The Neville-Shakespeare Theory
Tom Veal
Rubinstein's "The Truth Will Out", which champions that theory that the
real Shakespeare was a second rate politician named Sir Henry Neville
and is more ridiculous (mirabile dictu) than many Oxenfordian tracts:
http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2006/01/the_nevilleshak.html
This may be an issue on which Mrs. Kositsky and I can whole-heartedly
agree.
seaker
like Oxfordians. In the infamous Harper's edition April 1999, Dr.
Daniel Wright wrote, "After all, Pallas Athena, the mythological patron
of the theatrical arts, wore a helmet (crowned by a Sphnix) that, when
its visor was drawn, made her invisible; in her hand she carried a
great spear. She was known to all and sundry as "the spear-shaker." For
a writer to be a "spear-shaker" intimated that he was an invisible
writer of plays. That Oxford should have resorted to this pseudonym
makes eminent sense." (p. 43)
Mark Anderson repeats this claim in so many words in his book.
Nonsense all around! Athena was NOT the patron of theatrical arts.
Athena was NEVER known to anyone as the spear-shaker.
This is one of the "illusions" of Oxfordians and now the Neville crowd.
Art Neuendorffer
And what, pray tell, do the Stratford monument's Nestor,
Socrates & Virgil have to do with the "theatrical arts"?
Art Neuendorffer
Lynne Honey
Very likely. In fact I'm debating Professor Rubinstein in Portland in
April.
Regards,
Lynne
Art Neuendorffer
> Velle Est Posse?
-----------------------------------------------
[L., to WILL] VELLE => VELE => VERE => VERRE
----------------------------------------------
"Phil Innes" <aongh...@sover.net> wrote
> VERRE: To cOVER OVER.
---------------------------------------------
Spenser dedication in Fairie Queene (1590)
To the right Honourable the Earle of Oxenford,
Lord high Chamberlayne of England. &c.
*Vnder a shady VELE is therein writ* ,
And eke thine owne long *liuing MEMORY* ,
Succeeding them in TRUE nobility:
And also for the loue, which thou doest beare
To th'HELICONian ymps, and they to thee,
They vnto thee, and thou to them most deare
------------------------------------------------
To the right honourable the Lo.
Burleigh, Lo. high Threasurer of England.
Vnfitly I these ydle rimes present,
The labour of lost time, and wit vnstayd:
Yet if their deeper sence be inly wayd,
And the dim VELE, with which from comune vew
Their fairer parts are hid, aside be layd.
Perhaps not vaine the might appeare to you.
Such as they be, vouchsafe them to receaue,
And wipe their faults out of your censure graue.
------------------------------------------------
Sonnet XCV.
Naming thy name blesses an ill report.
O, what a mansion have those vices got
Which for their habitation chose out thee,
Where beauty's VEIL doth coVER EVERy BLOT,
--------------------------------------------
VELLE EST POSSE
SLEEVELESS TOP
SLEEPLESS VOTE
LOVES STEEPLES
SPOTLESS LEVEE
LOVELESS PESTE
POETESS'S LEVEL
----------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Veal
demolish the other's case.
Lynne Honey
Tom Veal wrote:
> I predict that you and Professor Rubinstein will each thoroughly
> demolish the other's case.
LOL. Why not come and find out?
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
love to see some Oxfordian try to refute the case for him without help.
--Bob G.
Elizabeth
> Nonsense all around! Athena was NOT the patron of theatrical arts.
> Athena was NEVER known to anyone as the spear-shaker.
The reference is to the forerunner of modern college
fraternities, the Knights of the Helmet at Gray's Inn.
The Knights of the Helmet's aegis was Athene, hasti vibrans,
who shook her spear at Ignorance but in the context of
the fraternity, it's probably a bawdy pun.
It was certainly a bawdy pun in the pseudonym attached to
the dedication of the V & A. Southampton was a collector of
erotic poetry and the work is always tailored to the tastes
of the patron. The words 'shake speare' are a bawdy
reference to masturbation. The OED also shows 'shake shafte'
as a 16th c. reference to exposing oneself in public.
I don't know that Athene or Minerva were spear-shakers in
ancient mythology but the Romans, the Italian Renaissance
and the Elizabethans all co-opted Athene because her primary
role is that of the guardian of the city/state. I don't
doubt the writers getting patronage from Leicester, whose
goal was to make still-medieval England into a Protestant
nation-state that could defend itself from Catholic Spain,
understood the allusion and used it.
There are several Elizabethan references to Athene as
the spear-shaker, including a satirical reference
in Harvey's mock encomium,the Gratulationes Valdenensis
(1578) insincerely dedicated to Oxford.
In the Gratulationes Valdenensis Harvey writes that Oxford
has a vibrating shaft hidden in his right hand. An Oxfordian
who was not sure how Oxford could conceal a telus, a long
spear shaft, in his right hand, put up a serious webpage
in which he retranslated the Looney and/or Barrell version
of Harvey's allusion. The Oxfordian's conclusion was that
Harvey might be mocking Oxford.
> This is one of the "illusions" of Oxfordians and now the Neville crowd.
If it isn't a fact-based theory of evidence it
defaults to illusion.
Art Neuendorffer
> I've gotten started on critiquing James & Rubinstein's
> "The Truth Will Out", which champions that theory that the
> real Shakespeare was a second rate politician named Sir Henry Neville
> and is more ridiculous (mirabile dictu) than many Oxenfordian tracts:
> http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2006/01/the_nevilleshak.html
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/Henry_Neville.jpg/200px-Henry_Neville.jpg
http://eur.yimg.com/i/xp/premier_photo/b/b172b263c9.jpg
http://www.awn.com/mag/issue4.09/4.09images/cohen02.gif
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth
To: "Tom Veal" <TomV...@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: The Neville-Shakespeare Theory
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:47:34 -0800
Tom Veal wrote:
> I predict that you and Professor Rubinstein will each thoroughly
> demolish the other's case.
The Nevillians have the advantage of Neville's
presence at Court during the writing of the
'British plays.' Those plays are written to the
political agenda of James I, an agenda that is
nearly diametrically opposed to the political
agenda of Elizabeth I. The 'English plays,'
which Oxford could theoretically, at least, have
written (had Oxford written as well as Looney)
are nationalistic, isolationist, pursue imperialism
in the mercantile not colonialist sense. The
Jacobean 'British plays' (this is a term from Shakespeare
criticism, not my term) propagandize for 'union' (with
Scotland), imperialism in the colonialist sense, anti-
militarist pacificism (James I was a peacenik) and
entente with Roman Catholicism. Allusions to these
themes are all over the four or five 'British plays'
including The Tempest.
Sir Henry Neville (who had just done a stint as ambassador
to France for Elizabeth -- he kept begging her to let him
come home) became a member of Prince Henry's 'very Elizabethan'
coterie which was ultra Calvinist and anti-Catholic, militaristic,
anti-union, and blatantly pro-England and anti-British. Relations
between the king and his increasingly popular son were strained
at this time. The author of the 'later plays' seems to be
fluctuating between pleasing Henry and pleasing the King.
Oxford died in the middle of the Parliament's debate on Union
so did not know how it turned out. In order to have written
the 'British plays' Oxford would have to know that Parliament
rejected union with Scotland but that James I then proclaimed
himself 'King of Briton.' Those two particular facts are
the raison d'etre of the 'British plays.' The author is
familiar with every religious and political nuance of his
subject, especially in Cymbeline.
Mouse
I'm just debating Prof Rubinstein on Tempest's reliance (or not) on
Strachey, which he seems to think is his biggest piece of evidence for
Neville. I'm not sure that other Oxfordians will try to refute the case
for Neville at all. We're leaving it to you guys.
Mouse
Art Neuendorffer
Table of the Annotations in Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible
Book |Chap|Verse|Verse Marks |
-------|----|-----|------------|
1 Sam__|_20 |20-22|___ U(R) __ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(Geneva)1 Sam 20:20 And I will shoot three arrows on the side
thereof, as though I shot at a MARK. And after I will send *A BOY*,
saying, (G)o, seek the arrows. If I say unto the *BOY* , See, the
arrows are on this side thee, bring them, and come thou: for it
is well with thee and no hurt, as the Lord liveth. But if
I say thus unto the boy, Behold, the arrows are beyond thee,
go thy way: for the Lord hath sent thee away.
---------------------------------------------------------
CLAMBERIN(G) TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE.
_____ T
_____ H
_____ O
_____ M
_____ A
A G N E S A B O (Y)
_____ B
_____ R
_____ I
_____ N
_____ C
_____ K
_____ N
__ V __ E __ S
__ E ___ L ___ U
_ R O N I L V E R I
An ANCRE's life to leade, with *NAILES* to scratche my grave,
Where earthly Wormes on me shall fede, is all the joyes I crave;
And hide my self from SHAME, sith that myne eyes doe see,
Ah, a alantida my deare dame, hath thus tormented me. - *E.O.*
http://drk.sd23.bc.ca/DeVere/Oxford Poems and SONgs-18.pdf
http://www3.telus.net/oxford/oxfordspoems.html#3
------------------------------------------------
Nor for *ATIS*, the mother of Prophetesses:
As for the death of Bulbecke, the Gods have cares.
"Four Epytaphs made by the Countes of Oxenford,
after the death of her young SONNE, the Lord Bulbecke, &c."
--------------------------------------------------
___________ <= 22 =>
TOTH EONLIEB_ / E /GETTER __ OFTH
ESEI/ N /S_UING / S /ONNE TSMRWHA
LLH/ A /pPINE__ / S / __ [S] EANDTHATETE
RN/ I /TIEpR___/ O /_ M_ [I] SEDBYOUREVE
R/ L /IVINg___/ P /_ O.E._ [T] WISHETHTHEW
/ E /llWIShing _________ [A] DVENTURERIN
S ET TIN GFOR THTT
--------------------------------------------
The Oxford Faction wrote:
> Velle Est POSSE?
-------------------------------------------------
"they can because they think they can"
"possunt, quia *POSSE* videntur"
-- The Aeneid: Book 4, Line 625
----------------------------------------------------------
_The Sound & The Fury_ Summary of April Eighth, 1928:
Mrs. Compson looks around Quentin's note for a suicide note,
convinced that history is repeating itself. In his room, Jason
finds that his strongbox has been broken into. He runs to the
phone & calls the sheriff, telling him that he has been robbed,
and that he expects the sheriff to get together a *POSSE*
of men to help him search for Quentin. He storms out.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stonehouse wrote:
A *REEVE* was an officer and a king's *REEVE* was a king's officer.
(The *REEVE* in the Canterbury Tales is an officer of an estate lower
in the scale.) The shire *REEVE* was the king's officer in charge of
all the king's business in the shire, which included calling out the
conscripted army ('fyrd'), which is what was translated into Latin
as '*POSSE* comitatus'. (The professional army was made up of
employees of the king and other magnates.) "In the ninth
century it was clearly unusual for the fyrd of a particular shire
to serve beyond its borders" (Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England p. 287).
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16534
<<One of New Horizons competitors was to be have been called
*POSSE*, for [P]luto [O]uter [S]olar [S]ystem [E]xplorer.>>
January 17, 2006 Launch for Pluto-Bound Spacecraft
<<The U.S. is poised next week to fire an unmanned New Horizons
spacecraft toward Pluto at a speed of 10 miles per second,
the highest velocity any space mission has ever been rocketed
from Earth. The half-ton spacecraft is carrying material
commemorating Pluto's discoverer Clyde Tombaugh,
who was cremated after his death in 1997 at age 90.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
the Athenian "Spur *POSSE*"
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.mo-net.com/~mlindste/socrates.html
<<The second charge against Socrates, that he had corrupted the youth
of Athens, was even more damning. The foremost examples of the gilded
youth he led astray was Alcibiades & Critias, although Socrates'
effect on the rich young aristocratic fops was already mentioned in
Aristophanes' "The Birds," written in 414 B.C., 15 years before
he was called to account:
Why, till ye built this city in the air, _____ line 1280
All men had gone Laconian-mad; they went __ [Spartan-mad]
Long-haired, half-starved, unwashed, Socratified,
With scytales in their hands; but Oh the change!
They are all bird-mad now, and imitate ____ line 1284
Aristophanes made fun of the *DANDIES* with their Spartan habits,
dress, & even carrying their little Spartan secret police short clubs
about town, but this was before the rich kids turned mean. When he
mentions the intellectual beliefs of the Athenian " Spur *POSSE* "
as being "Socratified" he refers to their instilled beliefs that
they were better than everyone else and that the poor & middle
class were disposable human beings they could use with impunity.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saradouglass.com/popimage.html
<<The popularity of the wicked Italianated traveler in Elizabethan
drama and satire ensured the success of the image of the foolish
traveler. Despite the very threatening aspects of so many characters
of wicked Italianates, the foolish Italianated traveler surfaced
extremely quickly after the publication of The Scholemaster. George
Gascoigne's characterization of devils incarnate in Councell giuen
to master Bartholmew WITHIpall was the first reference to devils
incarnate in print after Ascham's diatribe, yet Gascoigne portrayed
these Italianated travelers as foolish rather than wicked:
Nowe, sir, if I shall see your maistershippe
Come home disguysde and cladde in queynt araye,
As with a piketoothe byting on your lippe,
Your braue MUSTACHYOS turnde the Turky waye,
A *COPOTAIN HATTE* made on a Flemmish blocke,
A nightgowne cloake downe trayling to your toes,
A slender sloppe close-couched to your docke,
A curtold slipper and a shorte silke hose:
Bearing your Rapier pointe aboue the hilte,
And looking bigge like Marquise of All-Beefe,
Then shall I compte your toyle and trauayle spilte.
As Gascoigne's characterization of the devil incarnate demonstrates,
the Italianate's affectations of clothes & postures made him a ready
subject for parody; he was, in Gabriel Harvey's words, "a passinge
singular odd man." Harvey, although he employed more biting satire,
used imagery similar to Gascoigne's when he satirized the Italianated
Earl of Oxford during the 1570s. Harvey attacked the ridiculous and
effeminate mannerisms of the Italianate who appeared within English
society with "cringeinge side necke, eies glauncinge, fisnamy
smirkinge," and wearing "Largbellid kodpeasid dubletts [and]
unkodpeasid halfehose." John Lyly, also writing in the 1570s,
not only endowed his character Philatus in Euphues:
The Anatomy of Wit with Machiavellian and Italianate
characteristics but also faulted him for his ridiculous and
affected dress that transformed him into a misshapen MONSTER.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?useri...
Chapter One: A nEVER writer to an EVER reader News.
In which Pickleherring takes his pen
to tell of his first meeting with Mr Shakespeare
I call to mind as if it was just yesterday, forinstance, the first
time I EVER clapped eyes on the dear fellow. He was wearing a
COPATAINE HAT. You won't know those HATs now, if you're under fifty.
