E X H I B I T D: YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND I AM TOTALLY RIGHT.
Elizabeth
Webb wrote in "The Weird "causal reading" retrospective, part 12 --
Garber as anti-Stratfordian, continued . . ."
:
> Dave Kathman wrote:
>
> "Um, what makes you think Marjorie Garber is an Oxfordian?"
OH MY GOSH WHAT IS MARJORIE GARBER DOING WITH
A PAINTING OF HUGH HAMMERSLEY ON HER SHAKESPEARE
WEBSITE!?!
<http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~laa41/>
CAN IT BE THAT GARBER THINKS HUGH HAMMERSLEY
WROTE THE FIRST FOLIO?!?
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
I see nothing whatever on her web page to suggest that. This must be
another of Elizabeth's hallucinations, a bizarre variant of her earlier
hallucination that there was a picture of Oxford on Garber's web page,
and that therefore Garber must be an Oxfordian. (If Elizabeth were able
to read Garber's work, she could have disabused herself of this notion
quite easily.)
There is, of course, another more prominent picture on the web page
that appears to have escaped Elizabeth's attention completely.
This latest display of Elizabeth's incompetence goes well beyond
casual reading -- even her viewing of images is exceedingly casual.
> Elizabeth
Elizabeth
"I see nothing whatever on her web page to suggest that."
Did you let the page load Webb?
The portait in contention is in the frame on
the left.
The Chandos is in the upper right hand corner.
I'm tempted to do an Exhibit E on your post
because as usual you don't know what you're
talking about. The fact that you don't recognize
the Ashbourne reveals how little interest you
take in this forum other than to ruin it.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> Webb wrote tediously:
>
> "I see nothing whatever on her web page to suggest that."
>
>
> Did you let the page load Webb?
>
>
> The portait in contention is in the frame on
> the left.
The portrait in question does not depict the Earl of Oxford; it
depicts Sir Hugh Hamersley.
> The Chandos is in the upper right hand corner.
And it is far more prominent than the portrait of Hamersley. Matters
being so, I am bewildered by Elizabeth's bizarre inference than Garber
is an Oxfordian because she has a large picture of Shakespeare and a
small picture of Hamersley on her web page. But Elizabeth's "reasoning"
is invariably bewildering, at least upon those rare occasions when she
is drawing inferences from data and not merely hallucinating or
inventing "facts" outright.
> I'm tempted to do an Exhibit E on your post
> because as usual you don't know what you're
> talking about. The fact that you don't recognize
> the Ashbourne
As we have seen, it is Elizabeth who does recognize the sitter.
Elizabeth
> The portrait in question does not depict the Earl of Oxford; it
> depicts Sir Hugh Hamersley.
>
> > The Chandos is in the upper right hand corner.
>
> And it is far more prominent than the portrait of Hamersley.
Well that settles it then.
If the Chandos is more prominently displayed
than the Ashbourne, the Ashbourne is Hugh
Hammersley.
I'm in awe of your command of facts and logic,
Webb.
Now all you have to do is explain why a prominent
literary critic at Harvard has a portrait of Hugh
Hammersley on her Shakespeare homepage.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Fryzer
How exactly is a picture on a website, that garber probably has nothing
to do with, of more probative value than her actual statements to the
effect that she is not an oxfordian?
>
>
> Cordially,
>
> Elizabeth
>
David L. Webb
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
>
> > The portrait in question does not depict the Earl of Oxford; it
> > depicts Sir Hugh Hamersley.
> > > The Chandos is in the upper right hand corner.
> > And it is far more prominent than the portrait of Hamersley.
> Well that settles it then.
>
>
> If the Chandos is more prominently displayed
> than the Ashbourne, the Ashbourne is Hugh
> Hammersley.
Huh?!?!?! Hardly. However, one still marvels at your ability to
infer -- from a small picture of Hamersley on her web page -- that
Garber is an Oxfordian. Not only is there scant connection between
Hamersley and Oxford (except in the demented conspiracy theories of some
of the more eccentric Oxfordians), but you appear to have overlooked
completely the Chandos portrait, generally acknowledged to depict
Shakespeare. Why you did not conclude from the presence on Garber's
page of the more prominently displayed Chandos portrait that Garber is a
"Stratfordian" is unclear; how on earth you concluded instead from the
smaller Ashbourne portrait of Hamersley that Garber is an Oxfordian is
best discussed in a forum devoted to abnormal psychology.
> I'm in awe of your command of facts and logic,
> Webb.
With an inference like the one above to your credit, you should be!
> Now all you have to do is explain why a prominent
> literary critic at Harvard has a portrait of Hugh
> Hammersley on her Shakespeare homepage.
Why should she not have the Ashbourne portrait on her web page? The
fact certainly does not signify that Garber is an Oxfordian, as you
alleged. The desperation of some of the more ...uh... eccentric
anti-Stratfordians is astonishing!
> Cordially,
>
> Elizabeth
Elizabeth
"How exactly is a picture on a website, that garber probably has
nothing
to do with . . .
Her name is on the same page as the Ashbourne.
Professor Garber's Fall Term Office Hours:
Wednesdays 2:00 - 4:00 p.m.
