Bogus AntiStrats: Leslie Howard
Tom Reedy
by the Shakespeare Fellowship on its "Honor Roll of Skeptics." The
Fellowship site quotes the lines Howard recited in a 1941 British World War
II propaganda film, *Pimpernel Smith*, as proof of his Oxfordian sympathies.
The script was written by Anatole de Grunwald, Roland Pertwee and Ian
Dalrymple, although his daughter said scenes were rewritten, sometimes on
the set (*A Quite Remarkable Father*, 279).
Contrary to claims by some Oxfordians, Howard did not finance the picture,
although as producer he arranged the financing and cast the characters. He
was erratic, disorganized and not punctual on the set, which caused it to go
over schedule and over budget (QRF 279-80).
"He was anxious to get the film started, mainly because it had a
contemporary theme, but partly to provide some money to keep his family. One
year without earning money and with his American assets frozen by the
British Treasury had left him uncomfortably poor" (QRF 276).
In one scene in the movie, Howard's character, Professor Horatio Smith,
holds up Looney's book and says to a Nazi officer who believes Shakespeare
was German, "I've been reading a book that proves conclusively that
Shakespeare wasn't really Shakespeare at all, he was the Earl of Oxford."
Later in the scene he says, "The Earl of Oxford was a very bright
Elizabethan light, but this book will tell he was a good deal more than
that."
In another scene, he holds up a skull he has found in a cave and quotes
Hamlet, "Alas poor Yorick ." and then turns to a German and says, "The Earl
of Oxford wrote that."
A booklet written by Charles Boyle and distributed by the Oxenford Press,
*To Catch the Conscience of the King*, makes the same claim, and from what I
can figure out, the Fellowship is following Boyle's lead. Boyle quotes the
same dialogue from the movie as evidence of Howard's belief in Oxford as
Shakespeare, and then he comments:
"The insertion of so bold a promotion for a rival Shakespeare was not rare
in British cinema - it was unheard of. One simply didn't do such things. He'
d really gone beyond the pale."
Boyle then suggests that the movie dialogue embarrassed Howard's friends and
relatives. "All his friends looked the other way. Both his son and daughter
in their books on him omit all reference to this heretical idea their father
had got hold of. But there it is, repeated twice, in a film conceived,
produced and directed by Leslie Howard."
And that is the entire corpus of evidence that Leslie Howard believed that
the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare.
The claims are totally fabricated, whether by Boyle (an excretable scholar
judging by the booklet) or someone else, I don't know. During his lifetime,
Howard never once mentioned Oxford as the true author of Shakespeare's
works, nor did he ever promote the idea. He never mentioned making a movie
about Oxford to anyone.
The film, which Dr. Roger Stritmatter calls "one of the great achievements
in Anglo-American cinema" on the Shakespeare Fellowship Forum, was dismissed
as 'just an amusing piece of hokum' by Howard himself (*Halliwell's Film and
Video Guide*). Stritmatter also claims that the film "apparently inspired
Raoul Wallenberg;" "apparently" because Stritmatter has no more evidence of
that claim than he does for Howard.
Stritmatter also claims Howard was "one of the two leading Shakespearean
actors of his day," a comment that leads me to suspect that Stritmatter is
just as ignorant of early 20th Century stage history as he is of Elizabethan
authorship.
Howard was considered to be an Anglo-American film actor who did not take
many professional risks. His acting abilities were recognized, however, and
in 1935 critic John Mason Brown suggested in a review published in the New
York Evening Post, that " . . . it leaves one wondering why a man who ought
to make an interesting Hamlet . . . should have elected to be so
unadventurous as an actor."
The suggestion excited Howard's ambition to play Shakespeare, despite the
lack of any classical training, (Trivial Fond Records, 127), even though
Howard knew his limitations. "Unfortunately, it has been put about that I am
the great English Shakespeare expert, which God knows I'm not," Howard said
in a letter dated spring 1943. "I think I shall come clean and admit it
all."
In 1933, Howard appeared on the London stage as William Shakespeare in a
play, *This Side Idolatry* by Talbot Jennings. The title was taken from Ben
Jonson's tribute to Shakespeare: "I loved the man and do honor his memory-on
this side idolatry . . ." Boyle mentions this role in his booklet (8), but
for some reason does not take it as evidence that Howard believed
Shakespeare was the Stratford playwright.
An advertisement for Boyle's booklet at the Shakespeare Fellowship
Bookshelf, http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/bookshelf_Light.htm, claims
that Howard "was also a dedicated advocate of the Oxfordian case, shot down
by Nazi anti-aircraft fire before he could realize his dream of making a
film about Oxford." Howard's supposed dream is not mentioned in the booklet.
As a matter of fact, a newspaper article by C.A. LeJeune in the second
section of the New York Times June 27, 1943, outlined Howard's plans that
would never come to fruition.
BEGIN QUOTATION
We have sometimes wondered what Howard would have done had he come back
safely from that trip. Contrary to rumour, he was not planning to make
"Christopher Columbus," either in Spain or anywhere at all. . . . Some time
last Autumn the script was given to Mr. Howard to read. He was ill at the
time, and took no avid interest in it. So far as we can ascertain, his
attitude had not changed at the time of the ill-fated London trip.
[. . . . ]
We had a long talk with Howard the day before he left for Lisbon. He was in
a strange mood. He was over-tired. He had had troubles and minor illnesses
during the winter. He had just turned 50, and was acutely aware of it. He
had lately grown interested in spiritualism. He talked constantly of youth
and youth's right to leadership.
He had practically finished the supervision of his current film, the nursing
story called "The Lamp Still Burns." Beyond directing a couple of love
scenes between Stewart Grainger and Rosamund John, Howard had taken little
active share in the production, leaving the details to Maurice Elvey, the
director on the floor. His future plans were vague. He had writers working
on various projects. One was the story of the Liberty Ship One Thousand and
One, built in the Rockies and sailing in convoy to Murmansk. Another was an
epic of the RAF. A third was a historical subject about the
seventeenth-century architect of St. Paul's Cathedral, Sir Christopher Wren.
He had never really abandoned the idea of screening "Hamlet" exactly as he
played it on the [stage and he was] planning a new adventure for Professor
Pimpernel Smith.
END QUOTATION
Another review of the booklet at
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/oxenford.htm says Howard was "perhaps the
most devoted and certainly the most skilled promoter of the Oxfordian
theory." Howard's supposed promotion of the Oxfordian cause is not mentioned
in the booklet, not anywhere else in print as far as I have been able to
tell.
In an e-mail responding to a query dated Jan. 7, 2004, Lynn Dougherty, who
hosts the Web site, Lynn's Classic Movie Favorites
(http://www.lynnpdesign.com/classicmovies), told me, ". . . in my opinion,
the person who believes that about Howard, couldn't really know emphatically
that he is right, so I'm skeptical."
In another e-mail dated Nov. 29, 2003, responding to the same question, Jan
Pick, who runs the Web site for Howard's actor nephew, Alan Howard, said,
"In my opinion, basing the views of an actor on those of a character in a
film - however closely associated he was with it - is very dangerous. In
interviews about 'Hamlet' and 'Romeo and Juliet' he always talks of
Shakespeare as Shakespeare! The argument was also put forward in the same
film that Shakespeare was German - I take it the Earl of Oxford school don't
propose that as an equally viable theory or belief of the actor playing the
German who expressed it!"
These two individuals have researched Howard's life, and if he had said
anything along the lines of believing Oxford was Shakespeare, they would
know about it.
In a charming and entertaining piece written for Stage Magazine, Howard
muses about trying to find the way to play Prince Hamlet and imagines a
conversation between himself and Shakespeare:
BEGIN QUOTATION:
No, for myself, in order to find a way of approach to the problem, I have
gone to Shakespeare as one man of the theatre to another. I have tried to
understand the methods of his craftsmanship and the conditions under which
he worked. I have been governed by a spirit of reasonable humility, but not
of slavish reverence. I have had the nerve to consider the two of us as
co-workers in a theatrical enterprise and have tried to forget that my
partner is separated from me by over three hundred years of time and ringing
fame. In this light I have had the following conversation with him:
Me: You see, Will, times have changed.
Will: Not as much as you think.
Me: I mean, after all, you did write for the Elizabethan theatre.
Will: I wrote for the theatre.
Me: I beg your pardon. But a great many of your allusions are contemporary.
They would be understood only by your Elizabethan audience.
Will: You over-rate them. Most of the time they didn't know what I was
talking about.
Me: Even so, a play like Hamlet, though Danish, has a political background
which is Elizabethan English.
Will: Are you reproaching me with writing a play about a country of which I
could ascertain little? Too late. Bacon was before you. [Note: Does he mean
Jonson? TR]
Me: Good heavens, no. Frankly, Will your anachronisms don't worry me at
all-or any of your admirers, I venture to say.
Will: Good. They never worried me, I assure you.
Me: I only mean that much of Hamlet would be a mystery to a modern audience
because of contemporary allusions with which your audience would be
perfectly familiar.
Will: You repeat yourself so much. What do you propose to do about it?
Me: We have to resort to a certain amount of cutting.
Will: You want me to cut those parts of Hamlet which mystify the audience?
Me: (falling into the trap) Yes.
Will: Will there be much left?
Me: Within reason, Will. The mysteries if Hamlet are its greatest
attractions.
Will: You're informing me? I have cause to be thankful for the riddles of
Hamlet. It's not the best play I ever wrote.
Me: (shocked) Oh, Will!
Will: Or rather it's not the best play I ever re-wrote. Would you care to
hear how I got the assignment?
