SFC in Baltimore, 10/7-10
bookburn
Fellowship Conference in Baltimore that Lynne has given notice, but I
was curious to see what the cost of admission is and found the
following registration details, in case one needs to figure out how
many credit cards to carry there. Doesn't include hotel or
transportation, of course. Seems like a jolly bash to me. Cedar
plank smoked salmon would be nice. bookburn
(quote)
I enclose $195.00 for the four-day conference (papers) at Concordia
University and the Saturday evening awards banquet at the Columbia
Edgewater Country Club where we will honour the heir to the Dukedom of
St. Albans, Charles Beauclerk, Lord Burford; Mark Rylance, Artistic
Director of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre; and the 8th Marquess of
Exeter, Michael Cecil, Lord Burghley. Please indicate choice of
entrée: (a) cedar plank smoked salmon, (b) filet mignon, (c) chicken
Dijon, or (d) zucchini casserole
I enclose $145.00 for the four-day conference (papers only)
I wish to attend only part of the conference (papers only); I enclose
$65.00 for each day I shall attend (checked below)
(unquote)
Art Neuendorffer
> I hesitate to advertise details about the upcoming Shakespeare
> Fellowship Conference in Baltimore that Lynne has given notice, but I
> was curious to see what the cost of admission is and found the
> following registration details, in case one needs to figure out how
> many credit cards to carry there. Doesn't include hotel or
> transportation, of course. Seems like a jolly bash to me. Cedar
> plank smoked salmon would be nice. bookburn
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar plank smoked salmon sounds like a delicious Northwest delicacy that
might not be available in the land of crabs:
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Conference2004.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art N.
LynnE
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10li24u...@corp.supernews.com...
> I hesitate to advertise details about the upcoming Shakespeare
> Fellowship Conference in Baltimore that Lynne has given notice, but I
> was curious to see what the cost of admission is and found the
> following registration details, in case one needs to figure out how
> many credit cards to carry there. Doesn't include hotel or
> transportation, of course. Seems like a jolly bash to me. Cedar
> plank smoked salmon would be nice. bookburn
Very nice, Bookburn, but that's not our conference, it's Dan Wright's
conference in Portland. We only charge $15 a day for papers, and there are
four meals included in our $195 registration.
Go to http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Conference2004.html and click on
electronic registration for our list of prices.
Hoping to see you there!
Lynne
bookburn
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:w4GdndaRgJx...@comcast.com...
My appologies for confusing The Shakespeare Authorship Studies
Conference, 10/7-10, with the Shakespeare Fellowship Conference,
10/7-10, both registering for the four days at $195, but at opposite
sides of the continent (unless I've got this wrong, too). Anyone who
is misled by my late night, cold-remedied bumbling and ends up at the
wrong coast should at least know s/he is among fellow Oxfordians as
both dates celebrate the same man. It is odd there are so many
coincidences in this, but I'm not making any excuses.
bookburn
|
|
bookburn
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
| I hesitate to advertise details about the upcoming Shakespeare
| Fellowship Conference in Baltimore that Lynne has given notice, but
I
I ought to have hesitated more and rechecked my data because is seems
the details I found apply to a strangely parallel but different event,
not in Baltimore but in Portland on the same dates: namely, The
Shakespeare AUTHORSHIP Studies Conference. Both conferences are
Oxfordian oriented, I believe, and for the same $195 offer unique
experiences, if on opposite sides of the continent. I add
supplementary information below.
| was curious to see what the cost of admission is and found the
| following registration details, in case one needs to figure out how
| many credit cards to carry there. Doesn't include hotel or
| transportation, of course. Seems like a jolly bash to me. Cedar
| plank smoked salmon would be nice. bookburn
|
| (quote)
| I enclose $195.00 for the four-day conference (papers) at Concordia
| University and the Saturday evening awards banquet at the Columbia
| Edgewater Country Club where we will honour the heir to the Dukedom
of
| St. Albans, Charles Beauclerk, Lord Burford; Mark Rylance, Artistic
| Director of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre; and the 8th Marquess of
| Exeter, Michael Cecil, Lord Burghley. Please indicate choice of
| entrée: (a) cedar plank smoked salmon, (b) filet mignon, (c) chicken
| Dijon, or (d) zucchini casserole
|
| I enclose $145.00 for the four-day conference (papers only)
|
| I wish to attend only part of the conference (papers only); I
enclose
| $65.00 for each day I shall attend (checked below)
| (unquote)
Since I have gone this far in copying registration info for the
Portland conference, I herewith quote their agenda as well. bookburn
(quote)
The Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference Agenda
Proceedings for the SASC will begin 3:00pm on Thursday, 7 April; the
conference will close at 5:30pm on Sunday, 10 April. The Awards
Banquet will convene at 7:00pm on Saturday, 9 April at the Columbia
Edgewater Country Club.
The Programme for the 2005 Conference follows
Thursday
1:30 - 6:00 Registration packet pick-up for those who have registered
in advance; walk-in registrations processed (if space is available);
coffee and tea available in the Luther Hall auditorium lobby; used
book sale in the Luther Hall auditorium lobby
3:00 - 5:30 Jared Durham, Concordia University history major, will
introduce the Woody Allen film, The Front, which will be shown in the
Luther Hall auditorium from 3:15 - 4:45. A panel discussion featuring
Dr Richard Hill, Professor of English and Humanities at Concordia
University, William Boyle, Editor of Shakespeare Matters and author
Richard Whalen will follow from 4:45 - 5:30.
-coffee and tea break-
6:00 - 7:15 Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, Editor of The Oxfordian; Nyack,
New York
-coffee and tea break-
7:30 - 8:15 Robin Williams, President of the Mary Sidney Society;
Santa Fe, New Mexico
8:15 - 9:00 Dr Roger Stritmatter, Assistant Professor of English at
Coppin State College; Baltimore, Maryland
Friday
9:00 - 9:45 Author Ramon Jimenez; Berkeley, California
-coffee and tea break-
10:00 - 10:30 Official Opening of the Conference; Dr Charles
Schlimpert, President of Concordia University; Dr Charles Kunert, Dean
of College of Theology, Arts and Sciences, Concordia University; and
Dr John Driessner, Director of the Concordia University Foundation
10:30 - 11:30 Dr Sandra Schruijer, Associate Professor of
Organisational Psychology at Tilburg University in the Netherlands
Lunch 11:30 - 1:00
1:00 - 2:30 Dr Michael Delahoyde, Senior Instructor of English at
Washington State University; Pullman, Washington (Keynote Address)
-coffee and tea break-
3:00 - 4:30 Author and journalist Mark Anderson from Northampton,
Massachusetts (Mark will also be speaking at Powell's City of
Books--see below--this evening at 7:30)
-coffee and tea break-
4:45 - 5:30 Author and actor Hank Whittemore; Upper Nyack, New York
Friday evening off-campus recommendation:
Mark Anderson will be speaking at Powell's City of Books--the world's
largest bookstore--at 1005 W. Burnside Street at 7:30; follow that
with a late-night dinner at the Widmer Gasthaus at 929 N. Russell
(call 503.281.2437 to make reservations for parties of five or more)
Saturday
9:00 - 10:00 William Farina and Marion Buckley, Director and President
of the Chicago Oxford Society; Chicago, Illinois
-coffee and tea break-
10:30 - 11:30 English doctoral student, Daniel Mackay, of the
University of Oregon; Eugene, Oregon
Lunch 11:30 - 1:00
1:00 - 2:30 Charles Beauclerk, the Earl of Burford; Hadleigh, England
-Sigma Tau Delta English honor society bake sale-
3:00 - 3:30 Dr Jon Wyneken, Assistant Professor of European History at
Concordia University
3:30 - 4:30 Dr Edith Friedler, Professor of Law at Loyola Marymount
Law School; Los Angeles
-coffee and tea break-
4:45 - 5:30 Dr Elizabeth Eckhart, Adjunct Professor of English at
Southern Oregon State University; Ashland, Oregon
* * * * * * * * * *
Awards Banquet
7:00 - 10:00
Columbia Edgewater Country Club (2220 NE Marine Drive)
The banquet is reserved for those who register for the Awards Banquet
in advance. No reservations for the banquet can be processed after 30
March, as registrants' menu selections must be submitted to the club
chef by the Conference Director on 31 March
The speaker at the Awards Banquet will be
Michael Cecil, the 8th Marquess of Exeter and the present Lord
Burghley
The conference's annual Award for Artistic Excellence will be
presented to
Mark Rylance, Artistic Director of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, London
The annual Award for Scholarly Excellence will be presented to
Charles Beauclerk, the Earl of Burford
* * * * * * * * * *
Sunday
9:00 - 9:30 Dr Ren Draya, Professor of English at Blackburn College;
Carlinville, Illinois
9:30 - 10:15 Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, Editor of The Oxfordian; Nyack,
New York
-coffee and tea break-
10:30 - 11:30 Dr Jan Scheffer, psychiatrist at the Peter Baan Centre;
Utrecht, the Netherlands
Lunch 11:30 - 1:00
1:00 - 2:00 Andrew Werth, independent scholar; Seattle, Washington
-coffee and tea break-
2:15 - 3:00 Terry Ross, independent scholar; Baltimore, Maryland
3:00 - 3:45 The Rev'd John Baker, independent scholar; Centralia,
Washington
-coffee and tea break-
4:00 - 4:30 Dr Eric Altschuler, Assistant Director of the Brain and
Perception Laboratory of the Institute for Neural Computation at the
University of California, San Diego; and William Jansen, independent
scholar from Forest Grove, Oregon
4:30 - 5:30 Dr Daniel Wright, Professor of English Literature at
Concordia University
* * * * * * * * * *
(unquote)
bookburn
I again apologize for this series of errors. bookburn
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
|
| "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in
message
| news:w4GdndaRgJx...@comcast.com...
| | "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote
| |
| | > I hesitate to advertise details about the upcoming Shakespeare
| | > Fellowship Conference in Baltimore that Lynne has given notice,
| but I
| | > was curious to see what the cost of admission is and found the
| | > following registration details, in case one needs to figure out
| how
| | > many credit cards to carry there. Doesn't include hotel or
| | > transportation, of course. Seems like a jolly bash to me.
Cedar
| | > plank smoked salmon would be nice. bookburn
bookburn
date of April with the coming SFC in October. Sorry.
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
|
| "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
| | I hesitate to advertise details about the upcoming Shakespeare
| | Fellowship Conference in Baltimore that Lynne has given notice,
but
| I
|
| I ought to have hesitated more and rechecked my data because is
seems
| the details I found apply to a strangely parallel but different
event,
| not in Baltimore but in Portland on the same dates: namely, The
| Shakespeare AUTHORSHIP Studies Conference. Both conferences are
| Oxfordian oriented, I believe, and for the same $195 offer unique
| experiences, if on opposite sides of the continent. I add
| supplementary information below.
|
| | was curious to see what the cost of admission is and found the
| | following registration details, in case one needs to figure out
how
| | many credit cards to carry there. Doesn't include hotel or
| | transportation, of course. Seems like a jolly bash to me. Cedar
| | plank smoked salmon would be nice. bookburn
| |
LynnE
bb, the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference is in APRIL. I know
because I have to figure out a way to get there after speaking in Montreal
for two days right before it begins. I won't even have time to come home.
Anyone who goes to Portland, OR in October will feel pretty lonely.
Especially as the Shakespeare Authorship conference chair will be in
Baltimore with us. Probably eating salmon. It's on the menu. ;)
Sorry about your cold.
Lynne
>
> bookburn
> |
> |
>
>
LynnE
Thank you.
Lynne
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10ljjkj...@corp.supernews.com...
bookburn
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:SZj6d.6933$MD5.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Yes, I realized my mistake when I thought I saw Dr. Stritmatter on
both agendas and wondered if the Oxford Movement couldn't be better
arranged. Shakespeare might have made something out of my confusion
of places, times, identities, and agendas, but the audience would have
to be a bit doped up to follow the plots. bb
Greg Reynolds
LynnE wrote:
>That's ok, bb. You gave us all some lovely publicity.
>Thank you.
>Lynne
>
>
STEP RIGHT UP to the SFC
Shakespeare Fantasy Camp
Baltimore, October 7-10
NAME
your own Shakespeare!
No one will care at SFC
INBREED
with other Oxfordians on vacation!
Who could disagree?
