far less coverage than the Baconians were getting
> > > more than a hundred years ago. Far less coverage than a lot of other
> > > pseudo-sciences and pseudo-histories are getting in respected
> > > international newspapers (take a look at the coverage that
> > > the Hitler Diaries got, for example).
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > That's because it is NOT pseudo-science or pseudo-history.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> You're being a bit hard on yourself, Art. You *are* a
> pseudo-historian. Anti-Stratfordianism isn't all that much more
> stupid than the theory that water has a memory, or the belief that JFK
> was assassinated by the FBI, or even than Holocaust Denial.
The Holocaust Museum just a dozen miles from me is bulging at the seams
with evidence (including thousands of eyewitness testimonies) that the
Holocaust actually took place. The nearby Folger contains NO eyewitness
testimony and the few facts tenuously connecting the Stratman to authorship
can easily be written on a single piece of paper.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> If you are NOT a pseudo-science or pseudo-history,
> then you are something of even less value.
----------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard II Act 2, Scene 3
HENRY BOLINGBROKE Of much less value is my company
Than your good words. But who comes here?
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> You don't really think anti-Stratfordianism is real History, do you, Art?
A la HERODOTUS?
> > > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > The painting certainly
> > > > > makes it appear that he is neutral but leaning towards the
> > > > > orthodox or at least the status quo.
> >
> > > Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > > Ulriksen tells us (or you) that he is neutral with NO LEANINGS.
> >
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > No. He says he doesn't know who wrote the plays. That's almost
> > > certainly because he hasn't looked at Shakespeare's biography or the
> > > anti-Stratfordian arguments in any depth at all. No reason why he
> > > should have, really, he's an artist, not an expert in literary
> > > biography. His (conscious or subconscious) leanings, however,
> > > are fairly readily apparent from the painting.
> >
> > Are you professionally trained in psychology, Tom?
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> No, but two members of my family are, so maybe its rubbed off.
Apparently that was how Shakspere learned how to write plays.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > it doesn't really
> > matter what Ulriksen thinks in this regard so far as I'm concerned;
what's
> > important is that the cover of the New Yorker helps a little bit to keep
the
> > authorship issue out in front of the general public (and it puts the
Strats
> > on the defensive).
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Not really. It doesn't really change anything. Anti-Stratfordianism
> has been hanging around at the back of public consciousness since the
> 19th century
But Ulriksen's cover puts it in ther front of public consciousness.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> The number of people who dedicate their
> lives to anti-Stratfordianism is understandably tiny, and - as you can
> tell by reading this newsgroup - consists of largely the most
> ignorant, incompetent, and unworldly of those who are touched by
> anti-Stratfordian propaganda.
And which am I?
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Most people don't care much about anti-Stratfordianism
> at all, but are fooled into thinking it more significant
> than it is because they have no real interest in or
> understanding of the issues behind it.
Most people don't care much about Stratfordianism
at all, but are fooled into thinking it more significant
than it is because they have no real interest in
or understanding of the issues behind it.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> In the same way that most British parents will tell you that MMR could
> be dangerous (when there is no scientific evidence that it is) or that
> asylum seekers are flooding Britain and stealing our resources to an
> extent that threatens national security (when they aren't, according
> to any impartial study),
So you're sympathetic to immigrant asylum seekers just like
the Huguenot publishers of Shakespeare's works; very interesting!
(You might try getting good writers to put out novels sympathetic
to your cause; I understand it is a technique that works quite well.)
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> those laymen who believe that there is a real
> question about whether Shakespeare wrote the plays on the basis of
> newspaper and TV anti-Stratfordianism are simply being fooled that
> "newsworthy" means "serious", while the media organisations are just
> churning out challenging and attractive nonsense rather than the less
> "trashy tabloid" headline-worthy truth.
> "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare" isn't a headline.
No, it's a lie.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> "Great New Discovery Unmasks True Bard" is a great headline, even if
> when you read the story the Great New Discovery turns out to be the
> product of a frenzied and unhinged imagination. That's why false
> stories are usually more newsworthy - in the short term - than true
> ones. Compared to other such false stories, however, (like the ones
> about MMR and asylum seekers) anti-Stratfordianism
> gets virtually no publicity at all.
That's why you need to find good writers to put
out fictional NOVELS sympathetic to your cause.
(Just make sure nobody realizes it is propaganda.)
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> > > >
> > > > > It certainly isn't what Ken
> > > > > pretends that it is (a confirmation of the importance and
> > > > > respectability of the Oxfordian, or even just the plain
> > > > > anti-Stratfordian, thesis).
> >
> > > Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > > It would have been worse if Ulriksen actually had been a
Marlovian.
> >
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > He probably watched or read something sparked off by the Much Ado
> > > About Something film, which has been very prominent lately, but it
> > > really hurts Kaplan's Oxfordian thesis that this painting he is so
> > > excited about doesn't mention Oxford at all.
Well, Shakespeare would have to be reading the Times
or Washington Post to hear about the Oxfordian thesis.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Well, the Marlovians were the last to get a TV special. Part of the
> > problem is that the general public isn't too bright about these sorts of
> > things and anyone who gets TV coverage will jump to the lead for a
while.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> So you understand why anti-Stratfordianism attracts
> the small amount of attention that it does get.
Yes:
1) It is far removed from people's everyday lives
2) it is intellectually esoteric.
3) it is strongly & actively suppressed by a self-sustaining establishment:
<<Even after a new generation has grown up and one has died,
the majority of Shakespearean specialists will be either the ones who
are there today (but a bit older) or taught by the ones who were there
today, and everybody who is anybody at present is Stratfordian.>>
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> It is only the members of the "general public"
> who aren't "too bright about these things" who are
> usually convinced by anti-Stratfordian propaganda,
It is members of the "general public" who aren't
"too bright about these things" who usually
believe the last thing they hear on TV
Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian.
Unfortunately, that will soon be Michael Wood.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Apart from the seriously unhinged,
> anybody who looks at the question in detail will
> find that anti-Stratfordians are self-contradictory, dishonest, and
> base their major claims on fantasy and fantastical misreadings.
Is that why the Matus book is so incredibly thin and so seldom quoted?
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Anti-Stratfordianism only sounds good if it covers up or skims over
> the arguments against it, and like any false propaganda it works on
> the assumption that the vast majority of people won't do what Kathman,
> Ross, and others on this newsgroup do, which is go away and look up
> the books and historical information behind the grandiose claims to
> see whether they stand up.
Stratfordianism only sounds good if it covers up or skims over
the arguments against it, and like any false propaganda it works
on the assumption that the vast majority of people won't question
the establishment on matters which don't directly concern them.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> The fact that the impact of anti-Stratfordianism on the public at
> large only lasts until the next TV programme or the next major
> PR-drive, is good evidence of the superficiality of
> anti-Stratfordianism.
It is an example of how an established special interest can dominate a
subject that the general public doesn't care all that much about.
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
> > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > Anyway, I'm glad you agree that it is going to take at
> > > > least 100 years for the Oxfordians to get back to the position that
> > > > the Baconians had reached more than a century ago
> > > > (and subsequently lost),
>
> > Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > I think there is a good chance that Oxfordians will take over in the
> > > next 20 years;
>
> Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > On what basis? What have the Oxfordians done now
> > that the Baconians didn't do in 1880?
>
> Chosen the right guy as author
> (; Bacon was simply in charge of the coverup).
Oxford doesn't do any better than Bacon, he's just more fasionable
among the loons that make up the anti-Strat movement at present.
> Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > The only difference is that our current media are
> > mass-media, so a TV programme or cinema film about Oxfordianism can
> > have a lot more impact for a single event than anything happening in
> > the 19th century, but even taking this into account, Oxfordianism is
> > not keeping up with the 19th century Baconians for media presentation
> > or public relations. Baconianism touched many more people much more
> > deeply in the 19th century (at least in Britain and America) than
> > Oxfordianism ever has. Yet Baconianism never came anywhere near
> > "taking over" from Stratfordianism, and Oxfordianism won't ever do
> > that either. Your 20 years is a bit more conservative than Kaplan's 4
> > or 8, but you still haven't got a cat in hell's chance of making it
> > come true. Even after a new generation has grown up and one has died,
> > the majority of Shakespearean specialists will be either the ones who
> > are there today (but a bit older) or taught by the ones who were there
> > today, and everybody who is anybody at present is Stratfordian.
>
> Not to mention the censorship in profession journals.
A lot of that is quality control. It is very unlikely that anything
as routinely unscholarly, fantastical, and dishonest as
anti-Stratfordian "scholarship" would pass peer-review in virtually
any subject. Since anti-Stratfordians have no factual evidence to
support any of their views at all, all they have is fantasy and
prejudice against William Shakespeare. No reason why that sort of
garbage should be published, whether it is anti-Stratfordian or not.
> > Anti-Stratfordianism, since its foundation, has depended on the
> > delusion that change is just around the corner,
>
> POST TENEBRAS SPERO LUCEM
>
> > but it is genuinely
> > impossible that such change could take place within your lifetime, and
> > there is no reason to believe that it will ever come. On the day that
> > society is convinced that the Holocaust never happened on the basis of
> > testimony from Holocaust deniers working more than 50 years after the
> > event, then society might decide that Shakespeare didn't write his
> > plays on the basis of the testimony of people working more than four
> > hundred years after the event.
>
> The Holocaust Museum just a dozen miles from me is bulging at the seams
> with evidence (including thousands of eyewitness testimonies) that the
> Holocaust actually took place.
Quite a lot of that is dependent on the 20th century, and its document
keeping and record collecting, there's no reason to expect that sort
of coverage for Renaissance Literary History.
>The nearby Folger contains NO eyewitness
> testimony
The Folio and Ben Jonson's writings both contain explicit eye-witness
testimony that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays, and there is
much more that makes this clear. Oxfordians (like the Holocaust
Deniers) have to call these works fakes, but they have nothing with
which to challenge them. Where is the eyewitness testimony that
Oxford wrote the plays? There is nothing, because he didn't. Nobody
says that he did until the 1920s.
>and the few facts tenuously connecting the Stratman to authorship
> can easily be written on a single piece of paper.
So can the "few facts tenuously connecting" Oxford to any sort of
theatrical activity. There is only one reference to Oxford writing
plays, ever (and that one reference is enough to show that he was
doing so as himself, in his own name, and was publicly known to be
doing so - he probably just wrote the one play or part of one like
others on that list - incidentally the reference doesn't give his
address either, so if it used the name "Shakespeare" rather than the
title "Earl of Oxford", Oxfordians would say that it was discussing a
man's pseudonym and was no evidence that it referred to a real person.
It shouldn't count on Price's literary evidence list, for example, so
by Oxfordian standards there is no evidence that Oxford ever wrote
plays at all).
Shakespeare has abundant documentary connections to his work as a
playwright (although not all of them include his address - nor do such
references to most Renaissance playwrights), his work as an actor, and
his leading role in the theatre company that staged his plays (a
leading role not explained by anything other than his playwriting
activities). We don't have to make up the connections to
Shakespeare's plays and the company that produced them, as the
Oxfordians do.
Imagine an Oxfordian version of the Folger. Where would the
eyewitness testimony be? There would be none. No document says that
Oxford wrote any of Shakespeare's plays, or had anything to do with
the company that produced them, every document in an Oxfordian Folger
would have to have an essay attached (written by some unreliable
fantasist and liar, like Roger Stritmatter or Daniel Wright - see
previous posts for evidence of their lack of reliability and dishonest
techniques) *explaining* what the sources actually mean, as long as
you ignore what they actually say and just make stuff up. None of
these essays would have any intellectual value or academic worth, just
as no anti-Stratfordian writing ever has, so the Oxfordian Folger
would be a place built entirely on fraud, fantasy, and falsehood.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > I think there is a good chance that Oxfordians
> > > > will take over in the next 20 years;
> >
> > Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > On what basis? What have the Oxfordians done now
> > > that the Baconians didn't do in 1880?
> >
> > Chosen the right guy as author
> > (; Bacon was simply in charge of the coverup).
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Oxford doesn't do any better than Bacon, he's just more fasionable
> among the loons that make up the anti-Strat movement at present.
And more 'fasionable' among their sisters as well:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<In April 1220, Arnold III, the Count of LOON, and his sister,
Mechtildis d'Are, the abbess of Munsterbilzen, gave the chapel of Biesen
with all its appurtenances in Rijkhoven to the Teutonic Order.>>
http://www.alden-biesen.be/history/german_order.html
Nevski was born May 30, 1220!
Danish Chronicler Saxo Grammaticus died 1220!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > The only difference is that our current media are
> > > mass-media, so a TV programme or cinema film about Oxfordianism can
> > > have a lot more impact for a single event than anything happening in
> > > the 19th century, but even taking this into account, Oxfordianism is
> > > not keeping up with the 19th century Baconians for media presentation
> > > or public relations. Baconianism touched many more people much more
> > > deeply in the 19th century (at least in Britain and America) than
> > > Oxfordianism ever has. Yet Baconianism never came anywhere near
> > > "taking over" from Stratfordianism, and Oxfordianism won't ever do
> > > that either. Your 20 years is a bit more conservative than Kaplan's 4
> > > or 8, but you still haven't got a cat in hell's chance of making it
> > > come true. Even after a new generation has grown up and one has died,
> > > the majority of Shakespearean specialists will be either the ones who
> > > are there today (but a bit older) or taught by the ones who were there
> > > today, and everybody who is anybody at present is Stratfordian.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > Not to mention the censorship in profession journals.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> A lot of that is quality control.
Anything of real quality gets chucked.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> It is very unlikely that anything
> as routinely unscholarly, fantastical, and dishonest as
> anti-Stratfordian "scholarship" would pass peer-review in virtually
> any subject.
Paster could make sure of that by the selective use of Goon Squad
peer-review.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Since anti-Stratfordians have no factual evidence to
> support any of their views at all, all they have is fantasy and
> prejudice against William Shakespeare. No reason why that sort of
> garbage should be published, whether it is anti-Stratfordian or not.
Stratfordians have no factual evidence to support
any of their views at all, all they have is fantasy and
prejudice in favor of William Shakespeare. No reason why that sort
of garbage should be published, whether it is Stratfordian or not.
> > > Anti-Stratfordianism, since its foundation, has depended on the
> > > delusion that change is just around the corner,
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > POST TENEBRAS SPERO LUCEM
> >
> > > but it is genuinely
> > > impossible that such change could take place within your lifetime, and
> > > there is no reason to believe that it will ever come. On the day that
> > > society is convinced that the Holocaust never happened on the basis of
> > > testimony from Holocaust deniers working more than 50 years after the
> > > event, then society might decide that Shakespeare didn't write his
> > > plays on the basis of the testimony of people working more than four
> > > hundred years after the event.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > The Holocaust Museum just a dozen miles from me is bulging at the
seams
> > with evidence (including thousands of eyewitness testimonies) that the
> > Holocaust actually took place.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Quite a lot of that is dependent on the 20th century, and its document
> keeping and record collecting, there's no reason to expect that sort
> of coverage for Renaissance Literary History.
There's no reason to believe Renaissance Literary History then.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> >The nearby Folger contains NO eyewitness testimony
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> The Folio and Ben Jonson's writings both contain explicit eye-witness
> testimony that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays, and there is
> much more that makes this clear.
So it's:
1) Ben Jonson's writings
2) Ben Jonson as Ben Jonson in the Folio
3) Ben Jonson as Heminge & Condell in the Folio
I sure hope this Ben Jonson guy can be trusted.
They only gave him 2 ft by 2 ft in Poets Corner you know.
> Oxfordians (like the Holocaust
> Deniers) have to call these works fakes, but they have nothing with
> which to challenge them. Where is the eyewitness testimony that
> Oxford wrote the plays?
How about the poetry:
-------------------------------------------------------------
NIL.VERO-VERIUS. POET.
OUR.EVER-LIVING. POET.
UNO.VERE-VIRGIL. POET.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The *Swan of Mantua* : VIRGIL.
Virgil's tomb, once treated like a shrine, has disappeared.
His epitaph was supposedly:
Mantua me genuit, Calabri rapuere, tenet nunc Parthenope.
Mantua GAVE me BIRTH, the Calabrians took me, now Naples holds me;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IVDICIO PYLIVM, GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEM,
TERRA TEGIT, POPVLVS MAERET, OLYMPVS HABET.
("In judgement a *Nestor*, in wit a *Socrates*, in art a *Virgil*
the earth buries him, the people mourn him, Olympus possesses him")
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> There is nothing, because he didn't. Nobody
> says that he did until the 1920s.
Nathaniel Hawthorne sponsered Delia Bacon's book of almost seven hundred
pages, _The Philosophy of Shakespeare's Plays Unfolded_, which came out in
London and Boston in 1857. In it, Oxford is mentioned as one of the authors
of Shake-speare.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> >and the few facts tenuously connecting the Stratman to authorship
> > can easily be written on a single piece of paper.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> So can the "few facts tenuously connecting"
> Oxford to any sort of theatrical activity.
Oxford took over the lease of the Blackfriars Theatre from Henry Evans in
1583 and was named one of the Top 10 in comedy by Meres in 1598.
Hey, . . .Will Shakspeare took over the lease of the Blackfriars Theatre
from Henry Evans in 1608 and was named one of the Top 10 in comedy by Meres
in 1598!
Small world isn't it!
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> There is only one reference to Oxford writing
> plays, ever (and that one reference is enough to show that he was
> doing so as himself, in his own name, and was publicly known to be
> doing so - he probably just wrote the one play or part of one like
> others on that list
You have no factual evidence to support this view at all,
all you have is fantasy and prejudice against Edward de Vere.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> - incidentally the reference doesn't give his address either,
The address is "Oxforde", dummy!
------------------------------------------------------------------
[http://www.clark.net/tross/ws/rep.html]
... the best for Comedy amongst vs bee,
Edward Earle of Oxforde,
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Shakespeare has abundant documentary connections to his work
> as a playwright (although not all of them include his address
Name one that does.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> his work as an actor,
As mentioned by Ben Jonson in the Shakespeare's Folio
and by Ben Jonson in the Ben Jonson's Folio
I sure hope this Ben Jonson guy can be trusted.
They only gave him 2 ft by 2 ft in Poets Corner you know.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> his leading role in the theatre company that staged his plays (a
> leading role not explained by anything other than his playwriting
> activities). We don't have to make up the connections to
> Shakespeare's plays and the company that produced them,
> as the Oxfordians do.
No, Shakspere's connections to Shakespeare's plays and the
company that produced them, were made up 400 years ago.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Imagine an Oxfordian version of the Folger.
Now your talking!