Me: (breathless) Go on.
Will: Burbage had bought an old play of Kyd's. It was a terrific affair-full
of treasons, incest, killings and poisonings. Burbage had a great time
acting it-he went at it with a will and the groundlings loved it. It was the
talk of the town. Then, one day, Burbage had an attack of good taste. He
said to me: 'That old Hamlet play is beginning to nauseate me. Take it and
polish it up, Will-give it a touch of philosophy, humour and poetry (but don
't injure the melodrama. You could do it in a couple of weeks and we'll put
it on for Christmas.'
Me: A couple of weeks. Good God!
Will: Oh, we worked fast in those days. I didn't care for the assignment,
but how could I refuse?
Me: You had a contract.
Will: Exactly. 'Twas ever thus. So I went to work on it and suddenly got
interested in the thing.
Me: You certainly did.
Will: It got in my blood. I worked for months on it. Burbage was livid at
the delay-but I was obstinate. I said I had difficulty getting a treatment.
And it was a frightful muddle-an outrageous plot, full of unexplainable
loose-ends, inconsistencies and absurdities. I eliminated as many as I could
and left the rest to dramatic license. It was a long time before I finished
it and Burbage was very irritated, he said I'd been carried away and had
overdone the whole thing. It was too highbrow and ignored the groundlings
altogether. I compromised and put back some of the killings and some of the
early gags, and so it was produced. I think I improved the play but Burbage
never really liked it.
Me: God, what a fool!
Will: I wouldn't say that. An actor, and a good actor of a certain type . .
.
. . . This will serve to show, in a facetious way, perhaps, an attempt to
understand the workings of the Elizabethan theatre, that institution which
sheltered and nurtured the tremendous mind of Shakespeare. These were the
hard-working men of the theatre running a show factory. To get the limited
public in at all was a problem and competition was keen. A constant change
of bill was necessary and so a very large repertory was required. It was in
many ways like a Hollywood film studio. The playwrights worked like
screen-writers. There was rarely time for original plots and any old story
had to be doctored up and made into a play. And made appealing to an
audience nine-tenths composed of people who cold neither read not write-and
the one-tenth probably the best minds of the age. And out of this hectic
muddle came the miracle that is Hamlet.
END QUOTATION
(Reprinted on pages 134-36 of Trivial Fond Records, a compilation of Howard'
s writings along with commentary by his son.)
Now this, of course, is an imaginary conversation. But I venture to say that
an imaginary conversation Leslie Howard wrote has a much better chance of
reflecting his true attitude that an imaginary conversation he didn't write,
but just recited as a paid actor. Howard obviously believed that Shakespeare
was an actor and playwright who worked with Burbage.
Finally, we have the testimony of Ian Colvin, who claim to have made an
exhaustive perusal of Howard's private and public letters and comments while
writing *Flight 777*, a narrative of the crash that took Howard's life.
On page 136, Colvin describes the book Howard studied for his talks on
Hamlet. The most satisfactory edition for Howard was that edited by J. Frank
Dover of Cambridge.
"It was a cheap, paper-covered edition, with a reproduction of Shakespeare's
head from the First Folio. It had a short preface, acceptable to those who
believe, as Leslie did, that William Shakespeare and nobody else was the
author of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. He took out a pencil and began to mark
his lines in the margin (F777, 136).
So once again, it becomes obvious that antiStratfordians will do anything,
up to and including pure fabrication, in order to gain supporters, be they
ever so fictional.
TR
LynnE
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2y_9c.5770$Dv2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> The British film actor Leslie Howard is yet another bogus "Oxfordian"
touted
> by the Shakespeare Fellowship on its "Honor Roll of Skeptics." The
> Fellowship site quotes the lines Howard recited in a 1941 British World
War
> II propaganda film, *Pimpernel Smith*, as proof of his Oxfordian
sympathies.
>
> The script was written by Anatole de Grunwald, Roland Pertwee and Ian
> Dalrymple, although his daughter said scenes were rewritten, sometimes on
> the set (*A Quite Remarkable Father*, 279).
This is actually very common, I've found from my experience as a "stage
mother." Often the words in the movie bear very little resemblance to the
words on the page. So by whom were the scenes rewritten, do you think?
>
> Contrary to claims by some Oxfordians, Howard did not finance the picture,
> although as producer he arranged the financing and cast the characters. He
> was erratic, disorganized and not punctual on the set, which caused it to
go
> over schedule and over budget (QRF 279-80).
>
> "He was anxious to get the film started, mainly because it had a
> contemporary theme, but partly to provide some money to keep his family.
One
> year without earning money and with his American assets frozen by the
> British Treasury had left him uncomfortably poor" (QRF 276).
>
> In one scene in the movie, Howard's character, Professor Horatio Smith,
> holds up Looney's book and says to a Nazi officer who believes Shakespeare
> was German, "I've been reading a book that proves conclusively that
> Shakespeare wasn't really Shakespeare at all, he was the Earl of Oxford."
> Later in the scene he says, "The Earl of Oxford was a very bright
> Elizabethan light, but this book will tell he was a good deal more than
> that."
>
> In another scene, he holds up a skull he has found in a cave and quotes
> Hamlet, "Alas poor Yorick ." and then turns to a German and says, "The
Earl
> of Oxford wrote that."
You have seen the movie, right, Tom? And having seen it, how do you explain
the very strong pro-Oxford statements in the film? If they're a joke, are
Smith's statements about the camps also a joke?
An EXCRETABLE scholar? Or do you mean EXECRABLE, you scholar, you. ;)
>
> The film, which Dr. Roger Stritmatter calls "one of the great achievements
> in Anglo-American cinema" on the Shakespeare Fellowship Forum, was
dismissed
> as 'just an amusing piece of hokum' by Howard himself (*Halliwell's Film
and
> Video Guide*). Stritmatter also claims that the film "apparently inspired
> Raoul Wallenberg;" "apparently" because Stritmatter has no more evidence
of
> that claim than he does for Howard.
Well, I don't know what evidence Roger has, but you might try doing a search
on Raoul Wallenberg and Leslie Howard. This was my first hit:
http://www.yadvashem.org.il/download/education/conf/Biro.pdf
And Lynne Dougherty is an expert on both Howard and Shakespeare? But even if
one assumes s/he is, using Lynn's reasoning, we couldn't know that "the
person who believes that about Oxford" is wrong, either, so I'm skeptical.
>
> In another e-mail dated Nov. 29, 2003, responding to the same question,
Jan
> Pick, who runs the Web site for Howard's actor nephew, Alan Howard, said,
Just as an aside, Alan Howard is a wonderful actor. I recently saw him in
_The Hollow Crown_. He must have been around six or seven when his uncle was
killed, so I doubt he's much of an expert on what LH believed. The person
who runs his web site? How does he even figure into the conversation?
> "In my opinion, basing the views of an actor on those of a character in a
> film - however closely associated he was with it - is very dangerous. In
> interviews about 'Hamlet' and 'Romeo and Juliet' he always talks of
> Shakespeare as Shakespeare! The argument was also put forward in the same
> film that Shakespeare was German - I take it the Earl of Oxford school
don't
> propose that as an equally viable theory or belief of the actor playing
the
> German who expressed it!"
Are we then also assuming that Howard (Leslie, that is) didn't really
believe what Professor Horatio Smith believed with regard to the
concentration camps? Or are we to accept that some of the beliefs in the fil
m belonged to Howard, but not others? The actor playing the German, by the
way, spoke lines designed to set up Howard's/Smith's introduction of the
Oxfordian theory. No one in his/her right mind would suggest that the actor
(who was not the producer or the lead) believed that Shakespeare was German.
>
> These two individuals have researched Howard's life, and if he had said
> anything along the lines of believing Oxford was Shakespeare, they would
> know about it.
Of course they wouldn't. No one knows what is said in private conversations.
>
> In a charming and entertaining piece written for Stage Magazine, Howard
> muses about trying to find the way to play Prince Hamlet and imagines a
> conversation between himself and Shakespeare:
>
>
snip in the interests of brevity. Also because I can't understand why you
would accept one "funny" conversation of Howard's but not another.
Fictional supporters? They must be the ones on the Fellowship site who sign
themselves Egg Cup and Tea Cosy.
Love,
LynnE
www.shakespearefellowship.org
>
> TR
>
>
Tom Reedy
news:rj%9c.2454$j57.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:2y_9c.5770$Dv2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > The British film actor Leslie Howard is yet another bogus "Oxfordian"
> touted
> > by the Shakespeare Fellowship on its "Honor Roll of Skeptics." The
> > Fellowship site quotes the lines Howard recited in a 1941 British World
> War
> > II propaganda film, *Pimpernel Smith*, as proof of his Oxfordian
> sympathies.
> >
> > The script was written by Anatole de Grunwald, Roland Pertwee and Ian
> > Dalrymple, although his daughter said scenes were rewritten, sometimes
on
> > the set (*A Quite Remarkable Father*, 279).
>
> This is actually very common, I've found from my experience as a "stage
> mother." Often the words in the movie bear very little resemblance to the
> words on the page.
You're right, it is quite common. Sometimes the actors contribute, sometimes
the director, and sometimes the screenwriters.
> So by whom were the scenes rewritten, do you think?
You tell me, Lynne. It is your side that plays the guessing game and tries
to pass it off as fact.
Not yet. I have it on order.
> And having seen it, how do you explain
> the very strong pro-Oxford statements in the film? If they're a joke, are
> Smith's statements about the camps also a joke?
What "joke" are you referring to? I re-read my words and could not find any
reference to a joke.