They were good HATs. They wore good HATs and they wrote good verse in
those days. Your COPATAINE HAT was a high-crowned job in the shape of
a sugar-loaf. Some say the word should be COPOTINK and that it comes
from the Dutch. I call a COPATAINE HAT a COPATAINE HAT. So did Mr
Shakespeare, let me tell you. I nEVER heard him say that his HAT came
from Holland. And in his tragical history of Antony and Cleopatra he
has the word COPATAINE. Which part, friends, he wrote first for your
servant: Cleopatra. I nEVER wore a COPATAINE HAT myself, but then
I was only a boy at the time we are speaking of.
I had nEVER before been spoken to by a man in a COPATAINE HAT.
Mr Shakespeare was tall and thin, and he wore that HAT with
an air of great authority. He had also a quilted silken doublet,
goose-turd *GREEN* ; grey velvet hose; and a scarlet cloak.
NEVER believe those who tell you he was not a *DANDY* .
----------------------------------------------------
_The REVEnge of Bussy D'Ambois_ (III, iv.)
- George Chapman (1613)
Clermont: .you make me remember
An accident of high and noble note,
And fits the subject of my late discourse,
Of holding on our free and proper way.
I over-took, coming from Italie,
In Germanie, a great and famous Earle
Of England; the most goodly fashion'd man
I ever saw: from head to foote in forme
Rare, and most absolute; hee had a face
Like one of the most ancient honour'd Romanes,
From whence his noblest Famillie was deriv'd
He was beside of spirit passing great,
Valiant, and learn'd, and liberall as the Sunne,
Spoke and writ sweetly, or of learned subjects,
Or of the discipline of publike weales;
And t'was the Earle of Oxford.
--------------------------------------
VER-DANDI
-------------------------------------------------
<<The Norns of the Norse Mythology are 3 old crones
named: Urd (fate), Skuld (necessity) & VER-DANDI (being).
<<The Norns live beneath the roots of Yggdrasil,
(although some accounts have it that they dwell above the arch
of the Bifrost Bridge), where they weave the tapestry of *FATES*
Each man's (& woman's) life is a string in their loom, and the
length of the string is the length of the person's life. Thus
everything is preordained in the Norse Religion: even the gods
have their own threads, though the Norns do not let the gods see
those. This clear subjection of the gods to a power outside their
control and the implication that they, too, will have an End are
major themes of the literature surrounding the mythology.
The counterparts of the Norns among the Greeks were the
Moirae, known to the Romans as the Parcae.>> - Wikipedia
---------------------------------------------------------
http://comp.uark.edu/~mreynold/aulicus.html
Edouardus Verus, Co-
mes Oxoniae, Vicecomes
Bulbeck, Dominus de Scales
& Badlismer, D. Magnus Angliae Ca-
merarius: Lectori. S. D.
Non scribam, in summis personis, quanta cum concinnitate &
praestantia, virtutum ORNAMENTa depinxerit: nec in ijs, qui Aulici
esse non possunt, quemadmodum aut vitium aliquod insigne, aut
ridiculum ingenium, aut mores agrestes & inurbanos, aut speciem
deformem delinearit. Quicquid est in sermonibus hominum, in congressu
& societate ciuili, aut decorum, atque ingenuum: aut deforme, & turpe:
id eo habitu illustrauit, vt etiam oculis cerni *POSSE* videatur.
Atque haec tanta cum sint, fecit tamen homo non imprudens, vt
conuersionem suam vno omnium maximo ORNAMENTo illustraret. Quid enim
potuit aut ad subsidium firmius, aut ad gloriam illustrius, aut ad
fructum fieri vberius: quam quod Aulicum suum illustrissimae
amplissimaeque Principi dicauerit: in quam non modo Aulicae omnes
virtutes transfusae sunt, sed diuiniores quaedam & plane coelestes
infusae. Sed huius praestantiam si oratione complecti me *POSSE*
existimarem, imprudens essem. Nulla est enim tanta scribendi vis,
tantaque copia, nullum tam apparatum orationis genus, quod illius
virtus non superet.
Thou that art now the world's fresh ORNAMENT
And only herald to the GAUDY SPRING,
Within thine own bud buriest thy content
And, tender churl, makest waste in niggarding.
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>I predict that you and Professor Rubinstein will
>> each thoroughly demolish the other's case.
Elizabeth wrote:
Oxford lived until at least 1609 and is buried in the
Westminster Abbey tomb of his cousing Sir Francis Vere.
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>
>> Athena was NOT the patron of theatrical arts.
>>Athena was NEVER known to anyone as the spear-shaker.
Elizabeth wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The Poems of Edward DE VERE
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/poemslny.htm
But who can leave to look on VENUS' face,
Or yieldeth not to Juno's high estate ?
What wit so wise as gives not PALLAS place ?
These virtues rare ech (sic) Gods did yield a mate;
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chap. 14 : THIS STAR OF ENGLAND
by Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Star/ch14.html
<<We shall...quote from Edwin Reed's Prefatory Address to the Folio:
"In Grecian mythology," he writes, "PALLAS [A]then[A] was the goddess
of wisdom, philosophy, poetry, and the fine arts. Her original name
simply PALLAS ... from PALLEIN, signifying to brandish or SHAKE.
Athens, the home of the drama, was under the protection
of this spear-shaker." It may be added that the HELMET
she wore was supposed to convey INVISIBILITY.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
"WILHELM" "SHAKE" "Speare"
"HELMET" + "PALLAS" + "Spear"
-------------------------------------------------------
_La SAGEsse Mysterieuse des ANCIENS_,
[ FRANCIS BACON's Wisdom of the ANCIENTs ]
http://www.fbrt.org.uk/pages/athena/frameset-athena.html
<<Inscribed on [PALLAS ATHENA]'s shield is a Latin motto,
"OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS
[ "BACON" SVS "NIL VERO VERIUS"]
meaning 'TRUTH is enveloped in obscurity', which explains
the imagery on the shield-the central SUN representing
TRUTH and the surrounding clouds obscurity.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
GOOD FREND FOR [IE]{SVS}' SAKE FORBEARE,
___ TO DIGG THE DV[ST] ENCLOASED HEARE:
BLESTE BE Ye MAN Yt SPA[RE]S THES STONES,
AND CVRST BE HE Yt MO[VE]S MY BONES.
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>Nice job, Tom, but I almost wish you' were leaving Neville alone. I'd
>>love to see some Oxfordian try to refute the case for him without help.
Mouse wrote:
> I'm just debating Prof Rubinstein on Tempest's reliance (or not)
> on Strachey, which he seems to think is his biggest piece
> of evidence for Neville.
Stachey is anti-Oxfordian it's not necessarily pro-Neville.
Fortunately there are numerous ovbious problems with Stachey.
(Unfortunately for Lynne her particular solution to the
problem is WAY TOO unwieldy to use effectively in a debate,)
> I'm not sure that other Oxfordians will try to refute
> the case for Neville at all. We're leaving it to you guys.
Henry Neville has lots of things going for him
as do many other anti-Strat candidates.
Neville Motto: "NE VILE VELIS"
(NOT VILE IS THY WILL)
(Oxford clearly thought that his WILL was vile.)
Art Neuendorffer
Fric
Um ...
They would be able??
Frac
sdlkfjsdlkfjsdlkjfsldkfsd
Fric wrote:
> Um ...
>
> They would be able??
I think so too, on one hand it is the true meaning of ironic (most
people don't know the real meaning)...but on the other hand...the cum
muffin asks a rhetorical question...
"is the arrow beyond thee"
it's chance being dealt
seaker
England Chapter 14:
We shall break in here to quote from Edwin Reed's Prefatory Address to
the Folio: "In Grecian mythology," he writes, "Pallas Athena was the
goddess of wisdom, philosophy, poetry, and the fine arts. Her original
name simply Pallas ... from pallein, signifying to brandish or shake.
Athens, the home of the drama, was under the protection of this
spear-shaker." 1 It may be added that the helmet she wore was supposed
to convey invisibility.
Edwin Reed is wrong! Yes, Athena was the goddess of wisdom plus
strategy and war. Apollo was the god of poetry. On no website or in
any book on Greek Mythology have a found any reference to Athena being
a spear-shaker. Yes, Athens was the home of drama, but the god of
theatre was Dionysus. Who knows where dear Mr. Reed came up with the
idea that Athena's helmet was supposed to convey invisibility. She
wore the helmet because she was the goddess of war. Reed is really
reaching here. Ma and Pa fall hook, line and sinker for Reed's errors
and fibs.
Why, Elizabeth, did your Bacon or LynnE's Oxford need a pen name in the
first place? There wasn't a need to publish any plays or if they were
published, the author's name could have been left off the title page.
And why, pray tell, why didn't your Bacon or LynnE's Oxford use
Spearshaker for his pen name?
The reason the Bacon and Oxford and now Neville crowd come up with
their ridiculous ideas is they need a method to explain away the facts.
William Shakespeare wrote William Shakespeare.
seaker
Greenblatt and James Shaprio would be worth paying to see. They wipe
with floor with the little mouse. Of course, it will never happen.
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
>How interesting that the Neville authors mention Athena. They are just
>like Oxfordians. In the infamous Harper's edition April 1999, Dr.
>Daniel Wright wrote, "After all, Pallas Athena, the mythological patron
>of the theatrical arts, wore a helmet (crowned by a Sphnix) that, when
>its visor was drawn, made her invisible; in her hand she carried a
>great spear.
Has anyone seen an ancient Greek helmet with a retractable
visor?
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
The Historian
> On 10 Jan 2006 22:50:17 -0800, "seaker" <doc...@proaxis.com>
> wrote:
>> How interesting that the Neville authors mention Athena. They are just
>> like Oxfordians. In the infamous Harper's edition April 1999, Dr.
>> Daniel Wright wrote, "After all, Pallas Athena, the mythological patron
>> of the theatrical arts, wore a helmet (crowned by a Sphnix) that, when
>> its visor was drawn, made her invisible; in her hand she carried a
>> great spear.
> ...
> Has anyone seen an ancient Greek helmet with a retractable
> visor?
I've seen a Greek helmut, or at least a helmut owned by a "Greek", with
a visor. In the movie Animal House, IIRC. Do you consider the 1970's
"ancient"? :-)
Mouse
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >
> >>Nice job, Tom, but I almost wish you' were leaving Neville alone. I'd
> >>love to see some Oxfordian try to refute the case for him without help.
>
> Mouse wrote:
>
> > I'm just debating Prof Rubinstein on Tempest's reliance (or not)
> > on Strachey, which he seems to think is his biggest piece
> > of evidence for Neville.
>
> Stachey is anti-Oxfordian it's not necessarily pro-Neville.
>
> Fortunately there are numerous ovbious problems with Stachey.
>
> (Unfortunately for Lynne her particular solution to the
> problem is WAY TOO unwieldy to use effectively in a debate,)
Actually not, Art. It is much easier to demonstrate that Shakespeare
used two earlier and much more famous sources--sources that he'd used
often before--than to invent an elaborate and labyrinthine chain of
custody, with no proof whatsoever, to show that Strachey's letter, not
even published until 1625, somehow got to WS of Stratford.
Regards,
Lynne
seaker
that William Shakespeare "used the two earlier and much more famous
sources - sources that he'd used often before" and wrote THE TEMPEST
around 1610-1611.
Of course, it would neVER occur to Mrs. Kositsky and Dr. Stritmatter
that William Shakespeare read the Strachey letter in manuscript form.
He didn't need to refer to a website chart or a power point
presentation.
Of course, it would neVER occur to Mrs. Kositsky and Dr. Stritmatter
that the events mentioned in Strachey's letter were the talk of London
town, so William Shakespeare wrote THE TEMPEST knowing it would appeal
to the theatregoers.
Of course, none of this is a surprise. It's a typical example of
Oxfordian scholarship!
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >
> >>Nice job, Tom, but I almost wish you' were leaving Neville alone. I'd
> >>love to see some Oxfordian try to refute the case for him without help.
> Mouse wrote:
>
> > I'm just debating Prof Rubinstein on Tempest's reliance (or not)
> > on Strachey, which he seems to think is his biggest piece
> > of evidence for Neville.
It sounds promising -- but why not a three-way debate? Why not pit
Brame/Popova VERsus James/Rubinstein VERsus Kositsky/Stritmatter in a
sort of mixed doubles tag-team free-for-all? Is there any possibility
of making this spirited debate accessible to a wider audience via
podcasting?
> Stachey [sic] is anti-Oxfordian it's not necessarily pro-Neville.
Who, Art?
> Fortunately there are numerous ovbious problems with Stachey [sic].
With whom, Art?
> (Unfortunately for Lynne her particular solution to the
> problem is WAY TOO unwieldy to use effectively in a debate,)
> > I'm not sure that other Oxfordians will try to refute
> > the case for Neville at all. We're leaving it to you guys.
> Henry Neville has lots of things going for him
> as do many other anti-Strat candidates.
Such as?
> Neville Motto: "NE VILE VELIS"
> (NOT VILE IS THY WILL)
>
> (Oxford clearly thought that his WILL was vile.)
How are you vouchsafed such rare insight into what Oxford thought,
Art? Have you been availing yourself of the Percy Allen/Elizabeth Weir
technique of "research"?
> Art Neuendorffer
Mouse
David L. Webb wrote:
> In article <43C5AA01...@comcast.net>,
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> (aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
>
> > > bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > >
> > >>Nice job, Tom, but I almost wish you' were leaving Neville alone. I'd
> > >>love to see some Oxfordian try to refute the case for him without help.
>
> > Mouse wrote:
> >
> > > I'm just debating Prof Rubinstein on Tempest's reliance (or not)
> > > on Strachey, which he seems to think is his biggest piece
> > > of evidence for Neville.
>
> It sounds promising -- but why not a three-way debate? Why not pit
> Brame/Popova VERsus James/Rubinstein VERsus Kositsky/Stritmatter in a
> sort of mixed doubles tag-team free-for-all? Is there any possibility
> of making this spirited debate accessible to a wider audience via
> podcasting?
Yes, that would be great fun, David. Do come. I'll save you a pig's
bladder. ;)
L.
ben-Jonson
> Of course, it would neVER occur to Mrs. Kositsky and Dr. Stritmatter
> that William Shakespeare "used the two earlier and much more famous
> sources - sources that he'd used often before" and wrote THE TEMPEST
> around 1610-1611.
>
Actually, this did occur to us; however, since several earlier texts
refer to *The Tempest*, your orthodox scenario appears to be wrong.
> Of course, it would neVER occur to Mrs. Kositsky and Dr. Stritmatter
> that William Shakespeare read the Strachey letter in manuscript form.
> He didn't need to refer to a website chart or a power point
> presentation.
Actually, this did occur to us also. But even Arthur Kinney has stated
that there is not a shred of evidence to support your conjecture. And
the play, as our work demonstrates, was already written at least six
years before Strachey was shipwrecked in the Bermudas.