LEAVE
your troubles (with the historical record) behind!
(Be polite to Terry and maybe he'll just go away.)
QUOTE
each other!
(No one else does.)
ACT
smart in front of fellow-ignorers!
(what's a little intellectual property theft among fellowes?)
I'll have the bumper stickers delivered to the courtesy tent.
Greg Reynolds
LynnE
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
news:415A2F7F...@core.com...
Thanks very much, Greg. Very thoughtful of you. :)
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
>
>
>
Art Neuendorffer
> STEP RIGHT UP to the SFC
> Shakespeare Fantasy Camp
> Baltimore, October 7-10
>
> NAME your own Shakespeare!
> No one will care at SFC
>
> INBREED with other Oxfordians on vacation!
> Who could disagree?
>
> LEAVE your troubles (with the historical record) behind!
> (Be polite to Terry and maybe he'll just go away.)
Sir BeDEVERE(Terry Jones) stands on a stage
Crowd Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BeDEVERE How do you know she is a Witch?
<<and Sancho, examining him more and more closely, exclaimed aloud
in a voice of amazement, "Holy Mary be good to me!
"TOM CECIL I am, gossip and friend Sancho Panza;
and I'll tell you presently the means and tricks and falsehoods
by which I have been brought here;
but in the meantime, beg and entreat of your master
not to touch, maltreat, wound, or slay
the Knight of the Mirrors whom he has at his feet;>>
> I'll have the bumper stickers delivered to the courtesy tent.
<<I AM, that is to say I was, a great man, but I am neither the author
of Junius nor the man in the mask, for my name, I believe, is Robert
Jones, and I was born somewhere in the city of Fum-Fudge.
The first action of my life was the taking hold of my NOSE with
"Sir," he replied, after a pause. "Donner und Blitzen!"
This was all that could be desired. We exchanged cards. At
cards. At Chalk-Farm, the next morning, I shot off his NOSE-
and then called upon my friends.
"Bete!" said the first.
"Fool!" said the second.
"Dolt!" said the third.
"Ass!" said the fourth.
"Ninny!" said the fifth.
"Noodle!" said the sixth.
"Be off!" said the seventh.
At all this I felt mortified, and so called upon my father.
"Father," I asked, "what is the chief end of my existence?"
"My son," he replied, "it is still the study of NOSOLOGY; but in
hitting the Elector upon the NOSE you have overshot your mark.
<<On Nov. 16, 1590 the Burbages had a visit from a party with a major
grievance. His sister-in-law, the WIDOW of his partner, John Brayne, who
financed the building of the Red Lion and later helped finance the
building of the Theatre, brought some friends with her to complain that
old James Burbage was not paying the money due to her. According to the
testimony of one witness, the eldest brother of Edward Alleyn he accused
first James and then his wife of abusing the WIDOW from their WInDOW,
then found "the aforesaid Richard, the younest son of the said James
Burbage there, with a broomstaff in his hand". Another testiony said
that the twenty-three year old Richard beat one of Mrs. Brayne's backers
with it, and threatened a second by "scornifully and disdainfully
PLAYING WITH HIS NOSE".>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOLOFERNES:
let me supervise the canzonet. Here are only numbers ratified;
but, for the elegancy, facility, and golden cadence of poesy,
caret. OVIDIUS NASO was the man.
NOSE, n. [AS. NOSu; akin to D. NEUS, G. NASE,
OHG. NASA, Russ. NOS', L. NASUS, nares.]
-------------------------------------------------------------
NASO, Publius Ovidius
NASUS => L. NOSE
poeta NASCItur non fit : a poet is born not made
NASIER, alcofribas
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCOIS RABELAIS wrote under
the pseudonym ALCOFRIBAS NASIER
---------------------------------------------------------------
April 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
1553 (Sunday) - FRANCOIS RABELAIS dies
1626 (Easter) - frANciS (ba)cOn dies from freezing chicken
(close clustering of Mars, Uranus, Mercury, Venus & Sun)
1747 (Thursday)- Jacobite SIMON frASer, 12th baron Lovat
- the last man beheaded in England
'SIMON' is Greek for 'snub-NOSEd'
----------------------------------------------------------------
N(ovus)O(rdo)SE(clorem) => "a new order of the ages."
-------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> (1) "St. Jean-Baptiste pròchant" ("St. John the Baptist Preaching"!)
> (2) "L'hOMme au NEZ cassï" ("The Man with the Broken NOSE")
> (3) "Le Petit hOMme au NEZ cassï"
----------------------------------------------------------
LOM(break)O-NOS(NOSE)OV
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Webb wrote about a Russian with illiterater parents:
> philosopher, and reformer of real distinction whose entire family
> was illiterate, and who was in fact often beaten for his attempts
> to teach himself reading, mathematics, and science:
>
> Mikhail Vasilyevich LomoNOSov(1711-1765)
>
> In particular, LomoNOSov is regarded, along with Derzhavin, as one of the
> early shapers of Russian poetic language, before the golden age of Pushkin,
> so LomoNOSov certainly counts as a famous writer, although writing was not
> his chief concern; indeed, as I recall, LomoNOSov is one of the earliest
> poets anthologized in the OXFORD Book of Russian Verse. I've already
> posted a lengthy but still woefully incomplete summary of the improbable
> achievements of this remarkably gifted man!
> . . . the Russian root "lom" means "break" (the infinitive "lomat'" means
> "to break"), and "NOS" means "NOSE"! (The final "-ov" is just the standard
> masculine genitive plural ending.) Wasn't Hiram Abif's NOSE broken by
------------------------------------------------------------------
LoMo-NOS-ov(id)
LM(N)OP => PO(N)ML
P(ublius) O(vidius) N(aso)
"the sweet witty soul of OVID lies in...Shakespear."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freemason contemporaries of LomoNOSov:
---------------------------------------------------------------
March 18, 1314 Jacques(pere) DeMolay burned to death.
March 18, 1564 Shaks(pere) born (250 years later!)
March 18, 1584 Ivan (John) the Terrible dies.
March 18, 1768 Laurence (Guilden?)Sterne [_Tristram Shandy_] dies:
"He put up his hand as if to stop a BLOW,
and died in a minute."
------------------------------------------------------------------
_Tristram Shandy_ on (broken) NOSES:
for unless they practise it,--they must fall upon their NOSES.>>
upon his GROIN.--You may raise a system to account for
the loss of my NOSE by marriage-articles,
--and shew the world how it could happen, that
I should have the misfortune to be called Tristram>>
which was the year before I was born, my mother having
carried my father up to town much against the grain,
--he peremptorily insisted upon the clause;-
-so that I was doom'd, by marriage-articles,
to have my NOSE squeez'd as flat to my face,
as if the destinies had actually spun me without one.
How this event came about,--and what a train of vexatious
disappointments, in one stage or other of my life, have pursued me
of a pun, more cordially than my father;--he would grow testy upon it
was as bad, he would say, as a fillip upon the NOSE;>>
and ever will be! had that trial been for thee, and it was fifty
(at least by the depression of thy NOSE) as they have been;>>
TRAVELLERS (in the learned sciences at least) must have groped
--some falling with their NOSES perpendicularly into sinks>>
-`` Because,'' replied my great grandmother,
-- to avoid all confusion in what will be said upon it, in this
interesting part of my story, it may not be amiss to explain my own
meaning, and define, with all possible exactness and precision, what I
would willingly be understood to mean by the term. . .I define a NOSE
as follows, ---- intreating only beforehand, and beseeching my readers,
both male and female, of what age, complexion, and condition soever, for
the love of God and their own souls, to guard against the temptations
and suggestions of the devil, and suffer him by no art or wile to put
any other ideas into their minds, than what I put into my definition.
---- For by the word NOSE, throughout all this long chapter of NOSES,
and in every other part of my work, where the word NOSE occurs,
-- I declare, by that word I mean a NOSE, and nothing more, or less.
again, --- `` you have little or no `` NOSE, Sir'' ---- S'death ! cried
my great grandfather, clapping his hand upon his NOSE, -- 'tis not
--------------------------------------------------------
NOSE, n. [AS. NOSu; akin to D. NEUS, G. NASE,
OHG. NASA, Russ. NOS', L. NASUS, nares.]
--------------------------------------------------------
Art NEUS (NOAA not NASA)
David L. Webb
Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote:
[...]
> STEP RIGHT UP to the SFC
> Shakespeare Fantasy Camp
> Baltimore, October 7-10
LOL! Don't rub it in, Greg -- I was already crestfallen that I could
not attend when I saw that Art was on the program.
> NAME
> your own Shakespeare!
> No one will care at SFC
>
> INBREED
> with other Oxfordians on vacation!
> Who could disagree?
>
> LEAVE
> your troubles (with the historical record) behind!
> (Be polite to Terry and maybe he'll just go away.)
Terry is no threat to most of the Fellowshippers -- after all, his
arguments are sane and historical. Many Fellowshippers appear to prefer
arguments that are insane and hysterical.
> QUOTE
> each other!
> (No one else does.)
>
> ACT
> smart in front of fellow-ignorers!
> (what's a little intellectual property theft among fellowes?)
>
> I'll have the bumper stickers delivered to the courtesy tent.
> Greg Reynolds
I'm not sure that there will be room, Greg -- I fear that the tent
may already be in use for storing the complimentary copies of Brame and
Popova's complete works, the copies of Dr. Stritmatter's thesis, the
Streitz for Senate paraphernalia, and of course the pig bladders.
But there are even more entertaining events in store. Did you see
the program that Bookburn posted for Wright's conference? That event
features the President of the Mary Sidney Society, the Earl of Burford
(who will be presented with an award for "scholarly excellence"!), and
our own Revd. "Dr." Faker. It's really a pity that it's on the wrong
coast.
Ken Kaplan
scholarship. (The image of young Will with Campion just makes my eyes
moist.) When Oxfordians speculate its called fantasy. I call your
behavior hypocricy.
P.S. Mr Webb, Greenblatt writes the following in "Will in the world".
" In the words of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, words deeply
familiar to Shakespeare and his contemporaries from endless repetition
in church, "The eye hath not seen, and the ear hath not heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man" those things that God has prepared
(I Corinthians 2:9 , from the Bishops' Bible, (1568), _the version
Shakespeare knew and used most often."_
Even Terry Ross couldn't support that one. Ross also added, "Here is
an odder case: in Hamlet in Purgatory, Greenblatt, while discussing
Thomas More's Supplication of Souls, quotes 2 Maccabees in what
appears to be the King James version."
I expect a week long rant a la Stritmatter over the "Mary" mistake for
this if you have any consistency.
BTW, in answer to your denigration of Dan Wright months ago,(as long
as I'm here), the supposition that publication in supposedly
prestigious Statfordian journals is prerequisite for wisdom regarding
an issue is ludicrous. If you want to criticize an article on its
merit, fine. To throw up a stupid red herring like that has nothing to
do with the issue at hand.
First, Stratfordian journals usually don't print articles with Anti
Stratfordian slants, although Richmond Crinkley in the Shakespeare
Quarterly was a departure. Dan's article dealt very thoroughly with an
opinion that showed the improbability of Shakespeare being a strong,
Catholic, (or secret Catholic, or with strong Catholic leanings) as
supposed by some current critics. Secondly, since the Folger now
includes Shakespeare Matters as part of its inventory, your argument
has no merit even on its own terms.
Why don't you come to the Fellowship site and duke it out a little.
I'd like to see you without your "gang" behind you and only Art to
pick on. Puck, puck.
Ken Kaplan
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message news:<david.l.webb-BF53...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
David L. Webb
kenka...@yahoo.com (Ken Kaplan) wrote:
> When Greenblatt or Wood et al write "imaginative biography' its [sic] called
> scholarship. (The image of young Will with Campion just makes my eyes
> moist.) When Oxfordians speculate its [sic] called fantasy. I call your
> behavior hypocricy [sic].
Then you're the only one. I doubt that even most Oxfordians would
call it "hypocricy."
> P.S. Mr Webb, Greenblatt writes the following in "Will in the world".
> " In the words of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, words deeply
> familiar to Shakespeare and his contemporaries from endless repetition
> in church, "The eye hath not seen, and the ear hath not heard, neither
> have entered into the heart of man" those things that God has prepared
> (I Corinthians 2:9 , from the Bishops' Bible, (1568), _the version
> Shakespeare knew and used most often."_
>
> Even Terry Ross couldn't support that one. Ross also added, "Here is
> an odder case: in Hamlet in Purgatory, Greenblatt, while discussing
> Thomas More's Supplication of Souls, quotes 2 Maccabees in what
> appears to be the King James version."