---------------------------------------------------------------
______________________
White-Washing / \
CHAMBERLAIN John ----- MARY MARgerY Webbe
[could write | [could write [d. St.Adrian's Day]
his 'marke'] | her 'marke']
[bur. St.Adrian's Day] | [d. St.Adrian's Day]
___|___________
/ \ [illiterate]
MARgerY Shakspere ------------ Anne
[BROOK House] |[b. 1556]
[Shaxpere's Boys] |
[Shakspere GLOVES] |
[Golding's 'OVID'] |
[STRATFORD upon Avon] |
[God's 'I am that I am'] |
[1586 DEER Park poacher] |
[£1,000/year for 18 years] |
[MERES' Top 10 in comedy (1598)] |
[Crest: FALCON w./SPEAR in DEXTER CLAW] |
[Henry Evans=> 1608 Lessor of BLACKFRIARS Th.] |
|
h{ALL DR.} ---------- SUSANna
[d. on Lope de Vega's Wednesday birthday [b. May 26]
exactly 9 years after edwa{RD ALL}eyn died] [could write name]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hand-Washing
GREAT CHAMBERLAIN John ----------- MARgerY
|
______|____
/ \ m. OPALIA(1571) [Sonneteer]
MARY Oxford ----------------- Anne
[BROOKE House] | [b. 1556]
[Oxford's Boys] |
[Oxford GLOVES] |
[Golding's 'OVID'] |
[STRATFORD atte Bowe] |
[God's 'I am that I am'] |
[1604 DEER Park warden] |
[£1,000/year for 18 years] |
[MERES' Top 10 in comedy (1598)] |
[Crest: LION w./broken LANCE in DEXTER PAW] |
[Henry Evans=> 1583 Lessor of BLACKFRIARS Th.] |
|
Herbert (Philip) ------ SUSAN
[b. St. LONGINUS day] [b. May 26]
[Folio dedicatee] [Jaggard dedicatee]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
> > > > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > It certainly isn't what Ken
> > > > > > pretends that it is (a confirmation of the importance and
> > > > > > respectability of the Oxfordian, or even just the plain
> > > > > > anti-Stratfordian, thesis).
>
> > > > Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > > > It would have been worse if Ulriksen actually had been a
> Marlovian.
> > >
> > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > He probably watched or read something sparked off by the Much Ado
> > > > About Something film, which has been very prominent lately, but it
> > > > really hurts Kaplan's Oxfordian thesis that this painting he is so
> > > > excited about doesn't mention Oxford at all.
>
> Well, Shakespeare would have to be reading the Times
> or Washington Post to hear about the Oxfordian thesis.
And then only if he happens to have been reading one of the six papers
in six years that contains an article on the subject. Face it, Art.
Oxfordianism is as nothing in all the media, including the New York
Times. The British tabloids print more about David Beckham's haircuts
in a week than the New York Times published about Oxfordianism in six
years.
> > Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > Well, the Marlovians were the last to get a TV special. Part of the
> > > problem is that the general public isn't too bright about these sorts of
> > > things and anyone who gets TV coverage will jump to the lead for a
> while.
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > So you understand why anti-Stratfordianism attracts
> > the small amount of attention that it does get.
>
> Yes:
>
> 1) It is far removed from people's everyday lives
> 2) it is intellectually esoteric.
It is intellectually vacuous, which is why it gets the same sort of
coverage as Kaplan's wacky mediums and psychics (although Oxfordianism
gets much less coverage). Only the inherently stupid believe that
quacks and fakes on TV shows "talk to dead people", but newspapers
sell issues when they publish stories about this sort of thing, so
they do.
> 3) it is strongly & actively suppressed by a self-sustaining establishment:
So is the belief that the world is flat, or that the moon landings
never took place. That is because these ideas aren't true.
> <<Even after a new generation has grown up and one has died,
> the majority of Shakespearean specialists will be either the ones who
> are there today (but a bit older) or taught by the ones who were there
> today, and everybody who is anybody at present is Stratfordian.>>
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > It is only the members of the "general public"
> > who aren't "too bright about these things" who are
> > usually convinced by anti-Stratfordian propaganda,
>
> It is members of the "general public" who aren't
> "too bright about these things" who usually
> believe the last thing they hear on TV
> Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian.
And if you take away those people, then you have lost 99.999% of
anti-Stratfordian support. The remaining .001% is made up of fanatics
like Kaplan, Crowley, and yourself who became disturbedly attached to
the anti-Stratfordian thesis and cannot be changed by the next
programme because they think they have discovered THE TRUTH. You only
have to read this newsgroup to realise that all of these committed
anti-Stratfordians are immensely ignorant and bordering on the
certifiable. I hate to break it to you, Art, but practically nobody -
Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian - reads your posts and thinks "What
an intelligent fellow, he must have much greater insight into the
truth than anybody else". Crowley thinks you and Streitz are crazy,
Kaplan apparently thinks Crowley is crazy, Zenner thinks anybody who
doesn't realise that his book is the only one ever to discover the
truth is crazy. No two anti-Stratfordians share the same picture of
the world, and they all make up contradictory stories (all based on
the same standards of "evidence", and so all mutually proving the
other anti-Strat theories to be equally false). Stratfordianism is
based on the same historical standards as any other history,
anti-Stratfordianism ditches standards and is based on hunting for
"coincidences" and making stuff up. You can prove anything you want
to prove by looking for "coincidences" and making stuff up.
> Unfortunately, that will soon be Michael Wood.
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Apart from the seriously unhinged,
> > anybody who looks at the question in detail will
> > find that anti-Stratfordians are self-contradictory, dishonest, and
> > base their major claims on fantasy and fantastical misreadings.
>
> Is that why the Matus book is so incredibly thin and so seldom quoted?
Is that why your posts are so long, and so seldom quoted? Matus has a
much greater presence in the authorship world than you, Art, and you
apparently believe (as far as it is possible to find any actual
viewpoint in your endless screenfuls of garbage) that most Oxfordians
are completely wrong in their view of the authorship conspiracy. Why
haven't you written a big fat book that is quoted by everybody as the
greatest insight into the truth?
Matus makes some good points about the Oxfordian theories that he
deals with, but his book - understandably - hasn't had an enormous
circulation. To read it, you have to have enough interest in the
anti-Stratfordian viewpoint to want to know the faults in it (most
people who know about anti-Stratfordianism - like those who know about
Creationism or Holocaust Denial - will have rejected the theory
without needing to read detailed counters to those theories), and yet
you have to be free from the fanaticism and inability to read or
understand academic argument that is characteristic of the
anti-Stratfordians and their dupes. The sort of people who read and
quote it, therefore, are the sort of people who spend a lot of time
confronting anti-Stratfordianism on this list, and Matus gets 710
mentions in the Google Groups archives, compared to 322 for Whalen
(former-President of the Shakespeare Oxford Society, and author of a
book on the authorship question). Matus is rather obviously only a
small player in the world of Shakespeare (there will be many more
references from Stratfordians to people like Schoenbaum), Whalen is by
comparison a very big player in the much smaller world of
Oxfordianism, but he wrote a much smaller book than Matus and has half
his visibility on Google Groups, despite having been prominent for a
much longer period of time.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Anti-Stratfordianism only sounds good if it covers up or skims over
> > the arguments against it, and like any false propaganda it works on
> > the assumption that the vast majority of people won't do what Kathman,
> > Ross, and others on this newsgroup do, which is go away and look up
> > the books and historical information behind the grandiose claims to
> > see whether they stand up.
>
> Stratfordianism only sounds good if it covers up or skims over
> the arguments against it, and like any false propaganda it works
> on the assumption that the vast majority of people won't question
> the establishment on matters which don't directly concern them.
There are no decent arguments against Stratfordianism, Art. Just a
lot of lies, distortions and special pleading. Remember that
Oxfordian Folger? It would have to be full of tags on every exhibit
saying "DO NOT READ THIS TEXT. IT WILL CONFUSE YOU. INSTEAD READ MY
EXPLANATION OF THIS TEXT, IN WHICH I FIND OUT WHAT IT REALLY MEANT TO
SAY". Stratfordianism is based entirely on the overt meaning of real
historical documents, anti-Stratfordianism is based on an ignorant
rejection of History in favour of Fantasy by people who would much
rather that the real world was not as it was.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > The fact that the impact of anti-Stratfordianism on the public at
> > large only lasts until the next TV programme or the next major
> > PR-drive, is good evidence of the superficiality of
> > anti-Stratfordianism.
>
> It is an example of how an established special interest can dominate a
> subject that the general public doesn't care all that much about.
You are starting to wipe large portions of my arguments, Art. That's
the sign of somebody who hasn't been able to respond. The Holocaust
Deniers sing from exactly the same hymn-sheet as the
anti-Stratfordians, and they share the same blatant disregard for
historical documents (they are all lying, or misunderstood, they say).
Sulking about the Stratfordian-tyranny because nobody takes you
seriously is very amusing, but all that you are really facing is the
tyranny of common sense and reality. People with no interest and no
expertise in a subject may believe any old garbage that is thrown at
them, but you can't fool the majority of the experts with the sort of
fantastical nonsense that is anti-Stratfordianism.
Anyway, I don't really have time to keep up a pointless conversation
that has drifted entirely away from the original subject of this
thread, with a man who even other anti-Stratfordians don't take
seriously, so I probably won't respond to any other Art postings on
this thread, unless they raise points that might actually be of
interest to somebody.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It certainly isn't what Ken
> > > > > > > pretends that it is (a confirmation of the importance and
> > > > > > > respectability of the Oxfordian, or even just the plain
> > > > > > > anti-Stratfordian, thesis).
> >
> > > > > Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > > > > It would have been worse if Ulriksen
> > > > > > actually had been a Marlovian.
> > > >
> > > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > He probably watched or read something sparked off by the Much Ado
> > > > > About Something film, which has been very prominent lately, but it
> > > > > really hurts Kaplan's Oxfordian thesis that this painting he is
so
> > > > > excited about doesn't mention Oxford at all.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Well, Shakespeare would have to be reading the Times
> > or Washington Post to hear about the Oxfordian thesis.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> And then only if he happens to have been reading one of the six papers
> in six years that contains an article on the subject.
You actually keep a count! Amazing!
> > > Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > > Well, the Marlovians were the last to get a TV special. Part of
the
> > > > problem is that the general public isn't too bright about these
sorts of
> > > > things and anyone who gets TV coverage will jump to the lead for a
> > while.
> >
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > So you understand why anti-Stratfordianism attracts
> > > the small amount of attention that it does get.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Yes:
> >
> > 1) It is far removed from people's everyday lives
> > 2) it is intellectually esoteric.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> It is intellectually vacuous, which is why it gets the same sort of
> coverage as Kaplan's wacky mediums and psychics (although Oxfordianism
> gets much less coverage). Only the inherently stupid believe that
> quacks and fakes on TV shows "talk to dead people", but newspapers
> sell issues when they publish stories about this sort of thing, so
> they do.
It is easy to "talk to dead people"; the tough part is getting them to talk
back.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > 3) it is strongly & actively suppressed by a self-sustaining
establishment:
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> So is the belief that the world is flat, or that the moon landings
> never took place. That is because these ideas aren't true.
Neither is the idea that the Stratman wrote Shake-speare.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > <<Even after a new generation has grown up and one has died,
> > the majority of Shakespearean specialists will be either the ones who
> > are there today (but a bit older) or taught by the ones who were there
> > today, and everybody who is anybody at present is Stratfordian.>>
> >
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > It is only the members of the "general public"
> > > who aren't "too bright about these things" who are
> > > usually convinced by anti-Stratfordian propaganda,
> >
> > It is members of the "general public" who aren't
> > "too bright about these things" who usually
> > believe the last thing they hear on TV
> > Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> And if you take away those people, then you have lost 99.999% of
> anti-Stratfordian support. The remaining .001% is made up of fanatics
> like Kaplan, Crowley, and yourself who became disturbedly attached to
> the anti-Stratfordian thesis and cannot be changed by the next
> programme because they think they have discovered THE TRUTH. You only
> have to read this newsgroup to realise that all of these committed
> anti-Stratfordians are immensely ignorant and bordering on the
> certifiable.
I want the Happydale Sanatorium, sanatorium, sanatorium, sanatorium.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> I hate to break it to you, Art, but practically nobody -
> Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian - reads your posts and thinks
> "What an intelligent fellow, he must have much
> greater insight into the truth than anybody else".
What about impractically?
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Crowley thinks you and Streitz are crazy,
> Kaplan apparently thinks Crowley is crazy, Zenner thinks anybody who
> doesn't realise that his book is the only one ever to discover the
> truth is crazy. No two anti-Stratfordians share the same picture of
> the world, and they all make up contradictory stories (all based on
> the same standards of "evidence", and so all mutually proving the
> other anti-Strat theories to be equally false). Stratfordianism is
> based on the same historical standards as any other history,
> anti-Stratfordianism ditches standards and is based on hunting for
> "coincidences" and making stuff up. You can prove anything you want
> to prove by looking for "coincidences" and making stuff up.
But the one who finds the most "coincidences" wins.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Unfortunately, that will soon be Michael Wood.
> >
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > Apart from the seriously unhinged,
> > > anybody who looks at the question in detail will
> > > find that anti-Stratfordians are self-contradictory, dishonest, and
> > > base their major claims on fantasy and fantastical misreadings.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Is that why the Matus book is so incredibly thin and so seldom quoted?
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Is that why your posts are so long, and so seldom quoted?
I quote my posts all the time!
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Matus has a
> much greater presence in the authorship world than you, Art, and you
> apparently believe (as far as it is possible to find any actual
> viewpoint in your endless screenfuls of garbage) that most Oxfordians
> are completely wrong in their view of the authorship conspiracy. Why
> haven't you written a big fat book that is quoted by everybody as the
> greatest insight into the truth?
Just lazy I guess.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Matus makes some good points about the Oxfordian theories that he
> deals with, but his book - understandably - hasn't had an enormous
> circulation. To read it, you have to have enough interest in the
> anti-Stratfordian viewpoint to want to know the faults in it
Matus doesn't talk much about anti-Stratfordian faults for some reason.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> The sort of people who read and
> quote it, therefore, are the sort of people who spend a lot of time
> confronting anti-Stratfordianism on this list, and Matus gets 710
> mentions in the Google Groups archives, compared to 322 for Whalen
> (former-President of the Shakespeare Oxford Society, and author of a
> book on the authorship question).
Compared to 2,630 for Ogburn.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > Anti-Stratfordianism only sounds good if it covers up or skims over
> > > the arguments against it, and like any false propaganda it works on
> > > the assumption that the vast majority of people won't do what Kathman,
> > > Ross, and others on this newsgroup do, which is go away and look up
> > > the books and historical information behind the grandiose claims to
> > > see whether they stand up.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Stratfordianism only sounds good if it covers up or skims over
> > the arguments against it, and like any false propaganda it works
> > on the assumption that the vast majority of people won't question
> > the establishment on matters which don't directly concern them.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Stratfordianism is based entirely on the overt meaning
> of real historical documents,
"Overt and apparent virtues bring forth praise." --Bacon.
Anti-Stratfordianism is based on the real
covert meaning of historical documents.
"Of either side the green, to plant a covert alley." --Bacon.
------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > The fact that the impact of anti-Stratfordianism on the public at
> > > large only lasts until the next TV programme or the next major
> > > PR-drive, is good evidence of the superficiality of
> > > anti-Stratfordianism.
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > It is an example of how an established special interest can dominate
> > a subject that the general public doesn't care all that much about.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> You are starting to wipe larg. . .
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
> quote it, therefore, are the sort of people who spend a lot of time
> confronting anti-Stratfordianism on this list, and Matus gets 710
> mentions in the Google Groups archives, compared to 322 for Whalen
> (former-President of the Shakespeare Oxford Society, and author of a
> book on the authorship question). Matus is rather obviously only a
> small player in the world of Shakespeare (there will be many more
> references from Stratfordians to people like Schoenbaum), Whalen is by
> comparison a very big player in the much smaller world of
> Oxfordianism, but he wrote a much smaller book than Matus and has half
> his visibility on Google Groups, despite having been prominent for a
> much longer period of time.
Whalen is a bigger Oxfordian than I realised. According to Amazon.com
his book is the second bestselling book on the subject of the "Oxford
theory" that Amazon stocks (beaten only by Sobran's "Alias
Shakespeare"). Matus's book, by contrast, is certainly not the second
best selling book on the "Shakespeare theory" - that is, of books that
support the belief that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays.
Despite this, Matus gets more coverage on HLAS than Whalen.
Art Neuendorffer
> Whalen is a bigger Oxfordian than I realised. According to Amazon.com
> his book is the second bestselling book on the subject of the "Oxford
> theory" that Amazon stocks (beaten only by Sobran's "Alias
> Shakespeare"). Matus's book, by contrast, is certainly not the second
> best selling book on the "Shakespeare theory" - that is, of books that
> support the belief that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays.
(I'm glad you recognize that it is only a theory.)
All Oxfordian books also discuss Shakespeare theory in detail.
Matus is the only Stratfordian book that attempts to discuss Oxford
theory at all.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Despite this, Matus gets more coverage on HLAS than Whalen.
Matus is a unique book that should (if it had anything important to say)
rightly be the Stratfordian bible at HLAS.
Matus should properly be compared against
Ogburn: 2,630
Looney: 1,200
Sobran: 975
----------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Whalen is a bigger Oxfordian than I realised. According to Amazon.com
> > his book is the second bestselling book on the subject of the "Oxford
> > theory" that Amazon stocks (beaten only by Sobran's "Alias
> > Shakespeare"). Matus's book, by contrast, is certainly not the second
> > best selling book on the "Shakespeare theory" - that is, of books that
> > support the belief that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays.
>
> (I'm glad you recognize that it is only a theory.)
A bit like the "round-world theory" or the "human existence theory" or
the "Art Neundorffer is insane theory". Only a theory as a figure of
speech, actually a fact.
> All Oxfordian books also discuss Shakespeare theory in detail.
>
> Matus is the only Stratfordian book that attempts to discuss Oxford
> theory at all.
Not true, there are older books (like "Shakespeare and His Betters")
that do so, although they are arguing against an older Oxfordianism
that now seems outdated (the "truth" that Oxfordians have discovered
is so inconsistent that it changes every thirty seconds).
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Despite this, Matus gets more coverage on HLAS than Whalen.
>
> Matus is a unique book that should (if it had anything important to say)
> rightly be the Stratfordian bible at HLAS.