The Humanities Center - Barker Room 136
(by appointment only - please call 495-0739 for scheduling)
With any administrative questions and concerns, e-mail:
la...@fas.harvard.edu
<http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~laa41/>
of more probative value than her actual statements to the
effect that she is not an oxfordian?"
I don't think she knows what she believes.
"Marjorie Garber, whose Ghostwriting Shakespeare (1987) became the
first work by a
representative of Shakespearean orthodoxy to acknowledge the sanity of
the heretics and ask
what institutional forces were shaping orthodoxy's (sometimes
fabulously constricted and
deformed) knowledge of its own subject . . ."
<http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/chapter1.pdf>
I don't have much respect for Garber.
I think she's superficial as a scholar and
she published a book a few years ago--Dog Love--which came perilously
close to advocating
bestiality. Salon reviewed it. The reviewer
seemed to think that Garber did advocate
bestiality.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
"Huh?!?!?! Hardly. However, one still marvels at your ability to
infer -- from a small picture of Hamersley on her web page . . . "
You have yet to answer what Garber is doing with
a portrait of "Hammersley" on her webpage.
Start thinking up reasons.
List them here:
More Webb histrionics:
"Not only is there scant connection between
Hamersley and Oxford (except in the demented conspiracy theories of
some
of the more eccentric Oxfordians) but you appear to have overlooked
completely the Chandos portrait, generally acknowledged to be
Shakespeare."
We aren't discussing the Chandos which, as far as I
know, is still being studied. The ridiculous Flowers portrait
was recently dated to the 19th century.
<http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41062000/jpg/_41062653_shakey_pa_203.jpg>
" Why you did not conclude from the presence on Garber's
page of the more prominently displayed Chandos portrait that Garber is
a
"Stratfordian" is unclear;"
The Chandos is not 'more prominent.' Garber has positioned
the Ashbourne so that it stays in the frame event though
you page through the site. It's always there.
I want to know why Garber
has Hammersley on her Shakespeare authorship page.
The Ashbourne, incidently, isn't of Hammersley. I don't
know that it's Oxford but it isn't Hammersley.
Hammersley an abundance of long, dark hair on his face
and head and no doubt his arms, legs, chest and back.
Hammersley didn't look anything like the hairlesss
Ashbourne sitter. The Hammersley portrait used to
be linked on the Hammersley family genealogy site but
it doesn't come up in a search.
Oxford was a twig. The Ashbourne sitter looks
a little thick around the waist so it could be Oxford at
fifty.
I don't think the black clothes are original to the painting.
That style was in vogue in the 1550s. Castiglione (translated
by Bacon's uncle Sir Thomas Hoby) advocated that the courtier
dress in black.
My guess is that someone overpainted the sitter's
1590 costume to make him look like a middle aged Hamlet.
The skull is an amateurish rendering while the stitter's
head is adequately rendered. I think you've got at least
two artists, a fairly adequate painter of of the 1590s and
a later dauber.
"how on earth you concluded instead from the
smaller Ashbourne portrait of Hamersley . . ."
You're just going around in circles, Webb.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
"Huh?!?!?! Hardly. However, one still marvels at your ability to
infer -- from a small picture of Hamersley on her web page . . . "
You have yet to answer what Garber is doing with
a portrait of "Hammersley" on her webpage.
Start thinking up reasons.
List them here:
More Webb histrionics:
"Not only is there scant connection between
Hamersley and Oxford (except in the demented conspiracy theories of
some
of the more eccentric Oxfordians) but you appear to have overlooked
completely the Chandos portrait, generally acknowledged to be
Shakespeare."
We aren't discussing the Chandos which, as far as I
know, is still being studied. The ridiculous Flowers portrait
was recently dated to the 19th century.
<http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41062000/jpg/_41062653_shakey_pa_203.jpg>
" Why you did not conclude from the presence on Garber's
page of the more prominently displayed Chandos portrait that Garber is
a
"Stratfordian" is unclear;"
"how on earth you concluded instead from the
Tom Veal
years believed by many people to depict William Shakespeare. It is now
known to be a portrait of Hugh Hammersley that was later altered to
resemble the First Folio engraving of Shakespeare. What is so
surprising about Professor Garber's continuing to use it as a
"Shakespearean" illustration? It certainly does not suggest that she
puts any stock in anti-Stratfordian fantasies.
David L. Webb
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> Fryzer wrote:
>
> "How exactly is a picture on a website, that garber probably has
> nothing
> to do with . . .
>
> Her name is on the same page as the Ashbourne.
And?
> Professor Garber's Fall Term Office Hours:
> Wednesdays 2:00 - 4:00 p.m.
> The Humanities Center - Barker Room 136
> (by appointment only - please call 495-0739 for scheduling)
>
> With any administrative questions and concerns, e-mail:
> la...@fas.harvard.edu
>
> <http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~laa41/>
>
> of more probative value than her actual statements to the
> effect that she is not an oxfordian?"
>
>
> I don't think she knows what she believes.
Elizabeth's uncanny insight into the beliefs of people whom she has
never met and whose works she has never read *continues* to astonish!