I meant what I said. His scholarship is for shit.
>
> >
> > The film, which Dr. Roger Stritmatter calls "one of the great
achievements
> > in Anglo-American cinema" on the Shakespeare Fellowship Forum, was
> dismissed
> > as 'just an amusing piece of hokum' by Howard himself (*Halliwell's Film
> and
> > Video Guide*). Stritmatter also claims that the film "apparently
inspired
> > Raoul Wallenberg;" "apparently" because Stritmatter has no more evidence
> of
> > that claim than he does for Howard.
>
> Well, I don't know what evidence Roger has, but you might try doing a
search
> on Raoul Wallenberg and Leslie Howard. This was my first hit:
> http://www.yadvashem.org.il/download/education/conf/Biro.pdf
For some reason I can't open it. Could you copy and paste it?
No, she's an expert on old movies and old movie star memorabilia and gossip.
But even if
> one assumes s/he is, using Lynn's reasoning, we couldn't know that "the
> person who believes that about Oxford" is wrong, either, so I'm skeptical.
By your reasoning (which is common enough among antiStratfordians), any
speculation must be taken as ture as long as there is no conflicting
evidence (and of course, we know how you handle conflicting evidence, don't
we?).
> >
> > In another e-mail dated Nov. 29, 2003, responding to the same question,
> Jan
> > Pick, who runs the Web site for Howard's actor nephew, Alan Howard,
said,
>
> Just as an aside, Alan Howard is a wonderful actor. I recently saw him in
> _The Hollow Crown_. He must have been around six or seven when his uncle
was
> killed, so I doubt he's much of an expert on what LH believed.
I was trying to find someone who might know Leslie Howard's views on the
subject. Unlike you, I don't accept pure fabrication as truth just because
some antiStratfordian said it. Most families are more knowledgable about
their members than non-members, so I thought I would try to contact him to
see if he knew anything about his uncle's purported "beliefs."
Unfortunately, he did not answer my letter addressed in care of his agent.
The person
> who runs his web site? How does he even figure into the conversation?
Mr. Pick is quite knowledgable about the Howard family. I recommend his Web
site; it is very entertaining. I apologize for failing to procide the
address: http://www.alanhoward.org.uk/
>
> > "In my opinion, basing the views of an actor on those of a character in
a
> > film - however closely associated he was with it - is very dangerous. In
> > interviews about 'Hamlet' and 'Romeo and Juliet' he always talks of
> > Shakespeare as Shakespeare! The argument was also put forward in the
same
> > film that Shakespeare was German - I take it the Earl of Oxford school
> don't
> > propose that as an equally viable theory or belief of the actor playing
> the
> > German who expressed it!"
>
> Are we then also assuming that Howard (Leslie, that is) didn't really
> believe what Professor Horatio Smith believed with regard to the
> concentration camps? Or are we to accept that some of the beliefs in the
fil
> m belonged to Howard, but not others?
I'm beginning to think Oxfordians have more problems distinguishing truth
from fiction than I previously believed.
The actor playing the German, by the
> way, spoke lines designed to set up Howard's/Smith's introduction of the
> Oxfordian theory. No one in his/her right mind would suggest that the
actor
> (who was not the producer or the lead) believed that Shakespeare was
German.
And no one in his/her right mind would suggest that the actor who was the
producer or the lead believed that Shakespeare was Oxford based on a film
role.
> >
> > These two individuals have researched Howard's life, and if he had said
> > anything along the lines of believing Oxford was Shakespeare, they would
> > know about it.
>
> Of course they wouldn't.
If he ever made a public statement to that effect, they would know about it.
> No one knows what is said in private conversations.
Then how does Charles Boyle know?
>
> >
> > In a charming and entertaining piece written for Stage Magazine, Howard
> > muses about trying to find the way to play Prince Hamlet and imagines a
> > conversation between himself and Shakespeare:
> >
> >
> snip in the interests of brevity. Also because I can't understand why you
> would accept one "funny" conversation of Howard's but not another.
This "funny" conversation is a first-person essay about Shakespeare
published under Howard's by-line. Your so-called "proof" that Howard was an
Oxfordian is set in the middle of an obvious entertainment fiction for the
purposes of war propaganda.
Can you understand the difference?
I'm surprised you can't discern how loose your standards of evidence are.
But I guess that shouldn't be a surprise, since there's absolutely not one
jot of evidence that Oxford wrote Shakespeare.
The idea that Leslie Howard was an Oxfordian is a fiction. We are still
waiting for any evidence you have to the contrary.
If the Shakespeare Fellowship were truly concerned about honesty and
standards of scholarship, the Web master would remove any reference to
Howard as a "skeptic." But of course, we've seen the response to the same
type of evidence about Emerson, Dickens, and Welles, so I'm not holding my
breath.
TR
LynnE
this fine piece of detective work on Leslie Howard might be your last post
to hlas. ;) Others are welcome to take up the fight with regard to
_Pimpernel Smith_. I've already posted many times on it.
I'm really sorry, but I can't seem to copy and paste from the website I
listed. I don't seem to be able to copy pdf files. If anyone else knows how,
perhaps they'll pass their knowledge on to me. The story of Raoul
Wallenberg, however, although interesting, wasn't initiated by Charles
Boyle, and really has nothing to do with Howard's views on Shakespeare.
And you really meant "an excretable scholar?" Now I'll wait for Dr. Webb or
others to say that the only excretable scholar they know is my dear
comrade-in-arms Paul Crowley (sorry, Paul). Excretive deleted.
Love,
LynnE
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uR1ac.7305$lt2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Neil Brennen
Others are welcome to take up the fight with regard to
> _Pimpernel Smith_. I've already posted many times on it.
So when is the Fellowship website going to be corrected, Lynne? The
historical antiStrats are falling like ripe apples. You've lost Emerson,
Dickens, Wells, and now Howard...
Art Neuendorffer
> I can't seem to copy and paste from the website I listed.
> I don't seem to be able to copy pdf files. If anyone else
> knows how, perhaps they'll pass their knowledge on to me.
You just have to tap on the "T" (text editing tool) button
and then use normal "Cntl C" "Cntl V" operations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.yadvashem.org.il/download/education/conf/Biro.pdf
<<In the winter of l942, Raoul Wallenberg and his sister Nina attended a
private showing of the film Pimpernel Smith at the British Embassy in
Stockholm. The film was based on the novel by Hungarian-born Baroness Emoke
Orczy, in which the book's fictitious hero saved aristocrats from the
guillotine during the French Revolution. The film he saw that evening
featured the noted British actor Leslie Howard, who also directed it.
Pimpernel Smith was the story of an absent-minded professor who secretly
managed to save the Jews from the Nazis. The irony was that the real Leslie
Howard was born Laszlo Stainer, a Hungarian Jew. Raoul Wallenberg himself
became the Swedish Scarlet Pimpernel of World War II, saving tens of
thousands of Hungarian Jews from the Nazi stranglehold in Budapest in l944.
He is credited with rescuing as estimated l00,000 Jewish people, making him
the individual who saved the most Jewish lives during WWII.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Laszlo = Laszlo STAINER?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<My Lord, this other day your man STAINER told me that you sent for
AMYS, my man and, if he were absent, that Lyly should come unto you.
I sent AMYS, for he was in the way. And I think very strange that your
Lordship should enter into that course toward me whereby I must learn
that I knew not before, both of your opinion and goodwill towards me.
But I pray, my Lord, leave that course, for I mean not to be your
ward nor your child. I serve her Majesty, and I AM THAT I AM,>>
http://www3.telus.net/oxford/oxfordsletters1-44.html
BL Lansdowne 42[/39], ff. 97-8: Oxford to Burghley, [30 October 1584].
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
LynnE
ages. Live and learn.
L.
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B82dnc3RosU...@comcast.com...
Tom Reedy
> Was just testing to see if I could get you to reply, Tom. I was afraid
that
> this fine piece of detective work on Leslie Howard might be your last post
> to hlas. ;)
If it doesn't get any better than it has been for a while, I may very well
take a long walk off the HLAS pier.
> Others are welcome to take up the fight with regard to
> _Pimpernel Smith_. I've already posted many times on it.
You have? So did you ever post any evidence he was an Oxfordian?
>
> I'm really sorry, but I can't seem to copy and paste from the website I
> listed. I don't seem to be able to copy pdf files. If anyone else knows
how,
> perhaps they'll pass their knowledge on to me.
Art posted it. Not knowing the context, if he did indeed attend a private
showing of the film, it may have inspired him.
The story of Raoul
> Wallenberg, however, although interesting, wasn't initiated by Charles
> Boyle, and really has nothing to do with Howard's views on Shakespeare.
>
> And you really meant "an excretable scholar?"
No, it was a (Freudian?) slip. I'm an excrable speller. I couldn't resist
posting my reply, though.
TR
Art Neuendorffer
>>> > An EXCRETABLE scholar? Or do you mean EXECRABLE, you scholar, you. ;)
>> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote...
>>> I meant what I said. His scholarship is for shit.
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > And you really meant "an excretable scholar?"
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote...
> No, it was a (Freudian?) slip. I'm an excrable speller.
Ex-Scrabble speller?
--------------------------------------------------------
Execrable, a. [L. execrabilis, exsecrabilis: cf. F. ex['e]crable.] Deserving
to be execrated; accursed; damnable; detestable; abominable; as, an
execrable wretch.
Excreable, a. [L. excreabilis, exscreabilis, fr. exscreare.] Capable of
being discharged by spitting. [Obs.] --Swift
Exrable, a. [L. exorabilis: cf. F. exorable.] Capable of being moved by
entreaty; pitiful; tender. --Milton. .