>
> Of course, it would neVER occur to Mrs. Kositsky and Dr. Stritmatter
> that the events mentioned in Strachey's letter were the talk of London
> town, so William Shakespeare wrote THE TEMPEST knowing it would appeal
> to the theatregoers.
Actually, this did occur to us also. It is, however, irrelevant for
the reasons already stated.
>
> Of course, none of this is a surprise. It's a typical example of
> Oxfordian scholarship!
If your post is a typical example of "orthodox scholarship," then Santa
Claus really does come down the chimney.
Please do carry on, although you did say that you were leaving: we very
much appreciate your advance publicity for our work.
Cheers!
--Ben
Art Neuendorffer
>>>
>>>>Nice job, Tom, but I almost wish you' were leaving Neville alone. I'd
>>>>love to see some Oxfordian try to refute the case for him without help.
>>>
>>Mouse wrote:
>>
>>>I'm just debating Prof Rubinstein on Tempest's reliance (or not)
>>> on Strachey, which he seems to think is his biggest piece
>>> of evidence for Neville.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>> Stachey is anti-Oxfordian it's not necessarily pro-Neville.
>>
>>Fortunately there are numerous ovbious problems with Stachey.
>>
>> (Unfortunately for Lynne her particular solution to the
>> problem is WAY TOO unwieldy to use effectively in a debate,)
Mouse wrote:
>
> Actually not, Art. It is much easier to demonstrate that Shakespeare
> used two earlier and much more famous sources--sources that he'd used
> often before--than to invent an elaborate and labyrinthine chain of
> custody, with no proof whatsoever, to show that Strachey's letter, not
> even published until 1625, somehow got to WS of Stratford.
You're not debating against WS of Stratford, Dear, but against HN of
Billingbear Park. No one is questioning whether or not Shakespeare
used two earlier more famous sources; in fact, EVERY scholarly
work on _Tempest_ sources claims that he did just that!
The question here involves how one explains the similarity
between a pre-1605_Tempest_ and an "historical" 1610 document.
The very fact that the Sea Venture left Plymouth Sound
on ST.ELMO's DAY, 1609, &
"made straight for Virginia"
thereby bucking BOTH the North Atlantic Current
AND the prevailing wind is sufficient evidence,
IN AND OF ITSELF, that Strachey letter is PURE fiction & hence
irrelevant. (Personal letters can say anything they damn want!)
But if you insist on ignoring both physics & common sense
in order to engage in your own elaborate & labyrinthine
chain of logic to demonstrate the rather obvious
phoniness of the Strachey letter then be my guest.
I just hope you are allowed unlimited debating time.
My friend Peter has heard Prof Rubinstein debate and he said that
was quite impressed. Rubinstein will have plenty of time to expound
on all sorts of novel pro-Neville connections while you are
concentrating upon one tiny miniscule anti-Oxfordian issue.
lotsa luck, Art Neuendorffer
ben-Jonson
he is a talented speaker; so is Lynne Kositsky. For this very reason,
I hazard the prediction that the outcome of the debate will not be
determined by rhetorical skill, but through the issues as presented by
the two debaters. On that score, Rubinstein doesn't have a chance. He
is presenting the orthodox case for Strachey, which you yourself in
this very post (correctly, even if your reasoning is a bit squeaky)
describe as rubbish.
Art Neuendorffer
Since most likely almost everyone in the audience will have their own
strong opinions on the matter I am not terribly concerned how it turns
out. Nevertheless, I thought the Smithsonian sponsered debate in
Washington a few years ago was remarkable even in spite of my bias
against the illiterate Stratford boob. Debating another
anti-Stratfordian, however, is a much more daunting task, IMO.
I know from experience that it is very difficult to be intensely
involved with studying a specific issue and then to go out and talk
coherently on that subject to people not versed in the technicalities.
I would highly recommend, therefore, that Lynne NOT talk about Strachey
AT ALL (unless the opposition makes a case of it). Rather she should get
suggestions from her many Oxfordian friends on key points that convinced
them that Oxford was the author as opposed to one of the many other
anti-Stratfordian possibilities.
If Rubinstein gets in his key pro-Neville points and
Lynne gets hung up on the many technicalities of Strachey
then the Mouse is going down in flames.
Art Neuendorffer
Robert Stonehouse
This motto means 'You are not to desire what is cheap'. The
word 'cheap' here does imply 'nasty' - that is, 'vile' means
cheap ina sense that tends to be derogatory.
Art Neuendorffer
>> Henry Neville has lots of things going for him
>> as do many other anti-Strat candidates.
>> Neville Motto: "NE VILE VELIS"
>> (NOT VILE IS THY WILL)
>>
>> (Oxford clearly thought that his WILL was vile.)
David L. Webb wrote:
> How are you vouchsafed such rare insight into what Oxford thought,
> Art? Have you been availing yourself of the Percy Allen/Elizabeth
> Weir technique of "research"?
Is it April 23rd already! Tempus fugit.
Art N.
Mouse
Thank you so much for your faith in me, Art. I partially make my living
by public speaking, by the way, and no one has complained yet that my
talk was too abstruse.
L.
>
> Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>> Henry Neville has lots of things going for him
>> as do many other anti-Strat candidates.
>>
>> Neville Motto: "NE VILE VELIS"
>> (NOT VILE IS THY WILL)
>>
>> (Oxford clearly thought that his WILL was vile.)
Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> This motto means 'You are not to desire what is cheap'. The
> word 'cheap' here does imply 'nasty' - that is, 'vile' means
> cheap ina sense that tends to be derogatory.
--------------------------------------
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/owen/2eng.html
The Epigrammata of John Owen (Ioannis Audoenus) (1606 - 1613)
THE SECOND BOOK OF JOHN OWEN'S EPIGRAMS
66. THE MOTTO OF SIR HENRY NEVILLE HIS SON-IN-LAW.
NE VILE VELIS (NOT VILE IS THY WILL)
Neville, thy will ne-vile, or vain brings brings forth:
Sith vile things little, vain are Nothing worth.
--------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/caseallen/travel/region/fstonecoa.html
http://www.featherstone-society.com/history/heraldry.htm
http://ourpasthistory.com/Gallery/livery_crest
"Form no Vile Wish"
--------------------------------------
http://www.magicschool.net/shannondan/leconfE.htm
"Wish for nothing vile."
--------------------------------------
http://www.heraldryandcrests.com/Mottos.htm
"Wishing nothing base"
--------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/~cindycasey/origin.htm
"Wish nothing false"
--------------------------------------
http://www.orientalrugsofbath.com/orbnevil.htm
http://www.nevillehouse.com/nevillevelis/2004-2005-01.php
"nothing distasteful or vulgar".
-----------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> Thank you so much for your faith in me, Art. I partially make my living
> by public speaking, by the way, and no one has complained yet that my
> talk was too abstruse.
Public speaking is NOT debating.
A good debater should NOT take things personally.
You take EVERYTHING personally.
Art
Tom Reedy
news:1137096438.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Unlike you, Art, I have actually heard Rubinstein speak. I agree that
> I hazard the prediction that the outcome of the debate will not be
> determined by rhetorical skill, but through the issues as presented by
> the two debaters.
So it will be different than, say, U.S. presidential candidate debates?
TR
gangleri
Or did you mean EVERything personally?
David L. Webb
"Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> David L. Webb wrote:
> > In article <43C5AA01...@comcast.net>,
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > (aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> >
> > > > bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Nice job, Tom, but I almost wish you' were leaving Neville alone. I'd
> > > >>love to see some Oxfordian try to refute the case for him without help.
> > > Mouse wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm just debating Prof Rubinstein on Tempest's reliance (or not)
> > > > on Strachey, which he seems to think is his biggest piece
> > > > of evidence for Neville.
> > It sounds promising -- but why not a three-way debate? Why not pit
> > Brame/Popova VERsus James/Rubinstein VERsus Kositsky/Stritmatter in a
> > sort of mixed doubles tag-team free-for-all? Is there any possibility
> > of making this spirited debate accessible to a wider audience via
> > podcasting?
> Yes, that would be great fun, David. Do come.
I'd love to, of course, but I'm far too busy to travel across the
country to attend these annual nutfests, however entertaining they
promise to be; indeed, I could not even make it to Baltimore when Art
himself was on the program! Thus I sincerely hope that the organizers
will consider seriously the possibility of podcasting or streaming video
in order to spread the word -- Oxfordian organizations need to enter the
computer age, and how better to do so than by podcasting some of the
main attractions? Some mathematics and physics conference talks are
videotaped and made available in streaming video, with the speaker's
permission; why not your debate?
> I'll save you a pig's
> bladder. ;)
If Mr. Streitz is in attendance, you may need to stockpile all the
available pig bladders for his use, particularly if any immigrants show
up.
Mouse
> In article <1137094788.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> > > In article <43C5AA01...@comcast.net>,
> > > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > (aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > >
> > > > > bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>Nice job, Tom, but I almost wish you' were leaving Neville alone. I'd
> > > > >>love to see some Oxfordian try to refute the case for him without help.
>
> > > > Mouse wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm just debating Prof Rubinstein on Tempest's reliance (or not)
> > > > > on Strachey, which he seems to think is his biggest piece
> > > > > of evidence for Neville.
>
> > > It sounds promising -- but why not a three-way debate? Why not pit
> > > Brame/Popova VERsus James/Rubinstein VERsus Kositsky/Stritmatter in a
> > > sort of mixed doubles tag-team free-for-all? Is there any possibility
> > > of making this spirited debate accessible to a wider audience via
> > > podcasting?
>
> > Yes, that would be great fun, David. Do come.
>
> I'd love to, of course, but I'm far too busy to travel across the
> country to attend these annual nutfests, however entertaining they
> promise to be;
Would that include the Renaissance Society of America Conference,
David? We're speaking there also.
>indeed, I could not even make it to Baltimore when Art
> himself was on the program!
Yes, that was a terrible loss. And Art speaks in such a straightforward
manner of course, so unlike yours truly, who apparently can't mount a
decent argument against Professor Rubinstein because she can't see the
wood for the trees.
>Thus I sincerely hope that the organizers
> will consider seriously the possibility of podcasting or streaming video
> in order to spread the word -- Oxfordian organizations need to enter the
> computer age, and how better to do so than by podcasting some of the
> main attractions?
How kind of you to intimate that I'm a main attraction.
>Some mathematics and physics conference talks are
> videotaped and made available in streaming video, with the speaker's
> permission; why not your debate?
Perhaps you could contact the organizers to suggest it.
>
> > I'll save you a pig's
> > bladder. ;)
>
> If Mr. Streitz is in attendance, you may need to stockpile all the
> available pig bladders for his use, particularly if any immigrants show
> up.
I'm an immigrant. I should probably arm myself with a pig's bladder or
two when in his company. :(
L.
Mouse
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> Mouse wrote:
>
> > Thank you so much for your faith in me, Art. I partially make my living
> > by public speaking, by the way, and no one has complained yet that my
> > talk was too abstruse.
>
> Public speaking is NOT debating.
Debating is a form of public speaking. I was on my school debating team
and also judged debates at the college level.
>
> A good debater should NOT take things personally.
> You take EVERYTHING personally.
Not when I'm debating.
L.
>
> Art
The Historian
Would you prefer to be a sideshow attraction?
>> Some mathematics and physics conference talks are
>> videotaped and made available in streaming video, with the speaker's
>> permission; why not your debate?
>
> Perhaps you could contact the organizers to suggest it.
>>> I'll save you a pig's
>>> bladder. ;)
>> If Mr. Streitz is in attendance, you may need to stockpile all the
>> available pig bladders for his use, particularly if any immigrants show
>> up.
>
> I'm an immigrant. I should probably arm myself with a pig's bladder or
> two when in his company. :(
A few pies might be nice. And no, Mouse, I didn't plan on eating them.
The Historian
Lynne not take something personally - that I gotta see. Roger, can you
film the debate? Or arrange to have it broadcast?
Mouse
It's not our conference, Neil. It's Dan's, so it's up to him.
L.
David L. Webb
"Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
No; that one is not likely to be a nutfest (although at any large
conference, there are generally one or two nuts in attendance).
> We're speaking there also.
But Rubinstein is not, I presume -- so there won't even be a debate,
far less a mixed doubles tag-team free-for-all.
> >indeed, I could not even make it to Baltimore when Art
> > himself was on the program!
> Yes, that was a terrible loss. And Art speaks in such a straightforward
> manner of course, so unlike yours truly, who apparently can't mount a
> decent argument against Professor Rubinstein because she can't see the
> wood for the trees.
Pay no attention to Art. His idea of a "decent argument" includes
the inference that a man born in 1923 would be 54 years old in 2001, as
well as the reasonable(?!) inference that researchers supported by the
Mellon Foundation routinely travel to New York to pick up their grant
checks *in person* at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan!
> >Thus I sincerely hope that the organizers
> > will consider seriously the possibility of podcasting or streaming video
> > in order to spread the word -- Oxfordian organizations need to enter the
> > computer age, and how better to do so than by podcasting some of the
> > main attractions?
> How kind of you to intimate that I'm a main attraction.
Any debate of this nature is apt to be a main attraction, whoever the
debaters may be -- not that I doubt that your debating acumen will be a
credit to the cause, Lynne.
> >Some mathematics and physics conference talks are
> > videotaped and made available in streaming video, with the speaker's
> > permission; why not your debate?
> Perhaps you could contact the organizers to suggest it.
I very seriously doubt that I have anywhere near the influence with
the Rev. Prof. Dr. Dan Wright that you wield, Lynne -- especially as
President (or perhaps by now past President) of the Shakespeare
Fellowship. Surely you can persuade the conference organizers to
provide streaming video of the debate and the plenary lectures at least.
Such a technical coup would bring Oxfordianism into the digital age!
> > > I'll save you a pig's
> > > bladder. ;)
> > If Mr. Streitz is in attendance, you may need to stockpile all the
> > available pig bladders for his use, particularly if any immigrants show
> > up.
> I'm an immigrant. I should probably arm myself with a pig's bladder or
> two when in his company. :(
Be cautious, Lynne -- Mr. Streitz is evidently among those vigilantes
who have taken upon themselves the organization of anti-immigrant
"citizens' patrols" of the border. (It probably has not occurred to Mr.
Streitz to check whether Oregon shares a border with Canada, so one
cannot be too careful.)
David L. Webb
"Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
This announcement opens the possibility of adding fluorescence to the
festivities:
<http://news8.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/science/newsid_4605000/4605774.st
m>
Think of the sensation it would create at the conference banquet!
[...]
Art Neuendorffer
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>>indeed, I could not even make it to Baltimore when Art
>>>himself was on the program!
> "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>Yes, that was a terrible loss. And Art speaks in such a straightforward
>>manner of course, so unlike yours truly, who apparently can't mount a
>>decent argument against Professor Rubinstein because she can't see the
>>wood for the trees.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Pay no attention to Art. His idea of a "decent argument" includes
> the inference that a man born in 1923 would be 54 years old in 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------
My idea of a "decent argument" includes the inference that
a Vere born in 1560 would *NOT* be 54 years old in 1609.