> "Marjorie Garber, whose Ghostwriting Shakespeare (1987)
As usual, Elizabeth is quoting from a notoriously unreliable
anti-Stratfordian source, one that does not even get the title of
Garber's book right. Garber's book is entitled _Shakespeare's Ghost
Writers: Literature as Uncanny Causality_.
> became the
> first work by a
> representative of Shakespearean orthodoxy to acknowledge the sanity of
> the heretics
If so, Garber is apparently unacquainted with the bizarre ravings of
Elizabeth Weird, who renders that generous acknowledgment untenable.
> and ask
> what institutional forces were shaping orthodoxy's (sometimes
> fabulously constricted and
> deformed) knowledge of its own subject . . ."
>
> <http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/chapter1.pdf>
>
>
> I don't have much respect for Garber.
No doubt Professor Garber will be crestfallen at this news.
> I think she's superficial as a scholar
As superficial as someone who forms her opinions of books by reading
only the reviews -- or in some cases, e.g., Akrigg, only the titles?
> and
> she published a book a few years ago--Dog Love--which came perilously
> close to advocating
> bestiality.
Did Elizabeth actually *read* the book? The question is, of course,
purely rhetorical.
> Salon reviewed it. The reviewer
> seemed to think that Garber did advocate
> bestiality.
And, as usual, Elizabeth forms her opinion of Garber's scholarship on
the basis of *one* review of *one* of Garber's many books -- and a book
that Elizabeth has never read, at that!
>
> Cordially,
>
> Elizabeth
Elizabeth
> The simple explanation is that the Ashbourne portrait was for many
> years believed by many people to depict William Shakespeare.
That's understandable since the painter's age is given as 47 and the
painting is dated 1611 right above the head of the sitter.
I located Hammersley's portrait
<http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/sirhugh1.htm>
and put it in a image editor. The Hammersley pose
and features aren't that dissimilar to the Ashbourne's
subject. Both men are about the same age. It's
unlikely that Hammersley lost his hair overnight
so if Hammersley, the hair must have been painted out.
The online Hammersley is only a photograph, spoiled by a
a camera flash but in an image editor Hammersley's hand
is resting near the hilt of a very big sword--were sword's that big?
--and his stance is alpha male in full display.
I don't see Hammersley slipping into a black velvet gown
to be painted as Hamlet. If the underlying painting is
Hammersley the forger went to a lot of trouble.
It's possible that the Ashbourne (or its alterations) may be
a nineteenth century fake, school of Sargeant. The rendering
of the ruff, for example, is romantic, not English School.
Elizabethans were not generally into props--they liked
rebuses--so the skull, book and sprig of herbs are probably
meant to prop up the claim that the sitter is Shakespeare.
> It is now
> known to be a portrait of Hugh Hammersley that was later altered to
> resemble the First Folio engraving of Shakespeare.
That's a lot of alteration.
> What is so
> surprising about Professor Garber's continuing to use it as a
> "Shakespearean" illustration?
Garber knows that the Oxfordians have spread that image
all over the Internet. She must have gotten it from an
Oxfordian website. That shouldn't be hard to check by
comparing pixel counts. I'll have Bubbles put Art in charge of the
investigation since Art likes to count things.
(I just looked in Google images and found this . . .
<http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:atRXjteZjlgJ:www.shakespeare-oxford.com/ASHBOUR5.GIF>
at this site
which shows the Ashbourne sitter with hair--probably
Oxfordian airbrushing--a metaphor).
> certainly does not suggest that she
> puts any stock in anti-Stratfordian fantasies.
Found this in an Oxfordian "dissertation" but
it's consistent with what I know about Garber.
Marjorie Garber, whose Ghostwriting Shakespeare
(1987) became the first work by a representative
of Shakespearean orthodoxy to acknowledge the
sanity of the heretics and ask what institutional
forces were shaping orthodoxy's (sometimes fabulously
constricted and deformed) knowledge of its own subject,
have each made significant, though underestimated,
contributions to the current intellectual ferment.
<http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/chapter1.pdf
I personally think Garber is a little off center. Her book
'Dog Love' (which isn't about love between canines) was
reviewed by Salon. The reviewer said he couldn't describe
the kind of relationship between pet and owner Garber
seemed to advocate without offending good taste.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Tom Veal
image all over the Internet" or that "She must have gotten it from an
Oxfordian website"? The Ashbourne portrait was well known long before
the Oxenfordians began claiming that it was "really" an image of their
hero.
All that I know about Professor Garber's "Shakespeare's Ghost Writers"
comes from the portion (several pages of the introduction, plus the
index) available on Amazon. Those bits give no indication that she has
delved into the details of Oxenfordian discourse. The only index
entries for Oxenford are scattered mentions in the introduction. Her
book doesn't address the merits of the authorship controversy, and her
prefatory summary of the arguments suggests that she isn't particularly
knowledgeable about them. Hence, there is no reason to assume that she
knows about a relatively minor aspect of the Oxenfordian fantasia.
Elizabeth wrote:
David L. Webb
<David.L.Webb-3937...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>,
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> In article <1123577576.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > Webb's histrionics:
> >
> > "Huh?!?!?! Hardly. However, one still marvels at your ability to
> > infer -- from a small picture of Hamersley on her web page . . . "
> >
> >
> > You have yet to answer what Garber is doing with
> > a portrait of "Hammersley" on her webpage.