No. Orthodox biographies of Shakespeare and works on individual
issues (grammar school education etc.) are the "bibles" of
Stratfordians at HLAS (and since we have more "bibles", we
understandably consult each individual one less often than Oxfordians
do). This is unsurprising since Matus is not a major figure in
Shakespearean Studies, and Stratfordianism means Shakespeare Studies.
People like Ogburn are Bibles to the Oxfordians because they have
nothing else to quote (there is no body of Shakespearean scholarship
that supports Oxfordianism, apart from that written by the inept,
incompetent, and dishonest adherents of the Oxfordian sect to their
own lunatic standards - based on fraud and fantasy - while every
scholarly book written to scholarly standards that has been written
about Shakespeare has been Stratfordian).
Matus's book only confronts a range of Oxfordian issues, and
unsurprisingly this range is one that Oxfordians now generally avoid
on HLAS. The vast majority of the "pro-Shakespeare" material in Matus
is available elsewhere, and is cited by Stratfordians on HLAS from
primary documents or more important secondary works rather than from
Matus.
The "anti-Oxfordian" material in Matus is of much less importance to
the authorship debate than the mass of Shakespearean scholarship
(which is the source of the evidence that Shakespeare wrote
Shakespeare). You can pretend that Matus should be a "bible" to
Stratfordians if you like, but pretending - as all anti-Stratfordians
fail to understand - doesn't alter reality.
> Matus should properly be compared against
Ogburn, Looney, and Sobran - as the major works in "Oxfordian Studies"
- should properly be compared against the authors of major works in
Shakespeare Studies. Looking at Shakespeare biographers, alone.
> Ogburn: 2,630
> Looney: 1,200
> Sobran: 975
> Whalen: 322
Chambers: 1,810
Schoenbaum: 1,780
Rowse: 732
Honan: 724
The reason that Ogburn is quoted more often than Chambers, and that
Sobran is quoted more often than Honan in HLAS is not evidence that
Ogburn or Sobran are better writers or have better things to say, it
is simply that Stratfordians rely to a much smaller extent on
individual texts. Ogburn is the basis of just about all Oxfordianism
in the world at the present day - there may be heretics but they all
still look to Ogburn as the Bible. Stratfordians, on the other hand,
have the whole massive body of Shakespearean scholarship to draw upon
- millions of volumes produced between the sixteenth century and the
present day. After Whalen, "bestselling" Oxfordian texts can be
counted on the fingers of one hand. Stratfordians still have
thousands of figures like Stanley Wells and Duncan-Jones to consult
(just to consider books still in print).
To suggest that Matus should be one of the top three (or top four)
books quoted by Stratfordians is ludicrous and dishonest.
Stratfordians obviously consult the major works in Shakespeare Studies
(which equals Stratfordianism) more often than they consult a single
very minor book (in Shakespearean Studies terms) which confronted
particular Oxfordian arguments. Despite this, Matus has been quoted
on HLAS about as often as Honan. Given that there are at the very
least hundreds of thousands of times as many "Stratfordian" books as
there are "Oxfordian" books for us to look at and quote, this is
pretty good going for a single text.
Add to this the fact that most Oxfordians on HLAS are ignorant and
derivative (people like Crowley and Streitz haven't even read all of
Shakespeare, let alone any other Renaissance Literature or History) it
is unsurprising that they tend to quote from the one or two books that
they actually got around to reading more often than Stratfordians
quote one or two individual books, since they usually have hundreds to
refer to at any one time.
Anyway, I think enough has been said on this subject, and Art seems to
be fizzling out, so I don't intend to post anything more on this in
response to Art.
Just one note on Art's misreading of my other E-Mail on this thread.
I have not been keeping count of the number of papers that print
Oxfordian stories. As I made clear in other postings, I did a search
for "Edward de Vere" and "Earl of Oxford" in the New York Times
archives, and there are precisely six articles (plus a handful of
reviews and letters to the editor) that contain these phrases (and
which therefore discuss Oxfordianism, however obliquely) in six years.
Take a look at any other pseudo-history or pseudo-science theory and
you are likely to find much better coverage. Art seems to try to
imply - as does Kaplan - that the New York Times is a major supporter
of Oxfordianism. It isn't. It barely mentions the subject.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Whalen is a bigger Oxfordian than I realised. According to Amazon.com
> > > his book is the second bestselling book on the subject of the "Oxford
> > > theory" that Amazon stocks (beaten only by Sobran's "Alias
> > > Shakespeare"). Matus's book, by contrast, is certainly not the second
> > > best selling book on the "Shakespeare theory" - that is, of books that
> > > support the belief that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > (I'm glad you recognize that it is only a theory.)
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> A bit like the "round-world theory"
More like the "flat-earth theory"
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > All Oxfordian books also discuss Shakespeare theory in detail.
> >
> > Matus is the only Stratfordian book that attempts
> > to discuss Oxford theory at all.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Not true, there are older books (like "Shakespeare and His Betters")
> that do so, although they are arguing against an older Oxfordianism
----------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Monthly October 1991
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/shakes/beth.htm
The Case for Oxford by Tom Bethell
<<Deferring to the authority of Chambers and other conventional scholars
[Looney] accepted the conventional date for The Tempest (1611). In his final
chapter, therefore, Looney argued that the play did not belong in the
Shakespeare canon. As it is thought to include some of Shakespeare's best
verse, this greatly weakened Looney's case. By the time Hakluyt's references
to Bermuda were pointed out, Looney had come to seem discredited. In
Shakespeare and His Betters (1958), an attack on the anti-Stratfordian
heresy, R. C. Churchill claimed that the date of Oxford's death was
"decisive" against his candidacy for authorship. In Shakespeare's Lives
(1970), S. Schoenbaum more cautiously argued that "The Tempest presents
Looney with his greatest challenge, for topical references and other
internal considerations lead him to accept the late date to which the
commentators assign it." >>
----------------------------------------------------
And _Love's Labour Lost_ presents R.C. Churchill with his greatest
challenge. :-)
----------------------------------------------------
> that now seems outdated (the "truth" that Oxfordians have discovered
> is so inconsistent that it changes every thirty seconds).
I, for one, am essentially "a Group Theorist who believes Oxford to be the
leading figure" and that the late & "unShakespearean" Tempest underwent a
sea-change under the hands of Francis Bacon.
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/Law/law5.htm
<<In 1958, R. N. Churchill wrote Shakespeare and His Betters, an attempt to
quell the new life given to the Shakespeare authorship controversy by the
book This Star of England, written by Dorothy Ogburn and Charlton Ogburn,
Sr., a lawyer. "Gilbert Standen's more recent Shakespeare Authorship: A
Summary of the Evidence is written from the point of view of a Group
Theorist who believes Oxford to be the leading figure. Neither this nor
Slater's Seven Shakespeares nor the various works of Greenwood can truly
claim to be unbiased towards the traditional authorship. It would be
surprising if they were" (219-220).>>
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/whalbib.htm
<<Shakespeare and his Betters: A History and a Criticism of the Attempts
Which Have Been Made To Prove that Shakespeare's Works Were Written by
Others, by R.C. Churchill, Bloomington, 1959. A summary of the claims for
all the major claimants, followed by the case against each. Chapter 9, "The
Case Against Oxford and Others," objects mainly to shifting the dates of the
plays back 10 years.>>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muchado/readings/price.html
<<In the late 1950s, Frank W. Wadsworth (The Poacher from Stratford) and R
C. Churchill (Shakespeare and His Betters) rebutted the anti-Stratfordians,
and interestingly, a reviewer for the Shakespeare Quarterly criticized both
orthodox defenders for their lack of discrimination: "One impressed by the
learning and dialectic of a Sir George Greenwood may well feel perhaps that
[Wadsworth and Churchill], eager to write amusingly, have generally chosen
to discuss the more patently absurd claims and to disregard arguments less
easily ridiculed" (Maxwell, 437).>>
--------------------------------------------------------
Shakespeare's Early Style
Copyright 1958 by Gwynneth Bowen
First published in The Shakespeare Fellowship News-Letter (English), Autumn
1958.
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/library/bowen/06early.htm
<<Shakespeare and his Betters, by R. C. Churchill, the first attempt to
summarize and answer the whole case against William Shakespeare of
Stratford, is reviewed by Mr. Kent on page 9, but one of Mr. Churchill's
arguments calls for a more detailed reply than is possible in a review.
Referring to the cross-examination by Mr. Humphreys of a panel of
Oxfordians, which took place at a meeting of the Fellowship on 8th November,
1955, Mr. Churchill comments that he read the account in the Shakespeare
Fellowship News-Letter, "hoping to be informed how the Oxfordians get around
the embarrassing fact that Edward de Vere died in 1604, before some of
Shakespeare's greatest plays were written". (p. 196). "But," he adds, "Mr.
Humphreys did not ask this question, and so no answer was forthcoming".
So Mr. Churchill had to look farther afield for his answer. After devoting
several pages to refuting J. T. Looney's explanation-that The Tempest was
wholly, and some of the other late plays partly, "unShakespearean"-he says:
"The other argument, made by more recent Oxfordians, seems on the surface to
have much more to commend it. It does not involve any drastic curtailment of
Shakespeare's stylistic development, or any putting of a late play like
Antony before a middle play like Hamlet, since it recommends a bodily
removal of the entire development to an earlier period: the same plays, even
The Tempest, with the same slow development of style . . . but simply
transferred in a body to about twelve years earlier. It is an attractive
theory; can it therefore be accepted?" (p. 203).
Mr. Churchill, of course, gives a negative answer, but for one reason only:
that you cannot treat Shakespeare's plays in isolation.
"The Oxfordian date for Hamlet is now 1588, Oxford-Shakespeare's first plays
having been written around 1580. The accepted date of the first part of
Marlowe's Tamburlaine is about 1587; the accepted date for The Spanish
Tragedy about 1588-9. This means that when Oxford-Shakespeare had completed
his middle period, and had progressed far beyond the sentry-go style of his
first plays, Marlowe and Kyd were still on sentry-go. The accepted
chronology, which dates Tamburlaine, The Spanish Tragedy, Titus Andronicus,
and Henry the Sixth within a few years of each other, is surely more
reasonable."
If we accept the premisses, we must, I think, admit that it is, but Mr.
Churchill is wrong in supposing that any Oxfordian has ever recommended a
bodily removal of the entire development, though I plead guilty, myself, to
the guarded statement that the order of composition "might even be retained
intact at an earlier period". (Shakespeare's Farewell, p. 4). If the order
was fixed and immutable there could of course be no exceptions to the
general rule, but no-one pretends that it is. There is really no such thing
as the orthodox chronology or, for that matter, the Oxfordian chronology.
Mr. Churchill has, however, called attention to the important fact that
style may be an indication of date, provided we have some fixed standard of
comparison. What, then, was Shakespeare's early style?
We have been brought up to think of it as the "sentry-go" style of the plays
on Henry VI and Richard III-collectively known as the First Tetralogy-with
Titus Andronicus thrown in. It is from these five plays alone that our
notions of Shakespeare's earliest style are derived and if we say that they
were his first plays because they are in his earliest style we are simply
arguing in a circle. Are they believed to be the first because, as
Shakespeare's plays go, they are bad? A writer does not necessarily progress
in a straight line from "bad" to "good", he has his ups and downs. He may
reach something very near perfection in one genre before going back to the
beginning in another, or he may persevere in the same genre after his
inspiration has flickered out, and this means inevitable retrogression.
Besides, the authenticity of each of these five plays (as a whole or in
part) is open to question and you cannot judge a man's style by verse he did
not write!
The fact is that the Henry VI plays are among the very few which have been
dated (rightly or wrongly) by external evidence. They are "early" because
they are known to have been on the stage by 1592 and, for the orthodox, they
form the starting-point to which everything else must be related. If 1592 is
not so early after all, this line of reasoning is invalid and the only
evidence that Shakespeare began his career with these plays ceases to exist.
In any case, people are apt to overlook Shakespeare's early Comedies.
Marlowe's sudden death occurred in June 1593, and, to quote Professor F. P.
Wilson [Marlowe and The Early Shakespeare]:
"Before Marlowe's death Shakespeare had certainly written Henry VI, Richard
III, The Comedy of Errors, and had probably written The Two Gentlemen of
Verona, if not Titus Andronicus. A rapid glance over the shoulder at The
Comedy of Errors may, perhaps, be allowed for the purpose of reminding
ourselves that already in his youth Shakespeare moved in a world which
Marlowe was not at home and showed no signs of ever wishing to be at home."
To Wilson's list may be added The Taming of The Shrew, on the assumption
that Shakespeare's version-as many orthodox scholars now believe-was earlier
than the supposed source-play, The Taming of A Shrew, which was published
anonymously in 1594, and performed in the same year.
Chambers puts Comedy of Errors between the First Tetralogy and Titus
Andronicus. Next on his list come Taming of The Shrew and Two Gentlemen of
Verona, followed by another comedy, Love's Labour's Lost, and then one
tragedy, Romeo and Juliet, after which Shakespeare is supposed to have
reverted to the subject of English history, going back to the reign of
Richard II. He had now embarked upon the Second Tetralogy and, apart from a
momentary flash-back to the time of King John, continued to write Histories
in a forward direction, interspersed with Comedies, till with Henry V
(1599), he had joined up his great sequence in the middle. By this time
(according to Chambers), he had added to the Comedies: A Midsummer Night's
Dream; Merchant of Venice; and Much Ado About Nothing.
Now, there is a considerable difference in style as well as subject-matter
between the Histories and the Comedies. This would be natural enough on any
hypothesis, but the point is that in the first decade of his supposed
career, Shakespeare's development did not apparently proceed along one line,
but two parallel lines, one for History and the other for Comedy. To this we
must add that, judged by external standards, the style of the Comedies
appears to belong to an earlier period than that of the Histories. How do
the orthodox get around this embarrassing fact?
"It is reasonable to suppose," says Chambers, "that at some date Shakespeare
decided to make a deliberate experiment in lyrical drama . . . The actual
percentage of rhyme in the plays affected by such an experiment is of no
importance. There seems to have been a notion that rhyme was a
characteristic of the pre-Shakespearean drama, which Shakespeare gradually
discarded. It is true that mid-Elizabethan popular plays were written in
various forms of doggerel. These, and not heroic couplets were the 'jygging
vaines of riming mother wits', which Marlowe repudiated. There is little use
of the heroic metre in the plays of Shakespeare's immediate predecessors . .
. Substantially, the medium of Shakespeare's models was blank verse. The
rhyme of the lyric plays represents a fresh start and not a looking
backwards. And it seems to bear some relation to his use of double endings.
The growth of these does not follow a very smooth curve at any point, but it
is particularly noticeable that, while he begins with a fairly high
proportion [in the First Tetralogy] there is a marked drop, not only for the
lyric plays, but for King John and 1Henry IV, which must follow them pretty
closely". (William Shakespeare, Part I, p. 267. Italics mine.),
The general tendency right through Shakespeare's career is for double
endings to increase and it is odd that the First Tetralogy should have so
many. Chambers is, in fact, hard put to it to explain certain deviations in
Shakespeare's development which would not be deviations at all if the lyric
plays were written before the First Tetralogy and before the time of
Marlowe. I must refrain from following up the implications with regard to
the order of the History Plays themselves, and turn to Shakespeare's first
Comedies.
How many people, familiar with such plays as Twelfth Night, Midsummer
Night's Dream and Merchant of Venice, have not experienced some kind of
shock on seeing or reading, for the first time, Comedy of Errors or The
Shrew? If they usually enjoy Shakespeare, they will probably be
disappointed; if, on the other hand, they "did" him unwillingly at school
and left it at that, they may be relieved to find him writing farce and,
what is more, in simple, straightforward language that anybody could
understand. They may have been under the impression that Shakespeare was
"difficult" because his language was archaic, but if they went back a
quarter of a century or more they would find a few surviving examples of
plays which are quite easy to understand, but intolerably dull, stemming
from the first regular English Comedy, Ralph Roister Doister, by Nicholas
Udall (c. 1550) and the first regular English Tragedy, Gorboduc, by Norton
and Sackville (performed before the Queen in 1562). Ralph Roister Doister is
written in rhymed doggerel and Gorboduc in blank verse, but both are
distinguished by a simplicity of vocabulary and syntax which is quite
foreign to the great age of Elizabethan Drama. Most of the plays of the
seventies have disappeared, but it is this inherited simplicity of style, as
well as an inherited vogue for farce, which differentiates Comedy of Errors
and The Shrew from the other plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries.
In these two early comedies Shakespeare's blank verse is not yet fully
developed. On the other hand, there is plenty of rhyme and a good deal of
doggerel. In the case of Comedy of Errors, some critics have tried to
explain this by suggesting that Shakespeare was revising an old lost play
and retained some of it unaltered. Chambers does not agree with them, but
says:
"I will present the advocates of the retention theory with the fact that the
word 'mome' (iii.I.32), not used elsewhere in Shakespeare, is a common
vituperative term of the drama of Udall's time, and add that it seems to me
just as easy to suppose that here and in Taming of the Shrew and Love's
Labour's Lost, where there is a substantial use of doggerel, Shakespeare was
consciously experimenting with an archaistic form for comic effect."
However, once the time-barrier is broken, it is easier still to suppose that
Shakespeare was writing in an "archaistic form" because he was only just
emerging from archaism. The blank verse in the serious parts of Comedy of
Errors is closer to Gorboduc than Tamburlaine.
If Marlowe and Kyd were Shakespeare's models for Tragedy and History (and
the influence may well have been the other way round), who are supposed to
have been his models in English Comedy? For these we must go back behind
Marlowe and Kyd to George Gascoigne, whose one comedy, Supposes (1566),
provided the sub-plot for The Shrew; George Whetstone, whose one play,
Promos and Cassandra (1578) is believed to be the main source for Measure
for Measure; and, of course, John Lyly, the fashionable dramatist of the
eighties.
The far-reaching influence on Shakespeare of Lyly's novel, Euphues, as well
as his plays, is a commonplace of criticism, yet in his chapter on Comedy of
Errors in Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare (1957), Professor
Geoffrey Bullough says:
"Euphuistic wit is noticeably absent from this plain-styled comedy."
It is also absent from The Shrew, but present in a highly developed form in
Two Gentlemen of Verona, Love's Labour's Lost and Merchant of Venice. Why
this sudden change? The orthodox cannot produce an answer to that question,
but perhaps the Oxfordians can.