.........................................................
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/library/burial/vere.htm
<<Sir Francis Vere (1560-1609) has a large monument of alabaster and
black marble showing him lying on a carved rush mattress in civilian
dress under a slab on which is laid out his suit of armour. The slab
is supported on the shoulders of four life-sized knights in armour
who kneel at each corner. The monument seems to have been inspired
by that of Count Engelbert II of Nassau-Dillenburg in the church
at Breda. The Latin inscription can be translated:
To Francis Vere, Knight, son of Geoffrey and nephew of John earl of
Oxford, governor of Brill and Portsmouth, chief leader of the English
forces in Belgium, died 28 August 1609, in the 54th year of his age.
Elizabeth, his wife, in great sadness and sobbing with tears,
placed this supreme monument to conjugal faith and love.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 5, Scene 2
PRINCE FORTINBRAS: Let four captains
Bear Hamlet, like a soldier, to the stage;
-----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Robert Stonehouse
<Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2006 22:50:17 -0800, "seaker" <doc...@proaxis.com>
>> wrote:
>>> How interesting that the Neville authors mention Athena. They are just
>>> like Oxfordians. In the infamous Harper's edition April 1999, Dr.
>>> Daniel Wright wrote, "After all, Pallas Athena, the mythological patron
>>> of the theatrical arts, wore a helmet (crowned by a Sphnix) that, when
>>> its visor was drawn, made her invisible; in her hand she carried a
>>> great spear.
>> ...
>> Has anyone seen an ancient Greek helmet with a retractable
>> visor?
>
>I've seen a Greek helmut, or at least a helmut owned by a "Greek", with
>a visor. In the movie Animal House, IIRC. Do you consider the 1970's
>"ancient"? :-)
No. I want another 2,500 years or so.
There are helmets in Greek paintings with fixed cheek
pieces, shaped so that the whole helmet can be pushed to the
back of the head leaving the face free, but that is a
different matter.
Art Neuendorffer
> This announcement opens the possibility
> of adding fluorescence to the festivities:
http://news8.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/science/newsid_4605000/4605774.stm
--------------------------------------------------
VERDE FOS fore scente
FOS : sHAM (Turkish)
FOS : WALL (Cornish)
FOS : SHIT, shitty (Hungarian)
FOS : mountain stream, torrent (Danish)
--------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> Since most likely almost everyone in the audience will have their own
> strong opinions on the matter I am not terribly concerned how it turns
> out. Nevertheless, I thought the Smithsonian sponsered [sic]
Is English your native tongue, Art?
> debate in
> Washington a few years ago was remarkable even in spite of my bias
> against the illiterate Stratford boob. Debating another
> anti-Stratfordian, however, is a much more daunting task, IMO.
Really? Then you would find it a "much more daunting task" to
debate, say, PWDBard, Art? Or Mr. Streitz? Or "Dr." Faker?
> I know from experience that it is very difficult to be intensely
> involved with studying a specific issue and then to go out and talk
> coherently on that subject
Why the VER-BOSity, Art? Your sentence would have been perfectly
true had you ended it here. In fact, you could even have omitted the
text "to be intensely involved with studying a specific issue and then."
> to people not versed in the technicalities.
> I would highly recommend, therefore, that Lynne NOT talk about Strachey
> AT ALL (unless the opposition makes a case of it). Rather she should get
> suggestions from her many Oxfordian friends on key points that convinced
> them that Oxford was the author
Beginning with you, Art? I'm sure that eVERyone present will be
completely convinced by "Agnes a gob" and "I kill Edwasd de Vese." No
doubt canvassing other prominent Oxfordians like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz,
Brame and Popova, etc. will also prove immensely helpful in furnishing
Lynne with persuasive debating points.
Your hapless attempts to "help" Lynne in her debate preparation
constitute perhaps the strongest evidence yet that you are, as I've
always suspected, a closet Stratfordian, Art!
Art Neuendorffer
>> Since most likely almost everyone in the audience will have their own
>>strong opinions on the matter I am not terribly concerned how it turns
>>out. Nevertheless, I thought the Smithsonian sponsored debate in
>>Washington a few years ago was remarkable even in spite of my bias
>>against the illiterate Stratford boob. Debating another
>>anti-Stratfordian, however, is a much more daunting task, IMO.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Really? Then you would find it a "much more daunting task" to
> debate, say, PWDBard, Art? Or Mr. Streitz? Or "Dr." Faker?
After 15000 HLAS posts I personally wouldn't be
daunted by debating anyone on the authorship issue.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>I know from experience that it is very difficult to be intensely
>>involved with studying a specific issue and then to go out
>> and talk coherently on that subject
David L. Webb wrote:
> Why the VER-BOSity, Art? Your sentence would have been perfectly
> true had you ended it here. In fact, you could even have omitted the
> text "to be intensely involved with studying a specific issue and then."
Your sentence are always perfectly true.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>to people not versed in the technicalities.
>>I would highly recommend, therefore, that Lynne NOT talk about Strachey
>>AT ALL (unless the opposition makes a case of it). Rather she should get
>>suggestions from her many Oxfordian friends on key points that convinced
>>them that Oxford was the author
David L. Webb wrote:
> Beginning with you, Art?
I doubt if Lynne still considers me a friend.
David L. Webb wrote:
> I'm sure that eVERyone present will be
> completely convinced by "Agnes a gob" and "I kill Edwasd de Vese." No
> doubt canvassing other prominent Oxfordians like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz,
> Brame and Popova, etc. will also prove immensely helpful in furnishing
> Lynne with persuasive debating points.
I doubt if Lynne considers them to be friends.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Your hapless attempts to "help" Lynne in her debate preparation
> constitute perhaps the strongest evidence yet that you are,
> as I've always suspected, a closet Stratfordian, Art!
Dream on, Dave.
Art Neuendorffer
Mouse
Why wouldn't I, Art?
L.
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>>>to people not versed in the technicalities.
>>>>I would highly recommend, therefore, that Lynne NOT talk about Strachey
>>>>AT ALL (unless the opposition makes a case of it). Rather she should get
>>>>suggestions from her many Oxfordian friends on key points that convinced
>>>>them that Oxford was the author
>>>
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> Beginning with you, Art?
>Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> I doubt if Lynne still considers me a friend.
Mouse wrote:
> Why wouldn't I, Art?
Because you seem to expect certain concessions from
your friends that I am unwilling to concede to you.
Art
Mouse
I don't expect concessions from friends with regard to intellectual
argument, nor do I think that our being on different sides of an
argument has anything to do with our friendship.
L.
>
> Art
David L. Webb
"Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Well put. In fact, you have hit upon Art's great good fortune: if
agreement were a precondition for friendship, then Art wouldn't have
*any* friends -- not even George Mason!
> L.
> >
> > Art
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >> Since most likely almost everyone in the audience will have their own
> >>strong opinions on the matter I am not terribly concerned how it turns
> >>out. Nevertheless, I thought the Smithsonian sponsored debate in
> >>Washington a few years ago was remarkable even in spite of my bias
> >>against the illiterate Stratford boob. Debating another
> >>anti-Stratfordian, however, is a much more daunting task, IMO.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Really? Then you would find it a "much more daunting task" to
> > debate, say, PWDBard, Art? Or Mr. Streitz? Or "Dr." Faker?
> After 15000 HLAS posts I personally wouldn't be
> daunted by debating anyone on the authorship issue.
Neither would Mr. Streitz, who used to be foreVER challenging all and
sundry to debates, despite having decisively lost a unanimous decision
in the one debate in which he participated. The sheer quantity of your
h.l.a.s. posts is utterly unrelated to their capacity to persuade, Art
-- indeed, thus far your batting aVERage is about 0/15,000.
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >>I know from experience that it is very difficult to be intensely
> >>involved with studying a specific issue and then to go out
> >> and talk coherently on that subject
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Why the VER-BOSity, Art? Your sentence would have been perfectly
> > true had you ended it here. In fact, you could even have omitted the
> > text "to be intensely involved with studying a specific issue and then."
> Your sentence are [sic] always perfectly true.
Thank you, Art. (Is English your native tongue?)
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >>to people not versed in the technicalities.
> >>I would highly recommend, therefore, that Lynne NOT talk about Strachey
> >>AT ALL (unless the opposition makes a case of it). Rather she should get
> >>suggestions from her many Oxfordian friends on key points that convinced
> >>them that Oxford was the author
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Beginning with you, Art?
> I doubt if Lynne still considers me a friend.
Why on earth not? Because of some idiotic insinuations of plagiarism
that you posted on the Shakespeare Fellowship site? I'm sure that Lynne
doesn't take such things personally; as President of the Shakespeare
Fellowship, she has no doubt had plenty of experience in dealing with
clueless nutcases.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > I'm sure that eVERyone present will be
> > completely convinced by "Agnes a gob" and "I kill Edwasd de Vese." No
> > doubt canvassing other prominent Oxfordians like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz,
> > Brame and Popova, etc. will also prove immensely helpful in furnishing
> > Lynne with persuasive debating points.
> I doubt if Lynne considers them to be friends.
Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you, PWDBard,
Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her
quest for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out the opinions
of the most prominent Oxfordians, whether or not they happen to be her
friends, Art?
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Your hapless attempts to "help" Lynne in her debate preparation
> > constitute perhaps the strongest evidence yet that you are,
> > as I've always suspected, a closet Stratfordian, Art!
> Dream on, Dave.
But Art -- in Russian, "Didn't dream" is "Ne mechtal":
NI MECHTAL =>
I, HAMLET
C
N
-- it is quite plausible that you do indeed model yourself upon Hamlet,
since he too feigns madness. But perhaps you prefer French. You mean,
reVER, Art?
> Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>> After 15000 HLAS posts I personally wouldn't be
>> daunted by debating anyone on the authorship issue.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Neither would Mr. Streitz, who used to be foreVER challenging all and
> sundry to debates, despite having decisively lost a unanimous decision
> in the one debate in which he participated. The sheer quantity of your
> h.l.a.s. posts is utterly unrelated to their capacity to persuade, Art
> -- indeed, thus far your batting aVERage is about 0/15,000.
>
>
>> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>>>I would highly recommend that Lynne NOT talk about Strachey
>>>>AT ALL (unless the opposition makes a case of it).
>>>> Rather she should get suggestions from
>>>> her many Oxfordian friends on key points that convinced
>>>>them that Oxford was the author
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>> Beginning with you, Art?
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> I doubt if Lynne still considers me a friend.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Why on earth not? Because of some idiotic insinuations of
> plagiarism that you posted on the Shakespeare Fellowship site?
(Where do you find time to read the Shakespeare Fellowship site, Dave?)
I never accused Lynne of plagiarism (although I was accused of doing
so). I was simply reminding her that the Strachey argument against
Oxford has be torn to shreds many times before Roger & ever her got
involved in the issue (and in much more succinct ways) and that
it would be proper for them to acknowledge this fact.
David L. Webb wrote:
> I'm sure that Lynne
> doesn't take such things personally; as President of the Shakespeare
> Fellowship, she has no doubt had plenty of experience in dealing with
> clueless nutcases.
Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship she avoided
the type of hyperbole that mars so much of anti-Stratfordian arguments,
both good & bad.
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>> I'm sure that eVERyone present will be
>>>completely convinced by "Agnes a gob" and "I kill Edwasd de Vese." No
>>>doubt canvassing other prominent Oxfordians like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz,
>>>Brame and Popova, etc. will also prove immensely helpful in furnishing
>>>Lynne with persuasive debating points.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> I doubt if Lynne considers them to be friends.
>
>
> Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
> Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you,
> PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova,
> "gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her quest
> for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out the opinions
> of the most prominent Oxfordians, whether or not they happen to be her
> friends, Art?
Like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo," and myself
Lynne is under some sort of delusion that she has done something
profound in demolishing the Stratfordian defenses;
she has not & we have not.
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> Your hapless attempts to "help" Lynne in her debate preparation
>>>constitute perhaps the strongest evidence yet that you are,
>>> as I've always suspected, a closet Stratfordian, Art!
>>
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> Dream on, Dave.
David L. Webb wrote:
> But Art -- in Russian, "Didn't dream" is "Ne mechtal":
>
> NI MECHTAL =>
>
> I, HAMLET
> C
> N
-------------------------------------------------
Romeo and Juliet Act 1, Scene 4
ROMEO: I dream'd a dream to-night.
-------------------------------------------------
Othello Act 3, Scene 3
OTHELLO: though it be but a dream.
-------------------------------------------------
Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2
HAMLET: A dream itself is but a shadow.
-------------------------------------------------
Timon of Athens Act 4, Scene 2
FLAVIUS : Who would be so mock'd with glory?
or to live But in a dream of friendship?
-------------------------------------------------
A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 4, Scene 1
BOTTOM: [Awaking] I have had a most rare vision.
I have had a dream, past the wit of man to say what dream it was:
-------------------------------------------------
Cymbeline Act 5, Scene 4
Posthumus Leonatus [Waking]
'Tis still a dream, or else such stuff as madmen
Tongue and brain not; either both or nothing;
Or senseless speaking or a speaking such
As sense cannot untie. Be what it is,
The action of my life is like it, which
I'll keep, if but for sympathy.
-------------------------------------------------
Sonnet 129
Mad in pursuit and in possession so;
Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;
A bliss in proof, and proved, a very woe;
Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream.
--------------------------------------------
I have a dream that one day this nation WILL rise up and live out the
true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of
former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners WILL be able to sit
down together at a table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert
state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, WILL be
transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four children WILL one day live in a nation where
they WILL not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of
their character.
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips
are presently dripping with the words of interposition and
nullification, WILL be transformed into a situation where little black
boys and black girls WILL be able to join hands with little white boys
and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill
and mountain shall be made low, the rough places WILL be made plain, and
the crooked places WILL be made straight, and the glory of the Lord
shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South.
With this faith we WILL be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a
stone of hope. With this faith we WILL be able to transform the jangling
discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.
-------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
ben-Jonson
>
> > Why on earth not? Because of some idiotic insinuations of
> > plagiarism that you posted on the Shakespeare Fellowship site?
>
> (Where do you find time to read the Shakespeare Fellowship site, Dave?)
>
> I never accused Lynne of plagiarism (although I was accused of doing
> so). I was simply reminding her that the Strachey argument against
> Oxford has be torn to shreds many times before Roger & ever her got
> involved in the issue (and in much more succinct ways) and that
> it would be proper for them to acknowledge this fact.
Art, it would not have been proper for us to acknowledge an internet
essay that in no material way contributed to the logic, fact pattern,
or language of our essay. You may well believe that the Strachey
argument "has be torn to shreds," but if so that is because you have
your head in an Oxfordian tar pit. Obviously, the case for Strachey's
influence has not been debunked in the eyes of most Shakespearean
scholars. One of the purposes of our work on the Tempest, which
incidentally you have not read, is to accomplish that debunking. Your
beliefs about the matter are irrelevant; the audience for our work is
professional academicians.