> >
> > Start thinking up reasons.
> >
> > List them here:
[Hallucinations concerning Garber's beliefs and intentions snipped]
I see that Elizabeth has actually posted two identical copies of this
post, as is her frequent practice. Evidently she just cannot figure out
how to use Google Groups competently.
David L. Webb
> Webb's histrionics:
>
> "Huh?!?!?! Hardly. However, one still marvels at your ability to
> infer -- from a small picture of Hamersley on her web page . . . "
>
>
> You have yet to answer what Garber is doing with
> a portrait of "Hammersley" on her webpage.
>
> Start thinking up reasons.
>
> List them here:
For one thing, as has already been pointed out to Elizabeth, the
portrait has a certain iconic attraction, as it was once rumored to
depict William Shakespeare.
> More Webb histrionics:
>
>
> "Not only is there scant connection between
> Hamersley and Oxford (except in the demented conspiracy theories of
> some
> of the more eccentric Oxfordians) but you appear to have overlooked
> completely the Chandos portrait, generally acknowledged to be
> Shakespeare."
>
>
> We aren't discussing the Chandos which, as far as I
> know, is still being studied. The ridiculous Flowers portrait
> was recently dated to the 19th century.
So? What does that have to do with Garber's web page?
> <http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41062000/jpg/_41062653_shakey_pa_203.jp
> g>
>
>
> " Why you did not conclude from the presence on Garber's
> page of the more prominently displayed Chandos portrait that Garber is
> a
> "Stratfordian" is unclear;"
>
>
> The Chandos is not 'more prominent.'
It is roughly twice the size of the Ashbourne.
> Garber has positioned
> the Ashbourne so that it stays in the frame event though
> you page through the site. It's always there.
Elizabeth's uncanny insight, not only into Garber's personal
participation in a Harvard courses web page with which she very likely
had nothing to do, but even into Garber's intent, is remarkable indeed!
> I want to know why Garber
> has Hammersley on her Shakespeare authorship page.
Ask her.
> The Ashbourne, incidently, isn't of Hammersley. I don't
> know that it's Oxford but it isn't Hammersley.
Hamersley's coat of arms appears in the painting. Whom does
Elizabeth imagine that the portrait depicts, if not Hamersley?
> Hammersley an abundance [sic] of long, dark hair on his face
> and head and no doubt his arms, legs, chest and back.
> Hammersley didn't look anything like the hairlesss
> Ashbourne sitter.
As has been noted before, the painting was altered, apparently to
make the sitter look more like Shakespeare.
> The Hammersley portrait used to
> be linked on the Hammersley family genealogy site but
> it doesn't come up in a search.
>
>
> Oxford was a twig. The Ashbourne sitter looks
> a little thick around the waist so it could be Oxford at
> fifty.
>
> I don't think the black clothes are original to the painting.
No doubt the Folger, the institution that actually undertook the
painting's restoration and discovered what was on the canvas prior to
the alteration, will be most gratified to learn Elizabeth's expert
opinion on the matter, particularly since Elizabeth has never even the
canvas!
> That style was in vogue in the 1550s. Castiglione (translated
> by Bacon's uncle Sir Thomas Hoby) advocated that the courtier
> dress in black.
>
>
> My guess is that someone overpainted the sitter's
> 1590 costume to make him look like a middle aged Hamlet.
> The skull is an amateurish rendering while the stitter's [sic]
> head is adequately rendered. I think you've got at least
> two artists, a fairly adequate painter of of the 1590s and
> a later dauber.
>
>
> "how on earth you concluded instead from the
> smaller Ashbourne portrait of Hamersley . . ."
>
>
> You're just going around in circles, Webb.
Elizabeth still has provided no evidence -- other than her own vivid
hallucinations, with which we are all now quite familiar -- that Garber
is an Oxfordian.
> Cordially,
>
> Elizabeth
LynnE
Tom Veal wrote:
> How do you know that "Garber knows that the Oxfordians have spread the
> image all over the Internet" or that "She must have gotten it from an
> Oxfordian website"? The Ashbourne portrait was well known long before
> the Oxenfordians began claiming that it was "really" an image of their
> hero.
>
> All that I know about Professor Garber's "Shakespeare's Ghost Writers"
> comes from the portion (several pages of the introduction, plus the
> index) available on Amazon. Those bits give no indication that she has
> delved into the details of Oxenfordian discourse. The only index
> entries for Oxenford are scattered mentions in the introduction. Her
> book doesn't address the merits of the authorship controversy, and her
> prefatory summary of the arguments suggests that she isn't particularly
> knowledgeable about them. Hence, there is no reason to assume that she
> knows about a relatively minor aspect of the Oxenfordian fantasia.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muchado/forum/garber.html
Rather interesting, I thought, Tom.
L.
Tom Reedy
news:1123628343.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
A very illuminationg interview.
It turns out she knows quite a bit about Oxfordism. And she also gets the
context of the Emerson quote about Shakespeare right, unlike
antiStratfordians.