Euphues the Anatomy of Wit was published in 1578 and euphuism immediately
became the fashionable language of the Court, from whence it spread to all
grades of society. On 1st January, 1577-over a year before the publication
of Euphues-a play was performed at Court under the title "A Historie of
Error". There is, of course, no proof that this was the same play as Comedy
of Errors, but if it was, as Mr. Percy Allen and the late Mrs. Eva Turner
Clark have suggested, the absence of euphuism from the Comedy is just what
we should expect. In 1579-the year after the publication of Euphues-Stephen
Gosson, in the School of Abuse, condemned stage plays as immoral but
mentioned four exceptions, among them The Jew, "showne at the Bull in
Bishopsgate representing the greedinesse of worldly chusers, and the bloody
minds of usurers". This would certainly have been hailed by the orthodox as
an allusion to Merchant of Venice, were it not for the "impossibility" of
the date. In 1580, Lyly dedicated his second book, Euphues His England, to
his "very good Lord and Master Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxenford"; and from
that time on, the Earl of Oxford was the acknowledged patron of the
"euphuists", with John Lyly as his secretary and supervisor of his Boy
Players. The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship raises the
question of how much Lyly influenced "Shakespeare" and how much
"Shakespeare"' influenced Lyly. But if William Shakespeare (Shaksper) of
Stratford suddenly took up euphuism in the middle nineties, having managed
without it for Comedy of Errors and The Shrew, he was more than twelve years
behind the times.
Euphuism became a habit with "Shakespeare", but there is no doubt that it is
most marked in the Comedies-excluding Comedy of Errors and The Shrew. I
suggest, then, in accordance with Mr. Churchill's principle of the mutual
influence of contemporary writers, that the two main lines of Shakespeare's
early development were not parallel after all, but consecutive, and that the
Comedies came first. The "sentry-go" style of the Histories, though tedious
when carried to excess, was in its day a great achievement, and it had a
purpose. Mr. Churchill has named it well, for it is martial music and ebbs
and flows with the tide of war. It was in the process of writing the
Histories that Shakespeare learnt to handle tragic situations, not without
making some mistakes. Incidentally, the play which is supposed to have been
most influenced by Kyd-whether or not he wrote an earlier "lost" play on the
same subject-is Hamlet. As Mr. Churchill, himself, reminds us, the accepted
date for The Spanish Tragedy is about 1588-9 (which coincides with the
Oxfordian date for Hamlet). The accepted date for Hamlet is about 1600-1.
How does Mr. Churchill get around this time-lag of twelve years?>>
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Spam Scone
SNIP
What have the Oxfordians done now that the Baconians
> didn't do in 1880? The only difference is that our current media are
> mass-media, so a TV programme or cinema film about Oxfordianism can
> have a lot more impact for a single event than anything happening in
> the 19th century, but even taking this into account, Oxfordianism is
> not keeping up with the 19th century Baconians for media presentation
> or public relations. Baconianism touched many more people much more
> deeply in the 19th century (at least in Britain and America) than
> Oxfordianism ever has. Yet Baconianism never came anywhere near
> "taking over" from Stratfordianism, and Oxfordianism won't ever do
> that either.
Mr. Larque,
Has anyone ever written an article on Baconian "media presentation" or
"public relations" during the movement's peak from 1880-1920? I've
come across a number of chess articles from this time period that
mention the "Bacon theory" in passing; this would imply that PR
regarding Baconians had reached the level of common knowledge, and
that even writing on a specialized subject such as chess could make
reference to Baconism and assume that the readers would understand the
reference (one such article is included in this post). It would seem
to me that we could expect to find other references to "Baconian
thought" in other popular writing (unrelated to the so-called
"authorship" issue) of the day if this is so.
I've never seen a reference to Oxfordism anywhere aside from a
discussion of Oxfordism or "authorship".
****
From the Pittsburgh Gazette-Times, April 23, 1916:
...We, therefore, have a "Shakespeare and Chess" controversy which may
rank in time in excitement with the "Shakespeare and Bacon"
controversy. The two may become allied, for a little engenuity might
prove that the two men knew an equal amount about the game and so were
intellectually able to write one another's books. One striking
instance of this occurs to me. In "The Taming of the Shrew" (Act 1,
Scene 1), Catherina says to Baptista,
"I pray you, sir, is it your will to make a stale of me among these
mates?"
This, says Editor Hudson, is probably "a quibbling allusion to the
chess term stalemate." Now, remember what Bacon says in his essay, "Of
Boldness":
"Like a stale at chess, where there is no mate, but yet the game
cannot stir."
Can anyone thoroughly conversant with the line of arguments in use in
support of the Bacon theory ask for any greater proof!
-Excerpt from "Shakespeare as a Chessist" by Alain C. White
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Despite this, Matus gets more coverage on HLAS than Whalen.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Matus is a unique book that should (if it had anything important to
say)
> > rightly be the Stratfordian bible at HLAS.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> No. Orthodox biographies of Shakespeare and works on individual
> issues (grammar school education etc.)
What grammar school education?
There are no records of any grammar school education.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> are the "bibles" of
> Stratfordians at HLAS (and since we have more "bibles", we
> understandably consult each individual one less often than Oxfordians
> do). This is unsurprising since Matus is not a major figure in
> Shakespearean Studies, and Stratfordianism means Shakespeare Studies.
[L]ucky [S]trike [M]eans [F]ine [T]obacco.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> People like Ogburn are Bibles to the Oxfordians because they have
> nothing else to quote (there is no body of Shakespearean scholarship
> that supports Oxfordianism, apart from that written by the inept,
> incompetent, and dishonest adherents of the Oxfordian sect to their
> own lunatic standards - based on fraud and fantasy - while every
> scholarly book written to scholarly standards that has been written
> about Shakespeare has been Stratfordian).
There is no body of evidence that supports Shakspere's grammar
school education, apart from that written by the inept, incompetent,
and dishonest adherents of the Stratfordian sect to their
own lunatic standards - based on fraud and fantasy.
All the direct evidence points to the fact that
William Shakspere & his entire family were illiterate boobs.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> Matus's book only confronts a range of Oxfordian issues, and
> unsurprisingly this range is one that Oxfordians now generally avoid
> on HLAS.
Matus twittles his thumbs and has nothing significant to say on any
relevant issue so it is unsurprising one that Stratfordians generally avoid
mentioning him on HLAS other than as some sort of bogyman.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> The vast majority of the "pro-Shakespeare" material in Matus
> is available elsewhere, and is cited by Stratfordians on HLAS from
> primary documents or more important secondary works rather than from
> Matus.
Name one issue that Matus discusses in his book that is of any important
to the authorship issue.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> The "anti-Oxfordian" material in Matus is of much less importance to
> the authorship debate than the mass of Shakespearean scholarship
> (which is the source of the evidence that Shakespeare wrote
> Shakespeare).
The only way to Strats win is to ignore the authorship issue entirely.
. .the Stratman wrote the works end of discussion.
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> You can pretend that Matus should be a "bible" to
> Stratfordians if you like, but pretending - as all anti-Stratfordians
> fail to understand - doesn't alter reality.
You can pretend that Strats arguments can stand up to the light of
dayMatus if you like, but pretending - as all Stratfordians fail to
understand - doesn't alter reality.
Art Neuendorffer
John W. Kennedy
Schikele mentions the theory that Christopher Marlowe composed the works
of P.D.Q. Bach, but dismisses it with the remark that Marlowe would have
done a better job.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams: "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Art Neuendorffer
> In one of the early (mid-to-late 1960's) recordings, Professor Peter
> Schikele mentions the theory that Christopher Marlowe composed the works
> of P.D.Q. Bach, but dismisses it with the remark that Marlowe would have
> done a better job.
Even the Stratman would have done a better job.
Art N.
Thomas Larque
either side of the authorship debate takes him seriously, I don't feel
any need to stretch out this discussion. This will be my only
response to this thread, and afterwards I will go back to not
monitoring HLAS (except for the occasional glance at Kathman, Ross,
etc.). I don't have time for HLAS at the moment.
> > > Matus is a unique book that should (if it had anything important to
> say)
> > > rightly be the Stratfordian bible at HLAS.
>
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > No. Orthodox biographies of Shakespeare and works on individual
> > issues (grammar school education etc.)
>
> What grammar school education?
>
> There are no records of any grammar school education.
As you well know, Art, there is no record of the grammar school
education of virtually any Renaissance playwright, and there are no
surviving records of the pupils at the Stratford King's School, so it
is entirely unsurprising that there is no record of Shakespeare's
Grammar School education. However, unless you believe that your
"conspirators" were so stupid as to hire an "illiterate boob" who had
never been to school and could write neither Latin nor English to
pretend to be their great author (and your conspirators would have to
be more stupid than, say, Art Neundorffer to base their conspiracy on
such a transparent ruse) then it is obvious that Shakespeare did have
an education, and that it was almost certainly at the Stratford
Grammar school.
There are, however, no records that Oxford ever had anything to do
with Shakespeare's plays or his acting company. This would be very
surprising if he had actually written the plays, since such records do
survive for most other playwrights (including Shakespeare himself).
99.999% of your postings are based on things for which not only no
records survive, but which are purely pulled out of your backside.
Anti-Stratfordians are all dishonest hypocrites, since they reject
even the most obvious conclusions about Shakespeare but are willing to
make the most outrageous claims themselves with no documentary support
whatever. Anti-Stratfordianism can't exist without making stuff up,
since the historical record doesn't support any of it.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > are the "bibles" of
> > Stratfordians at HLAS (and since we have more "bibles", we
> > understandably consult each individual one less often than Oxfordians
> > do). This is unsurprising since Matus is not a major figure in
> > Shakespearean Studies, and Stratfordianism means Shakespeare Studies.
>
> [L]ucky [S]trike [M]eans [F]ine [T]obacco.
[A]rt [i]s [v]ery [s]tupid.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > People like Ogburn are Bibles to the Oxfordians because they have
> > nothing else to quote (there is no body of Shakespearean scholarship
> > that supports Oxfordianism, apart from that written by the inept,
> > incompetent, and dishonest adherents of the Oxfordian sect to their
> > own lunatic standards - based on fraud and fantasy - while every
> > scholarly book written to scholarly standards that has been written
> > about Shakespeare has been Stratfordian).
>
> There is no body of evidence that supports Shakspere's grammar
> school education, apart from that written by the inept, incompetent,
> and dishonest adherents of the Stratfordian sect to their
> own lunatic standards - based on fraud and fantasy.
Apart from the fact that Shakespeare knew both English and Latin, and
his plays show evidence of a standard grammar school education (note
that the plays also exclude Oxford's education, since Shakespeare
considered one of the seven ages of man to include carrying a satchel
to school, something Oxford - who had private tutors - never did, but
which Shakespeare and his Stratford contempories did every day). Even
if we accept the Neundorfferian conspiracy theories, Shakespeare must
have been capable of writing in both Latin and English to convince
people that he might have written the plays, since people will have
had a great deal of contact with him in the theatre and outside it.
The only place Shakespeare of Stratford is likely to have had this
education is in the Stratford grammar school. The idea that
Shakespeare was illiterate is a desperate resort of the most ignorant
of the anti-Stratfordians (like Art himself) who do not even attempt
to make their own theories plausible.
> All the direct evidence points to the fact that
> William Shakspere & his entire family were illiterate boobs.
We've discussed this many times. Shakespeare's daughters were at
least as well educated as most of Arthur Lisle's daughters (who -
according to the editor of the family's letters, all of which were
preserved after Lisle was arrested and investigated by the State -
were either entirely illiterate or left only signatures for the most
part), and Lisle (a highly educated nobleman) has been described as
the best penman in Henry VIII's court. As for Shakespeare himself, he
wrote all those plays, so he was obviously literate. Even if you
don't believe that (because you're stupid) then he managed to pretend
that he wrote all those plays, something which somebody who could not
even write would not have been able to do.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Matus's book only confronts a range of Oxfordian issues, and
> > unsurprisingly this range is one that Oxfordians now generally avoid
> > on HLAS.
>
> Matus twittles his thumbs and has nothing significant to say on any
> relevant issue so it is unsurprising one that Stratfordians generally avoid
> mentioning him on HLAS other than as some sort of bogyman.
He gets mentioned as much as Honan, the most popular modern
biographer. Matus takes on a good range of Oxfordian issues, and
naturally Oxfordians pretend that if Matus took on an issue then it
must be a minor and unimportant one, but the Oxfordian claims (in
books like Ogburn's) are made up entirely of minor issues. Thousands
upon thousands of them. There is no major evidence for any
anti-Stratfordian belief, so there are no major arguments to answer.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > The vast majority of the "pro-Shakespeare" material in Matus
> > is available elsewhere, and is cited by Stratfordians on HLAS from
> > primary documents or more important secondary works rather than from
> > Matus.
>
> Name one issue that Matus discusses in his book that is of any important
> to the authorship issue.
Shakespeare's Literacy. See Art Neundorffer trying to make this a
major authorship issue above.
Also just about every other argument that the book considers.
Oxfordianism stands or falls upon thousands of minor issues, and has
no major arguments at all.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > The "anti-Oxfordian" material in Matus is of much less importance to
> > the authorship debate than the mass of Shakespearean scholarship
> > (which is the source of the evidence that Shakespeare wrote
> > Shakespeare).
>
> The only way to Strats win is to ignore the authorship issue entirely.
> . .the Stratman wrote the works end of discussion.
History is history. People who can't understand history, and think
that they are free to rewrite or ignore every historical document in
order to pander to their own fantasies have no place in academic
study, and indeed there are no anti-Stratfordians in the academic
world except for those who snuck in via other disciplines or
concentrations. The sole exception is Daniel Wright, in a very minor
University, and you only have to read his so-called "scholarship" to
realise that he does not deserve his academic position. See for
example the discussion of his article on a PMLA article that he simply
blatantly lied about and massively misread.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > You can pretend that Matus should be a "bible" to
> > Stratfordians if you like, but pretending - as all anti-Stratfordians
> > fail to understand - doesn't alter reality.
>
> You can pretend that Strats arguments can stand up to the light of
> dayMatus if you like, but pretending - as all Stratfordians fail to
> understand - doesn't alter reality.
Art, most people think you are insane, and your postings show that you
have no understanding of reality, history, or academic argument. Do
you really think that your personal judgements and inventions are so
powerful as to override the historical record? Obviously you do, but
nobody with any sense would agree with you. It may make you happy to
post hollow postings (note there are no actual arguments of any
substance in Art's posting) boasting about your own superiority to the
real world, but only your fellow religious fanatics and those they
dupe will ever take your word for it.
Thomas Larque
the detail of something that I posted last time (and which hasn't yet
appeared on Google groups, so I'm posting my extra comments next to
Art's post).
Art wrote:
> > All the direct evidence points to the fact that
> > William Shakspere & his entire family were illiterate boobs.
I wrote:
> We've discussed this many times. Shakespeare's daughters were at
> least as well educated as most of Arthur Lisle's daughters (who -
> according to the editor of the family's letters, all of which were
> preserved after Lisle was arrested and investigated by the State -
> were either entirely illiterate or left only signatures for the most
> part), and Lisle (a highly educated nobleman) has been described as
> the best penman in Henry VIII's court. As for Shakespeare himself, he
> wrote all those plays, so he was obviously literate. Even if you
> don't believe that (because you're stupid) then he managed to pretend
> that he wrote all those plays, something which somebody who could not
> even write would not have been able to do.
Here is the detail on the Lisle family's literacy from an earlier
posting of mine on this subject (from a number of years ago) which I
was referring to from memory.
The rest of this post is a quote of the earlier material (the comments
in > quotation marks are from John Baker).
********
>9)Stratfordians, knowing that the actor's family were illiterates,
>have claimed that this was common during the period.
We've discussed the literacy of Shakespeare's daughters many times,
and continue to do so. Susanna Shakespeare could sign her name. This
alone shows that she received a better education than the vast
majority of her contemporaries. John Shakespeare and Judith
Shakespeare signed with a mark, but so did Adrian Quiney - who could
both read and write.
>It wasn't. In
>families headed by a literate father, and the author was literate,
the
>family was literate.
Viscount Lisle, who I've mentioned before now, was a literate man -
and as Governor of Calais and the last of the Plantagenets, an
important one. His second wife was Honor Grenville "of a famous and
dynastic Cornish family".
Every single letter written by the Lisle family was seized when Lisle
himself was arrested for treason. Their correspondence became one of
the most impressive caches of letters to have survived the period.
Here is Muriel St. Clare Byrne discussing the family's literacy
skills.
ARTHUR LISLE (literate father & husband).
"Lisle's handwriting is simple, confident, easy, as though he could
dash off a letter at speed. It is strikingly superior to that of
nearly all his noble or gentle contemporaries, the legacy perhaps of a
childhood education at his father's court though his youth was spent
among his Hampshire kinsfolk. He writes easily because he writes as
he would speak ... Nevertheless he can compose an excellent official
letter when necessary, and can take considerable pains - resulting in
several drafts - to pull the composition into the best shape
possible."
HONOR LISLE (born Grenville - Wife)
"Honor Lisle is the norm in her attainments and her education, or
rather, her lack of education. She knew neither Latin nor French, and
curiously does not appear to have picked up this latter tongue even by
the end of her seven years' stay in Calais. She could read, and she
could sign her own name, but she always dictated her letters, even
those to her husband; and her signature suggests that she handled a
pen with difficulty".
So Honor could read and sign her name, but couldn't write.
FRANCES PLANTAGENET (daughter)
"Frances may have been able to write ..."
And that is all we get on the literacy skills of Frances Plantagenet.
Apparently Muriel Byrne doesn't know whether Frances could write or
not. The rest of the paragraph is about a step-sister, who couldn't
write and might not have been able to read either.
BRIDGET PLANTAGENET (daughter)
"We know that she learned to read, though not whether she could write,
and if she could not it would not have been unusual for her station".
So there is no evidence that Bridget could write either.
[Additional note on 25.06.03 - Note that Muriel Byrne is here
suggesting that Bridget Plantagenet could not write, but could read.
This is exactly what a number of modern scholars suspect may have been
the position with Judith Shakespeare. Muriel Byrne says that this
"would not have been unusual for [Bridget Plantagenet's] station", and
since Bridget Plantagenet was a member of the nobility - who were more
likely to be literate than members of the Middle Class in similar
circumstances - it would have been even more usual for women like
Judith Shakespeare to be in this position.]
ELIZABETH PLANTAGENET (daughter)
No comments on her literacy at all.
Despite the fact that every Lisle family letter ended up in government
archives, the evidence for the literacy of his female family members
is virtually non-existent. Honor, like Susanna, could sign her name -
but (unlike Susanna) we have firm evidence that she did not write.
Frances *may* have been able to write. Bridget probably couldn't
[Additional note 25.06.03 - but could definitely read]. There seems
to be no evidence about Elizabeth at all.
So Arthur Lisle was one of the best penmen in the Court, and yet -
contrary to "Volker's Law" - he seems not to have bothered instilling
this skill in his wife and daughters.