>
> I expect a week long rant a la Stritmatter over the "Mary" mistake for
> this if you have any consistency.
If you think that that confusion is a howler on a par with confusing
Mary Tudor with Mary, Queen of Scots (to a student of Tudor/Stuart
history, such a gaffe is roughly comparable to a student of American
history confusing Abraham Lincoln with Lincoln Rockwell), then I can
only marvel.
> BTW, in answer to your denigration of Dan Wright months ago,
To what "denigration" are you referring? If you mean the following,
then I invite you read it again and tell me wherein lies any
"denigration":
"Whether the Rev. Dr. Wright's article was 'very strong' [quoting Ken
Kaplan] is not a matter that I am readily able to judge, as Dr.
Wright's article appears in a very limited-circulation 'subscribers
only' forum to which I am denied access. It is not available at
Dartmouth (although since well before the time of Prof. Benezet
there has been a large and most amusing collection of
anti-Stratfordian resources here). Moreover, 'Shakespeare Matters'
is not, as far as I can tell, subscribed to by any reputable
research library in my vicinity (a superficially similar item in
Harvard's Widener Library, _Shakespeare matters: history, teaching,
performance_, edited by Lloyd Davis, appears to be something
altogether different). Nor does "Shakespeare Matters" appear to be
available at any of Brandeis, Northeastern, Tufts, Boston University,
the University of Vermont, Middlebury, etc. Nor does "Shakespeare
Matters" seem to be available in research libraries much farther
afield, including those of the University of Chicago and even the
entire University of California system. Remarkably (or perhaps not),
even Dr. Wright's home institution evidently does not subscribe to
"Shakespeare Matters." Why Dr. Wright would choose such an obscure
journal of such limited availability for a 'very strong article' is
a mystery to me, but there is no accounting for authorial taste."
Note that I said that I *could not judge* whether the article was in
fact "very strong" (your words), because it appears in a very obscure
members-only forum to which I do not have access and to which no
reputable research library known to me within my vicinity subscribes.
> (as long
> as I'm here), the supposition that publication in supposedly
> prestigious Statfordian journals is prerequisite for wisdom regarding
> an issue is ludicrous.
I never made any such claim. You must be confusing me with someone
else. Indeed, I know of a few scientists who have published very little
but are nonetheless regarded as world-class. However, where matters of
originality, sound methodology, and even factual accuracy are concerned,
it is hard to imagine a substitute for rigorous peer review by experts
in the field (I don't doubt some Oxfordians' originality; it is their
methodology and their factual accuracy that I sometimes question).
Indeed, in the few cases I know of world-class scientists with very few
publications, those individuals have achieved world renown by virtue of
their visibility in the eyes of their peers, many of whom know quite
well their enormous behind-the-scenes contributions to the solutions of
very important problems. I know of no comparable anti-Stratfordian who
enjoys the universal high esteem of the Shakespeare experts, but I admit
that I don't travel much in Oxfordian circles, so I might be overlooking
someone.
> If you want to criticize an article on its
> merit, fine.
I have not criticized *any* article on its merits, with the exception
of Dr. Stritmatter's thesis and the ridiculous Altschuler preprint. As
I already noted at least twice, I have *not read* and hence *cannot
comment* upon the strength of the "very strong" article of Dr. Wright to
which you allude, because it does not appear in an accessible forum.
Dr. Stritmatter's thesis and the Altschuler preprint have the advantage
of being readily accessible, the former via Proquest, the latter in the
free and publicly accessible Los Alamos preprint archive. As I said,
*why* Dr. Wright chose to submit his work where he did is a mystery to
me, but I know of monumental scientific papers that appear in odd
places. I simply conclude -- again -- that there is no accounting for
authorial taste.
> To throw up a stupid red herring like that has nothing to
> do with the issue at hand.
First, there is no "red herring" except in your fevered imagination,
and second, I trust that I did not "throw up" one because I am not in
the habit of dining upon such fare in the first place.
> First, Stratfordian journals
The notion of a "Stratfordian" journal is itself ludicrous.
> usually don't print articles with Anti
> Stratfordian slants, although Richmond Crinkley in the Shakespeare
> Quarterly was a departure. Dan's article dealt very thoroughly with an
> opinion that showed the improbability of Shakespeare being a strong,
> Catholic, (or secret Catholic, or with strong Catholic leanings) as
> supposed by some current critics.
It sounds most interesting. If so, it's even more of a pity that the
article appeared in a very limited-circulation "subscribers only" forum
to which I am denied access and is therefore apparently unavailable even
in the best university research libraries.
> Secondly, since the Folger now
> includes Shakespeare Matters as part of its inventory, your argument
> has no merit even on its own terms.
Regrettably, I reside far enough away from the Folger Library that I
cannot conveniently avail myself of its presence there. Indeed, I doubt
that I could do so even if I lived next door -- I suspect that the
Folger requires would-be users to submit scholarly credentials, of which
I possess none, in order to gain access to its collection.
> Why don't you come to the Fellowship site and duke it out a little.
Because I am unwilling to pay the dues.
> I'd like to see you without your "gang"
What "gang"? You are veering perilously close to paranoia.
> behind you and only Art to
> pick on.
"Only Art"?! You very seriously underestimate him.
> Puck, puck.
I have no idea what you are gibbering about here. If you have in
mind the only sense of the word that makes much sense in this context,
then it is wildly amiss, as I have never claimed any expertise whatever.
In any case, I can only encourage you again to seek help in managing
your misdirected and apparently ungovernable anger.
If you wish to attend the conference and listen to "armature"
scholars like the Revd. "Dr." Faker, who suspects that the Apollo lunar
landing was a gigantic NASA-perpetrated hoax, who thinks that he has
"solved" Fermat's Last Theorem (and incidentally that Franck wrote an
organ symphony), and who fakes his academic credentials, then by all
means do so -- don't let me deter you. I would attend myself if I
could, as the event promises to be quite entertaining.
John W. Kennedy
> I suspect that the
> Folger requires would-be users to submit scholarly credentials, of which
> I possess none, in order to gain access to its collection.
A PhD, or at least a PhD candidacy and a letter of recommendation, if I
recall aright. I had a devil of a time getting at the Dublin printing of
"Double Falshood"; theirs is one of only two copies I know of, and the
other is in New Zealand. They finally sent me a microfilm.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
David L. Webb
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> David L. Webb wrote:
> > I suspect that the
> > Folger requires would-be users to submit scholarly credentials, of which
> > I possess none, in order to gain access to its collection.
> A PhD, or at least a PhD candidacy and a letter of recommendation,
That's more or less what I would expect. I suspect that the Folger
Library might look askance at a Ph.D. in mathematics, at least in the
absence of evidence of any scholarly competence in areas pertaining to
Shakespeare studies.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > I suspect that the Folger requires
> > > would-be users to submit scholarly credentials, of which
> > > I possess none, in order to gain access to its collection.
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > A PhD, or at least a PhD candidacy and a letter of recommendation,
------------------------------------------
<<Lynne Kositsky has Bachelors' degrees in Psychology and Education, a
Master's degree in English, and various honors specialist teaching diplomas
in English and Drama>>
------------------------------------------
From: Lynne (lynnek...@sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Shakespeare Trust invades Baltimore...
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 2004-04-23 16:40:43 PST
The Folger's wasn't aware we were spies and we gained
access this afternoon, tellingly enough on the birthday
(maybe) of Shakespeare of Stratford.
I can now say (and this is an absolute thrill)
that I've held in my hand, or at least touched
A first folio
The Edward de Vere Geneva Bible
The Bishops Bible of Elizabeth I--very big, for a pulpit, I believe
Emilia Bassano Lanyer's first edition
of her book of poetry, _Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum_
Sigh. Mouse
------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> That's more or less what I would expect. I suspect that the Folger
> Library might look askance at a Ph.D. in mathematics, at least
> in the absence of evidence of any scholarly competence
> in areas pertaining to Shakespeare studies.
An absence of evidence is not necessarily
evidence of absence...but in your case...
(Not to mention the fact that they'd have to
watch their painting collection very carefully.)
Art Neuendorffer
Lynne
> In article <ge27d.15753$kq6.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> > > I suspect that the
> > > Folger requires would-be users to submit scholarly credentials, of which
> > > I possess none, in order to gain access to its collection.
>
> > A PhD, or at least a PhD candidacy and a letter of recommendation,
>
> That's more or less what I would expect. I suspect that the Folger
> Library might look askance at a Ph.D. in mathematics, at least in the
> absence of evidence of any scholarly competence in areas pertaining to
> Shakespeare studies.
I have found the Folger very friendly and accommodating, David, and
have been in myself, although I do not have a PhD in English.
Lynne
Terry Ross
> When Greenblatt or Wood et al write "imaginative biography' its called
> scholarship.
Greenblatt's book does not contain the apparatus one finds in his more
scholarly work; it is written for a different audience.
> (The image of young Will with Campion just makes my eyes moist.) When
> Oxfordians speculate its called fantasy. I call your behavior hypocricy.
It is the sheerest fantasy to pretend that Oxford wrote the works of
Shakespeare. The historical evidence for Shakespeare's authorship of his
works is superior to what we have for most authors of his time. Readers
would, of course, like to know more about the person who wrote
Shakespeare's works -- that does not mean there is any serious doubt about
Shakespeare's having written the great bulk of the works generally
attributed to him, but there are many things we do not know about this
man. It is a perfectly legitimate project to attempt to flesh out the
details we do have, but such a "fleshing out" is necessarily speculative.
The question for readers is whether Greenblatt's imaginative biography is
plausible -- whether is is, indeed, more plausible than other such
attempts to flesh out the details we have about William Shakespeare, the
man who wrote the works credited to him.
No Oxfordian tract that pretends Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works is in
the same category as Greenblatt's book.
>
> P.S. Mr Webb, Greenblatt writes the following in "Will in the world".
> " In the words of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, words deeply
> familiar to Shakespeare and his contemporaries from endless repetition
> in church, "The eye hath not seen, and the ear hath not heard, neither
> have entered into the heart of man" those things that God has prepared
> (I Corinthians 2:9 , from the Bishops' Bible, (1568), _the version
> Shakespeare knew and used most often."_
>
> Even Terry Ross couldn't support that one. Ross also added, "Here is
> an odder case: in Hamlet in Purgatory, Greenblatt, while discussing
> Thomas More's Supplication of Souls, quotes 2 Maccabees in what
> appears to be the King James version."
>
Let me post in full what I wrote to the SF boards on this point:
==================================
I was surprised to see [Greenblatt's reference to the Bishop's Bible], but
this is not the only surprise in the book -- for instance, I was also
surprised to see that Greenblatt credits the younger Martin Droeshout for
the First Folio portrait rather than his uncle.
There are relatively few of Shakespeare's Biblical allusions of which we
can say, "this has to be a reference to version X rather than any other
version," but among that small number, the Geneva seems more often to be
the version alluded to. As Naseeb Shaheen, the standard authority in this
area says,
"although the Geneva Bible may have been the version that Shakespeare knew
best and which he seems to refer to most often, the influence of other
versions is also clearly evident, and no one version can be called
'Shakespeare's Bible.' In addition to the Geneva, Shakespeare may have
owned a Bishops' Bible or even one of the earlier versions." [*Biblical
References in Shakespeare's Plays*, 44].
Notice how Shaheen qualifies his assessment of the Geneva with "may" and
"seems." More commonly, the Geneva is assumed to be Shakespeare's default
version, which is a useful oversimplification. I don't know of any recent
article making a case for the Bishop's Bible as "the version Shakespeare
knew and used most often," and no supporting citation is given for
Greenblatt's comment about the Bishop's Bible.
I like to see the footnotes. If Norton doesn't want to print notes for
Greenblatt's text because the book is intended for the "general reader,"
then the notes should be put online.
Nothing in Greenblatt's book rides on Shakespeare's having used the
Bishops' rather than the Geneva, or vice versa, but he nevertheless should
have been more careful.
Here is an odder case: in Hamlet in Purgatory, Greenblatt, while
discussing Thomas More's *Supplication of Souls*, quotes 2 Maccabees in
what appears to be the King James version.