>
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> >
> > Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
> > Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you,
> > PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova,
> > "gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her quest
> > for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out the opinions
> > of the most prominent Oxfordians, whether or not they happen to be her
> > friends, Art?
>
> Like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo," and myself
> Lynne is under some sort of delusion that she has done something
> profound in demolishing the Stratfordian defenses;
> she has not & we have not.
Since you haven't read the work that Lynne and I have done on the
Tempest, Art, how are you in a position to evaluate it, let alone
condemn it in extravagant psychoanlytical terms?
As for the impact the work will have on traditional beliefs about
Shakespeare, only time will answer that question. You can predict the
work's irrelevance until you are blue in the face; all your exertions
will accomplish is to provoke curiosity in formerly uninterested
parties who will want to understand the source of your hostility and
will evaluate the work from a more objective frame.
I may also add, on a more personal note, man to man, that your
degrading attacks on Ms. Kositsky, an internationally recognized
creative author and former President of the Shakespeare Fellowship,
reflect very poorly on your capacity for strategic thinking, your
understanding of intellectual protocols, and your ability to sustain
meaningful relationships.
Art Neuendorffer
> I may also add, on a more personal note, man to man, that your
> degrading attacks on Ms. Kositsky, an internationally recognized
> creative author and former President of the Shakespeare Fellowship,
> reflect very poorly on your capacity for strategic thinking, your
> understanding of intellectual protocols, and your ability
> to sustain meaningful relationships.
You've cut me to the quick, b-J!
Art N.
Art Neuendorffer
>> I never accused Lynne of plagiarism (although I was accused of doing
>>so). I was simply reminding her that the Strachey argument against
>>Oxford has be torn to shreds many times before Roger & ever her got
>>involved in the issue (and in much more succinct ways) and that
>>it would be proper for them to acknowledge this fact.
ben-Johnson wrote:
> Art, it would not have been proper for us to acknowledge an internet
> essay that in no material way contributed to the logic, fact pattern,
> or language of our essay. You may well believe that the Strachey
> argument "has be torn to shreds," but if so that is because you have
> your head in an Oxfordian tar pit. Obviously, the case for Strachey's
> influence has not been debunked in the eyes of most Shakespearean
> scholars. One of the purposes of our work on the Tempest, which
> incidentally you have not read, is to accomplish that debunking.
> Your beliefs about the matter are irrelevant;
> the audience for our work is professional academicians.
The audience for your work is (no doubt)
courageous independent professional academicians.
So that would include you & (maybe) Rubenstein and...um...ah...???
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>> Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
>>> Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you,
>>> PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova,
>>> "gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her quest
>>> for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out the opinions
>>> of the most prominent Oxfordians, whether or not they happen to be her
>>> friends, Art?
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>> Like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo," and myself
>>Lynne is under some sort of delusion that she has done something
>>profound in demolishing the Stratfordian defenses;
>>she has not & we have not.
ben-Jonson wrote:
> Since you haven't read the work that Lynne and I have done on the
> Tempest, Art, how are you in a position to evaluate it, let alone
> condemn it in extravagant psychoanlytical terms?
I'm not condemning your work; I'm condemning anyone & everyone
who ventures onto HLAS bragging about how they've done something
significant; It is for others to judge what is significant
and what isn't.
ben-Jonson wrote:
> As for the impact the work will have on traditional beliefs
> about Shakespeare, only time will answer that question.
One thing the Strats certainly have a lot of is time & patience.
ben-Jonson wrote:
> You can predict the
> work's irrelevance until you are blue in the face; all your exertions
> will accomplish is to provoke curiosity in formerly uninterested
> parties who will want to understand the source of your hostility
> and will evaluate the work from a more objective frame.
Lynne always says that the only bad publicity is no publicity. If I
have helped to stimulate interest in your work then I am glad for that.
(I am also appreciative for the HLAS anti-Oxfordians who have,
from time to time, bothered to read & criticize my own posts.)
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >> After 15000 HLAS posts I personally wouldn't be
> >> daunted by debating anyone on the authorship issue.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Neither would Mr. Streitz, who used to be foreVER challenging all and
> > sundry to debates, despite having decisively lost a unanimous decision
> > in the one debate in which he participated. The sheer quantity of your
> > h.l.a.s. posts is utterly unrelated to their capacity to persuade, Art
> > -- indeed, thus far your batting aVERage is about 0/15,000.
> >> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >>>>I would highly recommend that Lynne NOT talk about Strachey
> >>>>AT ALL (unless the opposition makes a case of it).
> >>>> Rather she should get suggestions from
> >>>> her many Oxfordian friends on key points that convinced
> >>>>them that Oxford was the author
> >>David L. Webb wrote:
>
> >>> Beginning with you, Art?
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >> I doubt if Lynne still considers me a friend.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Why on earth not? Because of some idiotic insinuations of
> > plagiarism that you posted on the Shakespeare Fellowship site?
> (Where do you find time to read the Shakespeare Fellowship site, Dave?)
Didn't you know that the Fellowship forums (especially neufer posts)
were required reading for Templars, Art? The Grand Master has spies
eVERywhere!
> I never accused Lynne of plagiarism
If you'll reread (if indeed you even read it the first time) what I
wrote above, Art, you'll find that I used the word "insinuations," not
"accusations."
> (although I was accused of doing
> so). I was simply reminding her that the Strachey argument against
> Oxford has be torn [sic]
Is English your native tongue, Art?
> to shreds many times before Roger & ever her [sic?]
Is English your native tongue, Art?
> got
> involved in the issue (and in much more succinct ways)
Terseness is not what is at issue, Art.
> and that
> it would be proper for them to acknowledge this fact.
If Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter relied upon primary sources, and if
their argument is logically independent of Mr. Multhopp's and other
essays on the subject, then they are under no obligation whateVER to
mention those earlier essays. (Besides, the less said about some of
those essays, the better!)
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > I'm sure that Lynne
> > doesn't take such things personally; as President of the Shakespeare
> > Fellowship, she has no doubt had plenty of experience in dealing with
> > clueless nutcases.
> Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship she avoided
> the type of hyperbole that mars so much of anti-Stratfordian arguments,
> both good & bad.
"Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship"? What
about now, Art? Doesn't she still eschew such hyperbole?
> >>David L. Webb wrote:
>
> >>> I'm sure that eVERyone present will be
> >>>completely convinced by "Agnes a gob" and "I kill Edwasd de Vese." No
> >>>doubt canvassing other prominent Oxfordians like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz,
> >>>Brame and Popova, etc. will also prove immensely helpful in furnishing
> >>>Lynne with persuasive debating points.
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >> I doubt if Lynne considers them to be friends.
> > Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
> > Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you,
> > PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova,
> > "gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her quest
> > for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out the opinions
> > of the most prominent Oxfordians, whether or not they happen to be her
> > friends, Art?
> Like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo," and myself
> Lynne is under some sort of delusion
There is simply no meaningful comparison of Lynne's delusions with
the infinitely more colorful delusions of the likes of Brame and Popova,
PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, and especially aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
And I don't know how I could have oVERlooked Mr. Crowley -- surely his
latest scatological sonnet exegesis would be powerfully persuasive in
such a debate!
> that she has done something
> profound in demolishing the Stratfordian defenses;
To the best of my knowledge, the essay of Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter
does not mention "demolishing the Stratfordian defenses"; rather, its
thesis appears to more modest, and more reasonable: revisiting the
sources of _The Tempest_.
> she has not
That remains to be seen, Art. The Kositsky/Stritmatter essay will be
subject to the usual peer REView, and until it is published, its impact
on Shakespeare scholarship cannot be predicted by anyone, least of all
by you. It is premature to judge the potential impact of a document
that you evidently have not read, Art -- but reading has neVER been
among your strengths, your preference for mindless grepping having been
demonstrated upon countless occasions.
> & we have not.
Mr. Streitz hasn't?! PWDBard hasn't?! And even *you* haven't?! Say
it ain't so, Art!
All those occurrences of "will" -- was MLK a Templar too, Art?
> Art Neuendorffer
seaker
incidentally you have not read, is to accomplish that debunking. Your
beliefs about the matter are irrelevant; the audience for our work is
professional academicians.
LOL, LOL, LOL! The Oxfordian writings have had little impact on
professional academicians in theatre and/or dramatic literature. (I
don't include those in comparative lit because it appears that some are
easily fooled.) In the February 1975 issue of Harvard Magazine, Gwynne
Evans and Harry Levin wrote a stinging response to an article by
Charlton Ogburn. In my opinion, they punctured his little balloon. In
his seminal book, Shakespeare's Lives, S. Schoenbaum punctured the
Oxfordian balloon. Joel McCrea, in his excellent book The Case For
Shakespeare The End of The Authorship Question punctured the Oxfordian
balloon. McCrea suggests that the Oxfordians fold their tents and move
on. On the other hand, he is smart enough to realize his suggestion
will fall on deaf ears. I agree with McCrea. Oxfordian writing is like
moss; you can "kill it," but it always finds a way to grow back. Pity!
seaker
but later couldn't recall where I read it.
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>>>>>I would highly recommend that Lynne NOT talk about Strachey
>>>>>>AT ALL (unless the opposition makes a case of it).
>>>>>> Rather she should get suggestions from
>>>>>> her many Oxfordian friends on key points that convinced
>>>>>>them that Oxford was the author
>>>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>>>> Beginning with you, Art?
>>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>> I doubt if Lynne still considers me a friend.
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> Why on earth not? Because of some idiotic insinuations of
>>> plagiarism that you posted on the Shakespeare Fellowship site?
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>(Where do you find time to read the Shakespeare Fellowship site, Dave?)
I'm aware of that; but it's always fun to get you to confirm same.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Didn't you know that the Fellowship forums (especially neufer posts)
> were required reading for Templars, Art? The Grand Master has spies
> eVERywhere!
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> I never accused Lynne of plagiarism (although I was accused of doing
>>so). I was simply reminding her that the Strachey argument against
>>Oxford has been torn to shreds many times before Roger & her ever
>>got involved in the issue (and in much more succinct ways)
David L. Webb wrote:
> Terseness is not what is at issue, Art.
Lack of terseness *the primary* Oxfordian problem.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>and that it would be proper for them to acknowledge this fact.
David L. Webb wrote:
> If Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter relied upon primary sources, and if
> their argument is logically independent of Mr. Multhopp's and other
> essays on the subject, then they are under no obligation whateVER
> to mention those earlier essays.
I'm sure that they will cherish your support.
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure that Lynne
>>> doesn't take such things personally; as President of the Shakespeare
>>> Fellowship, she has no doubt had plenty of experience in dealing with
>>> clueless nutcases.
>
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship she avoided
>>the type of hyperbole that mars so much of anti-Stratfordian arguments,
>>both good & bad.
David L. Webb wrote:
> "Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship"?
> What about now, Art? Doesn't she still eschew such hyperbole?
Apparently not.
>> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>> I doubt if Lynne considers them to be friends.
>
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>> Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
>>> Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you,
>>> PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova,
>>> "gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her quest
>>> for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out the opinions
>>> of the most prominent Oxfordians, whether or not they happen to be her
>>> friends, Art?
>
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> Like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo,"
>> and myself Lynne is under some sort of delusion
David L. Webb wrote:
> There is simply no meaningful comparison of Lynne's delusions with
> the infinitely more colorful delusions of the likes of Brame and Popova,
> PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, and especially aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
> And I don't know how I could have oVERlooked Mr. Crowley -- surely his
> latest scatological sonnet exegesis would be powerfully persuasive in
> such a debate!
I think that I'm pretty colorful!
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>that she has done something
>>profound in demolishing the Stratfordian defenses;
David L. Webb wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, the essay of Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter
> does not mention "demolishing the Stratfordian defenses"; rather, its
> thesis appears to more modest, and more reasonable: revisiting the
> sources of _The Tempest_.
If only Lynne was as modest & reasonable here (lately).
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> she has not
David L. Webb wrote:
> That remains to be seen, Art. The Kositsky/Stritmatter essay will be
> subject to the usual peer REView, and until it is published, its impact
> on Shakespeare scholarship cannot be predicted by anyone, least of all
> by you. It is premature to judge the potential impact of a document
> that you evidently have not read, Art --
So ben-Jonson tells me.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>& we have not.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Mr. Streitz hasn't?! PWDBard hasn't?! And even *you* haven't?!
> Say it ain't so, Art!
C'est vrai.
Art Neuendorffer
ben-Jonson
> ?One of the purposes of our work on the Tempest, which
> incidentally you have not read, is to accomplish that debunking. ?Your
> beliefs about the matter are irrelevant; ?the audience for our work is
> professional academicians.
>
> LOL, LOL, LOL! The Oxfordian writings have had little impact on
> professional academicians in theatre and/or dramatic literature. (I
> don't include those in comparative lit because it appears that some are
> easily fooled.) In the February 1975 issue of Harvard Magazine, Gwynne
> Evans and Harry Levin wrote a stinging response to an article by
> Charlton Ogburn.
Here is the response of Charles C. Dickinson, of The Union theological
Seminary, to the Evans and Levin rant to which you refer:
"Professors Evans and Levin characterize Mr. Ogburn and all his tribe
as 'obfuscating' and 'paranoid' zealots who have the upstart temerity
to inject their 'dubious' 'animosity' and 'heresy' into your sheet 'at
the cost of no little strain on Harvard's Latin motto....
Whether they are right or wrong, if ever I have read a 'paranoid,'
shrill, even hysterical defense by the 'orthodox' of sacred territory
encroached upon by infidels, it is that of Professors Evans and Levin."
(As quoted in Ogburn, 1991, 179)
>In my opinion, they punctured his little balloon.
We won't mistake you for Charles C. Dickinson.
Mouse
The table that Art read contained no acknowledgements as it was merely
a sketched-out response to David Kathman. Our essays in fact do not in
any way utilise the work of Volker Multhopp, although we are quick to
footnote anything of anyone's we do use.
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sure that Lynne
> > > doesn't take such things personally; as President of the Shakespeare
> > > Fellowship, she has no doubt had plenty of experience in dealing with
> > > clueless nutcases.
>
> > Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship she avoided
> > the type of hyperbole that mars so much of anti-Stratfordian arguments,
> > both good & bad.
>
> "Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship"? What
> about now, Art? Doesn't she still eschew such hyperbole?
I believe I said in some rather hyperbolic form or other than we had
demolished the "Strachey as a source for Shakespeare" argument. I stand
by what I said, even though I mainly said it ironically to match the
rhetoric of traditionalists, but time will tell if I'm correct.
>
> > >>David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > >>> I'm sure that eVERyone present will be
> > >>>completely convinced by "Agnes a gob" and "I kill Edwasd de Vese." No
> > >>>doubt canvassing other prominent Oxfordians like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz,
> > >>>Brame and Popova, etc. will also prove immensely helpful in furnishing
> > >>>Lynne with persuasive debating points.