But evidently she does believe William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the
works attributed to him:
"Shakespeare made his money by being a theater manager, by being connected
with a very successful company, a company that owned a number of theaters
during their time, that would earn the patronage of the King. And his
celebrity, and the reason that he was able to go back to Stratford and buy
the second biggest house in town -- that house called New Place -- was
because a lot of people went to the theater; not because he was a famous
author on the talk-show circuit."
She agrees with my take on the reason for antiStratfordianism--in particular
Oxfordinism--that I posted here several years ago:
"And this notion of authorship, and that the work must or should or does
disclose some things about the true feelings of the author, this comes out
of Romanticism. This is really a notion that gains speed in the Romantic
period."
Here's what I said along those lines in 1999:
BEGIN QUOTE
The idea of Oxford-as-Shakespeare is driven by the image of what Oxfordians
think the writer must have been like. Unfortunately, their expectations are
bound to Romanticism, a movement that began in Germany near the end of the
18th century, and Oxfordians seem unable to disassociate their hero from the
milieu of their own time and culture. Consequently, their assumptions about
Elizabethan times are wrong and anachronistic.
Romanticism is explicitly self-conscious and self-referential. At the heart
of romanticism is the rejection of orthodox social norms as oppressive and
corrupting. The romantic believes in freedom and individuality. It is an
imaginative freedom. Having been frustrated in the "world of affairs,"
usually because of his "honesty," the romantic retreats into the power of
imaginative reflection which provides for the "eternal agility" which
enables him to express his freedom and individuality.
Oxford, although none of his known poetry is self-referential, is forced
into all these roles by 20th-century Oxfordians. In their minds,
Oxford-as-Shakespeare is a romantic character. All the characteristics of
romanticism are read into Oxford's life by those who demand a poet more in
keeping with their culturally-bound idea of who the author of Shakespeare's
works should be. Oxford fulfills all the requirements of a romantic hero:
wanderer, outlaw, prodigal child, rebel, lost lover, and victim of
consumptive death.
END QUOTE
I might as well throw in the rest of it; it's as true now as it was then:
In order to warp Oxford into the role of Shakespeare, Oxfordians must also
warp history. They "explain away" the lack of evidence for their beliefs by
incorporating the lack of evidence into their belief. They posit a scenerio
in which some necessity forces Oxford into keeping his playwriting secret
from the world. By far their most bizarre "explanation" is the "Tudor Rose"
theory, in which Oxford is the illegitimate child of Queen Elizabeth, who
then had an incestuous relationship with his mother and begat Southhampton,
the supposed "fair youth" of the sonnets, with whom Oxford then had a
homosexual relationship.
When confronted with direct evidence of their irrationality and foolishness,
Stratfordians become part of the plot. Oxfordians will not, or cannot,
evaluate their own beliefs and those of their opponents objectively. They
fold their arms, shut their minds, and cling to their belief in the face of
all the evidence against it. For them objective detachment is impossible.
Any attempt to introduce them to logical, scholarly methods of argument or
accepted rules of evidence is seen by them as "Stratfordian bias." For
evidence for their point of view, we are given the imbecilic anagrams of
Art, the homosexual fantasies of Volker, and the half-witted musings of
Crowley and Streitz. If anyone is convinced by their desperate
rationalizations, that is certainly their right, but that is certainly no
justification for imposing their idiocies on the rest of us, especially
given all the evidence against the Oxfordian "theory."
TR
Spam Scone
She also correctly understands the Dickens quotation has nothing to do
with "doubt", unlike the Shakespeare Fellowship.
> But evidently she does believe William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the
> works attributed to him:
>
> "Shakespeare made his money by being a theater manager, by being connected
> with a very successful company, a company that owned a number of theaters
> during their time, that would earn the patronage of the King. And his
> celebrity, and the reason that he was able to go back to Stratford and buy
> the second biggest house in town -- that house called New Place -- was
> because a lot of people went to the theater; not because he was a famous
> author on the talk-show circuit."
>
> She agrees with my take on the reason for antiStratfordianism--in particular
> Oxfordinism--that I posted here several years ago:
> "And this notion of authorship, and that the work must or should or does
> disclose some things about the true feelings of the author, this comes out
> of Romanticism. This is really a notion that gains speed in the Romantic
> period."
She also agrees with Barzun's essay "How the Romantics invented
Shakespeare".
And its very good writing as well, Tom. Thank you for reposting it.
> In order to warp Oxford into the role of Shakespeare, Oxfordians must also
> warp history. They "explain away" the lack of evidence for their beliefs by
> incorporating the lack of evidence into their belief. They posit a scenerio
> in which some necessity forces Oxford into keeping his playwriting secret
> from the world. By far their most bizarre "explanation" is the "Tudor Rose"
> theory, in which Oxford is the illegitimate child of Queen Elizabeth, who
> then had an incestuous relationship with his mother and begat Southhampton,
> the supposed "fair youth" of the sonnets, with whom Oxford then had a
> homosexual relationship.
>
> When confronted with direct evidence of their irrationality and foolishness,
> Stratfordians become part of the plot.
Cue for Lynne to accuse you of posting this as part of a scheme to
defend David Kathman's Tempest essay.