==================================
Ken had said, "I thought it was well established that the Geneva was the
author's preferred source." As I have already noted, the leading scholar
in the field says, "no one version can be called 'Shakespeare's Bible.'"
A better case can be made for Shakespeare's having preferred the Geneva
Bible, but if Ken were actually to read Shaheen, he would see how few
instances there are where a distinctively Genevan text seems to be the
source.
Let's go back to Greenblatt's example. He presents the Bishop's version of
the first part of 1 Corinthians 2.9 (to which Shakespeare alludes in *A
Midsummer Night's Dream*), and gives his paraphrase for the rest of the
verse:
"'The eye hath not seen, and the ear hath not heard, neither have entered
into the heart of man'" those things that God has prepared."
Here is the Geneva version of the same verse:
"But as it is written, The thinges which eye hath not seene, neither eare
hath heard, neither came into mans heart, are, which God hath prepared for
them that loue him."
Here is Bottom: "The eye of man hath not heard, the eare of man hath not
seene, mans hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceiue, nor his
hearte to report, what my dreame was."
Clearly IN THIS CASE, Shakespeare's allusion is closer to the Bishop's
than to the Geneva, and in fact one finds this to be marginally the case
throughout the comedies as a whole, although one finds more distinctively
Genevan allusions in the other plays.
Ken also said, "I also wonder if the Geneva made Greenblatt uncomfortable
because it is a Protestant Bilble and he places so much emphasis on the
Catholic issue."
Ken, I hate to break it to you, but the Bishops' Bible WAS a Protestant
Bible.
> I expect a week long rant a la Stritmatter over the "Mary" mistake for
> this if you have any consistency.
Do you mean the multiple instances where Mary Queen of Scots and Queen
Mary of England are mistaken for each other? There is no comparison
between the cases. The Bishops' Bible does seem to have been a version
Shakespeare sometimes preferred (in fact, in the comedies, there are more
distinctively Bishops' allusions than distinctively Genevan allusions),
although IF one were going to name one "preferred version" (which would in
itself probably be a mistake), the Genevan is a somewhat better choice.
In the particular case Greenblatt gives, the Bishops' version is clearly
closer than the Genevan to what we find in Shakespeare, and it would have
been a mistake for him to have quoted the Geneva as if it were
Shakespeare's source in this case.
Since you brought up the issue of Roger's Mary-Mary confusion of a few
years ago, let us look again at two passages from his dissertation:
"In reaction, counter-reformationist plots swirled thickly about Mary
Queen of Scots, Elizabeth I's Spanish half-sister and Catholic heir to
Henry VIII. As Elizabeth fretted over and deferred the execution of her
sister, Mary's cousin, the Spanish King Phillip II, aided by powerful
English nobles such as Oxford's antagonist Charles Arundel, prepared for
military conquest and counter-reformation" (Roger's dissertation, p. 60).
"Only after the 1587 execution of the Scots Queen, Elizabeth's own
half-sister Mary Stuart, was her reign secured, and even then the price of
security was high" (186).
As you now know, Mary Queen of Scots was never Queen of England; Mary
Queen of Scots was not "Elizabeth I's Spanish half-sister" (not that Mary
Tudor was Spanish -- this would be like calling King Edward VII "German"
because his mother's consort had been German); Mary Queen of Scots was not
"Catholic heir to Henry VIII."
>
> BTW, in answer to your denigration of Dan Wright months ago,(as long
> as I'm here), the supposition that publication in supposedly
> prestigious Statfordian journals is prerequisite for wisdom regarding
> an issue is ludicrous. If you want to criticize an article on its
> merit, fine. To throw up a stupid red herring like that has nothing to
> do with the issue at hand.
>
> First, Stratfordian journals usually don't print articles with Anti
> Stratfordian slants, although Richmond Crinkley in the Shakespeare
> Quarterly was a departure.
That was a review, not a scholarly essay, and it certainly was a
departure.
> Dan's article dealt very thoroughly
How would you know?
> with an opinion that showed the improbability of Shakespeare being a
> strong, Catholic, (or secret Catholic, or with strong Catholic leanings)
> as supposed by some current critics.
Strong scholarly counters to the "Catholic Shakespeare" view that have
been published in refereed journals, and the debate shows no sign of
stopping. Can you enlighten us about Dan's distinctive contribution to
the debate?
> Secondly, since the Folger now includes Shakespeare Matters as part of
> its inventory, your argument has no merit even on its own terms.
The Folger maintains an excellent collection of antistratfordiana. Of
course the overwhelming majority of it is worthless as literary history or
criticism, but it is not without a certain sociological interest.
>
> Why don't you come to the Fellowship site and duke it out a little.
Connoisseurs of the sweet science can find better venues; in fact, "duking
it out" would be frowned on at the SF site.
> I'd like to see you without your "gang" behind you and only Art to
> pick on. Puck, puck.
HLAS is an unmoderated forum. You can say whatever you like here (I can
even discuss Price here), but you may also find disagreements.
As for the odder case of Greenblatt's seeming to quote 2 Maccabees from
the King James when discussing More's *Supplication of Souls*, the truly
odd thing is that Greenblatt quotes a passage that includes a verse
rejected by Protestants, 2 Mac 12.46 (the earlier verses in the passage
seemed to match the KJV). Thomas More would surely have quoted the
Vulgate, so one would have expected a modern editor to use either the
Douay-Rheims or a fresh translation. I will check the edition of More that
Greenblatt cites to see what is going on here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Kathman
> In article <ge27d.15753$kq6.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> > > I suspect that the
> > > Folger requires would-be users to submit scholarly credentials, of which
> > > I possess none, in order to gain access to its collection.
>
> > A PhD, or at least a PhD candidacy and a letter of recommendation,
>
> That's more or less what I would expect. I suspect that the Folger
> Library might look askance at a Ph.D. in mathematics, at least in the
> absence of evidence of any scholarly competence in areas pertaining to
> Shakespeare studies.
What you actually need are two letters of recommendation from
reputable people who will attest that you're a serious scholar who
would benefit from access to the collection. In theory, you're
supposed to have a Ph.D or be a Ph.D candidate, but in practice that's
not necessary if you can get two letter-writers to vouch for you. A
couple of years ago I helped a friend of mine without a Ph.D get a
Folger reading room card, and was able to do so with no apparent
problem because I told them that this guy knows more about Elizabethan
actors and playwrights than most professionals.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
Unless the Folger Library has any da Vincis or Poussins in its
collection, there would be little need for such caution, Art. (It's
true that the Ashbourne portrait formerly presented a vexing problem,
but the Grand Master deftly arranged for that problem to be fixed.)
biancas842001
<Pine.GSO.4.61.0410010920270.5064@mail>, Terry Ross wrote:
[snip]
> Let me post in full what I wrote to the SF boards on this point:
>
> ==================================
[snip]
>
> Do you mean the multiple instances where Mary Queen of Scots and Queen
> Mary of England are mistaken for each other? There is no comparison
> between the cases. The Bishops' Bible does seem to have been a version
> Shakespeare sometimes preferred (in fact, in the comedies, there are more
> distinctively Bishops' allusions than distinctively Genevan allusions),
> although IF one were going to name one "preferred version" (which would in
> itself probably be a mistake), the Genevan is a somewhat better choice.
> In the particular case Greenblatt gives, the Bishops' version is clearly
> closer than the Genevan to what we find in Shakespeare, and it would have
> been a mistake for him to have quoted the Geneva as if it were
> Shakespeare's source in this case.
>
> Since you brought up the issue of Roger's Mary-Mary confusion of a few
> years ago, let us look again at two passages from his dissertation:
>
> "In reaction, counter-reformationist plots swirled thickly about Mary
> Queen of Scots, Elizabeth I's Spanish half-sister and Catholic heir to
> Henry VIII. As Elizabeth fretted over and deferred the execution of her
> sister, Mary's cousin, the Spanish King Phillip II, aided by powerful
> English nobles such as Oxford's antagonist Charles Arundel, prepared for
> military conquest and counter-reformation" (Roger's dissertation, p. 60).
>
> "Only after the 1587 execution of the Scots Queen, Elizabeth's own
> half-sister Mary Stuart, was her reign secured, and even then the price of
> security was high" (186).
I had seen some of your posts on this on HLAS, Terry, but I'd had no
idea the mistake was this bad. An innocent confusion or misreading is
one thing, but this appears very much like a reasoned argument, which
can only have been constructed consciously and intentionally by an
author. I have never seen anything like what Dr. Stritmatter writes
here, anywhere. To defend such a mistake, in my opinion, is
unconscionable. I do not believe anything can justify that.
----
Bianca Steele
Paul Crowley
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Ken Kaplan wrote:
> > (The image of young Will with Campion just makes my eyes moist.) When
> > Oxfordians speculate its called fantasy. I call your behavior hypocricy.
>
> It is the sheerest fantasy to pretend that Oxford wrote the works of
> Shakespeare.
Why?
> The historical evidence for Shakespeare's authorship of his
> works is superior to what we have for most authors of his time.
a) That is quite untrue. b) Shakespeare
was not one of the group "most authors
of his time".
> Readers
> would, of course, like to know more about the person who wrote
> Shakespeare's works -- that does not mean there is any serious doubt about
> Shakespeare's having written the great bulk of the works generally
> attributed to him,
It is the sheerest fantasy to claim
(i) that such a great poet and playwright
could have had illiterate parents;
(ii) that he could have been responsible
for illiterate children;
(iii) that his work was produced for the
(mostly illiterate) masses;
(iv) that he could have produced that
work (of such a risky political and social
nature) without the personal backing from
the highest authority in the land
. . . . and so on and on and on
> but there are many things we do not know about this
> man. It is a perfectly legitimate project to attempt to flesh out the
> details we do have, but such a "fleshing out" is necessarily speculative.
> The question for readers is whether Greenblatt's imaginative biography is
> plausible -- whether is is, indeed, more plausible than other such
> attempts to flesh out the details we have about William Shakespeare, the
> man who wrote the works credited to him.
The most immediately obvious aspect
of every one of these 'imaginative
biographies' is their complete lack of
plausibility. Every one is a complete
failure, reflecting nothing but currently
fashionable theories. All of them rapidly
turn into objects of derision -- among
Stratfordian academics as well as with
everyone else.
> No Oxfordian tract that pretends Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works is in
> the same category as Greenblatt's book.
Oxfordians would be ashamed to attach
their names to that class of rubbish.
Indeed, there is nothing that remotely
matches the nature of this 'enterprise'
anywhere in the realms of serious or semi-
serious work produced by academics or
'scholars'. It's as though we had highly
respected historians regularly writing
'imaginative biographies' of King Arthur
and his Knights of the Round Table, or
reputable archaeologists producing
'imaginative' work on Atlantis or on the
'True Ark of the Covenant'.
Were we, in fact, ever to see such 'work',
we would know that the discipline in
question had quite lost its way. Were we
then to learn that it had done little else, in
its history of a few hundred years, other
than produce 'imaginative' work of that
nature, we would know that it had never
been based on anything but error and
confusion.
Paul.
Art Neuendorffer
> > I expect a week long rant a la Stritmatter over the "Mary"
> > mistake for this if you have any consistency.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> If you think that that confusion is a howler on a par with confusing
> Mary Tudor with Mary, Queen of Scots (to a student of Tudor/Stuart
> history, such a gaffe is roughly comparable to a student of American
> history confusing Abraham Lincoln with Lincoln Rockwell),
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.arton5th.com/rockwell/lincoln.html
http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/SLV/NR0255.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Lincoln was assassinated at age 7 x 8
by an unbalanced Virginian gunman named John.
Lincoln Rockwell was assassinated at age 7 x 7
by an unbalanced Virginian gunman named John.
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Mary Tudor & Mary, Queen of Scots:
------------------------------------------------------------
1) Contemporary Catholic British Queens during the 1550's.
2) Eldest daughters of contemporary British Kings
who shared an uncle/nephew relationship.
-----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
dj...@ix.netcom.com (Dave Kathman) wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<david.l.webb-78BA...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
> > In article <ge27d.15753$kq6.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> > "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > David L. Webb wrote:
> > > > I suspect that the
> > > > Folger requires would-be users to submit scholarly credentials, of
> > > > which
> > > > I possess none, in order to gain access to its collection.