>
> > > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > >> I doubt if Lynne considers them to be friends.
>
> > > Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
> > > Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you,
> > > PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova,
> > > "gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her quest
> > > for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out the opinions
> > > of the most prominent Oxfordians, whether or not they happen to be her
> > > friends, Art?
>
> > Like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo," and myself
> > Lynne is under some sort of delusion
>
> There is simply no meaningful comparison of Lynne's delusions with
> the infinitely more colorful delusions of the likes of Brame and Popova,
> PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, and especially aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
> And I don't know how I could have oVERlooked Mr. Crowley -- surely his
> latest scatological sonnet exegesis would be powerfully persuasive in
> such a debate!
Thanks, David. I agree. My delusions are my own and cannot possibly
compare with those of various others.
>
> > that she has done something
> > profound in demolishing the Stratfordian defenses;
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the essay of Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter
> does not mention "demolishing the Stratfordian defenses"; rather, its
> thesis appears to more modest, and more reasonable: revisiting the
> sources of _The Tempest_.
Absolutely right. All we've done is take on the sources and dating of
the play. I have no interest in proving anything else at present.
Regards,
Lynne
ben-Jonson
It may be worth adding, after my thanks to David Webb for defending the
intellectual integrity of this forum in his post, that the third of our
three essays (58 pages) contains 87 bibliographical items and 53
explanatory footnotes. All in all, the work represents many arduous
months of research and writing, and also recognizes the intellectual
labor of numerous prior scholars without whom our study would have been
quite impossible. I mention these facts to underscore David Webb's
observation of how ridiculous the presumptive condemnations of both
Art Neuendorffer and Robert Leff (aka Seaker, etc.) must appear from
any reasoned perspective. To pass judgement in this manner a work they
have not read, involving a carefully derived logical inquiry, is simply
to hang a sign out in public reading: "I am a Bigot and an
ignoramous." If the present discussion has any value at all, it is to
illustrate that both proponents of the orthodox view of Shakespeare
and anti-Stratfordians are quite capable of preferring prejudice to
enlightenment. And the reverse.
Cheers, Dave.
-Ben
Tom Veal
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/harvardmag.html
will see that, while obviously written in haste and not without
mistakes, the piece by Professors Evans and Levin is a sober discussion
spiced with a very small amount of hyperbole, not a "rant". The Rev.
Mr. Dickinson's characterization, assuming that it is quoted
accurately, is preposterous.
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> >>>>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >>
> >>>>>>I would highly recommend that Lynne NOT talk about Strachey
> >>>>>>AT ALL (unless the opposition makes a case of it).
> >>>>>> Rather she should get suggestions from
> >>>>>> her many Oxfordian friends on key points that convinced
> >>>>>>them that Oxford was the author
>
> >>>>David L. Webb wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Beginning with you, Art?
>
> >>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >>
> >>>> I doubt if Lynne still considers me a friend.
>
> >>David L. Webb wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why on earth not? Because of some idiotic insinuations of
> >>> plagiarism that you posted on the Shakespeare Fellowship site?
>
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >>(Where do you find time to read the Shakespeare Fellowship site, Dave?)
>
> I'm aware of that; but it's always fun to get you to confirm same.
Top-posting, Art?
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Didn't you know that the Fellowship forums (especially neufer posts)
> > were required reading for Templars, Art? The Grand Master has spies
> > eVERywhere!
It costs us nothing to confirm it, Art -- the truth is so outrageous
that nobody but you would believe it.
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >> I never accused Lynne of plagiarism (although I was accused of doing
> >>so). I was simply reminding her that the Strachey argument against
> >>Oxford has been torn to shreds many times before Roger & her ever
> >>got involved in the issue (and in much more succinct ways)
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Terseness is not what is at issue, Art.
> Lack of terseness *the primary* [sic] Oxfordian problem.
That sentence is devoid of VERbs, Art -- although not, of course,
devoid of VER B.S. You were a little too terse, Art.
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >>and that it would be proper for them to acknowledge this fact.
>
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > If Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter relied upon primary sources, and if
> > their argument is logically independent of Mr. Multhopp's and other
> > essays on the subject, then they are under no obligation whateVER
> > to mention those earlier essays.
> I'm sure that they will cherish your support.
I am merely supporting the prudent expedient of actually *reading* a
document -- not to mention waiting for the usual peer REView process to
proceed -- before pontificating foolishly upon that document's putative
reliance upon earlier sources. If there is worthwhile original material
in the Kositsky/Stritmatter work, then their articles will be published
and evaluated by the professional scholarly community in due course. If
there are any bibliographical omissions therein, then those too will
almost certainly be noted by the referees. And, as I already said, if
the argument is logically independent of earlier work that reached the
same conclusion, then the authors are under no obligation to mention any
of the earlier -- and perhaps flawed -- essays that arrived at similar
conclusions. You might wish to take a look at a certain 1905 paper on
the electrodynamics of moving bodies by a young clerk in a Swiss patent
office, Art -- not only might you learn something (although by now that
seems unlikely), but you might also discoVER that, because the paper's
contents were logically independent of earlier work by Lorentz and many
others who wrote down the same equations, those earlier papers do not
appear in the bibliography.
> >>David L. Webb wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm sure that Lynne
> >>> doesn't take such things personally; as President of the Shakespeare
> >>> Fellowship, she has no doubt had plenty of experience in dealing with
> >>> clueless nutcases.
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >> Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship she avoided
> >>the type of hyperbole that mars so much of anti-Stratfordian arguments,
> >>both good & bad.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > "Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship"?
> > What about now, Art? Doesn't she still eschew such hyperbole?
> Apparently not.
"Apparently not?" Example? (You do know what an example is, don't
you, Art?)
> >> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >>
> >>>> I doubt if Lynne considers them to be friends.
> >>David L. Webb wrote:
>
> >>> Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
> >>> Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you,
> >>> PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova,
> >>> "gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her quest
> >>> for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out the opinions
> >>> of the most prominent Oxfordians, whether or not they happen to be her
> >>> friends, Art?
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >> Like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo,"
> >> and myself Lynne is under some sort of delusion
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > There is simply no meaningful comparison of Lynne's delusions with
> > the infinitely more colorful delusions of the likes of Brame and Popova,
> > PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, and especially aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
> > And I don't know how I could have oVERlooked Mr. Crowley -- surely his
> > latest scatological sonnet exegesis would be powerfully persuasive in
> > such a debate!
> I think that I'm pretty colorful!
I would neVER deny it, Art!
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >>that she has done something
> >>profound in demolishing the Stratfordian defenses;
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > To the best of my knowledge, the essay of Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter
> > does not mention "demolishing the Stratfordian defenses"; rather, its
> > thesis appears to more modest, and more reasonable: revisiting the
> > sources of _The Tempest_.
> If only Lynne was as modest & reasonable here (lately).
"If only...lately?" Examples? (You do know what examples and
counterexamples are, don't you, Art?)
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >> she has not
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > That remains to be seen, Art. The Kositsky/Stritmatter essay will be
> > subject to the usual peer REView, and until it is published, its impact
> > on Shakespeare scholarship cannot be predicted by anyone, least of all
> > by you. It is premature to judge the potential impact of a document
> > that you evidently have not read, Art --
> So ben-Jonson tells me.
But you are in the habit of drawing all sorts of bizarre and
frequently hilarious conclusions from texts that you have neVER read, so
his warning is lost upon you?
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >>& we have not.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Mr. Streitz hasn't?! PWDBard hasn't?! And even *you* haven't?!
> > Say it ain't so, Art!
> C'est vrai.
I'm stunned! What was the point of those 15,000 h.l.a.s. posts then?
> Art Neuendorffer
Peter Groves
news:1137455653.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> seaker wrote:
> > ?One of the purposes of our work on the Tempest, which
> > incidentally you have not read, is to accomplish that debunking. ?Your
> > beliefs about the matter are irrelevant; ?the audience for our work is
> > professional academicians.
> >
> > LOL, LOL, LOL! The Oxfordian writings have had little impact on
> > professional academicians in theatre and/or dramatic literature. (I
> > don't include those in comparative lit because it appears that some are
> > easily fooled.) In the February 1975 issue of Harvard Magazine, Gwynne
> > Evans and Harry Levin wrote a stinging response to an article by
> > Charlton Ogburn.
>
>
> Here is the response of Charles C. Dickinson, of The Union theological
> Seminary, to the Evans and Levin rant to which you refer:
Not THE Charles C. Dickinson, of The Union theological Seminary? Well, that
settles it for me.
Who do these Professors of English think they are, expressing opionions
about their subject that differ to those of of Charles C. Dickinson, of The
Union theological Seminary?
>
> "Professors Evans and Levin characterize Mr. Ogburn and all his tribe
> as 'obfuscating' and 'paranoid' zealots who have the upstart temerity
> to inject their 'dubious' 'animosity' and 'heresy' into your sheet 'at
> the cost of no little strain on Harvard's Latin motto....
>
> Whether they are right or wrong, if ever I have read a 'paranoid,'
> shrill, even hysterical defense by the 'orthodox' of sacred territory
> encroached upon by infidels, it is that of Professors Evans and Levin."
>
> (As quoted in Ogburn, 1991, 179)
>
> >In my opinion, they punctured his little balloon.
>
> We won't mistake you for Charles C. Dickinson.
>
of The Union theological Seminary? I should hope not.
Peter G.
Peter Groves
news:1137454149.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Thank you Cato the Censor. I read the article and even printed a copy,
> but later couldn't recall where I read it.
>
It's a fine article -- I particularly liked their characterization of
Oxfordianism as a "tangled tissue of misinformation, garbled quotations,
strained explications, non sequiturs, wild surmise, fantasy, and fallacy".
I don't imagine we'll be seeing a point-by-point refutation of it on hlas
any time soon.
Peter G.
ben-Jonson
seaker wrote:
> Thank you Cato the Censor. I read the article and even printed a copy,'
Did you frame it?
gangleri
"records" of Holy Trinity Church, Professors Evans and Levin assert:
"The form "Shakespeare" does appear in the christening record for the
poet's daughter Susanna."
This is untrue.
A photographic reproduction of the purported baptismal entry reads:
"Susanna daughter to William Shakspere."*
* F. E. Halliday, "Shakespeare - A Pictorial Biography", Thames and
Hudson, London, Third Impression, 1961, p. 36)
Peter Groves
>
> I hope that you are pleased with yourself. The point of the post is to
> indicate that everyone had the same complaisant, robotic response to
> the fulminations of Evans and Levin that Robert Leff did.
>
> You don't like the credentials of the respondent, but your dislike is
> irrelevant -- unless you think, as you seem to, that credentialed
> fanatics like Evans and Levin are free to impose their ignorance on the
> public without any opportunity of response. If that is what you
> believe, you may be more comfortable in a classroom than on HLAS.
>
> > >
> > > "Professors Evans and Levin characterize Mr. Ogburn and all his tribe
> > > as 'obfuscating' and 'paranoid' zealots who have the upstart temerity
> > > to inject their 'dubious' 'animosity' and 'heresy' into your sheet 'at
> > > the cost of no little strain on Harvard's Latin motto....
> > >
> > > Whether they are right or wrong, if ever I have read a 'paranoid,'
> > > shrill, even hysterical defense by the 'orthodox' of sacred territory
> > > encroached upon by infidels, it is that of Professors Evans and
Levin."
> > >
> > > (As quoted in Ogburn, 1991, 179)
> > >
> > > >In my opinion, they punctured his little balloon.
> > >
> > > We won't mistake you for Charles C. Dickinson.
> > >
> >
> > of The Union theological Seminary? I should hope not.
>
>
You'd need a sense of the absurd (not to mention a sense of humour). I
doubt you can afford either, as a card-carrying Oxfordian.
Peter G.
> >
> > Peter G. Groves
>
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> >> I never accused Lynne of plagiarism (although I was accused of doing
> >>so). I was simply reminding her that the Strachey argument against
> >>Oxford has be torn to shreds many times before Roger & ever her got
> >>involved in the issue (and in much more succinct ways) and that
> >>it would be proper for them to acknowledge this fact.
> ben-Johnson wrote:
>
> > Art, it would not have been proper for us to acknowledge an internet
> > essay that in no material way contributed to the logic, fact pattern,
> > or language of our essay. You may well believe that the Strachey
> > argument "has be torn to shreds," but if so that is because you have
> > your head in an Oxfordian tar pit. Obviously, the case for Strachey's
> > influence has not been debunked in the eyes of most Shakespearean
> > scholars. One of the purposes of our work on the Tempest, which
> > incidentally you have not read, is to accomplish that debunking.
> > Your beliefs about the matter are irrelevant;
> > the audience for our work is professional academicians.
> The audience for your work is (no doubt)
> courageous independent professional academicians.
>
> So that would include you & (maybe) Rubenstein and...um...ah...???
Since there appears to be no dispute concerning the Rev. Prof. Dr.
Daniel Wright's courage, his independence, or his academic affiliation,
I presume that it must be his professionalism that you are impugning,
Art. Is that correct?
> >>David L. Webb wrote:
>
> >>> Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
> >>> Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you,
> >>> PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova,
> >>> "gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her quest
> >>> for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out the opinions
> >>> of the most prominent Oxfordians, whether or not they happen to be her
> >>> friends, Art?
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> >> Like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo," and myself
> >>Lynne is under some sort of delusion that she has done something
> >>profound in demolishing the Stratfordian defenses;
> >>she has not & we have not.
> ben-Jonson wrote:
>
> > Since you haven't read the work that Lynne and I have done on the
> > Tempest, Art, how are you in a position to evaluate it, let alone
> > condemn it in extravagant psychoanlytical terms?
> I'm not condemning your work; I'm condemning anyone & everyone
> who ventures onto HLAS bragging about how they've done something
> significant;
That's odd -- I cannot recall your condemning Mr. Multhopp's boasts,
Art. Nor Mr. Streitz's, for that matter. I cannot even recall your
condemning Elizabeth Weird's vaunted "refutation" of special relativity,
which, if correct, would surely be the most significant intellectual
achievement of this or any other Usenet newsgroup to date. Your
condemnations are strangely selective, Art -- but I suppose that that's
probably because you regard "Agnes a gob" and "I kill Edwasd de Vese" as
more significant and decisive Oxfordian "evidence" than the sane but
anagrammatically impoVERished Kositksy/Stritmatter work on _The Tempest_.
> It is for others to judge what is significant
> and what isn't.
And those who have actually *read* the work stand a better chance of
correctly assessing its possible significance than those who have not.
> ben-Jonson wrote:
>
> > As for the impact the work will have on traditional beliefs
> > about Shakespeare, only time will answer that question.
> One thing the Strats certainly have a lot of is time & patience.
Of course they have patience, Art! For one thing, the Priory of Sion
has been waiting for centuries. For another, the few "Stratfordians"
who actually read even a fraction of your posts quite clearly suffer
fools gladly, or at any rate willingly.