--------------------------------------------------------
Execrate, v. t. [L. execratus, exsecratus, p. p. of execrare, exsecrare, to
execrate; ex out + sacer holy, sacred.] To denounce evil against, or to
imprecate evil upon; to curse; to protest against as unholy or detestable;
hence, to detest utterly; to abhor; to abominate.
Excreate, v. t. [L. excreare, exsreare; ex out + screare to hawk.] To spit
out; to discharge from the throat by hawking and spitting.
[Obs.] --Cockeram.
Excrete, v. t. [L. excretus, p. p. of excernere to sift out, discharge; ex
out + cernere to sift, separate.] To separate and throw off; to excrete
urine.
--------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neil Brennen
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:it2ac.13499$1A6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Was just testing to see if I could get you to reply, Tom. I was afraid
> that
> > this fine piece of detective work on Leslie Howard might be your last
post
> > to hlas. ;)
>
> If it doesn't get any better than it has been for a while, I may very well
> take a long walk off the HLAS pier.
I'm not sure any of us are giving of our best lately. There's too much
Awfulship discussion of the Webb and Weir variety.
KQKnave
Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> writes:
>
>I'm not sure any of us are giving of our best lately. There's too much
>Awfulship discussion of the Webb and Weir variety.
>
Well, I do my best to stir the pot but no one wants to comment
(other than Hollowskull).
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Tom Veal
> Was just testing to see if I could get you to reply, Tom. I was afraid that
> this fine piece of detective work on Leslie Howard might be your last post
> to hlas. ;) Others are welcome to take up the fight with regard to
> _Pimpernel Smith_. I've already posted many times on it.
>
> I'm really sorry, but I can't seem to copy and paste from the website I
> listed. I don't seem to be able to copy pdf files. If anyone else knows how,
> perhaps they'll pass their knowledge on to me. The story of Raoul
> Wallenberg, however, although interesting, wasn't initiated by Charles
> Boyle, and really has nothing to do with Howard's views on Shakespeare.
Here is what the article to which Lynn linked (Ruth Biro, "Raoul
Wallenberg - A Curriculum for K-12 Educators") says about Wallenberg
and Leslie Howard:
{Begin quotation}
Wallenberg had traveled widely during the decade of the l930's,
attending college in the United States, working in Haifa, Palestine,
and visiting Mexico, South Africa, France, Turkey, and other
countries. As the war escalated in the earlier l940's he increasingly
became aware of the destruction and the dislocation of the European
populace. In the winter of l942, Raoul Wallenberg and his sister Nina
attended a private showing of the film Pimpernel Smith at the British
Embassy in Stockholm. The film was based on the novel by
Hungarian-born Baroness Emoke Orczy, in which the book's fictitious
hero saved aristocrats from the guillotine during the French
Revolution. The film he saw that evening featured the noted British
actor Leslie Howard, who also directed it. Pimpernel Smith was the
story of an absent-minded professor who secretly managed to save the
Jews from the Nazis. The irony was that the real Leslie Howard was
born Laszlo Stainer, a Hungarian Jew. Raoul Wallenberg himself became
the Swedish Scarlet Pimpernel of World War II, saving tens of
thousands of Hungarian Jews from the Nazi stranglehold in Budapest in
l944.
{End quotation}
It's a bit of a stretch to go from seeing a movie to being inspired by
it, and the author doesn't suggest any such thing, though Dr.
Stritmatter is a much more, er, imaginative reader than most.
I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism would
neatly fit that persona.
LynnE
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:c87247a2.04032...@posting.google.com...
That was just the first mention I came across, Tom. I'm sure there are
others on the web. I first heard the story many years before I became an
Oxfordian. Here is an Amazon review:
"I first saw mention of "Pimpernel Smith" when I was reading about Raoul
Wallenberg, the man who rescued tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews during
the Holocaust. Apparently Wallenberg saw this movie a few years before he
undertook his mission, and was deeply moved by it. Judge for yourself if it
is reasonable to think that this philosophical fairy-tale inspired
Wallenberg's exceptional heroism and strength of spirit. When I saw it, I
did get the idealistic impression that this might be the case."
Of course, the Wallenberg/Howard story might be apocryphal, but it's not
Oxfordian apocrypha, and certainly nothing to do with Dr. Stritmatter.
>
> I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
> plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
> the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
> Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism would
> neatly fit that persona.
I've seen the movie, but I haven't read the book. Is Smith an Oxfordian in
the book also? If not, why bother to introduce the theme at all, and
certainly, why introduce it without any kind of refutation later in the
movie? Surely Howard was clever enough to realise that portraying Oxford as
Shakespeare in the way Smith did might make people think that Howard himself
was an Oxfordian. ;)
Best wishes,
LynnE
Neil Brennen
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040329231157...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> In article <%O4ac.4651$NL4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "Neil
> Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> writes:
>
> >
> >I'm not sure any of us are giving of our best lately. There's too much
> >Awfulship discussion of the Webb and Weir variety.
> >
>
> Well, I do my best to stir the pot but no one wants to comment
> (other than Hollowskull).
I think it's best to avoid posting on a subject when you don't know much
about it. I haven't read Vicker's book.
Neil Brennen
> > I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
> > plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
> > the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
> > Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism would
> > neatly fit that persona.
>
> I've seen the movie, but I haven't read the book. Is Smith an Oxfordian in
> the book also? If not, why bother to introduce the theme at all, and
> certainly, why introduce it without any kind of refutation later in the
> movie?
Is it a "theme", Lynne, or merely a gag? It seems a bit of a stretch to call
two references to Oxford a "theme". Head lice is mentioned a number of times
in "High Windows"; is that a theme of the book? :-)
Surely Howard was clever enough to realise that portraying Oxford as
> Shakespeare in the way Smith did might make people think that Howard
himself
> was an Oxfordian. ;)
Perhaps Howard thought people would understand the difference between an
actor playing a role and.... never mind, it's useless to explain it to you.
Tom Veal
> Of course, the Wallenberg/Howard story might be apocryphal, but it's not
> Oxfordian apocrypha, and certainly nothing to do with Dr. Stritmatter.
>
It also has nothing to do with who wrote Shakespeare, though I fully
expect the Shakespeare Fellowship Web site one day to proclaim that
Raoul Wallenberg was an anti-Stratfordian, just as it currently sees
encouragement for the cause in complaints about the commercialization
of Stratford-upon-Avon.
> >
> > I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
> > plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
> > the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
> > Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism would
> > neatly fit that persona.
>
> I've seen the movie, but I haven't read the book. Is Smith an Oxfordian in
> the book also? If not, why bother to introduce the theme at all, and
> certainly, why introduce it without any kind of refutation later in the
> movie? Surely Howard was clever enough to realise that portraying Oxford as
> Shakespeare in the way Smith did might make people think that Howard himself
> was an Oxfordian. ;)
>
Baroness Orczy's book, "The Scarlet Pimpernel", is set in the time of
the French Revolution. The hero, Sir Percy Blakeney, is introduced
thus: "Sir Percy's coats were the talk of the town, his inanities were
quoted, his foolish laugh copied by the gilded youth at Almack's or
the Mall. Everyone knew that he was hopelessly stupid, but then that
was scarcely to be wondered at, seeing that all the Blakeneys for
generations had been notoriously dull. . . ."
If the movie follows the book in having its protagonist adopt the
cover of charming imbecility, Oxenfordianism is a nice touch - just
the sort of silly idea that movie audiences expect foolish academics
to adopt.
If I had to infer anything about Leslie Howard's own beliefs from what
(little) I know about "Pimpernel Smith", the most compelling
conclusion would be that he thought Oxenfordianism self-evidently
ridiculous and introduced it into the film for that reason.
LynnE
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
news:9Ccac.5453$yN6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:8T7ac.3048$j57.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
> > > plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
> > > the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
> > > Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism would
> > > neatly fit that persona.
> >
> > I've seen the movie, but I haven't read the book. Is Smith an Oxfordian
in
> > the book also? If not, why bother to introduce the theme at all, and
> > certainly, why introduce it without any kind of refutation later in the
> > movie?
>
> Is it a "theme", Lynne, or merely a gag? It seems a bit of a stretch to
call
> two references to Oxford a "theme". Head lice is mentioned a number of
times
> in "High Windows"; is that a theme of the book? :-)
I would say that it's a theme, Neil, although not the most important one.
There are far more than two references to Oxford/Shakespeare. But I'm sure
you've seen the film and know that.
>
> Surely Howard was clever enough to realise that portraying Oxford as
> > Shakespeare in the way Smith did might make people think that Howard
> himself
> > was an Oxfordian. ;)
>
> Perhaps Howard thought people would understand the difference between an
> actor playing a role and.... never mind, it's useless to explain it to
you.
Well, the truth is that the MAJORITY of people do not seem to understand the
difference between an actor playing a role and the actor himself. Ask any
actor who is well-known for playing a part and you'll find he gets greeted
on the street by his character's name. My son was in a series when he was
younger, and people thought he was the character he portrayed. I'll bet
Howard got called Ashley Wilkes all the time before he made Pimpernel
Smith, so he would know that people often confused an actor with the roles
he played. As such, bringing in the Oxfordian THEME was a risky thing to do.
And we know that he was the producer, so he had creative control of the
movie. He did this by choice. And at no point did he seem to ridicule
Oxford. He used the THEME to best the Nazi.
L.