**************
Art Neuendorffer
----
http://www.pillagoda.freewire.co.uk/LYDNEY.htm
<<Thomas Wolsey's father was said to have been a BUTCHER but he was a
prosperous merchant who owned an abbatoir and a house in Silent Street,
Ipswich. Wolsey had risen to power and became Lord Chancellor and
was a cardinal by the age of 41. In 1514 he built a sumptuous palace
at Hampton Court (only part of which remains) which he gave up to
Henry VIII in 1525. Wolsey was the papal legate but after 2 years of
negotiations, he failed to get a divorce for the king because Charles V
of Hapsburg, the Holy Roman Emperor (Catalina's nephew) opposed it. He
also had Anne Boleyn's hatred to contend with. In October 1529 he was
deposed and sent to his See of York. In 1530 (when he was dying),
he was arrested and died at Leicester Abbey on his way to London.
Several of Thomas Cromwell's letters are still extant; one about John
Winter, is addressed to Roger Winter and two to Sir William Fitzwilliam,
the Admiral. It was on this basis that the assumption was made
that Wolsey's mistress (described as "one Joan LARKE") was
sister of John Winter of Bristol but she may have been
the daughter of Peter LARKE, an inn-keeper of Thetford.
His son THOMAS LARKE (d. July 1530) became Wolsey's confessor
and the King's chaplain. He was given a canonry of St. Stephen's
on 10.11.1511 and became Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge
in 1520-5. Wolsey's chaplain may have had some connection
with THOMAS LARKE , vinteyner or captain
of a troop of 20 soldiers and Lord Lisle's secretary.
LARKE, John and Leonard Smyth and William Gonson, Clerk
of the King's Ships were residents of Calais in 1539 when
Wolsey was chaplain there under the Commander of Calais,
Admiral Arthur Plantagenet, Lord Lisle (Edward IV's illegitimate
son by Elizabeth, relative of Thomas Lucy of Charlecote).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Any relation?????
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> OK. Really my last posting this time,
Promuses, promuses.
> Art wrote:
>
> > > All the direct evidence points to the fact that
> > > William Shakspere & his entire family were illiterate boobs.
>
> I wrote:
>
> > We've discussed this many times. Shakespeare's daughters were at
> > least as well educated as most of Arthur Lisle's daughters (who -
> > according to the editor of the family's letters, all of which were
> > preserved after Lisle was arrested and investigated by the State -
> > were either entirely illiterate or left only signatures for the most
> > part), and Lisle (a highly educated nobleman) has been described as
> > the best penman in Henry VIII's court. As for Shakespeare himself, he
> > wrote all those plays, so he was obviously literate. Even if you
> > don't believe that (because you're stupid)
I don't believe that because I'm smart.
> > then he managed to pretend that he wrote all those plays,
> > something which somebody who could not
> > even write would not have been able to do.
He managed to pretend postumously that he wrote all those plays .
Maybe the Lisle family even helped out the Shakspere family:
------------------------------------------------------------------
MISCELLANIES UPON VARIOUS SUBJECTS.
BY JOHN AUBREY, F.RS.
http://library28.tripod.com/13-1.html
September 2, 1685. The Lady Lisle beheaded at Winchester,
for harbouring HICKS!
------------------------------------------------------------
"Peter Zenner" <pe...@pzenner.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> 'Lyly' is a corruption of 'Lisle'
> and that is a family name of the Sidneys. They came from
> the Isle of Wight and were variously known as de L'Isle or Lisle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John Neville --------- Isabel
(Northumberland) | INGOLDESTHORPE
(Marquis MONTAGU) |
|
Anthony Browne ------------- Lucy Neville
1485 - 1506 |
|
/--------------------------------\
| | Anne BROWNE--- Charles
| | /- Brandon -\
| | Mary Tudor-/ (LISLE) |
| | |
Anthony Browne --- Alice Lucy --- Thomas Clifford |
L.ISLE of Man | Gage Browne |
d. 1548 | Katherine |
| Richard Bertie--- Willoughby ---/
| |
/-----------------------------\ Peregrine -------- Mary Vere
| | Bertie | (Ed's sis)
| Jane | |
Anthony Browne --- Ratcliff Lucy Browne--Thomas |
d. 1592 | Roper |
| |
Thomas --- MARY BROWNE --- Henry Wriothesley ROBERT BERTIE
Heneage / | (Southampton) 1st EARL of LINDSEY
d.1592 / | Lord Great Chamberlain
/ Henry Wriothesley 16 Dec 1582 - 23 Oct 1642
W. Harvey---/ (Southampton) Killed in Battle of Edgehill
(Mr.W.H.) Bart [Married Elizabeth MONTAGU]
(later Ross)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
thomas...@lineone.net (Thomas Larque) wrote:
> Since Art simply posts endless screens of garbage, and nobody on
> either side of the authorship debate takes him seriously, I don't feel
> any need to stretch out this discussion. This will be my only
> response to this thread, and afterwards I will go back to not
> monitoring HLAS (except for the occasional glance at Kathman, Ross,
> etc.). I don't have time for HLAS at the moment.
> > > > Matus is a unique book that should (if it had anything important to
> > say)
> > > > rightly be the Stratfordian bible at HLAS.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > No. Orthodox biographies of Shakespeare and works on individual
> > > issues (grammar school education etc.)
> > What grammar school education?
> >
> > There are no records of any grammar school education.
> As you well know, Art, there is no record of the grammar school
> education of virtually any Renaissance playwright, and there are no
> surviving records of the pupils at the Stratford King's School, so it
> is entirely unsurprising that there is no record of Shakespeare's
> Grammar School education.
Art's imbecilic obtuseness on this point is fascinating. I can think
of several possible explanations for Art's stubbornness, some
symptomatic of idiocy, others suggesting insanity -- perhaps Art himself
can identify which of the following is the correct explanation:
(1) Art is actually unaware that no attendance records of the period for
the Stratford grammar school survive. Of course, he has been told so
many times, but Art has never been a very good reader (he isn't called
the illiterate District Heights boob for nothing), and he is even worse
at actually consulting sources to verify things he has been told by
those who know far more than he.
(2) Art is aware that no Stratford grammar school records survive, but
he is nevertheless surprised that Shakespeare does not occur on the list
of pupils. Art has failed to understand that the empty set contains no
elements -- but then Art is no better at mathematics than he is at
reading. Indeed, he professes to believe that the number 19 is unusual
in being both the sum of two consecutive integers and the difference of
their squares, and he evidently regards a coincidence of birthdays as a
low probability event.
(3) Art is aware that no records survive, and he is not such a complete
moron as to succumb to the dysfunctional mental processes exemplified by
either (1) or (2) above; thus he concedes that the absence of
Shakespeare's name on the nonexistent enrollment roster is not at all
surprising. Rather, he suspects that Masonic conspirators destroyed the
Stratford grammar school records. Of course, he has no reason to doubt
Shakespeare's authorship of the canon in the first place (far less to
believe in the existence of Masonic conspirators) other than a handful
of cretinous canards like Shakespeare's supposed lack of education --
thus this mental construct combines a circular argument with an
unshakeable delusion. It is utterly unimpeachable since Art does not
admit the application of rational argument based upon extant evidence,
preferring to deflect the discussion by some attempted wisecrack.
(4) Art is aware that no records survive, and that seeking elements of
the empty set is an idiot's errand. He is also aware how asinine his
attempts to protect by jocularity his delusional fantasy from objective
scrutiny make him look. In short, Art is trolling.
Which is it, Art?
> However, unless you believe that your
> "conspirators" were so stupid as to hire an "illiterate boob" who had
> never been to school and could write neither Latin nor English to
> pretend to be their great author (and your conspirators would have to
> be more stupid than, say, Art Neundorffer to base their conspiracy on
> such a transparent ruse) then it is obvious that Shakespeare did have
> an education, and that it was almost certainly at the Stratford
> Grammar school.
Plausibility has never been a strong point of any of most
anti-Stratfordian scenarios -- especially Art's.
> There are, however, no records that Oxford ever had anything to do
> with Shakespeare's plays or his acting company. This would be very
> surprising if he had actually written the plays, since such records do
> survive for most other playwrights (including Shakespeare himself).
Again, Art can invoke the conspiracy of Templars, Freemasons,
Rosicrucians, Priory of Sion plotters, Elks, Odd Fellows, etc. who
destroyed all such records.
> 99.999% of your postings are based on things for which not only no
> records survive, but which are purely pulled out of your backside.
...or the collective backsides of those who prepared the many lunatic
web sites on which Art relies for "evidence." One of these sites railed
about conpspiracies of space aliens from several planetary systems.
Thus some of Art's information may have its origin in David Icke's
backside.
> Anti-Stratfordians are all dishonest hypocrites, since they reject
> even the most obvious conclusions about Shakespeare but are willing to
> make the most outrageous claims themselves with no documentary support
> whatever. Anti-Stratfordianism can't exist without making stuff up,
> since the historical record doesn't support any of it.
What is so funny, though, is that many of them seem utterly oblivious
to the possibility that anyone might check out their inventions! Thus,
for example, Elizabeth Weird writes that "The term 'shake-scene' was
Elizabethan theatre slang for the factotum who toted scenery around
between acts" -- yet she can supply absolutely no evidence for this
invention, and ducks out when asked to do so.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > are the "bibles" of
> > > Stratfordians at HLAS (and since we have more "bibles", we
> > > understandably consult each individual one less often than Oxfordians
> > > do). This is unsurprising since Matus is not a major figure in
> > > Shakespearean Studies, and Stratfordianism means Shakespeare Studies.
> > [L]ucky [S]trike [M]eans [F]ine [T]obacco.
> [A]rt [i]s [v]ery [s]tupid.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > People like Ogburn are Bibles to the Oxfordians because they have
> > > nothing else to quote (there is no body of Shakespearean scholarship
> > > that supports Oxfordianism, apart from that written by the inept,
> > > incompetent, and dishonest adherents of the Oxfordian sect to their
> > > own lunatic standards - based on fraud and fantasy - while every
> > > scholarly book written to scholarly standards that has been written
> > > about Shakespeare has been Stratfordian).
> > There is no body of evidence that supports Shakspere's grammar
> > school education, apart from that written by the inept, incompetent,
> > and dishonest adherents of the Stratfordian sect to their
> > own lunatic standards - based on fraud and fantasy.
This is another of Art's habitual responses when, as usual, he has no
sensible rejoinder -- he merely repeats his interlocutors words with
substitutions.
> Apart from the fact that Shakespeare knew both English and Latin, and
> his plays show evidence of a standard grammar school education (note
> that the plays also exclude Oxford's education, since Shakespeare
> considered one of the seven ages of man to include carrying a satchel
> to school, something Oxford - who had private tutors - never did, but
> which Shakespeare and his Stratford contempories did every day). Even
> if we accept the Neundorfferian conspiracy theories, Shakespeare must
> have been capable of writing in both Latin and English to convince
> people that he might have written the plays, since people will have
> had a great deal of contact with him in the theatre and outside it.
> The only place Shakespeare of Stratford is likely to have had this
> education is in the Stratford grammar school. The idea that
> Shakespeare was illiterate is a desperate resort of the most ignorant
> of the anti-Stratfordians (like Art himself) who do not even attempt
> to make their own theories plausible.
As I noted above, plausibility has never been a strong point of most
anti-Stratfordian scenarios, and Art's are certainly no exception.
However, perhaps some of h.l.a.s.'s funniest moments have arisen from
some anti-Stratfordian's hapless, hilarious attempts to MAKE plausible
one of his or her idiotic conclusions.
For example, Stephanie Caruana asserted that the Dowager Countess of
Oxford had remarried hastily after her husband's death, based upon
erroneous "facts" from a notoriously unreliable Oxfordian source. When
this was pointed out to her, Stephanie replied:
"It is true that I took the statement in Ward's book, which has been
repeated uncritically in other Oxfordian books, at face value. [...]
"I have put the question out, and so far the closest thing to an
answer is that there is a letter from the Countess of Oxford dated
I believe some time in 1563, where she states something to the effect
that 'Mr. Tyrell is [or is not] going to London.' A case might be
made from the context of the letter (which I have not seen or do not
recall) that she is referring to her husband, since that is a not
uncommon way that wives referred to their husbands in correspondence
at that time."
How the Dowager Countess would have referred to the man if she had NOT
been married to him does not seem to have occurred to Stephanie at all.
As a Neuendorfferian example, when Art announced the death of the
prominent emeritus Yale historian Peter Gay based upon nothing more than
the obituary of a 9/11 victim of the same name, despite the fact that
the deceased was quite plainly identified as an industrial plant manager
some two decades younger than the Yale historian, Art struggled to make
his imbecilic misidentification plausible:
"Gay is not a common name (nor even the Professor's actual name:
Frohlich) so when I discovered that P.G. worked in Manhattan (& was
funded by the Mellon Bank) I thought it was a reasonable chance that
the Stratfordian had died. [I was certainly quite curious if it was
and figured that this would be the quickest way to resolve the issue
without clogging up the 'victim internet search network'.]"
Note the sheer number of moronic missteps in this very short selection.
First, Art apparently believes that Gay is "not a common name" -- this
despite the fact that I have encountered at least three Peter Gays (and
numerous Fröhlichs) *in academics alone*. Second, note that Art refers
to the historian Peter Gay as "the Stratfordian" -- how he infers that
the Peter Gay who worked for Raytheon is not a "Stratfordian" Art does
not disclose. Third, note that Art, who was "quite curious" whether
"the Stratfordian had died," could have answered his own question in
under ten seconds via an ordinary Google search -- but Art evidently
believes that Google actually pores through the entire world-wide web
*IN REAL TIME(!)* looking for occurrences of "Peter Gay " -- hence his
concern about "clogging up the 'victim internet search network'"!
Fourth, that Art's origination and dissemination of a completely bogus
rumor concerning the tragic death of a scholar of international renown
would surely clog up the "victim internet search network" -- if such a
thing existed outside Art's febrile imagination -- does not appear to
have occurred to Art AT ALL! Fifth, note Art's apparent belief that
the best way to resolve the question was to announce, in an open forum
read worldwide, the suppposed "death" of a prominent scholar! Finally,
when asked whether he still believed the victim to have been the
celebrated historian, Art tastelessly replied, "Sadly, no." Art
infers, using the same "reasoning," that just as there could not
possibly be more than one Peter Gay on the entire planet, so there
could not possibly be more than one Anne Hathaway on the entire planet.
However, perhaps my favorite Neundorffer imbecility is the following
"argument": Art recalled that the historian Peter Gay was supported by
the Mellon Foundation; he knew that there was a Mellon Bank in
Manhattan; therefore, by Art's "reasoning," the historian must
presumably have been flying to New York to collect his monthly grant
check -- IN PERSON -- at the Manhattan branch of the Mellon Bank!
Thus, anti-Stratfordians' failure to make their theories plausible,
funny though it is, does not furnish nearly as much amusement as their
attempts to confer some specious plausibility upon their inventions or
blunders.
> > All the direct evidence points to the fact that
> > William Shakspere & his entire family were illiterate boobs.
> We've discussed this many times. Shakespeare's daughters were at
> least as well educated as most of Arthur Lisle's daughters (who -
> according to the editor of the family's letters, all of which were
> preserved after Lisle was arrested and investigated by the State -
> were either entirely illiterate or left only signatures for the most
> part), and Lisle (a highly educated nobleman) has been described as
> the best penman in Henry VIII's court. As for Shakespeare himself, he
> wrote all those plays, so he was obviously literate. Even if you
> don't believe that (because you're stupid) then he managed to pretend
> that he wrote all those plays, something which somebody who could not
> even write would not have been able to do.
Art is utterly oblivious to reasoning based upon what is known of the
social and intellectual history of the period. That Art himself knows
absolutely nothing of such matters is not surprising; that he flagrantly
disregards everything known by the experts is somewhat more so -- Art's
case is entirely analogous to that of a scientist who invents an
implausible theory, then utterly disregards all experimental tests of
his crack-brained creation.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > Matus's book only confronts a range of Oxfordian issues, and
> > > unsurprisingly this range is one that Oxfordians now generally avoid
> > > on HLAS.
> > Matus twittles [sic] his thumbs
Art is evidently unaware that "twittle" and "twiddle" are entirely
different words with different meanings. In fact, "twittle" is an apt
verb for Art's habitual activity.
> > and has nothing significant to say on any
> > relevant issue so it is unsurprising one that Stratfordians generally avoid
> > mentioning him on HLAS other than as some sort of bogyman.
There are over 700 references to Matus in h.l.a.s., according to
Google. Evidently aneuendor...@comicass.nut is not paying
attention.
> He gets mentioned as much as Honan, the most popular modern
> biographer. Matus takes on a good range of Oxfordian issues, and
> naturally Oxfordians pretend that if Matus took on an issue then it
> must be a minor and unimportant one, but the Oxfordian claims (in
> books like Ogburn's) are made up entirely of minor issues. Thousands
> upon thousands of them. There is no major evidence for any
> anti-Stratfordian belief, so there are no major arguments to answer.
Several people have asked Oxfordians for a list of their strongest
arguments; in general, such requests elicit few concrete arguments or
data from Oxfordians, who insist that one must look instead at the whole
picture. A whole picture based upon misinformation and erroneous
reasoning is not impressive.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > The vast majority of the "pro-Shakespeare" material in Matus
> > > is available elsewhere, and is cited by Stratfordians on HLAS from
> > > primary documents or more important secondary works rather than from
> > > Matus.
> > Name one issue that Matus discusses in his book that is of any important
> > to the authorship issue.
> Shakespeare's Literacy. See Art Neundorffer trying to make this a
> major authorship issue above.
Another instance of aneuendor...@comicass.nut making a prize
ass of himself. He really ought to READ Matus for a change.
> Also just about every other argument that the book considers.
> Oxfordianism stands or falls upon thousands of minor issues, and has
> no major arguments at all.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > The "anti-Oxfordian" material in Matus is of much less importance to
> > > the authorship debate than the mass of Shakespearean scholarship
> > > (which is the source of the evidence that Shakespeare wrote
> > > Shakespeare).
> > The only way to Strats win [sic] is to ignore the authorship issue
> > entirely.
> > . .the Stratman wrote the works end of discussion [sic].
How can one doubt that Art is trolling? This is a spot-on Streitz
parody!
> History is history. People who can't understand history, and think
> that they are free to rewrite or ignore every historical document in
> order to pander to their own fantasies have no place in academic
> study, and indeed there are no anti-Stratfordians in the academic
> world except for those who snuck in via other disciplines or
> concentrations. The sole exception is Daniel Wright, in a very minor
> University, and you only have to read his so-called "scholarship" to
> realise that he does not deserve his academic position. See for
> example the discussion of his article on a PMLA article that he simply
> blatantly lied about and massively misread.