> > > A PhD, or at least a PhD candidacy and a letter of recommendation,
> > That's more or less what I would expect. I suspect that the Folger
> > Library might look askance at a Ph.D. in mathematics, at least in the
> > absence of evidence of any scholarly competence in areas pertaining to
> > Shakespeare studies.
> What you actually need are two letters of recommendation from
> reputable people who will attest that you're a serious scholar who
> would benefit from access to the collection.
That makes sense, and is also about what I would expect, but it would
not do me any good in any case -- nobody would confuse me with a serious
scholar! All of which makes it even more puzzling to me that Dr. Wright
chose to bury what Ken Kaplan calls a "very strong" paper in an obscure,
almost universally unavailable publication like "Shakespeare Matters,"
to which even the library of the author's home institution apparently
does not subscribe. I don't doubt Ken's assurance that the Folger
Library subscribes to "Shakespeare Matters" (and perhaps other
Shakespeare Fellowship publications as well), but then the Folger
Library probably has a very complete collection of imaginative
anti-Stratfordian literature, even the Tudor Heir stuff emanating from
the lunatic fringe. I'll bet that even Mr. Streitz's book is in the
Folger collection!
John W. Kennedy
> What you actually need are two letters of recommendation from
> reputable people who will attest that you're a serious scholar who
> would benefit from access to the collection. In theory, you're
> supposed to have a Ph.D or be a Ph.D candidate, but in practice that's
> not necessary if you can get two letter-writers to vouch for you.
I wish I'd known that. I'm only an amateur, of course, but I have
qualified friends.
Maybe I will, someday, at that. A microfilm is no substitute for the
real thing when you're comma-hunting.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"
Ken Kaplan
speak. In plain English you could have said, "I have no way of
assessing whether it is strong or not because it is in a subscription
only forum. If you provide me a copy I will look at it and comment.".
I would reply, then perhaps we'll make it avsailable to you for free
so you could so. Or we could ask Dan to make it public. Wright is a
peer reviewed author of a fine book on Shakespeare and the history
plays.
I subscribe to Salon.com, voted best of the web for years. It is now a
subscription site. There are incredible articles. Gary Kamiya wrote
one of the best essays ever on the eve of the Iraq war. Where it was
published had no bearing on its excellence.
" Why don't you come to the Fellowship site and duke it out a little.
> Because I am unwilling to pay the dues."
The "Authorship Debate" forum is public and free.
No one is asking you to attend the conference. Just an invitation to
discuss on the public board. Ross and Grumman have extensively
participated.
Ken Kaplan
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message news:<david.l.webb-56AF...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
Ken Kaplan
more
> scholarly work; it is written for a different audience."
So its ok to just make it all up. That's what you accuse us of doing.
>
Here's the duplicity of Greenblatt's "approach", mirrored by Duncan
Jones, Honan, Wood, and others.
Greenblatt and others build an enormous structure around the
Shakeshaft "evidence".
Yet here's a more plausible "imaginative biographical scenario".
Will's father was a money lender. One of his best friends was a money
lender. The only extant letter we have written _to_ not _by_ him is
for a loan of _money_. There is a document of a loan _in London_ by
William Shakespeare to Clayton. will was invloved in a sordid fracas
with Langley that got the law involved in 1596. Will became wealthy
very fast. How? From play writing and second tier acting?
All this evidence points strongly to a career in money lending,
whatever his other activities. Therefore a true "imaginative
biography" would have to take this all into account and create a
portion of the life around it and integrate it with the author's works
and persona. At least Duncan Jones gives it a weak nod, although
ignoring the CLayton loan.
Let's see. Its OK to take a name that is NOT "Shakespeare"
(Shakeshaft) and assume its him and build what amounts to a fantasy
around it , but we will take evidence that is consistent with other
evidence with a name that IS his and deny that it is or could be him.
This is the current state of Stratfordian biography. As I have always
claimed, you have a double standard. It is fair to critique Oxfordians
on their perceived weaknesses. It is nonsense to maintain denial of
similar problems in your own back yard.
Ken Kaplan
Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.61.0410010920270.5064@mail>...
Chess One
> > I never made any such claim. You must be confusing me with someone
> > else. Indeed, I know of a few scientists who have published very little
> > but are nonetheless regarded as world-class. However, where matters of
> > originality, sound methodology, and even factual accuracy are concerned,
> > it is hard to imagine a substitute for rigorous peer review by experts
> > in the field (I don't doubt some Oxfordians' originality; it is their
> > methodology and their factual accuracy that I sometimes question).
This is a fair point, but might be dilated even further to speak of
cross-disciplinary reviews.
Even so, there are some strong caveats, or perhaps better said, some
necessary /qualifications/ to what any peer review might achieve - and none
other than the Elizabethan scholar Dr. Knight has doubted in particular that
academic persons [perforce of singular disciplines] have had the
wherewithall to adequately compass literary /genius/.
He states his reservation not because of the disciplinary singularity of the
scholar, but that scholastic activity itself is insufficiently 'occult' [to
use his word], by which he means to juxtapose analytical study with creative
activity.
He made these points as direct comments to historical academic appreciations
of Powys and of Shakespeare.
It is welcome to see these comments on necessary method, but let us also
attain some sense of proportion, and that any methodology must needs rely on
both deductive and inductive analysis, but by such means alone are limited
to result.
This is actually a very interesting aspect of modern research; that any
deconstruction, even that which seems to atomise a subject, contains the
value that we are better able to understand its constituent parts; HOWEVER,
does the result lead to the possibility of re-construction, by virtue of our
new understanding of its elements? (Indeed, much analytical research
abandons reconstruction entirely.)
Knight says [paraphrastically] that a significant professional deformation
in academic realms is evident, and speaks to the effect that such a
superplus of attention to individual factors has not led to any greater,
synergistic understanding of the whole.
Rupert Sheldrake's observations of principally academic 'method' [in arts
and sciences] suggest the perhaps unwelcome idea of associated behavior
surrounding Cargo Cults; the Object is analysed, its purposes imagined,
rationalised, speculations proposed on its creator, the creator's motives,
by expert 'priests' which attend the Object &c. Yet if the object is a
television, then analysis of its constituent parts alone, fails to
comprehend its essential function.
Perhaps the brightest minds will conceive of plugging it in, and Lo! There
is an image of cosmic static rendered by phosphors on its screen. But who
will concieve by analytic method alone that the use of the device is
intended to transmit The Simpsons?
And, says Sheldrake, having discovered the 'True Purpose' of the device [ie,
to transmit the Simpsons] who then could suppose that the device is tunable?
Thus; even function has variable modes of deployment, and an Object may
contain multitudes!
Phil Innes
Art Neuendorffer
> > What you actually need are two letters of recommendation from
> > reputable people who will attest that you're a serious scholar who
> > would benefit from access to the collection. In theory, you're
> > supposed to have a Ph.D or be a Ph.D candidate, but in practice that's
> > not necessary if you can get two letter-writers to vouch for you.
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote
> I wish I'd known that. I'm only an amateur, of course,
> but I have qualified friends.
I'll bet you do, John. But, I'm sure if you just
showed up unannounced they'd be no problem.
http://www.groundling.com/hlas/pix/JohnKennedy.jpg
> Maybe I will, someday, at that. A microfilm is no
> substitute for the real thing when you're comma-hunting.
Out hunting in a comatose state?
http://www.groundling.com/hlas/pix/JohnKennedy.jpg
Art N.
Art Neuendorffer
> > What you actually need are two letters of recommendation from
> > reputable people who will attest that you're a serious scholar who
> > would benefit from access to the collection. In theory, you're
> > supposed to have a Ph.D or be a Ph.D candidate, but in practice that's
> > not necessary if you can get two letter-writers to vouch for you.
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote
> I wish I'd known that. I'm only an amateur, of course,
> but I have qualified friends.
I'll bet you do, John. But, I'm sure if you just
showed up unannounced there'd be no problem.
http://www.groundling.com/hlas/pix/JohnKennedy.jpg
> Maybe I will, someday, at that. A microfilm is no
> substitute for the real thing when you're comma-hunting.
Out hunting in a comatose state?
http://www.groundling.com/hlas/pix/JohnKennedy.jpg
Art N.
biancas842001
published several books.
----
Bianca Steele
Chess One
"biancas842001" <bianca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:456bd92f.04100...@posting.google.com...
> In which of Knight's books did he make this comparison? He has
> published several books.
Dear Bianca,
Yes - half a dozen or 7 titles on Shakespearean themes. These opinions I
previously cited occur in his Literary biography of Powys, 'The Saturnian
Quest", which has a sub-title, "A study of the prose work of John Cowper
Powys".
Before the preface he quotes:-
Ah, I must follow it high and low,
Tho' it leave me cold to your human tounch!
Some starry sorcery made me so;
And from my birth have I been such.
/J.C. Powys, The Saturnian.
I have been paraphrasing from the Preface: In my edition, a section at the
bottom of page 11 continues [as I have typed rather than scanned all the
following, spelling errors will be my own];-
The neglect in question is surely evidence of some serious limitation in
our contemporary literary understanding. The nature of this limitation can,
as I see it, be quite simply defined. Whereas in every age writers of
genius -- the very word 'genius' suggests as much -- are saturated in occult
perception, the academic and critical intelligence distrusts, in every age,
such categories. Now in studying many writers we can avoid direct reference
to them, up to a point, by the use of evasive labels such as 'symbolist',
'impressionism', 'surrealism', and so on, without any real fear of
commitment. With Powys we cannot do this, if only because he has written so
much deliberate propaganda for his own esoteric life-way. This is a
'life-way' close to the heart and process of creation; and it is noteworthy
that much of the interest he has aroused during the last few decades has
come from creative artists of different generations and widely differing
qualities, [then lists...] Beresford, Berry, Blackburn, Campion, Dreiser,
Garlick, Hanley, hartley, Heath-Stubbs, (Geoffrey) Hill, Hopkins, (Augustus)
John, (Bernard) Jones, Kitchin, Masters, Menai, (Henry) Miller, Mitrinovic,
(Elizabeth) Myers, Painter, Priestley, Sitwell, (Stevie) Smith, (Ralph)
Strauss, Walpole, Wilkinson and (Angus) Wilson too, whose /Origins of the
Sexual Impulse/ makes important contacts with Powys's esoteric sexology.
Knight's book is dedicated to Phyllis Playter.
Listed are 7 titles on Shakespeare, as well as other writers; Milton, Milton
Swift Pope Byron, Pope, Wordsworth Coleridge Shelley Keats, on Byron's
Christian virtues, on Byron's marriage, on British Drama. Two titles on
Poetry and Religion, a title 'Hiroshima', two general titles, and a drama
'The Last of the Incas'.
On Shakespeare he wrote:-
The Wheel of Fire, The Imperial Theme, The Crown of Life (Final Plays), The
Shakespearean Tempest (Symbolism), The Sovereign Flower, The Mutual Flame
(Sonnets & The Phoenix and the Turtle), and "Shakesperian Production."
He was Emeritus Profesor of English Literature in the University of Leeds,
and seems to have written his Powys title in Exeter and on Dartmoor. No ISBN
in my first edition copy. Publ. Methuen, copyright 1964.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> ----
> Bianca Steele
David L. Webb
kenka...@yahoo.com (Ken Kaplan) wrote:
> This is all smoke and mirrors and a red herring wrapped up in academic
> speak. In plain English you could have said, "I have no way of
> assessing whether it is strong or not because it is in a subscription
> only forum.
Isn't that exactly what I said?! I wrote:
"Whether the Rev. Dr. Wright's article was 'very strong' [quoting Ken
Kaplan] is not a matter that I am readily able to judge, as Dr.
Wright's article appears in a very limited-circulation 'subscribers
only' forum to which I am denied access."
Is not the above "plain English"?! And is it not merely a trivial
rewording of what you said above?!
> If you provide me a copy I will look at it and comment.".
I did not write that because I do not presume to impose upon others
to do legwork for me. However, if you are kindly offering to provide me
with a copy, then I will gratefully accept your offer.
> I would reply, then perhaps we'll make it avsailable to you for free
> so you could so. Or we could ask Dan to make it public.
Either suggestion would be splendid from my viewpoint. The latter
would perhaps be preferable, since your remarks about the paper may have
piqued the curiosity of others besides myself. Indeed, as I noted, not
even Dr. Wright's home institution apparently subscribes to "Shakespeare
Matters," so it is difficult to see how any interested nonmember of the
Fellowship could read the paper otherwise.