> ben-Jonson wrote:
>
> > You can predict the
> > work's irrelevance until you are blue in the face; all your exertions
> > will accomplish is to provoke curiosity in formerly uninterested
> > parties who will want to understand the source of your hostility
> > and will evaluate the work from a more objective frame.
> Lynne always says that the only bad publicity is no publicity. If I
> have helped to stimulate interest in your work then I am glad for that.
>
> (I am also appreciative for the HLAS anti-Oxfordians who have,
> from time to time, bothered to read & criticize my own posts.)
You're welcome, Art. Most of your posts (the ones that aren't
recycled hogwash, at any rate) are so amusing that they richly repay
reading.
> Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>> Didn't you know that the Fellowship forums (especially neufer posts)
>>>were required reading for Templars, Art? The Grand Master has spies
>>>eVERywhere!
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> I'm aware of that; but it's always fun to get you to confirm same.
David L. Webb wrote:
> It costs us nothing to confirm it, Art -- the truth is
> so outrageous that nobody but you would believe it.
True; but then even I need some reinforcing now & then.
>> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>> I never accused Lynne of plagiarism (although I was accused of doing
>>>>so). I was simply reminding her that the Strachey argument against
>>>>Oxford has been torn to shreds many times before Roger & her ever
>>>>got involved in the issue (and in much more succinct ways)
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>> Terseness is not what is at issue, Art.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
>> Lack of terseness : *the primary* [sic] Oxfordian problem.
David L. Webb wrote:
> You were a little too terse, Art.
Tudor tutors too terse?
>> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>>and that it would be proper for them to acknowledge this fact.
>>>
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> If Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter relied upon primary sources, and if
>>>their argument is logically independent of Mr. Multhopp's and other
>>>essays on the subject, then they are under no obligation whateVER
>>> to mention those earlier essays.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> I'm sure that they will cherish your support.
David L. Webb wrote:
> I am merely supporting the prudent expedient of actually *reading* a
> document -- not to mention waiting for the usual peer REView process to
> proceed -- before pontificating foolishly upon that document's putative
> reliance upon earlier sources. If there is worthwhile original material
> in the Kositsky/Stritmatter work, then their articles will be published
> and evaluated by the professional scholarly community in due course. If
> there are any bibliographical omissions therein, then those too will
> almost certainly be noted by the referees. And, as I already said, if
> the argument is logically independent of earlier work that reached the
> same conclusion, then the authors are under no obligation to mention any
> of the earlier -- and perhaps flawed -- essays that arrived at similar
> conclusions.
All mute if it never gets published.
David L. Webb wrote:
> You might wish to take a look at a certain 1905 paper on
> the electrodynamics of moving bodies by a young clerk in a Swiss patent
> office, Art -- not only might you learn something (although by now that
> seems unlikely), but you might also discoVER that, because the paper's
> contents were logically independent of earlier work by Lorentz and many
> others who wrote down the same equations, those earlier papers do not
> appear in the bibliography.
Lorentz was robbed!
>>>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that Lynne
>>>>>doesn't take such things personally; as President of the Shakespeare
>>>>>Fellowship, she has no doubt had plenty of experience in dealing with
>>>>>clueless nutcases.
>>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>> Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship she avoided
>>>>the type of hyperbole that mars so much of anti-Stratfordian arguments,
>>>>both good & bad.
>
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship"?
>>> What about now, Art? Doesn't she still eschew such hyperbole?
>>
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
>> Apparently not.
>
David L. Webb wrote:
> "Apparently not?" Example?
> (You do know what an example is, don't you, Art?)
>>>>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt if Lynne considers them to be friends.
>>>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
>>>>>Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you,
>>>>>PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova,
>>>>> "gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her quest
>>>>> for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out the opinions
>>>>>of the most prominent Oxfordians, whether or not they happen
>>>>> to be her friends, Art?
>>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>> Like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo,"
>>>> and myself Lynne is under some sort of delusion
>>>> that she has done something
>>>> profound in demolishing the Stratfordian defenses;
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, the essay of Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter
>>>does not mention "demolishing the Stratfordian defenses"; rather, its
>>>thesis appears to more modest, and more reasonable: revisiting the
>>>sources of _The Tempest_.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> If only Lynne was as modest & reasonable here (lately).
David L. Webb wrote:
> "If only...lately?" Examples? (You do know what examples
> and counterexamples are, don't you, Art?)
Ex-ample:
http://www.muydelgada.com/1alley1.jpg
counterexample:
http://www.puzzlehouse.com/images/webpage/sodajerk.jpg
>>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>>she has not
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> That remains to be seen, Art. The Kositsky/Stritmatter essay will be
>>>subject to the usual peer REView, and until it is published, its impact
>>>on Shakespeare scholarship cannot be predicted by anyone, least of all
>>>by you. It is premature to judge the potential impact of a document
>>>that you evidently have not read, Art --
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
>> So ben-Jonson tells me.
David L. Webb wrote:
> But you are in the habit of drawing all sorts of bizarre
> and frequently hilarious conclusions from texts that
> you have neVER read, so his warning is lost upon you?
Probably.
>> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>
>>>>& we have not.
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> Mr. Streitz hasn't?! PWDBard hasn't?!
>>> And even *you* haven't?! Say it ain't so, Art!
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
>> C'est vrai.
David L. Webb wrote:
> I'm stunned! What was the point of those 15,000 h.l.a.s. posts then?
Practice.
Art Neuendorffer
Cato the Censor
For a conspectus on the spelling of shakepseare's name in non-literary
documents, see here:
The Historian
Of course not Peter - it's been published elsewhere! Oxfordians don't
need to answer questions on HLAS if they have been asked elsewhere!
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>I never accused Lynne of plagiarism (although I was accused of doing
>>>>so). I was simply reminding her that the Strachey argument against
>>>>Oxford has be torn to shreds many times before Roger & ever her got
>>>>involved in the issue (and in much more succinct ways) and that
>>>>it would be proper for them to acknowledge this fact.
>>ben-Johnson wrote:
>>>Art, it would not have been proper for us to acknowledge an internet
>>>essay that in no material way contributed to the logic, fact pattern,
>>>or language of our essay. You may well believe that the Strachey
>>>argument "has be torn to shreds," but if so that is because you have
>>>your head in an Oxfordian tar pit. Obviously, the case for Strachey's
>>>influence has not been debunked in the eyes of most Shakespearean
>>>scholars. One of the purposes of our work on the Tempest, which
>>>incidentally you have not read, is to accomplish that debunking.
>>> Your beliefs about the matter are irrelevant;
>>> the audience for our work is professional academicians.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
>> The audience for your work is (no doubt)
>> courageous independent professional academicians.
>>
>>So that would include you & (maybe) Rubenstein and...um...ah...???
David L. Webb wrote:
> Since there appears to be no dispute concerning the Rev. Prof. Dr.
> Daniel Wright's courage, his independence, or his academic affiliation,
> I presume that it must be his professionalism that you are impugning,
> Art. Is that correct?
Oh, yeah, the Rev. Prof. Dr. Daniel Wright and...um...ah...???
>>>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
>>>>>Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you,
>>>>>PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova,
>>>>> "gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her quest
>>>>> for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out the opinions
>>>>>of the most prominent Oxfordians, whether or not they happen to be her
>>>>>friends, Art?
>> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>>>Like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo," and myself
>>>>Lynne is under some sort of delusion that she has done something
>>>>profound in demolishing the Stratfordian defenses;
>>>>she has not & we have not.
>>ben-Jonson wrote:
>>>Since you haven't read the work that Lynne and I have done on the
>>>Tempest, Art, how are you in a position to evaluate it, let alone
>>>condemn it in extravagant psychoanlytical terms?
>>
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
>> I'm not condemning your work; I'm condemning anyone & everyone
>>who ventures onto HLAS bragging about how they've done something
>>significant;
David L. Webb wrote:
> That's odd -- I cannot recall your condemning Mr. Multhopp's boasts,
> Art. Nor Mr. Streitz's, for that matter.
Volker didn't boast much if any and I've spent more than
enough time explaining to Streitz what an idiot he was.
David L. Webb wrote:
> I cannot even recall your
> condemning Elizabeth Weird's vaunted "refutation" of special relativity,
> which, if correct, would surely be the most significant intellectual
> achievement of this or any other Usenet newsgroup to date.
Since Elizabeth is not an Oxfordian I won't bother myself
to correct her scientific flights of fancy.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Your condemnations
> are strangely selective, Art -- but I suppose that that's probably
> because you regard "Agnes a gob" and "I kill Edwasd de Vese" as
> more significant and decisive Oxfordian "evidence" than the sane but
> anagrammatically impoVERished Kositksy/Stritmatter work on _The Tempest_.
I certainly consider my terse observation on the physical
impossibility of the Sea Ventures voyage going directly from
Plymouth to Virginia as more important than any pro-Oxfordian
explanation that requires more than 50 words.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
>>It is for others to judge
>> what is significant and what isn't.
David L. Webb wrote:
> And those who have actually *read* the work stand a better chance of
> correctly assessing its possible significance than those who have not.
Apparently not.
>>ben-Jonson wrote:
>>>As for the impact the work will have on traditional beliefs
>>> about Shakespeare, only time will answer that question.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
>>One thing the Strats certainly have a lot of is time & patience.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Of course they have patience, Art! For one thing,
> the Priory of Sion has been waiting for centuries.
Whatcha waiting fer?
David L. Webb wrote:
> For another, the few "Stratfordians" who actually
> read even a fraction of your posts quite clearly
> suffer fools gladly, or at any rate willingly.
When that I was and a little tiny boy,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
A foolish thing was but a toy,
For the rain it raineth every day.
But when I came to man's estate,
With hey, ho, &c.
'Gainst knaves and thieves men shut their gate,
For the rain, &c.
>>ben-Jonson wrote:
>>> You can predict the
>>>work's irrelevance until you are blue in the face; all your exertions
>>>will accomplish is to provoke curiosity in formerly uninterested
>>>parties who will want to understand the source of your hostility
>>> and will evaluate the work from a more objective frame.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
>> Lynne always says that the only bad publicity is no publicity. If I
>>have helped to stimulate interest in your work then I am glad for that.
>>
>>(I am also appreciative for the HLAS anti-Oxfordians who have,
>> from time to time, bothered to read & criticize my own posts.)
David L. Webb wrote:
> You're welcome, Art. Most of your posts (the ones that aren't
> recycled hogwash, at any rate) are so amusing that they richly
> repay reading.
And to think that the other Goon Squad members
feel sorry for you for your assignment!
Art Neuendorffer
gangleri
Levin note the "mythical" background of Hamlet.
In this respect, Prince Hamlet's comments to Horatio after The
Mousetrap has come to a close with the exit of King Claudius and others
in Act III, Sc. ii -
Why, let the stricken deer go weep,
The hart ungalled play;
For some must watch, while some must sleep;
So runs the world away.
- are very much part of Snorri Sturluson's Edda Myth of 13th century
Iceland, where "four harts" are said to "run in the branches of [the
World Tree/Askr Yggdrasils]".
The "four harts" may represent the East/South/West/North "corners" of
the world, whose "play" with a female "deer" ends with the 'deer being
stricken' by the male hart.
This aspect appears to be unknown to Professors Evans and Levin, who
cite "local traditions [around Stratford], such as the deer-stealing
incident, which may well have been reflected in the plays."
Elizabeth
> I believe I said in some rather hyperbolic form or other than we had
> demolished the "Strachey as a source for Shakespeare" argument. I stand
> by what I said, even though I mainly said it ironically to match the
> rhetoric of traditionalists, but time will tell if I'm correct.
Have you read the Oxfordian Edward Furlong's page
on The Tempest?
Furlong removed all of Kathman's parallels from
the play. Furlong refers to Kathman as 'A' -- he
took out all of 'A's' lines -- and was left with
a dull Tempest.
There's a lot of poetry in A True Repertory, one
of the several reasons it wasn't written by Strachey
and why it's not a letter. I suspect that the play
will lose a lot of dramatic intensity when you take
out Kathman's parallelisms and insert yours.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> And what, pray tell, do the Stratford monument's Nestor,> Socrates & Virgil have to do with the "theatrical arts"?
>
> Art Neuendorffer
I dunno, Art. What does an inscription written to commemorate a man
everyone knew to be a great poet and playwright have to do with a
pseudonym allegedly chosen by a man for its aptness in proclaiming him
to be a poet and playwright?
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
>>And what, pray tell, do the Stratford monument's Nestor,
>> Socrates & Virgil have to do with the "theatrical arts"?
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> I dunno, Art. What does an inscription written to commemorate a man
> everyone knew to be a great poet and playwright have to do with a
> pseudonym allegedly chosen by a man for its aptness in proclaiming him
> to be a poet and playwright?
The inscription discusses "MONUMENT SHAKSPEARE"
it says nothing about any man by that name.
(Nor does the gravestone.)
Art N.
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> >>>> I never accused Lynne of plagiarism (although I was accused of doing
> >>>>so). I was simply reminding her that the Strachey argument against
> >>>>Oxford has been torn to shreds many times before Roger & her [sic] ever
> >>>>got involved
Is English your native tongue, Art?
> in the issue (and in much more succinct ways)
[...]
> >>>>and that it would be proper for them to acknowledge this fact.
> >>David L. Webb wrote:
> >>
> >>> If Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter relied upon primary sources, and if
> >>>their argument is logically independent of Mr. Multhopp's and other
> >>>essays on the subject, then they are under no obligation whateVER
> >>> to mention those earlier essays.
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> >> I'm sure that they will cherish your support.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > I am merely supporting the prudent expedient of actually *reading* a
> > document -- not to mention waiting for the usual peer REView process to
> > proceed -- before pontificating foolishly upon that document's putative
> > reliance upon earlier sources. If there is worthwhile original material
> > in the Kositsky/Stritmatter work, then their articles will be published
> > and evaluated by the professional scholarly community in due course. If
> > there are any bibliographical omissions therein, then those too will
> > almost certainly be noted by the referees. And, as I already said, if
> > the argument is logically independent of earlier work that reached the
> > same conclusion, then the authors are under no obligation to mention any
> > of the earlier -- and perhaps flawed -- essays that arrived at similar
> > conclusions.
> All mute [sic] if it never gets published.
"Mute"? Is English your native tongue, Art? But perhaps you mean
"moot" in the sense of the second OED nominal entry, sense 2, in the
compound "moot-end."
But what makes you think (if I may use the word loosely) that the
essay will neVER be published, Art? If the work is correct and
original, then there is no reason whateVER that it should not be
published in a respectable scholarly venue. Even if it were incorrect
and original (and I'm by no means suggesting anything of the kind), then
it certainly could still be published -- after all, Mr. Streitz's
_magnum opus_ was published, and it's difficult to imagine a document
less correct (or more original) than that!