It's also worth having a look at the thesis of Dr. Stritmatter, on
whose committee Dr. Wright served. While the egregious errors therein
are ultimately the author's responsibility, the fact that nobody on his
committee apparently could tell Mary Tudor from Mary Queen of Scots or
Oxford's sister from his half-sister certainly makes one wonder about
the committee's reading of the document.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> >
> > > You can pretend that Matus should be a "bible" to
> > > Stratfordians if you like, but pretending - as all anti-Stratfordians
> > > fail to understand - doesn't alter reality.
> > You can pretend that Strats arguments can stand up to the light of
> > dayMatus [sic] if you like, but pretending - as all Stratfordians fail to
> > understand - doesn't alter reality.
This is another of Art's habitual responses when, as usual, he has no
sensible rejoinder -- he merely repeats his interlocutors words
(somewhat garbled) with substitutions.
> Art, most people think you are insane, and your postings show that you
> have no understanding of reality, history, or academic argument. Do
> you really think that your personal judgements and inventions are so
> powerful as to override the historical record?
Art missed his calling -- he should be working in cold fusion!
> Obviously you do, but
> nobody with any sense would agree with you. It may make you happy to
> post hollow postings (note there are no actual arguments of any
> substance in Art's posting) boasting about your own superiority to the
> real world, but only your fellow religious fanatics and those they
> dupe will ever take your word for it.
Even Art's coreligionists don't! I know of nobody -- except perhaps
Richard Kennedy, who has lately become something of an anagrammatic
acolyte of Art and his crackpot cryptography -- who will take Art's word
for much of anything.
> Thomas Larque.
>
> "Shakespeare and His Critics"
> http://shakespearean.org.uk
Your post summarizes the situation nicely, Thomas. However, Art's
posts exhibit sufficiently ingenious wit (occasionally) that I am
persuaded that he is merely impersonating an incompetent imbecile. He's
doing so VERY convincingly, though.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > > to say) rightly be the Stratfordian bible at HLAS.
>
> > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > No. Orthodox biographies of Shakespeare and works on individual
> > > > issues (grammar school education etc.)
>
> > > What grammar school education?
> > >
> > > There are no records of any grammar school education.
> thomas...@lineone.net (Thomas Larque) wrote:
>
> > As you well know, Art, there is no record of the grammar school
> > education of virtually any Renaissance playwright, and there are no
> > surviving records of the pupils at the Stratford King's School, so it
> > is entirely unsurprising that there is no record of Shakespeare's
> > Grammar School education.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Art's imbecilic obtuseness on this point is fascinating. I can think
> of several possible explanations for Art's stubbornness, some
> symptomatic of idiocy, others suggesting insanity -- perhaps Art himself
> can identify which of the following is the correct explanation:
>
> (1) Art is actually unaware that no attendance records of the period for
> the Stratford grammar school survive. Of course, he has been told so
> many times, but Art has never been a very good reader (he isn't called
> the illiterate District Heights boob for nothing), and he is even worse
> at actually consulting sources to verify things he has been told by
> those who know far more than he.
Like Martin Gardner?
| > | > --------------------------------------------------------
| > | > JAMES I: 46th REX DEUS/PRIORY of SION generation
| > | > http://www.hials.no/~hy/_gen/j/index.htm#s46b
| > | > -------------------------------------------------------
| > | > (The King James & only the King James version):
| > | > Psalm 46
| > | > "SHAKE" is the 46th word from the beginning,
| > | > and "SPEAR" is the 46th word from the end.
---------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Webb <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
| > | I've already pointed out to you that this is false, Art,
| > | as Martin Gardner, has pointed out; as I already said,
| > | "In Richard TaVERner's 1539 VERsion of Psalm 46,
| > | 'shake' & 'spear' are in *precisely* the same positions.
| > | HoweVER, one would scarcely expect
| > | aneuendor...@comicass.nut
| > | to have VERified his idiotic claims about matters of fact."
| > | Are you completely senile, Art?
| > | Or are you just oblivious to facts?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> | When someone accurately posts Taverner's Psalm 46
> | with "SHAKE" the 46th word from the beginning,
> | and "SPEAR" the 46th word from the end
> | I'll be happy to acknowledge an error.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Groves wrote:
> I've just had a look at the text on EEBO
> (Early English Books Online) and while "spere" is 47 words from
> the end (not counting "Selah"), Taverner has "shooke" rather
> than "shake" and it's actually 57 words from the beginning.
> Also, for some reason, he numbers the psalm 45.
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Richard TaVERner's 1539 VERsion):
Psalm *45*
"*SHOOKE*" is the *57*th word from the beginning,
and "SPERE" is the *47*th word from the end.
---------------------------------------------------------------
(The King James & only the King James version):
Psalm *46*
"SHAKE" is the *46*th word from the beginning,
and "SPEAR" is the *46*th word from the end.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES I: *46*th
REX DEUS/PRIORY of SION generation:
http://www.hials.no/~hy/_gen/j/index.htm#s46b
---------------------------------------------------------
SHAKE SPEAR JAMES I 46,
---------------------------------------------------------
mountains in Mary Queen of Scots 45,
the sunder; James V 44,
though he James IV 43,
troubled, burneth James III 42,
be the James II 41,
and chariot Joan Beaufort 40,
roar in Margaret Holland 39,
thereof the Joan PLANTAGENET 38,
b. 29 Sep 1328
waters fire. EDMUND Of Woodstock 37,
the Be Edward I (Longshanks) 36,
Though still, Henry III 35,
sea; and KING JOHN 34,
the know HENRY II 33,
of that Matilda 32,
midst I Edith 31,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ides of March 1604: As one of the King's Men, "William Shakespeare"
heads the list of those to receive SCARLET cloth in preparation
of their participation (as grooms of the King's Chamber)
for King James I's Royal Progress through London.
Each actor receives three swaths of SCARLET
cloth 4 feet 6 inches long.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> (2) Art is aware that no Stratford grammar school records survive, but
> he is nevertheless surprised that Shakespeare does not occur on the list
> of pupils. Art has failed to understand that the empty set contains no
> elements -- but then Art is no better at mathematics than he is at
> reading. Indeed, he professes to believe that the number 19 is unusual
> in being both the sum of two consecutive integers and the difference
> of their squares,
Like Martin Gardner?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly never would have let it get as far as Martin Gardner did:
"Now for some 19 number juggling.
It is equal to 10^2 - 9^2."
-- _Did Adam & Eve Have Navels?_ (p.261)
What was M.G. thinking!!!
-----------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> (3) Art is aware that no records survive, and he is not such a complete
> moron as to succumb to the dysfunctional mental processes exemplified by
> either (1) or (2) above; thus he concedes that the absence of
> Shakespeare's name on the nonexistent enrollment roster is not at all
> surprising. Rather, he suspects that Masonic conspirators destroyed the
> Stratford grammar school records.
Now that's the ticket!
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> (4) Art is aware that no records survive, and that seeking elements of
> the empty set is an idiot's errand. He is also aware how asinine his
> attempts to protect by jocularity his delusional fantasy from objective
> scrutiny make him look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Remoove from me my SHAPE of mine Asse, and render to me my pristine
estate, and if I have offended in any point of divine Majesty, let me
rather dye then live, for I am full weary of life." - _The Golden Asse_
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > However, unless you believe that your
> > "conspirators" were so stupid as to hire an "illiterate boob" who had
> > never been to school and could write neither Latin nor English to
> > pretend to be their great author (and your conspirators would have to
> > be more stupid than, say, Art Neundorffer to base their conspiracy on
> > such a transparent ruse) then it is obvious that Shakespeare did have
> > an education, and that it was almost certainly at the Stratford
> > Grammar school.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Plausibility has never been a strong point of any of most
> anti-Stratfordian scenarios -- especially Art's.
I don't believe in Sanity Plause.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > There are, however, no records that Oxford ever had anything to do
> > with Shakespeare's plays or his acting company. This would be very
> > surprising if he had actually written the plays, since such records do
> > survive for most other playwrights (including Shakespeare himself).
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Again, Art can invoke the conspiracy of Templars, Freemasons,
> Rosicrucians, Priory of Sion plotters, Elks, Odd Fellows, etc.
> who destroyed all such records.
Consider it invoked.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > Anti-Stratfordians are all dishonest hypocrites, since they reject
> > even the most obvious conclusions about Shakespeare but are willing to
> > make the most outrageous claims themselves with no documentary support
> > whatever. Anti-Stratfordianism can't exist without making stuff up,
> > since the historical record doesn't support any of it.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> What is so funny, though, is that many of them seem utterly oblivious
> to the possibility that anyone might check out their inventions!
I'm utterly oblivious to the possibility that anyone might read my posts!
> > > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > People like Ogburn are Bibles to the Oxfordians because they have
> > > > nothing else to quote (there is no body of Shakespearean scholarship
> > > > that supports Oxfordianism, apart from that written by the inept,
> > > > incompetent, and dishonest adherents of the Oxfordian sect to their
> > > > own lunatic standards - based on fraud and fantasy - while every
> > > > scholarly book written to scholarly standards that has been written
> > > > about Shakespeare has been Stratfordian).
> > Neuendorffer wrote:
> > > There is no body of evidence that supports Shakspere's grammar
> > > school education, apart from that written by the inept, incompetent,
> > > and dishonest adherents of the Stratfordian sect to their
> > > own lunatic standards - based on fraud and fantasy.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> This is another of Art's habitual responses when, as usual, he has no
> sensible rejoinder -- he merely repeats his interlocutors words with
> substitutions.
I merely repeats my interlocutors words with substitutions?
Ridiculous!!
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> > Apart from the fact that Shakespeare knew both English and Latin, and
> > his plays show evidence of a standard grammar school education (note
> > that the plays also exclude Oxford's education, since Shakespeare
> > considered one of the seven ages of man to include carrying a satchel
> > to school, something Oxford - who had private tutors - never did, but
> > which Shakespeare and his Stratford contempories did every day.
Something the illiterate Stratford boob who never had a book in
his life surely never did (nor did he have a wet nurse to puke at).
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/dukerothesay/page3.html
<<It probably seems to most Masons that there should be some symbolical
significance or meaning attached to the seven little chains which adorn the
tassels on our aprons. After all, the number seven has long had special
significance - the seven ages of man, the seven cardinal virtues, the seven
mortal sins, and so on. In the English Emulation ritual, there is an
optional charge which may be used when presenting a Master Mason with his
apron. It states, in part: "To each of these ribbons seven tassels are
attached to remind us that no Lodge is perfect unless seven Brethren are
present; that IN OLDEN DAYS THE SEVEN AGES OF MAN were thought to be
influenced by the seven then known planets; and no MM was considered
efficient unless he had some knowledge of the seven liberal arts and
sciences." >>
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.billheidrick.com/tlc2002/tlc0802.htm
<<The Rites of Eleusis: "We are the poets! We are the children of wood and
stream, of mist and mountain, of sun and wind! We are the Greeks! and to us
the rites of Eleusis should open the doors of Heaven, and we shall enter in
and see God face to face. . . Under the stars will I go forth, my brothers,
and drink of that lustral dew: I will return, my brothers, when I have seen
God face to face and read within those eternal eyes the secret that shall
make you free. Then will I choose you and test you and instruct you in the
Mysteries of Eleusis, of ye brave hearts, and cool eyes, and trembling lips!
I will put a live coal upon your lips, and flowers upon your eyes, and a
sword in your hearts, and ye also shall see God face to face. Thus shall we
give back its youth to the world, for like tongues of triple flame we shall
look upon the great Deep -- Hail unto the Lords of the Groves of
leusis! -- ALEISTER CROWLEY in "Eleusis."
The seven services will be typical of Shakespeare's Seven Ages of Man, and
each one will be dedicated to the Planet that rules its particular age. For
example, Saturn "the lean and slippered pantaloon," or sad old age. Jupiter
the solemn and portentous justice, the serious and serene man who has
arrived and controls. Mars the soldier, full of energy and life, vigorous
and formidable. Sol the man who has still something of his youth left, and
is gay betimes and serious betimes, the man who loves and the man who works.
Venus explains itself in Shakespeare's words, "the lover with a woeful
ballad." Mercury the schoolboy, happy, careless and gay, mischievous and
full of animal life. Luna the age of childhood and innocence, unsmirched and
white as the planet herself. Each will have its own ritual, arranged for the
purpose of illustrating the particular deity to which it is devoted; each
ritual will be both poetic and musical. Verses of the great poets
appropriate to the planet and all that the planet represents will be
recited, and the ideas suggested to the spectators will be translated into
inspired music by an accomplished violin player. There will further by
mystical dances by a brilliant young poet who thus draws down the holy
influence.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
High up in the crisp 1614 winter solstice midnight sky (just below
the ecliptic) a pair of 3rd magnitude stars separated by 2 degrees
(mu & eta Gemini) constitute "one foot" of Gemini. Just ½ degree
above the semiregular variable (~230 day) red giant "toe"
(eta Gem) a faint 6th magnitude blue green planet Uranus
NOTICEABLY retrogrades ONE WHOLE DEGREE in JUST 2 months!
Ones naked eye easily finds the nearby 5th magnitude
open star cluster M35 cluster though scattered over an area
covered by the full Moon. One of the most prominent meteor
showers radiates from the region around Castor: the geminids
on december 13th and 14th. The meteor shower rho geminids
are visible from end of december to the end of january.
As the years pass by Uranus progresses slowly east until
"chased" in the evening sky by Saturn & Jupiter in conjunction
on July 15, 1623 (Greg). At this time Uranus is, itself, in
conjunction with central Cancer star: 4th mag Asellus Australis
(Asellus Borealis & Asellus Australis, supposed to represent
THE ASSES that Dionysus & Silenus rode into battle). . .
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fool THY ASSES are gone about 'em. The reason why the
seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason.
KING LEAR Because they are not eight?
Fool Yes, indeed: thou wouldst make a good fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEVEN
http://essentialteachings.com/wwwboard/messages/30.htm
Chemical Arcana: The medieval alchemists believed that the Emerald Tablet
described the action of seven chemical compounds known to the ancients as
the arcana or "great secrets." The arcana were the divine secrets of
creation, the basic archetypes after which all things were patterned.
More....
The Heptadic Structure: The recurrence of the number seven-or an exact
multiple of seven- is found throughout the Bible. More....
Het-Heru In ancient Egypt (Hathor) was called the Mistress of Singing, and
the Mistress of Dancing. The seven Het-Heru represent the intimacy of music
and dancing, to the seven planets nearest to us-on earth. More....
Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for
Processing Information. More....
Mathematical Games and the Number Seven: Mathematical puzzles vary from the
simple to deep problems which are still unsolved. The whole history of
mathematics is interwoven with mathematical games which have led to the
study of many areas of mathematics. More....
Merkabah: A mystical tradition of the Kabbalists pertaining to the Throne
Chariot of God which could ascend and descend through the different heavenly
halls or palaces known as the Hekhaloth--with the seventh or final revealing
the Glory of God. More....
Moloch and His Seven Palaces: A Masonic Explanation of the Markings on the
U.S. One Dollar Bill, Great Seal, and Flag via Occultic Kabbalistic Gematria
Numerology. More....
Mystical Number Seven: Perhaps the numeral seven is considered the most
mystical of all numbers because it is the one number which cannot be divided
evenly into the circle. More....
Nanakusa means "seven herbs". In Japan, there is a custom to eat
nanakusa-gayu (seven herb rice porridge) on January 7th. More....
Paleolithic Art included Cave Paintings (featuring animals, hand designs,
and occasionally, people or shamanistic drawings), Venus Figurines, and
Geometric Designs. One common design was a series of seven parallel lines,
or seven dots. More....
The Proto-Bulgarian Number - the Number Seven: Everywhere, where the
Proto-Bulgarians had left something about the celestial bodies, appears the
symbol designating the number seven. Even more remarkable is that the
character itself resembles a star. Was it a coincidence? More....
The Number Seven was considered sacred not only by all the cultured nations
of antiquity and the East, but was held in the greatest reverence even by
the later nations of the West. The astronomical origin of this number is
established beyond any doubt. More....
Psychic Seven: This is a great example of the number sevens mystical and
even magical properties. More....
Seveners: a cycle of seven Imams, Ali being the first and Isma'il the
seventh, and thus the seventh Imam after his line of Imams would be the
Mahdi, or Messiah, or the seventh after him, etc. .More....
Seven Ages of Man is usually described as a "Commonplace" concept. Several
Shakespeare critics have commented that textual examples of seven ages are
rare. More....
Seven Angels with Seven Plagues: In heaven another great and marvellous
sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues--last, because with them
God's wrath is completed. More....
Seven Celestial Abodes: In Hinduism there are seven main celestial abodes
also called the heavens. More....
Seven Circuit Cretan Labyrinth: A labyrinth is an ancient symbol
representing wholeness that is over 3,500 years old. When this symbol is
transferred to the ground and walked with purpose, it becomes a metaphor for
the journey of life. More....
Seven Days of the Week: The Greeks named the days of the week after the sun,
the moon and the five known planets, which were in turn named after the gods
Ares, Hermes, Zeus, Aphrodite, and Cronus. More....
Seven Deities : Japan's Shichifukujin--usually identified as Ebisu,
Daikokuten, Bishamonten, Benzaiten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, and Hotei--are
traditionally believed to bring good fortune and happiness to people.
More....
Seven Elements of Earth and Humanity: The overall objective of all sacred
scriptures is to guide us so that we attract good things into our lives.
"Swirl, Exploring Spirituality". More....
Seven Energy Centres: "These energy centers have been referred to in the
East for thousands of years as the "chakras". Chakra is a Sanskrit word
which means 'vortex of energy'." More....
Seven Evil Spirits: Earth's Ancient History. This story is the sixteenth
tablet of a series called the "Evil Demon Series," of which we have an
Assyrian with a parallel Sumerian text. More....
Seven Greek Vowels: Were believed to be potent magical sounds. The Greek
alphabet had seven vowels, the exact pronunciation of which is uncertain.
More....
Seven Heavens: The reference to the fact that God has created seven heavens
has generally been given in the Qur'an. More....
Seven Intelligences: A man becomes creative, whether he is an artist or a
scientist, when he finds a new unity in the variety of nature. He does so by
finding a likeness between things which were not thought alike before, and
this gives him a sense both of richness and of understanding. The creative
mind is a mind that looks for unexpected likenesses. More....