>
>
LynnE
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<8T7ac.3048$j57.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
> > Of course, the Wallenberg/Howard story might be apocryphal, but it's not
> > Oxfordian apocrypha, and certainly nothing to do with Dr. Stritmatter.
> >
> It also has nothing to do with who wrote Shakespeare,
Isn't that what I was saying?
though I fully
> expect the Shakespeare Fellowship Web site one day to proclaim that
> Raoul Wallenberg was an anti-Stratfordian, just as it currently sees
> encouragement for the cause in complaints about the commercialization
> of Stratford-upon-Avon.
I doubt it.
> > >
> > > I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
> > > plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
> > > the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
> > > Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism would
> > > neatly fit that persona.
> >
> > I've seen the movie, but I haven't read the book. Is Smith an Oxfordian
in
> > the book also? If not, why bother to introduce the theme at all, and
> > certainly, why introduce it without any kind of refutation later in the
> > movie? Surely Howard was clever enough to realise that portraying Oxford
as
> > Shakespeare in the way Smith did might make people think that Howard
himself
> > was an Oxfordian. ;)
> >
> Baroness Orczy's book, "The Scarlet Pimpernel", is set in the time of
> the French Revolution. The hero, Sir Percy Blakeney, is introduced
> thus: "Sir Percy's coats were the talk of the town, his inanities were
> quoted, his foolish laugh copied by the gilded youth at Almack's or
> the Mall. Everyone knew that he was hopelessly stupid, but then that
> was scarcely to be wondered at, seeing that all the Blakeneys for
> generations had been notoriously dull. . . ."
I'm sorry. I was yanking your chain a bit. It didn't come off too well,
maybe because I was writing in the middle of the night. No English child in
the 1950s could get away from _The Scarlet Pimpernel_ as it was a series on
tv. I also read the book in translation a couple of times.
>
> If the movie follows the book in having its protagonist adopt the
> cover of charming imbecility, Oxenfordianism is a nice touch - just
> the sort of silly idea that movie audiences expect foolish academics
> to adopt.
>
> If I had to infer anything about Leslie Howard's own beliefs from what
> (little) I know about "Pimpernel Smith", the most compelling
> conclusion would be that he thought Oxenfordianism self-evidently
> ridiculous and introduced it into the film for that reason.
I think you should watch the movie, Tom, with an open mind, before you make
judgements. You don't have to become an Oxfordian, but you should at least
see how Howard, in the movie, treats the Oxfordian issue. To my mind,
there's not even a glimmer of the ridiculous in it, especially as he is
besting the Nazi. It seems more a way of getting info across to the public.
Best wishes,
LynnE
Tom Reedy
> >
> > If I had to infer anything about Leslie Howard's own beliefs from what
> > (little) I know about "Pimpernel Smith", the most compelling
> > conclusion would be that he thought Oxenfordianism self-evidently
> > ridiculous and introduced it into the film for that reason.
>
> I think you should watch the movie, Tom, with an open mind, before you
make
> judgements. You don't have to become an Oxfordian, but you should at least
> see how Howard, in the movie, treats the Oxfordian issue. To my mind,
> there's not even a glimmer of the ridiculous in it, especially as he is
> besting the Nazi. It seems more a way of getting info across to the
public.
>
> Best wishes,
> LynnE
So you admit the movie dialog is your only evidence, Lynne? Because I
haven't seen any substantive rebuttals to my essay. But perhaps my server is
not delivering all the messages.
TR
Richard Nathan
(snip)
> You have seen the movie, right, Tom? And having seen it, how do you explain
> the very strong pro-Oxford statements in the film? If they're a joke, are
> Smith's statements about the camps also a joke?
There are no arguments in favor of Oxford - merely statements that
Oxford is the author. And as has been pointed out, these statements
are only made to the Nazis. It's clear to me that Professor Smith is
attempting to convince the Nazis he is a harmless idiot.
Richard Nathan
(snip)
> >
> > I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
> > plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
> > the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
> > Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism would
> > neatly fit that persona.
>
> I've seen the movie, but I haven't read the book. Is Smith an Oxfordian in
> the book also? If not, why bother to introduce the theme at all, and
> certainly, why introduce it without any kind of refutation later in the
> movie? Surely Howard was clever enough to realise that portraying Oxford as
> Shakespeare in the way Smith did might make people think that Howard himself
> was an Oxfordian. ;)
>
> Best wishes,
> LynnE
"Pimpernel Smith" was not adapted from a book, except to the extent
one could claim it was based on the novel "The Scarlet Pimpernel" by
Baroness Orczy. That is the book to which Tom Veal is referring. The
novel "The Scarlet Pimpernel" does not portray anyone as an Oxfordian
- but then, you might think it does.
LynnE
"Richard Nathan" <richard...@att.net> wrote in message
news:fe178efa.04033...@posting.google.com...
I think I know that, Richard. I was joking. If you look carefully, you'll
see the wink. I wrote I'd seen the film but not read the book in response to
Tom's saying he'd read the book but not seen the film. I posted afterwards,
by way of clarification, that I'd read The Scarlet Pimpernel in translation.
We had to read it in school, many, many years ago, in French, and then
reread it prior to exams. Probably an attempt to teach us French history and
language at the same time. I believe it was called Le Mouron Rouge. We
nicknamed it Le Mouton Rouge (Red Sheep). It's sad, but I think today I
could barely manage to translate a sentence of it.
>The
> novel "The Scarlet Pimpernel" does not portray anyone as an Oxfordian
> - but then, you might think it does.
No need for cheap shots. ;)
Best wishes,
LynnE
Allan Rogg
>
> I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
> plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
> the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
> Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism would
> neatly fit that persona.
Precisely. Having seen the film, I would point out that, as in
Baroness Orczy's book, which was adapted "straight" for Howard's
earlier French-Revolution-era Scarlet Pimpernel film, the heroic
Pimpernel character adopts the cover identity of a foolish,
superficial twit in order to avoid detection. It is only when
Pimpernel Smith is posing as an idiot that he mentions Oxford's
putative authorship of the Shakespeare plays. If anything, Howard and
his collaborators are satirizing the Oxfordians.
Allan Rogg
LynnE
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:_mfac.41483$1A6.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:c87247a2.04033...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > If I had to infer anything about Leslie Howard's own beliefs from what
> > > (little) I know about "Pimpernel Smith", the most compelling
> > > conclusion would be that he thought Oxenfordianism self-evidently
> > > ridiculous and introduced it into the film for that reason.
> >
> > I think you should watch the movie, Tom, with an open mind, before you
> make
> > judgements. You don't have to become an Oxfordian, but you should at
least
> > see how Howard, in the movie, treats the Oxfordian issue. To my mind,
> > there's not even a glimmer of the ridiculous in it, especially as he is
> > besting the Nazi. It seems more a way of getting info across to the
> public.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > LynnE
>
> So you admit the movie dialog is your only evidence, Lynne?
Confidentially, Tom, and I certainly wouldn't mention this to anyone else, I
would say that's not as bad as arguing a case when you haven't seen the
material.
>Because I
> haven't seen any substantive rebuttals to my essay. But perhaps my server
is
> not delivering all the messages.
O, delicious irony. Well done. Actually, my server ISN'T delivering all the
messages. One of my own went missing, but I regret to say it wasn't one
where I gave further evidence. I believe that at the moment, the movie
dialogue, plus the Shakespearean theme in the movie, plus the tone in which
the dialogue is delivered, plus the fact that LH exerted creative control
over the movie, are the only bits of evidence the Oxfordians have, but as I
said, I'm not any kind of scholar, so I may be wrong.
Now I really must do some work.
L.
>
> TR
>
>
Art Neuendorffer
> > > I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
> > > plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
> > > the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
> > > Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism
> > > would neatly fit that persona.
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > I've seen the movie, but I haven't read the book.
> > Is Smith an Oxfordian in the book also?
> > If not, why bother to introduce the theme at all, and certainly,
> > why introduce it without any kind of refutation later in the movie?
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote
> Is it a "theme", Lynne, or merely a gag? It seems a bit of a stretch to
> call two references to Oxford a "theme". Head lice is mentioned a
> number of times in "High Windows"; is that a theme of the book? :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy is lowsie, whatEVER befall it.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.online-literature.com/irving/geoffrey_crayon/26/
_The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon_ by Washington Irving
When brought into the presence of Sir Thomas Lucy
[Shaksper's] treatment must have been galling and humiliating;
for it so wrought upon his spirit as to produce a rough pasquinade
which was affixed to the park gate at Charlecot.*
The following is the only stanza extant of this lampoon:
[A] parliament member, a justice of peace,
[A]t home a poor scarecrow, at London an asse,
If lowsie is Lucy, as some volke miscalle it,
Then Lucy is lowsie, whatEVER befall it.
He thinks himself great; Yet an asse in his state,
[W]e allow by his EARS but with asses to mate,
[I]f Lucy is lowsie, as some volke miscalle it,
[T]hen sing lowsie Lucy whatEVER befall it.
-----------------------------------------------------
GREAT CAESAR's EAR
-----------------------------------------------------
Julius Caesar Act 3, Scene 1
METELLUS CIMBER:
Is there no voice more worthy than my own
To sound more sweetly in GREAT CAESAR's EAR
For the repealing of my banish'd brother?
-----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
<snip>
> I believe that at the moment, the movie
> dialogue, plus the Shakespearean theme in the movie, plus the tone in
which
> the dialogue is delivered, plus the fact that LH exerted creative control
> over the movie, are the only bits of evidence the Oxfordians have, but as
I
> said, I'm not any kind of scholar, so I may be wrong.