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > You might wish to take a look at a certain 1905 paper on
> > the electrodynamics of moving bodies by a young clerk in a Swiss patent
> > office, Art -- not only might you learn something (although by now that
> > seems unlikely), but you might also discoVER that, because the paper's
> > contents were logically independent of earlier work by Lorentz and many
> > others who wrote down the same equations, those earlier papers do not
> > appear in the bibliography.
> Lorentz was robbed!
Actually, others had written down the Lorentz transformations long
before Lorentz, Art -- but if you wish to join the Elizabeth Weird/"Dr."
Faker Physics Cranks' Coterie, then by all means be my guest. Indeed,
your talents would be more productively utilized in attempting to square
the circle or to construct a perpetual motion machine than in
investigating Shakespeare authorship, Art.
[...]
> >>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >>
> >>>> Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship she avoided
> >>>>the type of hyperbole that mars so much of anti-Stratfordian arguments,
> >>>>both good & bad.
> >>David L. Webb wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> "Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship"?
> >>> What about now, Art? Doesn't she still eschew such hyperbole?
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> >> Apparently not.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > "Apparently not?" Example?
> > (You do know what an example is, don't you, Art?)
Evidently not.
Evidently not.
PRACTICE??!! Good grief! How much practice do you need, Art? I've
heard of slow learners, but this is ridiculous!
But what exactly are you practicing, Art? English grammar and usage?
Logical inference? Anagramming? Spelling? Reading? In none of these
areas have you achieved discernible progress; I'm afraid that you need
still *more* practice, improbable thought that conclusion may seem to
those aware of the sheer bulk of even 1% of your _oeuvre_.
And to what end are you practicing, Art? Are you planning to write a
book that will eclipse even Mr. Streitz's? If so, I do hope that you'll
get on with it. For one thing, it would be nice to see a quasi-coherent
explanation of whateVER it is that you think that you have discoVERED.
For another, if you don't write it soon, then even with the most brutal
editing, the finished product will boast both the terseness and the
clarity of Oahspe.
> Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> >> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> >>>>I never accused Lynne of plagiarism (although I was accused of doing
> >>>>so). I was simply reminding her that the Strachey argument against
> >>>>Oxford has be torn to shreds many times before Roger & ever her got
> >>>>involved in the issue (and in much more succinct ways) and that
> >>>>it would be proper for them to acknowledge this fact.
> >>ben-Johnson [sic] wrote:
>
> >>>Art, it would not have been proper for us to acknowledge an internet
> >>>essay that in no material way contributed to the logic, fact pattern,
> >>>or language of our essay. You may well believe that the Strachey
> >>>argument "has be torn to shreds," but if so that is because you have
> >>>your head in an Oxfordian tar pit. Obviously, the case for Strachey's
> >>>influence has not been debunked in the eyes of most Shakespearean
> >>>scholars. One of the purposes of our work on the Tempest, which
> >>>incidentally you have not read, is to accomplish that debunking.
> >>> Your beliefs about the matter are irrelevant;
> >>> the audience for our work is professional academicians.
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> >> The audience for your work is (no doubt)
> >> courageous independent professional academicians.
> >>
> >>So that would include you & (maybe) Rubenstein and...um...ah...???
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Since there appears to be no dispute concerning the Rev. Prof. Dr.
> > Daniel Wright's courage, his independence, or his academic affiliation,
> > I presume that it must be his professionalism that you are impugning,
> > Art. Is that correct?
> Oh, yeah, the Rev. Prof. Dr. Daniel Wright and...um...ah...???
Since there appears to be no dispute concerning Prof. Ren Draya's
courage, her independence, or her academic affiliation, I presume that
it must be her professionalism that you are impugning, Art. Is that
correct?
> >>>>David L. Webb wrote:
Here is an excerpt of a post from Mr. Multhopp, addressing Dave
Kathman:
"The dating is in much dispute. I have smashed your dating of the
*Tempest*. See http://www.erols.com/volker/Shakes/DatgTmpt.htm."
<http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/b1
aeeef63e8021db?dmode=source&hl=en>
> and I've spent more than
> enough time explaining to Streitz what an idiot he was.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > I cannot even recall your
> > condemning Elizabeth Weird's vaunted "refutation" of special relativity,
> > which, if correct, would surely be the most significant intellectual
> > achievement of this or any other Usenet newsgroup to date.
> Since Elizabeth is not an Oxfordian I won't bother myself
> to correct her scientific flights of fancy.
"Dr." Faker is not an Oxfordian either, yet you corrected both his
crank "solution" to Fermat's Last Theorem and his suggestion that the
Apollo lunar landing was a hoax. Do you find more merit in Elizabeth's
pseudo-scientific crankery than in "Dr." Faker's, Art?
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Your condemnations
> > are strangely selective, Art -- but I suppose that that's probably
> > because you regard "Agnes a gob" and "I kill Edwasd de Vese" as
> > more significant and decisive Oxfordian "evidence" than the sane but
> > anagrammatically impoVERished Kositksy/Stritmatter work on _The Tempest_.
> I certainly consider my terse observation on the physical
> impossibility of the Sea Ventures voyage going directly from
> Plymouth to Virginia
Huh? To what "physical impossibility" are you referring? Are you
familiar with the operation of sailing ships, Art?
> as more important than any pro-Oxfordian
> explanation that requires more than 50 words.
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> >>It is for others to judge
> >> what is significant and what isn't.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > And those who have actually *read* the work stand a better chance of
> > correctly assessing its possible significance than those who have not.
> Apparently not.
Not having even read the articles in question, Art, how on earth
would you know that? Have you become a devotee of Elizabeth Weird's
method of "research," whereby reading a document is a complete waste of
time, since the imaginative researcher can simply invent or hallucinate
its contents?
> >>ben-Jonson wrote:
>
> >>>As for the impact the work will have on traditional beliefs
> >>> about Shakespeare, only time will answer that question.
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> >>One thing the Strats certainly have a lot of is time & patience.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Of course they have patience, Art! For one thing,
> > the Priory of Sion has been waiting for centuries.
> Whatcha waiting fer?
All will be REVealed when the time is ripe, Art.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > For another, the few "Stratfordians" who actually
> > read even a fraction of your posts quite clearly
> > suffer fools gladly, or at any rate willingly.
> When that I was and a little tiny boy,
Yes, Art, but that was a *long* time ago.
> With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
> A foolish thing was but a toy,
> For the rain it raineth every day.
>
> But when I came to man's estate,
> With hey, ho, &c.
> 'Gainst knaves and thieves men shut their gate,
> For the rain, &c.
> >>ben-Jonson wrote:
>
> >>> You can predict the
> >>>work's irrelevance until you are blue in the face; all your exertions
> >>>will accomplish is to provoke curiosity in formerly uninterested
> >>>parties who will want to understand the source of your hostility
> >>> and will evaluate the work from a more objective frame.
> > Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> >> Lynne always says that the only bad publicity is no publicity. If I
> >>have helped to stimulate interest in your work then I am glad for that.
> >>
> >>(I am also appreciative for the HLAS anti-Oxfordians who have,
> >> from time to time, bothered to read & criticize my own posts.)
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > You're welcome, Art. Most of your posts (the ones that aren't
> > recycled hogwash, at any rate) are so amusing that they richly
> > repay reading.
> And to think that the other Goon Squad members
> feel sorry for you for your assignment!
Some are daunted by the sheer volume of material, while others are
perhaps jealous that the Grand Master entrusts such exacting tasks to
me. Thwarting museum security isn't easy, Art.
> Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why should Lynne confine her canvassing of Oxfordians to her friends?
>>>>>>>Few Oxfordians have made themselves as...uh...prominent as you,
>>>>>>>PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova,
>>>>>>>"gonzalo," etc.; why should Lynne, in her quest
>>>>>>>for persuasive debating points, neglect to seek out
>>>>>>> the opinions of the most prominent Oxfordians,
>>>>>>> whether or not they happen to be her friends, Art?
>>>>>Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Like PWDBard, Mr. Streitz, Brame and Popova, "gonzalo," and myself
>>>>>>Lynne is under some sort of delusion that she has done something
>>>>>>profound in demolishing the Stratfordian defenses;
>>>>>>she has not & we have not.
>>>>ben-Jonson wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Since you haven't read the work that Lynne and I have done on the
>>>>>Tempest, Art, how are you in a position to evaluate it, let alone
>>>>>condemn it in extravagant psychoanlytical terms?
>>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>>>I'm not condemning your work; I'm condemning anyone & everyone
>>>>who ventures onto HLAS bragging about how they've done something
>>>>significant;
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>> That's odd -- I cannot recall your condemning Mr. Multhopp's boasts,
>>> Art. Nor Mr. Streitz's, for that matter.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> Volker didn't boast much if any
David L. Webb wrote:
>
> Here is an excerpt of a post from Mr. Multhopp,
> addressing Dave Kathman:
>
> "The dating is in much dispute. I have smashed your dating of the
> *Tempest*. See http://www.erols.com/volker/Shakes/DatgTmpt.htm."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/b1aeeef63e8021db?dmode=source&hl=en
------------------------------------------------
>>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sure that Lynne doesn't take such things personally;
>>>> as President of the Shakespeare
>>>> Fellowship, she has no doubt had plenty of experience
>>>> in dealing with clueless nutcases.
>> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>> Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship
>>> she avoided the type of hyperbole that mars so much of
>>> anti-Stratfordian arguments, both good & bad.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
>> "Back when she was President of the Shakespeare Fellowship"?
>> What about now, Art? Doesn't she still eschew such hyperbole?
Mouse wrote:
> I believe I said in some rather hyperbolic form or other
> than we had demolished the
> "Strachey as a source for Shakespeare" argument. I stand by what
> I said, even though I mainly said it ironically to match the
> rhetoric of traditionalists, but time will tell if I'm correct.
Seems like Mouse stole Volker's "smashed" and made it "demolished"
Art Neuendorffer
Mouse
Well, then, if you'll first excuse my plagiarism of Volker's
astonishingly good prose, perhaps you could then concentrate on
Volker's boasting for a while and give me a break.
Thank you kindly,
Mouse the Magnificent
>
> Art Neuendorffer
Mouse
Peter Groves wrote:
> "seaker" <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote in message
> news:1137454149.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Thank you Cato the Censor. I read the article and even printed a copy,
> > but later couldn't recall where I read it.
> >
>
> It's a fine article -- I particularly liked their characterization of
> Oxfordianism as a "tangled tissue of misinformation, garbled quotations,
> strained explications, non sequiturs, wild surmise, fantasy, and fallacy".
This cuts both ways, Peter. I am sorry you cannot see it. Our recent
research has suggested to me that the above statement is a really good
description of earlier scholarship on The Tempest. Not sure about the
non sequiturs, though...
Lynne
Art Neuendorffer
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> Here is an excerpt of a post from Mr. Multhopp,
>>> addressing Dave Kathman:
>>>
>>> "The dating is in much dispute. I have smashed your dating of the
>>> *Tempest*. See http://www.erols.com/volker/Shakes/DatgTmpt.htm."
>>>
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/b1aeeef63e8021db?dmode=source&hl=en
>>------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > I believe I said in some rather hyperbolic form or other
>> > than we had demolished the
>> > "Strachey as a source for Shakespeare" argument. I stand by what
>> > I said, even though I mainly said it ironically to match the
>> > rhetoric of traditionalists, but time will tell if I'm correct.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>Seems like Mouse stole Volker's "smashed" and made it "demolished"
Mouse wrote:
> Well, then, if you'll first excuse my plagiarism of Volker's
> astonishingly good prose, perhaps you could then concentrate
> on Volker's boasting for a while and give me a break.
>
> Thank you kindly,
> Mouse the Magnificent
But Mr. Multhopp moved.
Art N.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
--Bob G.
BCD
> In article <43CC6D68...@comcast.net>,
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> (aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > > I am merely supporting the prudent expedient of actually *reading* a
> > > document -- not to mention waiting for the usual peer REView process to
> > > proceed -- before pontificating foolishly upon that document's putative
> > > reliance upon earlier sources. If there is worthwhile original material
> > > in the Kositsky/Stritmatter work, then their articles will be published
> > > and evaluated by the professional scholarly community in due course. If
> > > there are any bibliographical omissions therein, then those too will
> > > almost certainly be noted by the referees. And, as I already said, if
> > > the argument is logically independent of earlier work that reached the
> > > same conclusion, then the authors are under no obligation to mention any
> > > of the earlier -- and perhaps flawed -- essays that arrived at similar
> > > conclusions.
>
> > All mute [sic] if it never gets published.
>
> "Mute"? Is English your native tongue, Art? But perhaps you mean
> "moot" in the sense of the second OED nominal entry, sense 2, in the
> compound "moot-end."
****Hm. Could be. Or perhaps he is trying to verbify "émeute,"
supposing that a universal tumult will occur on non-publication.
Perhaps the Priory has misjudged the mood of the masses on this
question. Lynne, have you been out agitating on streetcorners again?
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
Mouse
Not since last Sunday.
L.
Mouse
> Mouse wrote:
>
>
> > I believe I said in some rather hyperbolic form or other than we had
> > demolished the "Strachey as a source for Shakespeare" argument. I stand
> > by what I said, even though I mainly said it ironically to match the
> > rhetoric of traditionalists, but time will tell if I'm correct.
>
>
>
> Have you read the Oxfordian Edward Furlong's page
> on The Tempest?
No. I know Edward but haven't read his page on Tempest.
>
>
> Furlong removed all of Kathman's parallels from
> the play. Furlong refers to Kathman as 'A' -- he
> took out all of 'A's' lines -- and was left with
> a dull Tempest.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. In any case, this has nothing
to do with our methodology.
>
>
> There's a lot of poetry in A True Repertory, one
> of the several reasons it wasn't written by Strachey
Evidence?
> and why it's not a letter.
I agree. It's more likely a literary construction, an early epistolary
novel perhaps.
>I suspect that the play
> will lose a lot of dramatic intensity when you take
> out Kathman's parallelisms and insert yours.
"Kathman's parallelisms" are not part of the play. Nor are any sources.
Therefore there is nothing to take out.
Regards,
Lynne
Mouse
And your point is...?
MM
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>>Well, then, if you'll first excuse my plagiarism of Volker's
>>>astonishingly good prose, perhaps you could then concentrate
>>> on Volker's boasting for a while and give me a break.
>>>
>>>Thank you kindly,
>>
>>>Mouse the Magnificent
>>
>> But Mr. Multhopp moved.
Mouse wrote:
> And your point is...?
I post to many HLASers who have kill filed me
and to many HLASers who won't read me and
(maybe?) even to HLASers who read but don't response.
But I'm not going to post to an HLASer who has been gone for years.
Art N.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Oh? Monument Shakespeare died 23 April 1616? Accepting for the sake
of argument the idea that funerary monuments to monument people exist.
--Bob G.
Mouse
You don't have to post to him. You can post ABOUT him. You already do.
MM
>
> Art N.