Seven Kingdoms of Nature: Most of Humanity (being as it is, so absorbed in
its own evolution) tends to forget that the Mineral Kingdom comprises almost
the totality of our physical planet. More....
Seven Laws of Psychic Energy: An interesting article from Victor Zammit
B.A.(Psych), Grad. Dip. Ed.(UTS), M.A.(Legal Hist.), LL.B(UNSW), Ph.D, and
lawyer. More....
Seven Liberal Arts: Based on the types of studies that were pursued in the
Classical world, the Seven Liberal Arts became codified in late antiquity by
such writers as Varro and Martianus Capella. More....
Seven Masonic Squares: Here the author attempts to shed some light on the
significance of the number seven in Masonry. More....
Seven Medical Planets: The Seven Planetary Constitutions based on which of
the Seven Days of the Solar Week one is born on. More....
Seven Metals of Antiquity: Process Metallurgy is one of the oldest sciences.
Its history can be traced back to 6000 BC. Admittedly, its form at that time
was rudimentary, but, to gain a perspective in Process Metallurgy, it is
worthwhile to spend a little time studying the initiation of mankind's
association with metals. More....
Seven Parameters of Musical Notation: Pitch, Duration, Articulation, Tempo,
Dynamics, Silence, Timbre. More....
Seven Pillars of Wisdom by TE Lawrence (1922): Dates and places are correct,
so far as my notes preserved them: but the personal names are not. Since the
adventure some of those who worked with me have buried themselves in the
shallow grave of public duty. More....
Seven Planets: There are seven planets, namely: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the
Sun, Venus, Mercury and the Moon. More....
Seven Platforms: Guru Amar Das' elder daughter, Dani, was married to a pious
Sikh named Rama. His younger daughter, Bibi Bhani, was married to Jetha who
was also most devoted to serving the Guru and his Sikhs. More....
Seven Principles of Man: Seven is one of the most important numbers in the
teachings of theosophy. It is a key by which are revealed and explained many
of the mysteries of nature, for in theosophy it is taught that number and
numbers underlie all the processes of creation. More....
Seven Readings of the Qur'an: According to this Arabic scholar there are
variant readings of the Qur'an. But what is the nature of these variant
readings? To begin to answer this question we need to realise that the
Qur'an has been passed down to us from men called "The Readers". More....
Seven Sisters Festival: Seventh Moon, Day 7 (August) The festival has its
origin in Chinese folklore dating back more than 1,500 years. More....
Seven Sisters Stars: If you go out on the next clear night and gaze up in
the eastern sky, you will see a small but conspicuous cluster of stars. They
are close enough together that if you hold out your fist at arms length, you
will cover them up. This group of stars is the Pleiades, known to many of us
as the seven sisters. More....
Seven Stars of the Orion Constellation: among the brightest stars in the sky
being worshipped by many civilisations including the Chinese, Egyptians and
Greeks . More....
Seven Thunders: As things start to break down, the discovery of many things
kept hidden until this time start to appear... the secrets of the
pyramids... ancient texts (rediscovered).... More....
7 Seals, 7 Trumpets, 7 Vials " Voices, and thunders, and lightnings, and the
greatest earthquake. Jerusalem divided into three parts. The cities of the
nations fell. Every island fled away. More....
Seven Wonders of the World: Although most people know that a list exists of
the Seven World Wonders, only few can name them. The list of the Seven
Wonders of the Ancient World was originally compiled around the second
century BC. More....
Seven Years War was a conflict between the major European powers with
France, Austria, and Russia on one side and Great Britian and Prussia on the
other. More....
Sunlight is made up of seven colours red, orange, yellow, green, blue,
violet and indigo. The spectrum or rainbow. More....
Tanabata: means "seven evenings" and it is said to be given this name
because the stars meet on the seventh day of the seventh month in the
Chinese (lunar) calendar. More....
----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
who apparently knows nothing of Renaissance social history.
> > > Apart from the fact that Shakespeare knew both English and Latin, and
> > > his plays show evidence of a standard grammar school education (note
> > > that the plays also exclude Oxford's education, since Shakespeare
> > > considered one of the seven ages of man to include carrying a satchel
> > > to school, something Oxford - who had private tutors - never did, but
> > > which Shakespeare and his Stratford contempories did every day.
>
> Something the illiterate Stratford boob who never had a book in
> his life
As you should know, the Shakespeares clearly owned books. A
memorandum of 1596, mentioned by Schoenbaum and others, accused Joan
Perrott of stealing a variety of things, including "Mr. Shaxpere, one
book". "Mr." means "Master" and is an honorific that in Stratford
records in 1598 was only being applied to two men with the name of
Shakespeare, William Shakespeare himself and his father John. This
matches up perfectly with the one book that we know of which belonged
to the Marlowe family, a Bible - mentioned in the inventory of
Christopher Marlowe's father after his death - no inventory survives
for John or William Shakespeare, so we would not find books listed in
them. Most wills in the period did not mention books even when the
deceased are known from their writings or other sources to have had
extensive libraries. Christopher Marlowe's family will presumably
have inherited whatever books he owned - along with all the rest of
his property - upon their unmarried sons death, but any books that he
had did not make it to his father's estate (listed in detail in the
inventory, which should have included any books), and none are
mentioned by any other source. The evidence that Marlowe lived in a
bookless household is better than the evidence that Shakespeare did,
yet Marlowe went on to Cambridge University.
> surely never did
So who exactly do you think was going to the school at Stratford, Art,
if the son of the highest ranking member of the local government was
not doing so? Are you, like Paul Crowley (in one of his many
self-contradictory delusionary postings - he seems to have changed his
constantly fickle mind since), convinced that only the nobility
attended grammar schools? This is a complete falsehood, as any look
at a history of the Elizabethan school system will tell you. The
King's School was a Free school and we can safely assume that every
Stratford male child with parents of a reasonable standing went there.
Shakespeare's father was a wealthy landowner (owning hundreds of
acres and many houses) and one of the most prominent citizens of the
town.
>(nor did he have a wet nurse to puke at).
What on earth makes you think that, Art? Do you really imagine that
we would have detailed records of every servant and apprentice that
passed through John Shakespeare's household? Where, then, are these
records for the household servants of all the other wealthy landowners
and craftsmen of Stratford? You'll find precious few. Despite this,
we know that they did have servants, apprentices, tennants, shepherds
and the rest, since such things were a cornerstone of the Elizabethan
economy and every town had them. Who do you think was farming John
Shakespeare's land, Art? Do you think he did it himself? Every
single one of hundreds of acres?
Given their wealth and social status, the chances that the Shakespeare
household was entirely without servants in Shakespeare's childhood is
zero. The likelihood that one among these servants was a drynurse or
wetnurse is extremely high (and note that the "seven ages" citation
doesn't specify whether the nurse was breastfeeding or simply
babysitting - nor do most of Shakespeare's references to nurses
looking after children, although suspiciously aristocrats like Lady
Macbeth sometimes talk about breastfeeding their own children,
something that a real aristocrat like Oxford would not have expected
them to do - it seems quite likely that Mary Shakespeare, like a
number of other middle class mothers, may have shared breastfeeding
duties with a wetnurse, or may only have employed a drynurse). The
Shakespeares had eight children, and were considerably wealthy (even
in John's period of financial troubles after William and his brothers
and sisters were older, he continued to own land and the large and
expensive Henley Street house) why would they not hire a nurse to help
look after their children during John Shakespeare's period of greatest
wealth and success?
Now Art, being an Oxfordian pseudo-historian, is likely to demand that
I provide the name and employment dates of this nurse before
suggesting that she might exist. In reply, I would suggest that Art
hunts down equivalent evidence for the female servants who served the
Earl of Oxford as a child and as an adult. There must have been such
servants, tens of them, and the Earl was almost certainly wetnursed by
more than one lady, as were his children. If Art can't find out the
Oxford family wetnurses' and drynurses' names and dates of employment,
despite the fact that the major financial and household records of
noble families frequently survive from this period (especially those
of the Burghley family, among whom Oxford's children were brought up),
then he can hardly suggest that we should have such records to confirm
the presence of a nurse in a small Middle Class household in
Stratford.
Middle class children in the Renaissance period were routinely looked
after by nurses (dry or wet, or a combination of both). Middle class
schoolchildren always carried their satchels to school. Members of
the aristocracy, Oxford included, generally never went to school at
all, and expected their childhoods to involve private tuition and
honourary degrees, the latter not requiring any real work. The author
of Shakespeare's plays clearly did not think of children's education
in the way that the Earl of Oxford did.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> > (2) Art is aware that no Stratford grammar school records survive, but
> > he is nevertheless surprised that Shakespeare does not occur on the list
> > of pupils. Art has failed to understand that the empty set contains no
> > elements -- but then Art is no better at mathematics than he is at
> > reading. Indeed, he professes to believe that the number 19 is unusual
> > in being both the sum of two consecutive integers and the difference
> > of their squares,
> Like Martin Gardner?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> I certainly never would have let it get as far as Martin Gardner did:
>
> "Now for some 19 number juggling.
> It is equal to 10^2 - 9^2."
> -- _Did Adam & Eve Have Navels?_ (p.261)
>
> What was M.G. thinking!!!
> -----------------------------------------------------
As I have patiently explained to you numerous times, Art, Martin
Gardner was engaged in some playful parody of the nutcase numerology
habitually invoked by crackpot conspiracy mongers, as he has on numerous
occasions; since you are incapable of working out for yourself which
natural numbers are both the sum of two consecutive integers and the
difference of their squares, and since you are decisively numbered among
the nutcase numerologists and crack-brained conspiracy mongers whom
Gardner burlesques, it comes as no surprise that Gardner's joke eluded
you completely, as most such jokes do.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > (3) Art is aware that no records survive, and he is not such a complete
> > moron as to succumb to the dysfunctional mental processes exemplified by
> > either (1) or (2) above; thus he concedes that the absence of
> > Shakespeare's name on the nonexistent enrollment roster is not at all
> > surprising. Rather, he suspects that Masonic conspirators destroyed the
> > Stratford grammar school records.
> Now that's the ticket!
Your impersonation of a paranoid lunatic is spot-on, Art -- as usual.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > (4) Art is aware that no records survive, and that seeking elements of
> > the empty set is an idiot's errand. He is also aware how asinine his
> > attempts to protect by jocularity his delusional fantasy from objective
> > scrutiny make him look.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Remoove from me my SHAPE of mine Asse, and render to me my pristine
> estate, and if I have offended in any point of divine Majesty, let me
> rather dye then live, for I am full weary of life." - _The Golden Asse_
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, Art, I'm trying -- but you keep making an ass of yourself
no matter what I do to set you right.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > > However, unless you believe that your
> > > "conspirators" were so stupid as to hire an "illiterate boob" who had
> > > never been to school and could write neither Latin nor English to
> > > pretend to be their great author (and your conspirators would have to
> > > be more stupid than, say, Art Neundorffer to base their conspiracy on
> > > such a transparent ruse) then it is obvious that Shakespeare did have
> > > an education, and that it was almost certainly at the Stratford
> > > Grammar school.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Plausibility has never been a strong point of any of most
> > anti-Stratfordian scenarios -- especially Art's.
> I don't believe in Sanity Plause.
Excellent, Art -- but of course I already knew that.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > > There are, however, no records that Oxford ever had anything to do
> > > with Shakespeare's plays or his acting company. This would be very
> > > surprising if he had actually written the plays, since such records do
> > > survive for most other playwrights (including Shakespeare himself).
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Again, Art can invoke the conspiracy of Templars, Freemasons,
> > Rosicrucians, Priory of Sion plotters, Elks, Odd Fellows, etc.
> > who destroyed all such records.
> Consider it invoked.
As I said, your impersonation of a paranoid lunatic is spot-on, Art
-- as usual. HoweVER, you neglected to add the Bilderbergers, the
Trilateral Commission, and the Bohemian Grove REVelers.
> > "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > > Anti-Stratfordians are all dishonest hypocrites, since they reject
> > > even the most obvious conclusions about Shakespeare but are willing to
> > > make the most outrageous claims themselves with no documentary support
> > > whatever. Anti-Stratfordianism can't exist without making stuff up,
> > > since the historical record doesn't support any of it.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > What is so funny, though, is that many of them seem utterly oblivious
> > to the possibility that anyone might check out their inventions!
> I'm utterly oblivious to the possibility that anyone might read my posts!
That's quite evident, Art -- no sane person (other than a troll)
would willingly make such an ass of himself if he thought that anyone
might actually READ his posts.
[...]
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut, aka Paleolithic Art) wrote:
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Whalen is a bigger Oxfordian than I realised. According to Amazon.com
> > his book is the second bestselling book on the subject of the "Oxford
> > theory" that Amazon stocks (beaten only by Sobran's "Alias
> > Shakespeare"). Matus's book, by contrast, is certainly not the second
> > best selling book on the "Shakespeare theory" - that is, of books that
> > support the belief that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays.
> (I'm glad you recognize that it is only a theory.)
Excellent, Art -- you sound just like a Special Creationist grumpily
insisting that evolution by natural selection is "only a theory," or
like Elizabeth Weird grousing about special relativity. The analogy in
the former case is especially good -- although evolution certainly is
not completely understood and not all its mechanisms and complexities
have been completely elucidated, there is little doubt that the theory
is correct in its essential features. Similarly, not all questions that
one might ask about Shakespeare's biography can be answered, but there
is little doubt that it is correct in its essential features.
> All Oxfordian books also discuss Shakespeare theory in detail.
>
> Matus is the only Stratfordian book that attempts to discuss Oxford
> theory at all.
No, that's false; aneuendor...@comicass.nut is plainly unaware
of the various books that have discussed various lunatic theories, among
them the various Oxfordian scenarios. For example, there is Wadsworth's
_The Poacher from Stratford_, which certainly discusses the Oxfordian
"case"; indeed, Wadsworth cautions the reader not to confuse J. Thomas
Looney with the Baconian George M. Battey. Wadsworth also describes
Percy Allen's amusing contribution to the Oxfordian cause, attained by
means of interviews with Elizabethans via a medium.
> "Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Despite this, Matus gets more coverage on HLAS than Whalen.
> Matus is a unique book that should (if it had anything important to say)
> rightly be the Stratfordian bible at HLAS.
No, the sane quite reasonably quote primary sources and authoritative
secondary sources far more often than a "niche" book intended to refute
ridiculous nonsense; in the same way, those who argue against the
theories of Velikovsky, von Däniken, John Mack, etc. generally cite
mainstream scientific sources far more often than any of the books
explicitly written as refutations of _Worlds in Collision_, _Chariots of
the Gods_, or Mack's nonsense about alien abduction and sexual abuse.
But perhaps Paleolithic Art lends more credence to Velikovsky because
his book is cited more often in a newsgroup started by a Velikovskian
than any of the books written as refutations.
[Imbecility snipped]
Art Neuendorffer
Henry WADSWORTH Longfellow
http://EclecticEsoterica.com/longfellow_bio.html
<<H.W.L. was born to Stephen Longfellow & Zilpah WADSWORTH.
on February 27, 1807, in Portland, Maine.
His mother Zilpah read aloud to him and his brothers & sisters
the high romance of Ossian, the legendary Gaelic hero.
'Don Quixote' was a favorite among his books. But the book
which influenced him most was Washington Irving's 'Sketch Book'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON IRVING, 1819 - p.48, Stratford-On-Avon, Sketch Book.
<<A flat stone marks the spot where the bard is buried. There are
four lines inscribed on it, said to have been written by himself,
and which have in them something extremely AWFUL.>>
<<The inscription on the tombstone has not been without its effect. It
has prevented the removal of his remains from the bosom of his native
place to Westminster Abbey, which was at one time contemplated. A few
years since also, as some laborers were digging to make an adjoining
vault, the earth caved in, so as to leave a vacant space almost like
an arch, through which one might have reached into his grave. No one,
however, presumed to meddle with his remains so awfully guarded by a
malediction; and lest any of the idle or the curious or any collector
of relics should be tempted to commit depredations, the old sexton kept
watch over the place for two days, until the vault was finished and the
aperture closed again. He told me that he had made bold to look in at
the hole, but could see neither coffin nor bones--nothing but dust.
It was something, I thought, to have seen the dust of Shakespeare.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>> All Oxfordian books also discuss Shakespeare theory in detail.
>>
>> Matus is the only Stratfordian book
>> that attempts to discuss Oxford theory at all.
Dwebb wrote:
> No, that's false; various books have discussed the various Oxfordian
> scenarios. For example, there is WADSWORTH's
>_The Poacher from Stratford_, which certainly discusses the Oxfordian
>"case"; indeed, WADSWORTH cautions the reader not to confuse J. Thomas
>Looney with the Baconian George M. Battey. WADSWORTH also describes
>Percy Allen's amusing contribution to the Oxfordian cause, attained
> by means of interviews with Elizabethans via a medium.
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK W. WADSWORTH, The Poacher from Stratford: A Partial Account
of the Controversy Over the Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays
http://home.swipnet.se/nordling/shakespeare/9.html
<<Frank W. WADSWORTH in 1958 published the book The Poacher from
Stratford. It is true that even he devotes most of the book to battering
at an open door, i.e. to refuting the Bacon theory. But he also notes
the theoretical possibility that people other than Bacon could have
written plays under an assumed name. Among such people he also mentions
Lord Derby, whom he then disposes of on four pages. WADSWORTH notes that
the initial sponsor of Lord Derby was the British archivist, James
Greenstreet, who published three essays on the playwright Earl in the
years 1891-92. WADSWORTH goes on to say: "Filled with the traditional
distaste for the idea of a low-born author, Greenstreet found his
discovery cause enough to suggest the Earl as a substitute for
Shakespeare." In his essays, Greenstreet succeeded in completely
concealing this distaste--but, lo and behold, WADSWORTH discovered it
anyway! Mind reading, sixth sense or what?
WADSWORTH goes on to mention the American, Robert Frazer, who revived
the Derby theory, arguing in The Silent Shakespeare (1915) that although
Shakspere "popularized" (i.e. vulgarized) old plays, he could not have
written the magic lines of the disputed dramas. Next he turns to the
French scholar, Abel Lefranc, well known as a writer on Rabelais and the
Renaissance, "who has been awarded the mantle as Derby's first modern
supporter". WADSWORTH meticulously covers the supporters Jacques
Boulenger, Richard Macdonald Lucas, Mathias Morhardt, and arrives at Dr.
A.W. Titherley, Dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of
Liverpool. He then dwells upon whatever logical mistakes he can find in
Titherley's book and makes the doctor a laughing-stock. Finally he
mentions A.J. Evans, "whose admiration for the learned doctor
[Titherley] pulsates on almost every page of Shakespeare's Magic Circle
and is matched only by his absolutely awesome admiration for the
aristocracy".