I'm sure you're right that that's all the evidence antiStratfordians have
that Leslie Howard was an Oxfordian.
I've often wondered why antiStrats never research their myths -- probably
afraid of what they might find. The Charles Boyle booklet was published 11
years ago, and Oxfordians have blindly accepted his assertion without any
questions at all, nor have any of them gone to the trouble to determine if
Howard actually said anything about Oxford-as-Shakespeare in real life.
TR
LynnE
Many of the Oxfordians are doing a great deal of research into all sorts of
things Shakespearean, Tom. I do know that someone is trying to find out if
LH said anything outside the movie (an outside narrative?), but have no idea
as yet whether he's found anything.
And again, I would suggest that if you're talking about others blindly
accepting assertions, you should at the very least see the movie for
yourself rather than relying on the opinions of others (most of whom don't
appear to have watched the film either). Even if you don't enjoy the
Oxfordian quotes, you will still find the viewing worthwhile. There are some
very interesting shots--a brilliant chiaroscuro--near the end of the movie,
when Smith is in a train.
L.
Tom Reedy
As I said, I have the movie on order. I understand it is a very entertaining
film. However, I don't have to see every film ever made to believe that the
dialog in fictional entertainments does not reflect the personal beliefs of
the actors, the production crew, or the writers, especially if they made no
such supporting commentary in real life.
Do you consider that to be irrational or wrong? Because obviously you think
the opposite. You think that a few lines of dialog in a fictional
entertainment accurately reflect the true personal beliefs of Leslie Howard,
even though he never publicly -- or privately, for all we know -- said a
word during his lifetime that would make us think so.
Think about that.
TR
LynnE
Yes, Tom. I do believe it in this case to be wrong. I cannot see Howard
introducing Oxford as an object of ridicule because at the time Edward de
Vere as a candidate was hardly well known in England. LH would have done
much better to go with Bacon if he wanted to ridicule the authorship because
Bacon was the top (or at least best known) contender at the time. The lines
as delivered sound more of an advertisement for Oxford than anything else.
It's clear that Smith is besting the Nazi, not acting the fool when he
speaks about Shakespeare. He's being what we used to call in England a
"clever Dick." (No jokes, please.)
My characters say lots of things in my books that I never say in life.
Sometimes the opinions happen to be mine. One can usually tell by tone, and
by whether the characters are sympathetic or not. But when you come to think
of it, when we discuss LH and Pimpernel Smith, we're taking a look at the
authorship question in microcosm. Do artists put themselves in their work in
some way? When can one depend on that? Etc. You might be able to bring up a
couple of cases where the author appears not to, but I can name thousands of
cases where the author (and I must include LH here as at least partial
author, or at least, the person who had control over what appeared in the
film) does. We can't get away from ourselves.
L.
Tom Veal
> I think you should watch the movie, Tom, with an open mind, before you make
> judgements. You don't have to become an Oxfordian, but you should at least
> see how Howard, in the movie, treats the Oxfordian issue. To my mind,
> there's not even a glimmer of the ridiculous in it, especially as he is
> besting the Nazi. It seems more a way of getting info across to the public.
>
Should I ever happen to see "Pimpernel Smith", keeping an open mind
won't be difficult. It would, after all, do my side of the debate no
harm if Leslie Howard had been as nutty as Brame, Popova, Crowley,
Streitz and Stritmatter combined and cubed.
I wonder, though, whether your mind is entirely open on this point.
Tom Reedy has presented pretty clear proof that Mr. Howard believed
that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Shakespeare. Against it
dialogue in a movie is an extremely light counterweight. It's hard to
imagine that a real Oxenfordian would have been content to insert
those few mentions of Looney's theory as his sole declaration of
faith. Far more likely is that Howard (or whoever wrote those portions
of the script) had run across "Shakespeare Identified" and thought
that it would lend a nice touch to the characterization to make the
hero espouse an idea that no moviegoer could take seriously. Certainly
the bits of the script that you've quoted put forward no information
or arguments to advance the Oxenfordian cause. If Leslie Howard was
trying to send a message, he should have followed Samuel Goldwyn's
advice and used Western Union.
L Wood
<snip>
> I think you should watch the movie, Tom, with an open mind, before you make
> judgements. You don't have to become an Oxfordian, but you should at least
> see how Howard, in the movie, treats the Oxfordian issue. To my mind,
> there's not even a glimmer of the ridiculous in it, especially as he is
> besting the Nazi. It seems more a way of getting info across to the public.
I've seen the movie, and I didn't get that from it. It seemed to me
like he was blathering to put the Nazi off his guard.
Lynette
LynnE
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<_mfac.41483$1A6.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
> > I think you should watch the movie, Tom, with an open mind, before you
make
> > judgements. You don't have to become an Oxfordian, but you should at
least
> > see how Howard, in the movie, treats the Oxfordian issue. To my mind,
> > there's not even a glimmer of the ridiculous in it, especially as he is
> > besting the Nazi. It seems more a way of getting info across to the
public.
> >
> Should I ever happen to see "Pimpernel Smith", keeping an open mind
> won't be difficult. It would, after all, do my side of the debate no
> harm if Leslie Howard had been as nutty as Brame, Popova, Crowley,
> Streitz and Stritmatter combined and cubed.
First, I count Brame, Popova, and Stritmatter as friends and take exception
to your characterization of them. I can assure you that not one of them is
nutty, although I certainly don't go along with much that Brame and Popova
say. I can't speak for Mr. Crowley or Mr. Streitz, but then I've never been
introduced to either of them. I believe I saw Mr. Streitz across a room
once, but the sighting wasn't clear enough for me to decide on his sanity or
lack thereof. It would be lovely if we could have a conversation on hlas
without resorting to calling the other side nuts. You may call our beliefs
nutty if you like. I believe that's a step up from an ad hominem attack.
Second, whatever his beliefs on the authorship question, I don't in the
least believe that LH could have been insane--or nutty, if you prefer that
word. He was one of the top British actors of his day, he had the audacity
to blow the whistle on the Nazis and their camps very early and very
publicly, and he may have been a spy for the English (I have no evidence for
this, but have heard it rumoured). As far as I know, there is no indication
anywhere that LH was lacking in sanity.
>
> I wonder, though, whether your mind is entirely open on this point.
> Tom Reedy has presented pretty clear proof that Mr. Howard believed
> that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Shakespeare. Against it
> dialogue in a movie is an extremely light counterweight.
I would say that Tom's evidence was pretty lightweight also, and that unlike
many (both traditionalists and non-Strats) I'm extremely open on this and
other points. I have never said I have unreservedly accepted that LH was an
Oxfordian, though as one of the token Oxfordians here I am arguing the
Oxfordian side. I do believe he was likely an Oxfordian, or at least,
interested in the authorship question, but I would like to see more evidence
before finally making up my mind.
>It's hard to
> imagine that a real Oxenfordian would have been content to insert
> those few mentions of Looney's theory as his sole declaration of
> faith.
I can assure you that some Oxfordians are afraid even to do that, in case
their beliefs rebound on them and they are called "nutty." We have people on
the Fellowship forum, for example, who use pseudonyms and don't reveal their
identity to anyone. I've seen one or two do the same thing here.
>Far more likely is that Howard (or whoever wrote those portions
> of the script) had run across "Shakespeare Identified" and thought
> that it would lend a nice touch to the characterization to make the
> hero espouse an idea that no moviegoer could take seriously. >Certainly
> the bits of the script that you've quoted put forward no information
> or arguments to advance the Oxenfordian cause.
Sorry, Tom, I didn't quote anything. Tom Reedy quoted those particular
lines, I believe from Charles Boyle's booklet rather than the movie itself.
I would have to watch the movie again before quoting, and I don't have the
time right at the moment. But I do remember when giving a paper on
Shakespeare and the Jews a couple of years ago, I found at least four or
five excerpts that I wished to show from the movie, excerpts that possibly
indicated that Howard, a Jew, was also an Oxfordian.
>If Leslie Howard was
> trying to send a message, he should have followed Samuel Goldwyn's
> advice and used Western Union.
No doubt.
Best wishes,
LynnE
LynnE
"Allan Rogg" <ar...@payroll.nyc.gov> wrote in message
news:7ae5c54d.04033...@posting.google.com...
I'm going to try to watch the movie again this weekend as it's two years
since I've seen it. I agree that Percy Blakeney was an affected, foolish fop
in the original Pimpernel; however, I believe that when portraying Pimpernel
Smith, LH was acting more like a smart alec than an idiot, whilst annoying
and besting the Nazi, but I'd like to be sure before discussing it further.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Neil Brennen
Sorry Mouse, I'm afraid I haven't seen it. HoweVER, I've only seen
Oxfordians cite two references as "evidence" of Howard's alleged Oxhead
beliefs. Where are the "far more" you mention?
> >
> > Surely Howard was clever enough to realise that portraying Oxford as
> > > Shakespeare in the way Smith did might make people think that Howard
> > himself
> > > was an Oxfordian. ;)
> >
> > Perhaps Howard thought people would understand the difference between an
> > actor playing a role and.... never mind, it's useless to explain it to
> you.
>
> Well, the truth is that the MAJORITY of people do not seem to understand
the
> difference between an actor playing a role and the actor himself. Ask any
> actor who is well-known for playing a part and you'll find he gets greeted
> on the street by his character's name. My son was in a series when he was
> younger, and people thought he was the character he portrayed. I'll bet
> Howard got called Ashley Wilkes all the time before he made Pimpernel
> Smith, so he would know that people often confused an actor with the roles
> he played. As such, bringing in the Oxfordian THEME was a risky thing to
do.