> Wright is a
> peer reviewed author of a fine book on Shakespeare and the history
> plays.
I don't doubt it. However, even scholars with a distinguished record
of peer reviewed papers in publications enjoying the highest prestige in
the discipline *still* submit their papers to the peer review process if
they wish to publish in the more respected venues. Even Nobel laureates
routinely submit their work to peer review if they wish it to enjoy the
imprimatur of those venues.
> I subscribe to Salon.com, voted best of the web for years. It is now a
> subscription site. There are incredible articles. Gary Kamiya wrote
> one of the best essays ever on the eve of the Iraq war. Where it was
> published had no bearing on its excellence.
I like Salon.com very much myself, and it plays an especially
valuable role in an age when media deregulation and consolidation have
reduced most "mainstream" media outlets to servile mouthpieces for
multinational corporations with their own agendas. However, there is a
*vast* difference between journalism and scholarship. One of the
reasons for the robust longevity of the professional research literature
(as opposed to the ephemeral character of much journalism) is that the
former undergoes the scrutiny of a rigorous peer review process while
the latter does not. "Voted best of the web" is simply no substitute
for expert peer review.
This observation is not intended to denigrate journalism in any way
-- plainly, journalism would be of little value to anyone if submissions
had to undergo the lengthy pre-publication lag time mandated by the
careful scrutiny of expert refereeing (in my field, this lag time can
easily exceed a year and often does; in one unusual case it was of some
eight years' duration). Nevertheless, one has far more confidence in
the factual accuracy, methodological soundness, and overall reliability
of a scholarly paper submitted to refereeing by experts than one does in
the reliability of a Salon article.
Indeed, the inability of many Oxfordians to make the distinction
between careful scholarship and catchy journalism (or in some cases,
between scholarship and creative writing) may well account for the
embarrassing state of almost all of the Oxfordian "research" that I have
read.
> " Why don't you come to the Fellowship site and duke it out a little.
> > Because I am unwilling to pay the dues."
I barely have any time to participate here. Why pay dues for
entertainment when it is freely available here?
In any case, your pugilistic metaphor is a curious one. One might
just as well ask: Why don't Oxfordians come to professional Shakespeare
conferences and "duke it out" there? Why don't they submit their ideas
to peer review by experts in mainstream scholarly publications and "duke
it out" in that forum as well?
> The "Authorship Debate" forum is public and free.
But as I understand it, much of the more entertaining discussion
takes place on the "members only" forum.
> No one is asking you to attend the conference.
Believe me, I *would* attend if I possibly could. The chance to see
Art in action in person should not be missed!
> Just an invitation to
> discuss on the public board. Ross and Grumman have extensively
> participated.
And, as I understand it, various Fellowship members have tried to get
them kicked off. Isn't that the case? Both of them suffer fools much
more patiently than I do; matters being so, I have no wish to intrude
upon a forum in which I would pretty plainly be unwelcome.
Lynne
> Just an invitation to
> discuss on the public board. Ross and Grumman have extensively
> participated.
David said:
And, as I understand it, various Fellowship members have tried to
get
them kicked off. Isn't that the case? Both of them suffer fools much
more patiently than I do; matters being so, I have no wish to intrude
upon a forum in which I would pretty plainly be unwelcome.
Lynne says:
Just parachuting in for a moment.
Not only are Bob and Terry very welcome on our forum, people were
extremely worried when Bob fell silent for several weeks after the
hurricane. I hope Bob would agree with me that his welfare was far
more important to us than his support of a particular candidate. We
also have other traditionalists on our forum and a Baconian at
present. Every so often someone is rather uncivil to someone else, but
one of the admin usually steps in to ask for calm. To my mind the
Fellowship Forums are a training ground. We are learning how to get on
together no matter what our authorship preferences.
You would not be in the least unwelcome, David. Most people would
heartily welcome you, but if anyone did make a negative remark, s/he
would be asked to chill. Besides, there are participants on HLAS to
whom you and your posts are plainly unwelcome. They respond to you in
ways that would be frowned upon on the Fellowship boards, but their
rather insulting remarks haven't stopped you posting. ;)
Regards,
LynnE
P.S. And by the way, Bob and Terry may suffer fools more gladly than
you do, but if you were by any chance suggesting that we are all fools
on the Fellowship Forum, I believe you are mistaken. Let us (please)
not extend this dialogue into a litany of one another's mistakes.
Art Neuendorffer
>
> > Just an invitation to discuss on the public board.
> > Ross and Grumman have extensively participated.
>
> David said:
>
> as I understand it, various Fellowship members have tried to get
> them kicked off. Isn't that the case? Both of them suffer fools much
> more patiently than I do; matters being so, I have no wish to intrude
> upon a forum in which I would pretty plainly be unwelcome.
"Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Every so often someone is rather uncivil to someone else,
> but one of the admin usually steps in to ask for calm.
And that "one" is ALWAYS Lynne (, of course).
"Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> To my mind the Fellowship Forums are a training ground.
> We are learning how to get on together
> no matter what our authorship preferences.
<<EVERyone knows potty training doesn't happen in a day.
That's why there's PULL-UPS® training pants.>>
http://www.pull-ups.com/na/productinfo/trainingpants.asp
Art Neuendorffer (still in diapers metaphorically speaking).
David L. Webb
lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
> Ken said:
>
> > Just an invitation to
> > discuss on the public board. Ross and Grumman have extensively
> > participated.
> David said:
>
> And, as I understand it, various Fellowship members have tried to
> get
> them kicked off. Isn't that the case? Both of them suffer fools much
> more patiently than I do; matters being so, I have no wish to intrude
> upon a forum in which I would pretty plainly be unwelcome.
> Lynne says:
>
> Just parachuting in for a moment.
>
> Not only are Bob and Terry very welcome on our forum, people were
> extremely worried when Bob fell silent for several weeks after the
> hurricane.
I don't doubt that. I doubt that any of us really wishes misfortune
to befall others, despite some intemperate comments that have appeared
in this forum occasionally. However, someone might, without actually
wishing Bob any harm, try to have him banished from the Fellowship
forum. Indeed, it is my understanding that someone did try to do
exactly that, albeit unsuccessfully. Is that not correct?
In fact, Bob's inquiring spirit has raised the hackles of Oxfordians
upon previous occasions as well. Indeed, Dr. Stritmatter, in one of his
tirades addressed to Terry Ross, wrote:
"What many of these ['new Oxfordian discoveries'] are, it is true,
is known only to the Oxfordians, those Ph'D [sic] and those, like
the tin man, without -- and of course to certain overzealous
persons such as Mr. Grumman who actually took out a membership in
the SOS just so he could serve as a 'conduit' to this little group
who took it upon themselves to moniter [sic] cyberspace with their
verbal batons, of which you are an outstanding exemplar. Boy are you
guys starting to look like a goofy bunch of Looney [sic -- there's
a great Oxfreudian slip!] birds...."
This quotation at the very least makes it apparent that Bob was not
exactly universally welcome as an S.O.S. member. As I wrote before, the
logic of this stance strikes me as odd indeed: Dr. Stritmatter makes it
sound as though one would be unwelcome to join the S.O.S. if one were
actuated by mere curiosity and the spirit of inquiry, and that one might
first have to affirm (by means of a loyalty oath or its equivalent) that
one *already* embraced the very theory that the S.O.S. is presumably
trying to convince people is the correct one!
> I hope Bob would agree with me that his welfare was far
> more important to us than his support of a particular candidate. We
> also have other traditionalists on our forum and a Baconian at
> present. Every so often someone is rather uncivil to someone else, but
> one of the admin usually steps in to ask for calm. To my mind the
> Fellowship Forums are a training ground. We are learning how to get on
> together
To get on what? (Is it legal? :-))
> no matter what our authorship preferences.
>
> You would not be in the least unwelcome, David. Most people would
> heartily welcome you, but if anyone did make a negative remark, s/he
> would be asked to chill. Besides, there are participants on HLAS to
> whom you and your posts are plainly unwelcome.
There are?! Surely you jest, Lynne!
> They respond to you in
> ways that would be frowned upon on the Fellowship boards, but their
> rather insulting remarks haven't stopped you posting. ;)
This is an unmoderated forum, so one scarcely expects to encounter
moderation here -- indeed, one sometimes suspects that some of the more
eccentric anti-Stratfordians' posts are prompted at least in part by
delirium tremens.
> Regards,
> LynnE
>
> P.S. And by the way, Bob and Terry may suffer fools more gladly than
> you do, but if you were by any chance suggesting that we are all fools
> on the Fellowship Forum,
Of course not. HoweVER, there are a few fools among you, and I have
little doubt that Terry and Bob suffer them more patiently than I would.
> I believe you are mistaken. Let us (please)
> not extend this dialogue into a litany of one another's mistakes.
Perish the thought!
Art Neuendorffer
> > people were extremely worried when Bob fell
> > silent for several weeks after the hurricane.
> to befall others, despite some intemperate comments that have appeared
> in this forum occasionally. However, someone might, without actually
> wishing Bob any harm, try to have him banished from the Fellowship
> forum. Indeed, it is my understanding that someone did try to do
> exactly that, albeit unsuccessfully. Is that not correct?
>
> In fact, Bob's inquiring spirit has raised the hackles
> of Oxfordians upon previous occasions as well.
> > no matter what our authorship preferences.
> >
> > You would not be in the least unwelcome, David. Most people would
> > heartily welcome you, but if anyone did make a negative remark, s/he
> > would be asked to chill. Besides, there are participants on HLAS to
> > whom you and your posts are plainly unwelcome.
Shakespeare to thee was dull, whose best JEST lyes
I' th Ladies questions, and the Fooles replyes;
-- CARTWRIGHT, WILLIAM, 1647,
Upon the Dramatick Poems of Mr. John Fletcher.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GOOD FREND FOR [IE]{SVS}' SAKE FORBEARE,
___ TO DIGG THE DV[ST] ENCLOASED HEARE:
AND CVRST BE HE Yt MO[VE]S MY BONES.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lynne
> In article <cc19a094.04100...@posting.google.com>,
> lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
>
> > Ken said:
> >
> > > Just an invitation to
> > > discuss on the public board. Ross and Grumman have extensively
> > > participated.
>
> > David said:
> >
> > And, as I understand it, various Fellowship members have tried to
> > get
> > them kicked off. Isn't that the case? Both of them suffer fools much
> > more patiently than I do; matters being so, I have no wish to intrude
> > upon a forum in which I would pretty plainly be unwelcome.
>
> > Lynne says:
> >
> > Just parachuting in for a moment.
> >
> > Not only are Bob and Terry very welcome on our forum, people were
> > extremely worried when Bob fell silent for several weeks after the
> > hurricane.
>
> I don't doubt that. I doubt that any of us really wishes misfortune
> to befall others, despite some intemperate comments that have appeared
> in this forum occasionally. However, someone might, without actually
> wishing Bob any harm, try to have him banished from the Fellowship
> forum. Indeed, it is my understanding that someone did try to do
> exactly that, albeit unsuccessfully. Is that not correct?
One member was teething and asked for that to happen. We gave him a
teething ring which he now sucks on quite happily. We have had
Oxfordians ask for other Oxfordians to go away too, so it wasn't
unusual. But the vast majority of our visitors to the boards get on
with Bob very well. There's a lot of good-natured joshing going on,
and Bob has always given as well as he's got. If he felt unwelcome,
I'm sure he would go away.
>
> In fact, Bob's inquiring spirit has raised the hackles of Oxfordians
> upon previous occasions as well. Indeed, Dr. Stritmatter, in one of his
> tirades addressed to Terry Ross, wrote:
>
> "What many of these ['new Oxfordian discoveries'] are, it is true,
> is known only to the Oxfordians, those Ph'D [sic] and those, like
> the tin man, without -- and of course to certain overzealous
> persons such as Mr. Grumman who actually took out a membership in
> the SOS just so he could serve as a 'conduit' to this little group
> who took it upon themselves to moniter [sic] cyberspace with their
> verbal batons, of which you are an outstanding exemplar. Boy are you
> guys starting to look like a goofy bunch of Looney [sic -- there's
> a great Oxfreudian slip!] birds...."