Mark Cipra
news:QNbKe.3698$0d.1951@trnddc07...
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1123628343.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
[snip]
>
> In order to warp Oxford into the role of Shakespeare, Oxfordians must also
> warp history. They "explain away" the lack of evidence for their beliefs
by
> incorporating the lack of evidence into their belief. They posit a
scenerio
> in which some necessity forces Oxford into keeping his playwriting secret
> from the world. By far their most bizarre "explanation" is the "Tudor
Rose"
> theory, in which Oxford is the illegitimate child of Queen Elizabeth, who
> then had an incestuous relationship with his mother and begat
Southhampton,
> the supposed "fair youth" of the sonnets, with whom Oxford then had a
> homosexual relationship.
>
>
> When confronted with direct evidence of their irrationality and
foolishness,
> Stratfordians become part of the plot. Oxfordians will not, or cannot,
But I hope that's a dangler. :) "... they make Stratfordians part of the
plot"? Or am I misreading?
LynnE
Spam Scone wrote:
> Cue for Lynne to accuse you of posting this as part of a scheme to
> defend David Kathman's Tempest essay.
Nonsense. Tom got bored and stopped defending David Kathman's Tempest
essay months ago.
L.
Elizabeth
> > (Garber's book) became the
> > first work by a
> > representative of Shakespearean orthodoxy to acknowledge the sanity of
> > the heretics
David L. Webb wrote:
> If so, Garber is apparently unacquainted with the bizarre ravings of
> Elizabeth Weird, who renders that generous acknowledgment untenable.
You do struggle with logic.
If I am an antistrat and Garber acknowledges my
sanity,then my statements are not bizarre ravings.
In acknowledging the sanity of "the heretics," Garber
is, by extention, also acknowledging the insanity
of anyone who persecutes "the heretics."
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Tom Reedy
news:1123634511.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Duh. Brain fart. Of course I meant Dickens, but my fingers typed Emerson.
Spam Scone
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "Spam Scone" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1123634511.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >> context of the Emerson quote about Shakespeare right, unlike
> >> antiStratfordians.
> >
> > She also correctly understands the Dickens quotation has nothing to do
> > with "doubt", unlike the Shakespeare Fellowship.
>
> Duh. Brain fart. Of course I meant Dickens, but my fingers typed Emerson.
She mentioned Emerson a couple of times; I thought that was what you
meant.
Elizabeth
> >"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1123628343.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >Tom Veal wrote:
> >A very illuminationg interview.
>
> >It turns out (Garber) knows quite a bit about Oxfordism.
> I don't doubt that . . . (b)ut evidently she does believe William
> Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works attributed to him:
Where do you see that? Garber says:
1) Shakespeare made his money by being a theater manager,
2) by being connected with a very successful company, a company
that owned a number of theaters during their time, that would earn
the patronage of the King.
3) And his celebrity, and the reason that he was able to go back
to Stratford and buy the second biggest house in town -- that house
called New Place -- was because a lot of people went to the theater
(translation: his notoriety came from the fact that he was a
a manager of a very popular theatre)
4) not because he was a famous author on the talk-show circuit.
He was famous because he was the manager of "a theatre
where a lof of people went?"
In the real world 'Shakespeare' had celebrity because
his plays were driving other plays off the stage, not
because his theatre management was state of the art.
If he even was a 'theatre manager.' There's no evidence
to show that he was.
Not a ringing endorsement of Stratfordian theory,
Reedy.
I think Garber knows a lot about Oxfordianism because she
is an Oxfordian. I think she has the Ashbourne on her website
because she thinks the Ashbourne is Oxford.
> She agrees with my take on the reason for antiStratfordianism--in particular
> Oxfordinism--that I posted here several years ago:
> "And this notion of authorship, and that the work must or should or does
> disclose some things about the true feelings of the author, this comes out
> of Romanticism. This is really a notion that gains speed in the Romantic
> period."
At least Stratfordianism comes out of English romanticism and
not lunatic German romanticism. The Nzs were one of the products
of German romanticism. Ever read Faust Part II?
You're a good little writer, Reedy, and I agree in part with your
essay but I don't think it's morally invigorating to beat up on
the Oxfordians.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
[...]
> I think Garber knows a lot about Oxfordianism because she
> is an Oxfordian. I think she has the Ashbourne on her website
> because she thinks the Ashbourne is Oxford.
Usenet just doesn't get any funnier than this! Elizabeth's uncanny
insight into the beliefs and motives of people whom she has never met
and whose work she has never read continues to astound!
> > She agrees with my take on the reason for antiStratfordianism--in particular
> > Oxfordinism--that I posted here several years ago:
> > "And this notion of authorship, and that the work must or should or does
> > disclose some things about the true feelings of the author, this comes out
> > of Romanticism. This is really a notion that gains speed in the Romantic
> > period."
> At least Stratfordianism comes out of English romanticism and
> not lunatic German romanticism. The Nzs [sic]
Here is another example of the multiple vovel movements in Elizabeth's
posts.
> were one of the products
> of German romanticism. Ever read Faust Part II?