> And we know that he was the producer, so he had creative control of the
> movie. He did this by choice. And at no point did he seem to ridicule
> Oxford.
One doesn't need to ridicule Oxford to ridicule the idea that Oxford wrote
Shakespeare.
Art Neuendorffer
> [I posted] that I'd read The Scarlet Pimpernel in translation.
> We had to read it in school, many, many years ago, in French, and then
The plant appears in the Herbals & Vocabularies
'If she'd only used my pimpernel water, for
The virtues of the Pimpernel.'
"MArTiN (d)rOeSHOUT"
------------------------------------------------------
mixed with HONEY and dropped into the eyes.
it draweth forth THORNS and splinters gotten into the flesh.'
to prevent witchcraft, as Mother Bumby doth affirm.'
Greg Reynolds
LynnE wrote:
It sounds as though feigning madness (believing
Oxford wrote Shakespeare) is a parody of Hamlet.
What other justification is there for the skull/Yorick
scene?
Greg Reynolds
From Find a Grave (though you'll not be finding Leslie's)...
Leslie Howard
Apr 3 1893 - Jun 1 1943
Actor.
He is most remembered for his role of Ashley Wilkes,
in the movie "Gone With the Wind" (1939). He was killed
while returning to England from vacation in Portugal,
when his plane was shot down by German fighters.
Born Leslie Howard Stainer in London, England, of
Hungarian parents. After attending Dulwich School,
he worked as a bank clerk, until the outbreak of
World War I, when he joined the British Army. In 1917,
he was shell shocked and medically discharged from
the British Army, and advised to take up acting as part
of his medical treatment. Very quickly, audiences
warmed to him, and he became known as the perfect
Englishman: slim, tall, intellectual, and sensitive, a role
that he would play in many movies. His first successful
movie was "Outward Bound" (1930), based upon a
stage play of the same name. Later roles played the
Englishman perfectly, and perhaps his best performance
of this was his role of Sir Percy Blakeney in "The Scarlet
Pimpernel" (1934). As his success grew, he became
more selective in the roles that he played. He was
the perfect Professor Henry Higgins in "Pygmalion" (1938),
a role that is more familiar with today's American audiences
from Rex Harrison's portrayal in "My Fair Lady" (1964),
which starred Audrey Hepburn. In 1939, he played
Ashley Wilkes, an honorable, disillusioned, intellectual,
southern gentlemen in "Gone With The Wind," perhaps
his most remembered role. But with the coming of World
War II, Leslie returned to England and began working
devotedly on behalf of the British war effort. He wrote
articles, made radio broadcasts, played in and directed
several films, including "Common Heritage" (1940),
"The Forty-Ninth Parallel" (1941), "Pimpernel Smith"
(1941), "In Which We Serve" (1942), "White Eagle"
(1942), "The First of the Few" (1942), and "The War
in the Mediterranean" (1943). He was in a total of 36
films during his short career. In June 1943, he was
returning from vacation in neutral Portugal, when a
German agent in Lisbon spotted a Winston Churchill
double getting on board the same plane. The real
Churchill had just finished a well publicized official
visit to Cairo, Egypt, and was returning to England,
when his double boarded the London bound British
Overseas Airways plane. Nazi fighters from occupied
France, in a typical breach of a country's neutrality,
shot the plane out of the sky over the Bay of Biscay.
Everyone aboard, including Leslie Howard, was killed.
Due to the war, no bodies were recovered. In a later
book "In Search of My Father", written by Leslie Howard's
son, Ronald Howard, the story of the Winston Churchill
double was doubted, and the attack on the airplane
described as a mission of opportunity by the German
fighters.
Neil Brennen
> First, I count Brame, Popova, and Stritmatter as friends and take
exception
> to your characterization of them.
I have two friends who are Oxfordians, and I can assure you, on that subject
they are nutty.
I can assure you that not one of them is
> nutty, although I certainly don't go along with much that Brame and Popova
> say.
How much of what Brame and Popova dish up do you swallow? 20%? 10%? Less?
How much of what they write must you reject before you can call them nutty?
LynnE
They're not all about Oxford. A couple that I recall are straight
Shakespeare references, either aural or visual, but they strengthen the
theme. I'll try to find the movie, watch it again this weekend, and list
them for you. No promises. Depends how the weekend goes.
I don't think he did.
Mistress Mouse
> >
> > L.
>
>
>
Neil Brennen
> > > There are far more than two references to Oxford/Shakespeare. But I'm
> sure
> > > you've seen the film and know that.
> >
> > Sorry Mouse, I'm afraid I haven't seen it. HoweVER, I've only seen
> > Oxfordians cite two references as "evidence" of Howard's alleged Oxhead
> > beliefs. Where are the "far more" you mention?
>
> They're not all about Oxford. A couple that I recall are straight
> Shakespeare references, either aural or visual, but they strengthen the
> theme.
Lynne, don't change the subject. The question was how many references to
Oxford/Shakespeare, not how many "straight" Shakespeare references.
I'll try to find the movie, watch it again this weekend, and list
> them for you. No promises. Depends how the weekend goes.
I have another Kositsky novel to read this weekend. Amazing how much better
the mail is between Philadelphia and Toronto than it is between Toronto and
Chicago....
LynnE
>
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:nknac.48575$1A6.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > First, I count Brame, Popova, and Stritmatter as friends and take
> exception
> > to your characterization of them.
>
> I have two friends who are Oxfordians, and I can assure you, on that
subject
> they are nutty.
Well, I'm not. Who's the other friend? You have more than one friend? ;)
>
> I can assure you that not one of them is
> > nutty, although I certainly don't go along with much that Brame and
Popova
> > say.
>
> How much of what Brame and Popova dish up do you swallow? 20%? 10%? Less?
> How much of what they write must you reject before you can call them
nutty?
I reject almost everything they write. But that doesn't make them nutty. It
makes their theories, imho, flawed.
>
>
LynnE
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
news:406A273...@core.com...
I'm thinking about it, Greg. There's definitely a parody of the graveyard
scene, and of course, Smith is called Horatio, also meant to bring _Hamlet_
to mind. But in addition, Smith shows the Nazi a book which is almost
certainly meant to be Looney's, given the date of the movie, and Looney
makes much of the similarities between Hamlet and Oxford. This would be
Chapter XVI: "Dramatic Self-Revelation: Hamlet." One of the marginal notes
(not sure of the correct term here) in the chapter is "Hamlet is
Shakespeare. De Vere is Hamlet."
Best wishes,
LynnE
P.S. Interesting bio. Ironic that Howard was considered the perfect English
gentleman at a time when there was rampant anti-semitism in England. But
then, of course, most people didn't know he was Jewish.
LynnE
>
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:PPpac.9406$j57.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > There are far more than two references to Oxford/Shakespeare. But
I'm
> > sure
> > > > you've seen the film and know that.
> > >
> > > Sorry Mouse, I'm afraid I haven't seen it. HoweVER, I've only seen
> > > Oxfordians cite two references as "evidence" of Howard's alleged
Oxhead
> > > beliefs. Where are the "far more" you mention?
> >
> > They're not all about Oxford. A couple that I recall are straight
> > Shakespeare references, either aural or visual, but they strengthen the
> > theme.
>
> Lynne, don't change the subject. The question was how many references to
> Oxford/Shakespeare, not how many "straight" Shakespeare references.
Nonsense. I said "Oxford/Shakespeare references." That could mean and/or.
But I think, if you look at my reply to Greg, that I've tied most of the
other Shakespeare references to Oxford. Anyway, I always change, or at
least, shift the subject. Surely you know that by now?
>
> I'll try to find the movie, watch it again this weekend, and list
> > them for you. No promises. Depends how the weekend goes.
>
> I have another Kositsky novel to read this weekend. Amazing how much
better
> the mail is between Philadelphia and Toronto than it is between Toronto
and
> Chicago....
Greg got the second copy I sent him, although it actually took THREE WEEKS.
Amazing. As I wrote to him, there's a daily train from Toronto to Chicago,
and the flight takes an hour. Where could the book have been all that time?
And of course, there's still the first copy, out in the ether somewhere....
L.
>
>
Neil Brennen
>
> "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
> news:vQpac.5369$NL4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:nknac.48575$1A6.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > First, I count Brame, Popova, and Stritmatter as friends and take
> > exception
> > > to your characterization of them.
> >
> > I have two friends who are Oxfordians, and I can assure you, on that
> subject
> > they are nutty.
>
> Well, I'm not.
I consider you to be a great mind overthrown.
> Who's the other friend?
An Oxfordian chessplayer. Not Sam Sloan, I hasten to add.
>You have more than one friend? ;)
Yes. And some of them are not just friends, but Friends.
> > I can assure you that not one of them is
> > > nutty, although I certainly don't go along with much that Brame and
> Popova
> > > say.
> >
> > How much of what Brame and Popova dish up do you swallow? 20%? 10%?
Less?
> > How much of what they write must you reject before you can call them
> nutty?
>
> I reject almost everything they write. But that doesn't make them nutty.
It
> makes their theories, imho, flawed.
So let's say an Oxfordian corners people at dinner parties and and explains
at length to his captive audience that all Elizabethean lit was written by
Oxford to the Queen his mum as an invitation to a royal defecation derby.
Would you consider him nuts? I want to see where you draw the line.