WADSWORTH does not bother to refute any of the arguments of these
writers. By making fun of Dr. Titherley he creates the impression that
it is all about passing fancies coming from a bunch of madcaps.
In a separate "Epilogue" WADSWORTH says: "The question is frequently
asked, if, when all is said an done, it matters who actually did write
the plays and poems; and the question is deserving of an answer. [...]
That it does matter, on purely emotional grounds, to a great many people
who love the Shakespearian works, I do know. [The battle] strikes at the
heart of man's knowledge of himself. The reasons we have for believing
that William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon wrote the plays and poems
are the same as the reasons we have for believing any other historical
event--for believing that Julius Caesar was stabbed by Brutus and the
conspirators, [...] that Abraham Lincoln was shot watching a performance
[...]. We believe these things because, in the opinion of those best
qualified to judge, the historical evidence says that they happened. In
exactly the same way the historical evidence says that William
Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems. If one can argue that the
evidence in Shakespeare's case does not mean what it says, [...] then
one can just as surely argue that, [...] as Henry Ford said Šhistory is
bunkī. That is why the charge that Shakespeare did not write the plays
does matter."
It is one thing to accept historical happenings as real in cases when
there is only one theory about the implication of the evidence. It is
quite another matter to choose one theory out of several that purport to
explain the same group of evidence. WADSWORTH seems to plead against
choosing the most probable or the simplest of the competing theories.
Instead he pleads for the theory that the authorities in the field
prefer. The case of the eight legs of the fly show that this principle
means an effective obstacle to scientific progress. Besides, which
authority is to be trusted in the case of Shakespeare, if we are to
follow WADSWORTH? Was not Professor Lefranc one of those "best qualified
to judge" in a question of Renaissance literary history? Or did he meet
his match in the person of Mr. WADSWORTH?
As for WADSWORTH's remark that the question of authorship does matter to
a great many people on purely emotional grounds, he is probably right.
Somehow it is more emotionally attractive to think that Shakespeare's
masterpieces sprang forth out of the creative force of an ordinary man
of the people. With a little bit of luck, any man should be able to
inherit the right genes for developing any kind of championship without
years of awkward studies. Emotional reasoning in its glory!
It is the same emotional reasoning that has made the Cinderella story
popular, that made a poor Corsican the Emperor of France and an Austrian
bohemian the Fuehrer of Germany. It is not absolutely necessary for a
mighty and venerated king to have begun as a shepherd, youngest of eight
brothers, but it certainly helps a good deal. The same emotional appeal
works in the world of literature. The play Titus Andronicus "by Will
Derby" would have disgraced its author. As sprung forth from the pen of
a simple actor (and in company with Hamlet etc.), this play has won
recognition as a part of the world literature.
Will Derby was not only a dramatist genius. He was also a genius in the
field of marketing and advertising. From time immemorial "sailing under
false colors" has been one of the means to enhance the status,
popularity and circulation of works of literature. The Ten Commandments
that Moses preached would have been soon forgotten if he had claimed the
authorship himself. He knew better than that. Montesquieu (1689-1755)
achieved quite a success with his first book, Lettres Persanes (1721)
allegedly written by a visitor from Persia. Daniel Defoe (1660-1731)
made people believe that his The Life of Robinson Crusoe (1719) was
based on a narrative by a shipwrecked traveler--which may have
contributed to the success of that book. The Frenchman Lavergne de
Guilleragues (-1685) was smart enough to give himself out as the
"translator" of his Lettres portugaises (1669) and to have the readers
making guesses about which nun was the author of these love letters. How
many would even have cared to read them if they had been presented as
written by a man?
Most of us agree that Shakespeare's works are written by a genius. It
seems natural to think that the same genius should be able to realize
the value of an emotionally well-adjusted "frame story", just as did
Montesquieu, Defoe and Guilleragues. If Lord Derby wrote plays ranging
from the most sophisticated to utter box-office matter and poetry from
Venus and Adonis to "The Knack", then he would certainly have been able
to write the advertising matter in the First Folio as well. Who else
would have dared put the names Heminge and Condell under prefaces
written by somebody else? Derby, on the other hand, could easily have
borrowed their names in return for a suitable gratuity.
The conjecture that Derby may have written the Heminge-Condell
epistles is worth putting to the stylistic test that has proved
to be decisive. The epistles contain 895 words altogether.
Out of these there are 90 (85 different) words of the category
occurring less than 20 times in the works of Shakespeare. This
amounts to a frequency of 10 percent or exactly the same as in
Shakespeare. Not even the Earl of Oxford (Derby's father-in-law) wrote
an English with such a high proportion of low-frequency words. The
number of non-Shakespeare words in the prefaces is 11, compared to
an expected number of 7 to 21 for a "new" text of this length by
Shakespeare. The number of non-Spenser words is 41, compared to an
expected number of 3 to 17. (The estimate is based on the fact that the
number of different words in a text by Shakespeare is 54 percent higher
than in a text of the same length written by Spenser.) We can safely
assert that not just everybody in cultivated society could have written
the Heminge-Condell text. The probability that e.g. Spenser could have
done it is less than one in a million.
Since the prefaces in question could not have been written by any actor,
nor by the erudite Spenser. Shakespeare alias Derby is clearly the chief
suspect. The decisive proof, however, comes from the many idiomatic
locutions that Shakespeare and the prefaces have in common. There are 15
such expressions, of which only four occur also in the works of Spenser.
(See Appendix.) A few other expressions from the prefaces are missing in
Shakespeare (just as do 11 single words as mentioned above). Suppose
that every one of the 15 expressions was common enough to have been used
by 50 percent of all writers. In such a case the odds are one to 33,000
that two independent writers would use all of them. The number of people
who had anything to do with the editing of the First Folio was probably
below 20. It borders on absolute certainty that Shakespeare/Derby wrote
the prefaces for his own book.
It follows that Frank WADSWORTH was completely taken in by Derby when he
thought that he could depend on the testimony, seemingly given by two
fellow actors, that their colleague had written the plays. All other
literary historians who have given a thought to the prefaces have
willingly walked into the same trap. The uncritical believing in the
"truths" of the establishment is just as common among literary
historians as among other scholars and scientists.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lecolin
> In article <AIucnYMcw-Q...@comcast.com>,
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> >
> > > When an encyclopaedia retracts history to make
> > > way for this joke in the New Yorker, let us know.
>
> > > I say in 400 years, the encyclopaedias will reflect
> > > the historical record, not your sketchy wishes.
>
> > > No serious encyclopaedia will change it's historical evidence
> > > for a New Yorker cartoon.
>
> > I believe that most encyclopedias today at least acknowledge the existence
> > of a legitimate authorship debate.
>
> Most encyclopedias today acknowledge the exitence of
> anti-Stratfordians, which is a different matter -- just as they
> acknowledge the existence of Special Creationists, adherents of
> Velikovsky, and indeed of many other fringe cults.
>
You say that, then make a different comparison.
> From the online _Britannica_
> (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117521>):
>
> "In spite of recorded allusions to Shakespeare as the author of many
> plays in the canon, made by about 50 men during his lifetime, it is
> arguable that his greatness was not as clearly recognized in his own
> day as one might expect. But on the other hand, the difficulties are
> not so great as many disbelievers have held, and their proposals have
> all too often raised larger problems than they have resolved.
> Shakespeare's contemporaries, after all, wrote of him unequivocally
> as the author of the plays. Ben Jonson, who knew him well,
> contributed verses to the First Folio of 1623, where (as elsewhere)
> he criticizes and praises Shakespeare as the author. John Heminge and
> Henry Condell, fellow actors and theatre owners with Shakespeare,
> signed the dedication and a foreword to the First Folio and described
> their methods as editors. In his own day, therefore, he was accepted
> as the author of the plays. Throughout his lifetime, and for long
> after, no person is known to have questioned his authorship. In an
> age that loved gossip and mystery as much as any, it seems hardly
> conceivable that Jonson and Shakespeare's theatrical associates
> shared the secret of a gigantic literary hoax without a single leak
> or that they could have been imposed upon without suspicion.
> Unsupported assertions that the author of the plays was a man of
> great learning and that Shakespeare of Stratford was an illiterate
> rustic no longer carry weight, and only when a believer in Bacon or
> Oxford or Marlowe produces sound evidence will scholars pay close
> attention to it...."
>
> Also:
>
> "The claims put forward for Bacon
>
> The first suggestion that the author of Shakespeare's plays might be
> Francis Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, seems to have been made in the
> middle of the 19th century, inquiry at first centring on textual
> comparison between Bacon's known writings and the plays. A discovery
> was made that references to the Bible, the law, and the classics were
> given similar treatment in both canons. In the later 19th century a
> search was made for ciphered messages embedded in the dramatic texts.
> In Love's Labour's Lost, for example, it was found that the Latin
> word ³honorificabilitudinitatibus² is an anagram of Hi ludi F. Bacon
> is nati tuiti orbi (³These plays, the offspring of F. Bacon, are
> preserved for the world.²). Professional cryptographers of the 20th
> century, however, examining all the Baconian ciphers, have rejected
> them as invalid, and interest in the ShakespeareBacon controversy
> has diminished.
>
> Other candidates
>
> A theory that the author of the plays was Edward de Vere, 17th earl
> of Oxford, receives some circumstantial support from the coincidence
> that Oxford's known poems apparently ceased just before Shakespeare's
> work began to appear. It is argued that Oxford assumed a pseudonym in
> order to protect his family from the social stigma then attached to
> the stage and also because extravagance had brought him into
> disrepute at court. Another candidate is William Stanley, 6th earl of
> Derby, who was keenly interested in the theatre and was patron of
> his own company of actors. Several poems, written in the 1580s and
> exhibiting signs of an immature Shakespearean style, cannot well have
> been written by Shakespeare himself. One of these is in Derby's
> handwriting, and three of them are signed ³W.S.² These initials are
> thought by some to have been a concealment for Derby's identity (for
> some such motives as were attributed to Oxford) and to have been
> later expanded into ³William Shakespeare.²
>
> Shakespeare has also been identified with Christopher Marlowe, one
> theory even going so far as to assert that Marlowe was not killed in
> a tavern brawl in 1593 (the corpse of another being represented as
> his own) but was smuggled to France and thence to Italy where he
> continued to write in exile?his plays being fathered on Shakespeare,
> who was paid to keep silent."
>
> Compare these accounts to the following (see
> <http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=76199>):
>
> "UFO's became a major subject of interest with the developments in
> aeronautics and astronautics following World War II.
>
> In 1948 the U.S. Air Force began maintaining a file of UFO reports
> called Project Blue Book. A series of radar detections coincident
> with visual sightings near the National Airport in Washington, D.C.,
> in July 1952, led the U.S. government to establish a panel of
> scientists headed by H.P. Robertson, a physicist of the California
> Institute of Technology (Pasadena), and including engineers,
> meteorologists, physicists, and an astronomer. The thrust of public
> and governmental concern was indicated by the fact that the panel was
> organized by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and was briefed on
> U.S. military activities and intelligence and that its report was
> originally classified Secret. Later declassified, the report revealed
> that 90 percent of UFO sightings could be readily identified with
> astronomical and meteorologic phenomena ( e.g., bright planets,
> meteors, auroras, ion clouds) or with aircraft, birds, balloons,
> searchlights, hot gases, and other phenomena, sometimes complicated
> by unusual meteorologic conditions.
>
> The publicity given to early sightings in the press undoubtedly
> helped stimulate further sightings not only in the United States but
> also in western Europe, the Soviet Union, Australia, and elsewhere.
> A second panel, organized in February 1966, reached conclusions
> similar to those of its predecessor. This left a number of sightings
> admittedly unexplained, and in the mid-1960s a few scientists and
> engineers, notably James E. McDonald, a University of Arizona
> (Tucson) meteorologist, and J. Allen Hynek, a Northwestern University
> (Evanston, Ill.) astronomer, concluded that a small percentage of the
> most reliable UFO reports gave definite indications of the presence
> of extraterrestrial visitors.
>
> This sensational hypothesis, promoted in newspaper and magazine
> articles, met with prompt resistance from other scientists. The
> continuing controversy led in 1968 to a UFO study sponsored by the
> U.S. Air Force and conducted at the University of Colorado under the
> direction of E.U. Condon, a noted physicist. The Condon Report, ³A
> Scientific Study of UFO 's,² was reviewed by a special committee of
> the National Academy of Sciences and released in early 1969. A total
> of 37 scientists wrote chapters or parts of chapters for the report,
> which covered investigations of 59 UFO sightings in detail. Condon's
> own ³Conclusions and Recommendations² firmly rejected ETH?the
> extraterrestrial hypothesis?and declared that no further
> investigation was needed.
>
> This left a wide variety of opinions on UFO's. A large fraction of
> the American public, and a few scientists and engineers, continued to
> support ETH. A middle group of scientists felt that the possibility
> of extraterrestrial visitation, however slight, justified continued
> investigation, and still another group favoured continuing
> investigation on the grounds that UFO reports are useful in
> sociopsychological studies. In 1973 a group of American scientists
> organized the Center for UFO Studies in Northfield, Ill., to conduct
> further work."
I agree that the tonal treatment of both views here are rather
similar. All accept the conventional wisdom, disputing that there is
sufficient evidence to challenge it. When there is challenging data,
such as from scientists Hynek and McDonald re. UFOs, the article calls
it a "sensational hypothesis."
The UFO article concludes (with such definitive phrases as "large
fraction" and "middle group") that it is not too unreasonable to
continue further study. But it gives most of its credence to the
paragraph citing the Condon Report (by "a total of 37 scientists"
examining 59 reports), in which the conclusion categorically rejects
the ETH.
I don't know. I have no opinion on UFOs. Given the number of stars
in the universe with the potential and likelihood for life, it does
not seem an extraordinary possibility that some have evolved in
technical sophistication beyond us and may well be capable of visiting
us. On the other hand, if there are or have been such visits, we are
not informed of them. Conspiracy theorists have been given fertile
ground. When a U.S. Senator, Barry Goldwater, believes he was lied to
(re. Roswell) and that -something- did happen that has been hidden,
well, what can we know? To me, it is worth a whole shrug of the
shoulders. But no conclusions.
The Shakespearean articles seem, by contrast, much less balanced:
"Unsupported assertions that the author of the plays was a man of
> great learning and that Shakespeare of Stratford was an illiterate
> rustic no longer carry weight, and only when a believer in Bacon or
> Oxford or Marlowe produces sound evidence will scholars pay close
> attention to it....
I wonder that they "no longer carry weight" -- what, is all the
evidence in free fall now? It implies new evidence, but there is none
to support it. Indeed, it is assertion reflecting belief, no more
than that. I can't imagine what the author would consider "sound
evidence" if the sound of the text cannot be heard. I suppose I
should take it seriously, though, since it is published in a serious
venue. Uh huh.
The Bacon bit isn't far off. I think it unfortunate that so much of
the focus for Bacon has been on ciphers. (I wonder why the Friedmans
aren't named.) Ciphers would be gravy. But -- why would the writer
insert them, if the knowledge of authorship would be transmitted in a
sure (supposedly) albeit private way? Maybe bits for fun, little
entertainments for those-in-the-know -- I can entertain that
hypothesis. (I'm an entertaining fellow.) But again, it's worth a
shrug of the shoulders to me. (Maybe Art will convince me otherwise
someday.)
Certainly there is not unambiguous evidence to satisfy questioners
about UFOs or the author Shakespeare's identity. I rather like your
parallel, though, that the Stratford man has something in common with
a weather balloon.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> >> All Oxfordian books also discuss Shakespeare theory in detail.
> >>
> >> Matus is the only Stratfordian book
> >> that attempts to discuss Oxford theory at all.
> Dwebb wrote:
>
> > No, that's false; various books have discussed the various Oxfordian
> > scenarios. For example, there is WADSWORTH's
> >_The Poacher from Stratford_, which certainly discusses the Oxfordian
> >"case"; indeed, WADSWORTH cautions the reader not to confuse J. Thomas
> >Looney with the Baconian George M. Battey. WADSWORTH also describes
> >Percy Allen's amusing contribution to the Oxfordian cause, attained
> > by means of interviews with Elizabethans via a medium.
I didn't emphasize "Wadsworth" in my post, Art; why are you "quoting"
me as though I had?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> FRANK W. WADSWORTH, The Poacher from Stratford: A Partial Account
> of the Controversy Over the Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays
>
> http://home.swipnet.se/nordling/shakespeare/9.html
Not having READ Wadsworth (of course not!), the illiterate District
Heights boob is reduced to grepping and pasting a REView of the book --
moreoVER, a REView from a farcically unreliable Derbyite site.
Generally speaking, that is not difficult to do -- in fact, when it
comes to making laughingstocks of anti-Stratfordian authors, more often
than not those authors obligingly do all the work themselves.
> Finally he
> mentions A.J. Evans, "whose admiration for the learned doctor
> [Titherley] pulsates on almost every page of Shakespeare's Magic Circle
> and is matched only by his absolutely awesome admiration for the
> aristocracy".
>
> WADSWORTH does not bother to refute any of the arguments
*What* "arguments"?
> of these
> writers. By making fun of Dr. Titherley he creates the impression that
> it is all about passing fancies coming from a bunch of madcaps.
That about sums up the situation. Perhaps one of the funniest
aspects of Titherley's book was amusingly summarized by Dave Kathman:
"Oddly enough, you're not too far off from the stories some
antistratfordians have concocted to explain away Jonson's
testimony. Probably my favorite in this regard is the Derbyite
A. W. Titherley . He believed that while Shakespeare was
alive, Jonson thought that Shakespeare had written the plays,
but that as the First Folio was being prepared, Francis Bacon
told Jonson that the Earl of Derby was actually the author.
Jonson then wrote his eulogy for the First Folio, including
within it all kinds of hidden clues to Derby's "real" authorship
of the canon. But by the time Jonson wrote his tribute to
Shakespeare in *Timber*, Titherley believed that Jonson was
going senile, and had FORGOTTEN what Bacon had told him years
before about Derby being the author. He thus relapsed into his
old 'illusion' of believing that William Shakespeare the actor
was the author.
"I kid you not. The history of antistratfordia is loaded
with such lunacy, and it would be more amusing if it weren't
all so very sad."
[Remainder of review snipped]
Before you repose too much confidence in Carl Nordling's judgment,
Art, perhaps you should investigate his web page, "A homepage devoted to
suppressed scientific facts and theories," a little more thoroughly. In
particular, you might find his doubts about Big Bang cosmology rather
entertaining.