>
> You're a good little writer, Reedy, and I agree in part with your
> essay but I don't think it's morally invigorating to beat up on
> the Oxfordians.
The above is rather amusing, coming as it does from the author of the
following:
"Oxfordians have no evidence. There's nothing
there. It's pure fiction.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
'We're looooking.' --Stephanie Caruana
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*"
[One need scarcely add that the "quotation" is actually a misquotation,
as is typical for Elizabeth; Stephanie is quite competent in English
orthography.]
<http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/16
554f19da257df6?dmode=source&hl=en>
Here is another post from one of Elizabeth's exchanges with Stephanie
that is so funny that it deserves to be quoted nearly in full:
-----------------------------------------------
[...]
> > In other words, since neither of you has any evidence for your
> > position, you just make things up!
> >
> >
> > Jim
>
> Not a bit, Jim. I have been reading source materials widely for
> more than
> 10 years, have made a couple of discoveries at the Folger Library,
Why don't you share those discoveries with us, Stephanie? The reason
Oxfordians get no respect in HLAS is that Oxfordians keep talking
about evidence but they never show us any evidence.
> have
> purchased microfilms of very rare materias from the British
> Library, and so
> on.
What did you find? Be specific.
> What have you done to investigate and support your beliefs?
Legitimate scholars have no 'beliefs.' They have hypotheses.
> Paul is
> working with someone in England, apparently, transcribing
> little-known
> manuscripts.
Since Bacon has an authenticated manuscript page of 'Henry IV' and 50
pages of notes for the Shakespeare plays in his own handwriting I
would not bother 'transcribing little-known manuscripts.' And yes,
I've put the links up. I wish Webb would pay attention.
> We are, and have been, actively LOOKING,
That, Stephanie, is the first thing you have said that rings true. I
don't doubt you're 'looking' and probably with some sense of urgency
because the Oxfodians have been making extravagant claims for 80 years
and they still have *nothing.*
Sooner or later a Strat will write a popular book on the Oxfordian
Hoax.
> and we have been
> finding.
Finding what? I notice you didn't finish that sentence.
> Our efforts, along with those of many other researchers,
I don't call myself a 'researcher' even though I did a year of
research methodology. 'Researcher' usually implies someone with an
advanced degree.
Do you mean 'researcher' as in the Ogburns were 'researchers?'
The Ogburns weren't 'researchers.'
The Ogburns were caught--this has been written about--
[Note Elizabeth's habitual scrupulousness in citing sources: "this has
been written about"!]
stealing from
Baconians. I noticed that they baldly quote Edwin Reed without noting
that he was Bacon's biographer.
The Ogburns were identity theives [sic]. They stole Baconian
research,
scratched out Bacon's name and wrote 'My Lord Oxford' underneath.
Do you know what that means Stephanie?
That means the Ogburns ***knew*** that what they had was evidence of
Bacon's authorship.
[Here is yet another of Elizabeth's vile, wanton, and utterly
undocumented accusations of intellectual dishonesty and scholarly
misconduct. Whatever may have been the Ogburns' scholarly shortcomings,
as far as I am aware, sincerity was not among them.]
> working
> mostly on their own, are producing new evidence.
Right. In the back room with Photo Shop.
[And another.]
> We are not trampling the
> dusty roads to Stratford,
Hey, that's my line.
>and we are not looking in Silver Street in the old
> Wigmaker's cellar.
What would Oxford be doing in the Wigmaker's celler on Silver Street?
Best not to ask.
. What have you been doing lately, except jibing
> pointlessly at our efforts?
Who's jibing? What's jibing? Are y'awl a Southern lady?
Produce the evidence Stephanie and we'll all become Oxfordians.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------
<http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/bb
20841bfb6da42a?dmode=source&hl=en>
David L. Webb
"Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net> wrote:
Well put. I recall once opining jocularly that Stephanie Caruana's
conception of Oxford was based not upon historical fact but upon too
much reading of Georgette Heyer romance novels. Mind you, I have a high
regard for Georgette Heyer's novels -- indeed, Heyer's fiction is
grounded upon far more solid historical research than the farcical
fiction-as-history of many Oxfordians. However, Stephanie's vision of
Oxford would be perfect as a Heyer hero, the archetype of whom is the
following: a rebellious, swashbuckling but generous young nobleman of
impeccable pedigree and vast estates, betrayed and unjustly maligned,
driven ultimately to highway robbery in order to protect the reputation
of another.
> I might as well throw in the rest of it; it's as true now as it was then:
>
> In order to warp Oxford into the role of Shakespeare, Oxfordians must also
> warp history. They "explain away" the lack of evidence for their beliefs by
> incorporating the lack of evidence into their belief. They posit a scenerio
> in which some necessity forces Oxford into keeping his playwriting secret
> from the world. By far their most bizarre "explanation" is the "Tudor Rose"
> theory, in which Oxford is the illegitimate child of Queen Elizabeth, who
> then had an incestuous relationship with his mother and begat Southhampton,
> the supposed "fair youth" of the sonnets, with whom Oxford then had a
> homosexual relationship.