>
> This quotation at the very least makes it apparent that Bob was not
> exactly universally welcome as an S.O.S. member.
We are not the SOS. We are the SF Forum.
>As I wrote before, the
> logic of this stance strikes me as odd indeed: Dr. Stritmatter makes it
> sound as though one would be unwelcome to join the S.O.S. if one were
> actuated by mere curiosity and the spirit of inquiry, and that one might
> first have to affirm (by means of a loyalty oath or its equivalent) that
> one *already* embraced the very theory that the S.O.S. is presumably
> trying to convince people is the correct one!
Dr. Stritmatter is doing very well. At the moment I would describe him
as a mouse in training. ;)
>
> > I hope Bob would agree with me that his welfare was far
> > more important to us than his support of a particular candidate. We
> > also have other traditionalists on our forum and a Baconian at
> > present. Every so often someone is rather uncivil to someone else, but
> > one of the admin usually steps in to ask for calm. To my mind the
> > Fellowship Forums are a training ground. We are learning how to get on
> > together
>
> To get on what? (Is it legal? :-))
I hope not. ;)
>
> > no matter what our authorship preferences.
> >
> > You would not be in the least unwelcome, David. Most people would
> > heartily welcome you, but if anyone did make a negative remark, s/he
> > would be asked to chill. Besides, there are participants on HLAS to
> > whom you and your posts are plainly unwelcome.
>
> There are?! Surely you jest, Lynne!
I never jest, David. I am always entirely serious.
>
> > They respond to you in
> > ways that would be frowned upon on the Fellowship boards, but their
> > rather insulting remarks haven't stopped you posting. ;)
>
> This is an unmoderated forum, so one scarcely expects to encounter
> moderation here -- indeed, one sometimes suspects that some of the more
> eccentric anti-Stratfordians' posts are prompted at least in part by
> delirium tremens.
>
> > Regards,
> > LynnE
> >
> > P.S. And by the way, Bob and Terry may suffer fools more gladly than
> > you do, but if you were by any chance suggesting that we are all fools
> > on the Fellowship Forum,
>
> Of course not. HoweVER, there are a few fools among you, and I have
> little doubt that Terry and Bob suffer them more patiently than I would.
There are a few fools in every group, David. Once more, I choose not
to go into detail, for fear this will become a litany of disaster.
>
> > I believe you are mistaken. Let us (please)
> > not extend this dialogue into a litany of one another's mistakes.
>
> Perish the thought!
Well, you already did a little litanizing (?) above. But perhaps we
could stop there. Several people have told me they would welcome your
posts on the Fellowship boards. You are intelligent and incisive. But
of course, it's entirely up to you.
The Mouse, who has decided she can't count. There are so many having
dinner, seeing the plays, having the boxed supper, and the numbers are
all alarmingly different. Sheesh. (This is a Jewish mouse "sheesh" and
really does not mean "Jesus." The word is derived from "cheese.")
David L. Webb
lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
Teething? Or seething?
> and asked for that to happen. We gave him a
> teething ring which he now sucks on quite happily. We have had
> Oxfordians ask for other Oxfordians to go away too,
Just like Phaeton....
> so it wasn't
> unusual. But the vast majority of our visitors to the boards get on
> with Bob very well. There's a lot of good-natured joshing going on,
> and Bob has always given as well as he's got. If he felt unwelcome,
> I'm sure he would go away.
> > In fact, Bob's inquiring spirit has raised the hackles of Oxfordians
> > upon previous occasions as well. Indeed, Dr. Stritmatter, in one of his
> > tirades addressed to Terry Ross, wrote:
> >
> > "What many of these ['new Oxfordian discoveries'] are, it is true,
> > is known only to the Oxfordians, those Ph'D [sic] and those, like
> > the tin man, without -- and of course to certain overzealous
> > persons such as Mr. Grumman who actually took out a membership in
> > the SOS just so he could serve as a 'conduit' to this little group
> > who took it upon themselves to moniter [sic] cyberspace with their
> > verbal batons, of which you are an outstanding exemplar. Boy are you
> > guys starting to look like a goofy bunch of Looney [sic -- there's
> > a great Oxfreudian slip!] birds...."
> >
> > This quotation at the very least makes it apparent that Bob was not
> > exactly universally welcome as an S.O.S. member.
> We are not the SOS. We are the SF Forum.
Of course -- but if Dr. Stritmatter resented Bob's S.O.S. membership
in such a surly fashion, it seems not unlikely that "Bassanio" might
resent Bob's Fellowship participation.
> > As I wrote before, the
> > logic of this stance strikes me as odd indeed: Dr. Stritmatter makes it
> > sound as though one would be unwelcome to join the S.O.S. if one were
> > actuated by mere curiosity and the spirit of inquiry, and that one might
> > first have to affirm (by means of a loyalty oath or its equivalent) that
> > one *already* embraced the very theory that the S.O.S. is presumably
> > trying to convince people is the correct one!
> Dr. Stritmatter is doing very well. At the moment I would describe him
> as a mouse in training. ;)
You mean, you're mentoring him in writing young adult novels?
> > > I hope Bob would agree with me that his welfare was far
> > > more important to us than his support of a particular candidate. We
> > > also have other traditionalists on our forum and a Baconian at
> > > present. Every so often someone is rather uncivil to someone else, but
> > > one of the admin usually steps in to ask for calm. To my mind the
> > > Fellowship Forums are a training ground. We are learning how to get on
> > > together
> > To get on what? (Is it legal? :-))
> I hope not. ;)
> > > no matter what our authorship preferences.
> > >
> > > You would not be in the least unwelcome, David. Most people would
> > > heartily welcome you, but if anyone did make a negative remark, s/he
> > > would be asked to chill. Besides, there are participants on HLAS to
> > > whom you and your posts are plainly unwelcome.
> > There are?! Surely you jest, Lynne!
> I never jest, David. I am always entirely serious.
As am I, of course.
> > > They respond to you in
> > > ways that would be frowned upon on the Fellowship boards,
Indeed. But it is most amusing that what seems to induce apoplectic
reactions in most of them is not my commentary _per se_, but rather my
quotation of their *own words*. Not that one can blame them -- if I had
written some of the things that some of the anti-Stratfordians have
written in this forum, I would probably wish to forget it also.
> > > but their
> > > rather insulting remarks haven't stopped you posting. ;)
> > This is an unmoderated forum, so one scarcely expects to encounter
> > moderation here -- indeed, one sometimes suspects that some of the more
> > eccentric anti-Stratfordians' posts are prompted at least in part by
> > delirium tremens.
> > > Regards,
> > > LynnE
> > >
> > > P.S. And by the way, Bob and Terry may suffer fools more gladly than
> > > you do, but if you were by any chance suggesting that we are all fools
> > > on the Fellowship Forum,
> > Of course not. HoweVER, there are a few fools among you, and I have
> > little doubt that Terry and Bob suffer them more patiently than I would.
> There are a few fools in every group, David. Once more, I choose not
> to go into detail, for fear this will become a litany of disaster.
> > > I believe you are mistaken. Let us (please)
> > > not extend this dialogue into a litany of one another's mistakes.
> > Perish the thought!
> Well, you already did a little litanizing (?) above.
No, there was no litany of errors _per se_, merely some evidence that
non-believers are not uniVERsally welcome in a major Oxfordian forum.
Since there is some oVERlap between former S.O.S. members and present
Fellowship members, it seems not unlikely that the presence of
non-believers in the latter forum might occasion some displeasure as
well.
Art Neuendorffer
> > . We have had Oxfordians ask
> > for other Oxfordians to go away too,
But I'm still there! :-)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Just like Phaeton....
-----------------------------------------------------------
WARWICK: Ignoble vassal, that, like Phaeton,
Aspir'st unto the guidance of the sun!
-- EDWARD II by Christopher Marlowe
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<Ovid tells us that Cygnus was the school chum of Phaeton who
taunted him about his alledged solar paternity. After Phaeton crashs
the old mans chariot and falls into the river, Cygnus (feeling remorse)
vainly attempts to retrieve Phaeton's body. Cygnus' aquatic searching
reminds Zeus of a swan diving for food and after the exhausted
Cygnus dies of grief, Zeus places him in the heavens.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
> lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
> > Dr. Stritmatter is doing very well. At the moment
> > I would describe him as a mouse in training. ;)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You mean, you're mentoring him in writing young adult novels?
http://www.gadgetshop.com/new_product_images/Assets/product_images_usual/11275.jpg
> > > lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
> > > > Bob and Terry may suffer fools more gladly than you do,
> > > > but if you were by any chance suggesting that
> > > > we are all fools on the Fellowship Forum,
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>>> Of course not. HoweVER, there are a few fools among you, and I have
>>> little doubt that Terry and Bob suffer them more patiently than I would.
> lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
> > There are a few fools in every group, David. Once more, I choose
> > not to go into detail, for fear this will become a litany of disaster.
The Shakespeare Fellowship Forum has small Litany but less Geeks.
Art Neuendorffer
Ken Kaplan
You would be most welcome on the Fellowship site. Terry Ross was never
asked to leave. Our exchanges usually are civil. Lynne is a great
referee when the going gets a little rough. Terry has been
acknowledged often for the contributions he has made. I think we would
like you to come because of how much we value your intelligence and
because the debate would be spirited.
I think you can not draw conclusions as to why Bob or anyone else
generated some deep irritation unless you hear the entire story. It is
not fair to hear from one source and surmise anything about what may
have transpired.
Today Bob is still happliy a participant and all seem to have gained
from our exchanges.
There are times I have not been happy with the style you have adopted
here, just as there have been times you have chastised me. That does
not mean you are not accorded respect. It is why we think
participation with you would be interesting and fruitful.
The worst that could happen is you find the experience unfulfilling in
a short time and withdraw. No money, no muss, no fuss. Such a deal.
Ken Kaplan
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message news:<david.l.webb-567A...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
Art Neuendorffer
> David,
> I think we would like you to come
> because of how much we value your intelligence
------------------------------------------------
Tuppence a bag
-------------------------------------------
Early each day to the steps of Saint Paul's
The little old bird woman comes.
In her own special way to the people she calls,
"Come, buy my bags full of crumbs.
Come feed the little birds, show them you care
And you'll be glad if you do.
Their young ones are hungry,
Their nests are so bare;
All it takes is tuppence from you."
Feed the birds, tuppence a bag,
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag.
"Feed the birds," that's what she cries,
While overhead, her birds fill the skies.
All around the cathedral the saints and apostles
Look down as she sells her wares.
Although you can't see it, you know they are smiling
Each time someone shows that he cares.
Though her words are simple and few,
Listen, listen, she's calling to you:
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag,
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag."
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
>
> > > . We have had Oxfordians ask
> > > for other Oxfordians to go away too,
> But I'm still there! :-)
Not *all* there, Art -- but I agree that you're still as much there
as eVER.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Just like Phaeton....
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> WARWICK: Ignoble vassal, that, like Phaeton,
> Aspir'st unto the guidance of the sun!
>
> -- EDWARD II by Christopher Marlowe
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> <<Ovid tells us that Cygnus was the school chum of Phaeton who
> taunted him about his alledged [sic] solar paternity. After Phaeton
> crashs [sic]
> the old mans [sic] chariot
Whom are you quoting, Art? Is English not his or her native tongue?
[...]
> > > > lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
>
> > > > > Bob and Terry may suffer fools more gladly than you do,
> > > > > but if you were by any chance suggesting that
> > > > > we are all fools on the Fellowship Forum,
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> >>> Of course not. HoweVER, there are a few fools among you, and I have
> >>> little doubt that Terry and Bob suffer them more patiently than I would.
> > lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
>
> > > There are a few fools in every group, David.
...but they appear in unnerving abundance in anti-Stratfordian
venues, with *far* greater frequency than in the circles in which I
habitually move. I feel sure that I could sample two dozen or so
acquaintances (or for that matter, members of the general population)
and find *very* few relativity cranks, believers in the NASA-perpetrated
Apollo lunar landing "hoax," "Gemstone" conspiracy cultists, alternative
fluid mechanics crackpots, "aquatic ape" devotees, proponents of AIDS as
"a hoax," would-be "solVERs" of Fermat's Last Theorem, tree copulators,
and similar eccentrics -- yet a sample of two dozen or so
anti-Stratfordians in this newsgroup produces *all* the above, and a
great deal more besides! Indeed, there are at least *two* people in
this newsgroup who believe that Old English was spoken as late as the
1800s (and one of the two believes the 1800s to have been the
seventeenth century!), and one who believes that Franck wrote an organ
symphony -- because he does not comprehend lexicographic ordering!