In Mr. Streitz's lurid "Tudor Bros." variant, Oxford had a sexual
relationship with his mother the Queen (and incidentally, the Earl of
Rutland was his twin brother)! Mr. Streitz suggests moreover that
Burghley was the real father of Oxford's child, and that the pirate
attack that Oxford survived was actually engineered by Burghley, who,
now that his son would be taken as Oxford's and hence would be high in
the line of succession to the throne (Oxford being the Queen's son), had
no further need of Oxford and wished to eliminate him from the picture.
If you have not yet read Mr. Streitz's book, Tom, I earnestly enjoin you
to do so!
> When confronted with direct evidence of their irrationality and foolishness,
> Stratfordians become part of the plot.
Indeed, some anti-Stratfordians' preposterous paranoia concerning the
supposed conspiracy of academic "Stratfordians" who secretly know the
truth but are ruthlessly suppressing it by destroying evidence, altering
the Ashbourne portrait, etc., is one of the most amusing aspects of the
entire delusion.
> Oxfordians will not, or cannot,
> evaluate their own beliefs and those of their opponents objectively. They
> fold their arms, shut their minds, and cling to their belief in the face of
> all the evidence against it. For them objective detachment is impossible.
> Any attempt to introduce them to logical, scholarly methods of argument or
> accepted rules of evidence is seen by them as "Stratfordian bias."
I have encountered the same resistance among mathematics and science
cranks. To some of them, the firm insistence of real scientists to whom
they explain their "discoveries" that those discoveries be subjected to
the same rigorous standards of proof used routinely in the discipline is
an unmistakable sign of bias or even of animus. Indeed, to some cranks,
actually knowing the rudiments of the subject and using that knowledge
to point out their fatal errors is utilizing an unfair advantage, and
therefore somehow not playing fair!
> For
> evidence for their point of view, we are given the imbecilic anagrams of
> Art,
...most of which are not even genuine anagrams. And don't forget the
anagrammatic buffoonery of Richard Kennedy.
> the homosexual fantasies of Volker, and the half-witted musings of
> Crowley and Streitz.
Don't neglect Stephanie Caruana -- her Caxton fiasco alone has earned
her a permanent place in the Oxfordian pantheon. If one considers also
her "evidence" of the Dowager Countess of Oxford's supposedly "hasty"
remarriage and her French stylometry, the case for her inclusion among
the all-stars becomes oVERwhelming.
> If anyone is convinced by their desperate
> rationalizations, that is certainly their right, but that is certainly no
> justification for imposing their idiocies on the rest of us, especially
> given all the evidence against the Oxfordian "theory."
But we must be grateful that they do. If they did not, we would be
deprived of one of the most reliable sources of entertainment on the
Internet.
> TR
Elizabeth
> > You're a good little writer, Reedy, and I agree in part with your
> > essay but I don't think it's morally invigorating to beat up on
> > the Oxfordians.
>
> The above is rather amusing, coming as it does from the author of the
> following:
I suggested that Reedy's remarks about Art, Crowley and
others was not morally invigorting because Reedy
1. called Art, in effect, an imbecile.
2. called Volker, in effect, a homosexual.
3. called Streitz and Crowley half-wits.
>>> For
> >> evidence for their point of view, we are given the imbecilic anagrams of
> >> Art, the homosexual fantasies of Volker, and the half-witted musings of
> >> Crowley and Streitz.
I didn't call the Oxfordians half-wits, homosexuals or
imbeciles because I don't believe Oxfordians are
imbeciles or half-wits (I have no opinion on their gender orientation)
and I have
said that repeatedly. For the most part I believe that the
Oxfordians are unusally
C I V I L
a word that doesn't exist in your vacuous (inanely foolish) vocabulary.
> "Oxfordians have no evidence. There's nothing
> there. It's pure fiction.
That's an accurate statement. Oxfordians have
literary biographies, all amateurish except
Barrell's. None of the Oxfordian biographies were
written by qualified scholars.
Nelson wrote a scholarly biography of Oxford
but like the Oxfordian biographies, it's devoid
of any historical content. Any biography that
doesn't acknowledge the English Reformation cannot
explain Oxford.
Oxfordians have no authorship evidence.
It's customary to locate evidence and then
announce your theory but the Oxfordians selected
a candidate for Shakespeare authorship and
afterward started the process of searching for
evidence.
I don't think Oxfordians understand that the rules
of literary evidence or the rules of evidence in
aesthetics don't apply to a forensic problem like
the authorship question.
Literary criticism is essentially an aesthetic
process, a matter of particular judgment, it is
not science.
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> 'We're looooking.' --Stephanie Caruana
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*"
>
> [One need scarcely add that the "quotation" is actually a misquotation,
> as is typical for Elizabeth; Stephanie is quite competent in English
> orthography.]
You must really have your values skewed to
get such a feeling of power out of correcting
spelling errors.
Note, Webb, that I did not insult Stephanie
below.
Stephanie, on the other hand, insulted you,
Webb,calling you in effect
1) witless
2) boring
3) a purveyor of "nasty crap"
"Your witless, boring, nasty crap deserves no response
at all" --Stephanie Caruana)
I'll leave the rest of the post so that anyone self-hating enough to
read your "witless, boring, nasty crap" can see that you haven't made
your case.
Cordially,
Elizabeth