Where but among anti-Stratfordians could one hope to find a comparable
cornucopia of crankery?
> > > Once more, I choose
> > > not to go into detail, for fear this will become a litany of disaster.
> The Shakespeare Fellowship Forum has small Litany but less Geeks.
Excellent, Art! At least not all the fools are humorless fools. Of
course, in a certain obvious sense, none of them are -- indeed, as Peter
Groves wisely advises, "don't overlook the sheer entertainment value of
this endless parade of human folly."
Art Neuendorffer
> > There are a few fools in every group, David.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> ...but they appear in unnerving abundance in anti-Stratfordian
> venues, with *far* greater frequency than in the circles in which I
> habitually move. I feel sure that I could sample two dozen or so
> acquaintances (or for that matter, members of the general population)
> and find *very* few relativity cranks, believers in the NASA-perpetrated
> Apollo lunar landing "hoax," "Gemstone" conspiracy cultists, alternative
> fluid mechanics crackpots, "aquatic ape" devotees, proponents of AIDS as
> "a hoax," would-be "solVERs" of Fermat's Last Theorem, tree copulators,
> and similar eccentrics -- yet a sample of two dozen or so
> anti-Stratfordians in this newsgroup produces *all* the above,
> and a great deal more besides!
You neglected to mention Masonic Conspiracy nuts, Dave.
Art Neuendorffer
P.S., I'm going to tear Terry's arguments to shreds
(if he has the guts to show up).
Paul Crowley
news:75f2d918.04100...@posting.google.com...
> David,
> You would be most welcome on the Fellowship site. Terry Ross was never
> asked to leave. Our exchanges usually are civil. Lynne is a great
> referee when the going gets a little rough.
Why do Oxfordians prefer to stick to their
own site -- for general discussions? And
why then do they try to recruit Strats into it?
These questions have long been a mystery
to me. Are they afraid of being bullied by
Strats here? Do they feel the need for some
kind of personal protection? It's like having
true-believing missionaries who are afraid to
leave the safety of their seminaries.
> I think we would
> like you to come because of how much we value your intelligence and
> because the debate would be spirited.
The little turd is always here, waiting to
pounce on typos and small mistakes -- but
only with easy targets. He's as useless and
obnoxious as it is possible to be, and he's
been in my killfile for years. Even though
I have scarcely seen any of his posts, I'm
quite sure that there's never been anything
of the slightest value in any of them.
> Today Bob is still happliy a participant and all seem to have gained
> from our exchanges.
Oh yeah? I bet no participant will be able
to tell us how they gained anything. One
thing for sure -- no one changed their minds
on anything.
> There are times I have not been happy with the style you have adopted
> here, just as there have been times you have chastised me. That does
> not mean you are not accorded respect. It is why we think
> participation with you would be interesting and fruitful.
What a joke! He might be useful in a
graveyard on strictly manual work.
Or perhaps as a target in something
like archery. But outside that kind of
purpose, forget it.
> The worst that could happen is you find the experience unfulfilling in
> a short time and withdraw. No money, no muss, no fuss. Such a deal.
The same would apply to all those timid
Oxfordians who could so easily advertise
their existence here. THAT, in itself,
would be better than nothing. Not that I'd
expect much else from what we've seen to
date.
Paul.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
>
> > > There are a few fools in every group, David.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > ...but they appear in unnerving abundance in anti-Stratfordian
> > venues, with *far* greater frequency than in the circles in which I
> > habitually move. I feel sure that I could sample two dozen or so
> > acquaintances (or for that matter, members of the general population)
> > and find *very* few relativity cranks, believers in the NASA-perpetrated
> > Apollo lunar landing "hoax," "Gemstone" conspiracy cultists, alternative
> > fluid mechanics crackpots, "aquatic ape" devotees, proponents of AIDS as
> > "a hoax," would-be "solVERs" of Fermat's Last Theorem, tree copulators,
> > and similar eccentrics -- yet a sample of two dozen or so
> > anti-Stratfordians in this newsgroup produces *all* the above,
> > and a great deal more besides!
> You neglected to mention Masonic Conspiracy nuts, Dave.
To have done so in the present context would have been _de trop_,
Art. Besides, the ones I mentioned above are merely amateur nutcases
(or in Faker's case, an "armature" nutcase), Art -- it isn't fair to
compare them with a professional nutcase like yourself.
> Art Neuendorffer
>
> P.S., I'm going to tear Terry's arguments to shreds
> (if he has the guts to show up).
But Art -- you are not even scheduled to debate Terry:
"A debate, co-sponsored by the Baltimore Shakespeare Festival, will
feature Terry Ross and Professor Alan Nelson (Berkeley), defending
the orthodox 'Stratfordian' view against Hank Whittemore and
Professor Roger Stritmatter (Coppin State University)."
<http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Bo
ard=news&Number=17030&Main=17030>
-- unless, of course, aneuendor...@comicass.nut is a pseudonymous
Masonic "front man" for Dr. Stritmatter or Mr. Whittemore. Come to
think of it, "Whittemore" is an anagram of "Mr. E.O., the wit," as well
as an anagram of "More twit he" -- thus, maybe "Hank Whittemore" is
actually a pseudonym of aneuendor...@comicass.nut! And "Roger
Stritmatter" is an anagram of "MIT regrets Art rot." Since I can well
imagine that you would be an acute embarrassment to your alma mater,
Art, this anagram seems quite plausible -- perhaps "Roger Stritmatter"
is also a pseudonym of the ubiquitous aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
In any case, I'm VERy much looking forward to seeing your talk, Art.
I am also interested in the Burris talk, which offers perhaps the best
promise of paranoia -- not that I wish to sell any of the other
Oxfordians short in that respect.
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley wrote:
>"Ken Kaplan" <kenka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:75f2d918.04100...@posting.google.com...
>
>
>>David,
>>You would be most welcome on the Fellowship site. Terry Ross was never
>>asked to leave. Our exchanges usually are civil. Lynne is a great
>>referee when the going gets a little rough.
>>
>>
>
>Why do Oxfordians prefer to stick to their
>own site -- for general discussions?
>
They are by nature inbreeders, and their
offspring--their wingless, legless, mindless
theory that defies truth and evidence--has
been rejected in real life by history itself.
This shames them as the only product of
their so-called "thinking" and "findings," so
they have to slink from mainstream daylight
and gather in their hovels.
If Oxford was Shakespeare, Oxford University
could tout its prized alumnus, but it cannot
get any "evidence" out of the close-mouthed
Oxfordians who can subsist for decades at
a time on nothing but fancy.
> And
>why then do they try to recruit Strats into it?
>
>These questions have long been a mystery
>to me. Are they afraid of being bullied by
>Strats here? Do they feel the need for some
>kind of personal protection? It's like having
>true-believing missionaries who are afraid to
>leave the safety of their seminaries.
>
Terry is a modernday Fr. Damian to administer
to their modernday Oxfordian Molokai. Their sick,
diseased beliefs, their painfully-formed ideology,
and their insupportable teachings are only contagious
within their own isolated community. Simple sense is
an effective antidote, available almost everywhere,
and Terry will likely offer it generously to any who
would accept it. Terry is a saint, and curing Oxfordianism
once and for all will give new meaning to CANONization.
[snipped Crowley's valid criticisms of Oxfordianists]
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I'm going to tear Terry's arguments to shreds
> > (if he has the guts to show up).
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> But Art -- you are not even scheduled to debate Terry:
Terry's warming up the audience for me:
-----------------------------------------------------
Friday October 8
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/004speakers.htm
10:15-11:15 Terry Ross--"How to Think About Shakespearean 'Ciphers.'"
2:45-3:15 Art Neuendorffer--"The Riddle of 'MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE'"
-----------------------------------------------------
> In any case, I'm VERy much looking forward to seeing your talk, Art.
> I am also interested in the Burris talk, which offers perhaps the best
> promise of paranoia -- not that I wish to sell any of the other
> Oxfordians short in that respect.
You don't mean in person do you?
Art
David L. Webb
> David,
> You would be most welcome on the Fellowship site. Terry Ross was never
> asked to leave. Our exchanges usually are civil. Lynne is a great
> referee when the going gets a little rough. Terry has been
> acknowledged often for the contributions he has made. I think we would
> like you to come because of how much we value your intelligence and
> because the debate would be spirited.
>
> I think you can not draw conclusions as to why Bob or anyone else
> generated some deep irritation unless you hear the entire story. It is
> not fair to hear from one source and surmise anything about what may
> have transpired.
True, and I was not relying upon a single source.
> Today Bob is still happliy a participant and all seem to have gained
> from our exchanges.
>
> There are times I have not been happy with the style you have adopted
> here,
I fear that my style elsewhere would be just as jocular and frivolous
as it is here.
> just as there have been times you have chastised me. That does
> not mean you are not accorded respect. It is why we think
> participation with you would be interesting and fruitful.
>
> The worst that could happen is you find the experience unfulfilling in
> a short time and withdraw. No money, no muss, no fuss. Such a deal.
Thanks for the gracious invitation, Ken; I may eventually take you up
on it, although at the moment I scarcely even have time for sporadic
participation in h.l.a.s.
[...]
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
No; to my great regret, the Grand Master has other tasks for me this
weekend (there is much reconnaissance to be done, and he figures that
you will make a fool of yourself unaided in any case). But I understand
that Lynne has arranged for the event to be videotaped and archived on
CD, and I am very much looking forward to viewing the spectacle myself.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > I'm going to tear Terry's arguments to shreds
> > > > (if he has the guts to show up).
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > But Art -- you are not even scheduled to debate Terry:
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Terry's warming up the audience for me:
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Friday October 8
> > http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/004speakers.htm
> >
> > 10:15-11:15 Terry Ross--"How to Think About Shakespearean 'Ciphers.'"
> >
> > 2:45-3:15 Art Neuendorffer--"The Riddle of 'MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE'"
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > In any case, I'm VERy much looking forward to seeing your talk, Art.
> > > I am also interested in the Burris talk, which offers perhaps the best
> > > promise of paranoia -- not that I wish to sell any of the other
> > > Oxfordians short in that respect.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > You don't mean in person do you?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> No; to my great regret, the Grand Master has other tasks for me this
> weekend (there is much reconnaissance to be done, and he figures that
> you will make a fool of yourself unaided in any case).
Perhaps so, but I'm taking Terry down with me.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> But I understand
> that Lynne has arranged for the event to be videotaped and archived on
> CD, and I am very much looking forward to viewing the spectacle myself.
---------------------------------------------------------
McDavity's a Mystery Strat: he's pompous & he's pious,
For he's the master Goon but denies he has a bias.
He's the bafflement of the S.O.S., the Fellowship's despair:
And when Barb reaches Baltimore- McDavity's not there!
McDavity, McDavity, there's no one like McDavity,
He's broken EVERy skeptic law, he breaks the law of gravity.
His powers of levitation would curl John Baker's hair,
But when a crime's discoVERED, then McDavity's not there!
When the Oslo museum finds a Munch has gone astray,
Or Drumlanrig Castle loses some Da Vinci by the way,
There may be a scrap of paper in the hall or on the stair -
But it's useless to investigate - McDavity's not there!
And when the loss has been disclosed, the Nautonnier says:
`It must have been McDavity: he forgot the Velazquez!"
You'll be sure to find him resting, or about to take a pee,
Or engaged in some complex algebraic topology.
McDavity, McDavity, there's no one like McDavity,
There nEVER was a Strat of so deceitful a depravity
He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare:
At whatEVER time the deed took place - McDavity WASN'T THERE!
And they say of all the Strats whose wicked deeds are widely known
(I might mention Ross-a-Terry, I might mention house-a-Stone)
They're nothing more than agents for the Goon who all the TIME
Just controls their operations: the Napoleon of CRIME!
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Spam Scone
> "Greenblatt's book does not contain the apparatus one finds in his
> more
> > scholarly work; it is written for a different audience."
>
> So its ok to just make it all up. That's what you accuse us of doing.
And rightly so. But perhaps we shouldn't expect someone who thinks
'giving presentations in front of large groups' gives special insight
into researching and writing biography to understand the difference.