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
>>>>the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
>>>>Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism
> >>Precisely. Having seen the film, I would point out that, as in
> >>Baroness Orczy's book, which was adapted "straight" for Howard's
> >>earlier French-Revolution-era Scarlet Pimpernel film, the heroic
> >>Pimpernel character adopts the cover identity of a foolish,
> >>superficial twit in order to avoid detection. It is only when
> >>Pimpernel Smith is posing as an idiot that he mentions Oxford's
> >>putative authorship of the Shakespeare plays. If anything,
> >>Howard and his collaborators are satirizing the Oxfordians.
>
>>I'm going to try to watch the movie again this weekend as it's two years
>>since I've seen it. I agree that Percy Blakeney was an affected, foolish fop
>>in the original Pimpernel; however, I believe that when portraying Pimpernel
>>Smith, LH was acting more like a smart alec than an idiot, whilst annoying
>>and besting the Nazi, but I'd like to be sure before discussing it further.
>
> Oxford wrote Shakespeare) is a parody of Hamlet.
> What other justification is there for the skull/Yorick scene?
Let me see: Alas poore Yorick, I knew him Horatio,
___ 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Howard Apr 3 1893 - Jun 1 1943
LynnE
>
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:u7qac.9739$j57.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:vQpac.5369$NL4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:nknac.48575$1A6.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > First, I count Brame, Popova, and Stritmatter as friends and take
> > > exception
> > > > to your characterization of them.
> > >
> > > I have two friends who are Oxfordians, and I can assure you, on that
> > subject
> > > they are nutty.
> >
> > Well, I'm not.
>
> I consider you to be a great mind overthrown.
More likely overgrown. It needs weeding.
>
> > Who's the other friend?
>
> An Oxfordian chessplayer. Not Sam Sloan, I hasten to add.
Oxfordians are busting out all over.
> >You have more than one friend? ;)
>
> Yes. And some of them are not just friends, but Friends.
Nice. I have a few FRIENDS.
>
> > > I can assure you that not one of them is
> > > > nutty, although I certainly don't go along with much that Brame and
> > Popova
> > > > say.
> > >
> > > How much of what Brame and Popova dish up do you swallow? 20%? 10%?
> Less?
> > > How much of what they write must you reject before you can call them
> > nutty?
> >
> > I reject almost everything they write. But that doesn't make them nutty.
> It
> > makes their theories, imho, flawed.
>
> So let's say an Oxfordian corners people at dinner parties and and
explains
> at length to his captive audience that all Elizabethean lit was written by
> Oxford to the Queen his mum as an invitation to a royal defecation derby.
> Would you consider him nuts? I want to see where you draw the line.
I would consider him a bit alarming if he cornered people at dinner parties,
and also consider his ideas unusual. But I wouldn't call him nuts, because
there's always that one in a million chance he might be right. Just as there
is with you. ;)
>
>
Tom Veal
> > >
> > Should I ever happen to see "Pimpernel Smith", keeping an open mind
> > won't be difficult. It would, after all, do my side of the debate no
> > harm if Leslie Howard had been as nutty as Brame, Popova, Crowley,
> > Streitz and Stritmatter combined and cubed.
>
> First, I count Brame, Popova, and Stritmatter as friends and take exception
> to your characterization of them. I can assure you that not one of them is
> nutty, although I certainly don't go along with much that Brame and Popova
> say. I can't speak for Mr. Crowley or Mr. Streitz, but then I've never been
> introduced to either of them. I believe I saw Mr. Streitz across a room
> once, but the sighting wasn't clear enough for me to decide on his sanity or
> lack thereof. It would be lovely if we could have a conversation on hlas
> without resorting to calling the other side nuts. You may call our beliefs
> nutty if you like. I believe that's a step up from an ad hominem attack.
>
I mean, of course, nutty on the authorship question - mad
north-northwest. Whether they can tell a hawk from a handsaw when the
wind is southerly I don't know; I have no special reason to doubt it.
But with that important qualification I stand by my adjective. Someone
who devotes years to a subject and commits the elementary blunders in
discerning facts and making logical connections that one sees in the
writers whom I listed is operating outside the framework of rational
discourse. To say that is not, let me stress, an "ad hominem attack".
I've devoted a lot of hours to Brame, Popova and Stritmatter (less to
Crowley and Streitz, I'll concede, but enough, I believe, to form an
accurate opinion) and have written long reviews of "Shakespeare's
Fingerprints" and "The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible".
Nothing in my adverse judgement about those books' relationship to
reality is based on anything that I know about the characters of the
authors. In other words, I do not say, "These arguments are bad,
because they were formulated by crazy people" but, rather, "These
writers (on this particular subject) are crazy, because their
arguments are so preposterous."
Art Neuendorffer
> >You have more than one friend? ;)
> Yes. And some of them are not just friends, but Friends.
<<James Fenimore Cooper was the son of Quakers,
Judge William Cooper & Elisabeth Fenimore Cooper. His father
was a representative of the 4th & 6th Congress. The family moved
to Cooperstown, New York, which Judge Cooper had founded.
A DONKEY TO SIT IN A YALE PROFESSOR'S CHAIR.>>
Peter Gay, Sterling Professor of History, YALE University.
---------------------------------------------------
Dante dies Sept. 14, 1321, in exile
____________ -530
_______ ---------------
JFC dies Sept. 14, 1851, Cooperstown, N.Y.
____________ +62
_______ ---------------
JFC born Sept. 14, 1789, Burlington, N.J.
JFC's 2nd novel, THE SPY (1821), was based
befriend Judge TEMPLE and his daughter Elisabeth. OliVER EDWARDS'
lost grandfather is found and Oliver & Elisabeth are betrothed at the end.
at Lyons and travelled a great deal. In Europe he became friends with
Sir WALTER SCOTT & Marquis de Lafayette. He was especially
inspired by Italy and lived in Tasso's villa at Sorrento.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Oliver HAZARD Perry was born on August 23, 1785, at the Old Perry
Homestead in South Kingston, Rhode Island, of "Fighting QUAKER parents."
At the age of 13, Perry entered the Navy as a midshipman, where
his first assignment was in the Caribbean under the command of
his father aboard the sloop-of-war, GENERAL GREENE.>>
http://www.redwoodlibrary.org/notables/oh_perry.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the bottom of it a stone, LAPIS manalis, which represented
a gate to the Underworld, would then be embedded.
this stone would be removed to permit the Manes to pass through.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
August 23, 1600, Shakespeare's Name 1st appears in Stationer's Register
when *ANDREW WYSE* enters "II Henry IV" & "Much Ado About Nothing".
That your attempts may *OVERLIVE the HAZARD*
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*OliVER HAZARD* Perry
August 23, 1819 d. Orinoco River, Venezuela,
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > >>Tom...@ix.netcom.com (Tom Veal) wrote in message
> >>>>I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
> >>>>plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
> >>>>the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
> >>>>Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism
> >>>>would neatly fit that persona.
>
> > >"Allan Rogg" <ar...@payroll.nyc.gov <mailto:ar...@payroll.nyc.gov>>
> <http://home-1.worldonline.nl/%7Ehcdeboer/images/opie.jpg>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer
Yo, Art.
This is usenet and we do not post in hypertext
markup language. Many participants cannot even
accept it.
It has been available your entire adult life so
finally discovering it now makes you look slow, dull.
We distinguish ourselves with content, not with
our bold, colorful displays. You are obviously bored
with your message. Painting them doesn't help.
Please post in plain text. Your reliance on pink and
green characters is simply distracting. Not only is
your audience distracted with your goofy color schemes,
but you, too, are daunted by your clashing arrays of
hue, light, and saturation.
(A word to the wise ass: please post in plain text.)
Your friend,
Greg
Neil Brennen
>
> "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
> news:4Uqac.6150$yN6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:u7qac.9739$j57.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > >
> > > "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:vQpac.5369$NL4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:nknac.48575$1A6.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > First, I count Brame, Popova, and Stritmatter as friends and take
> > > > exception
> > > > > to your characterization of them.
> > > >
> > > > I have two friends who are Oxfordians, and I can assure you, on that
> > > subject
> > > > they are nutty.
> > >
> > > Well, I'm not.
> >
> > I consider you to be a great mind overthrown.
>
> More likely overgrown. It needs weeding.
>
> >
> > > Who's the other friend?
> >
> > An Oxfordian chessplayer. Not Sam Sloan, I hasten to add.
>
> Oxfordians are busting out all over.
Not quite. This fellow declines to post to HLAS because of all the
"childish" name calling. His posting name is "Edward Bonaventure".
> > >You have more than one friend? ;)
> >
> > Yes. And some of them are not just friends, but Friends.
>
> Nice. I have a few FRIENDS.
Is that supposed to mean they are Quakers raised to a higher power? Or was
my little word-play too subtle?
http://www.fgcquaker.org/ao/whenyouretheonly.html
I would consider such a person to be nutty on that issue. I know an
otherwise sane person who is sending mass-emails promoting the idea that the
US Military destroyed the World Trade Center as an excuse for intervention
abroad:
"Was 11 September 2001 Kristallnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?"
According to your standards, I shouldn't call the guy "nutty".
Neil Brennen
Mr. Veal,
When is the next installment of your destruction of Stritmatter's thesis to
be published?
Art Neuendorffer
> [I posted] that I'd read The Scarlet Pimpernel in translation.
> We had to read it in school, many, many years ago, in French, and then
> reread it prior to exams. I believe it was called Le Mouron Rouge.
> We nicknamed it Le Mouton Rouge (Red Sheep).
http://www.sandiegomuseum.org/lautrec/MoulinRouge.html
http://www.cofrase.com/moulin_rouge/indexuk.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greene's _Groatsworth of Wit_
"What is your profession?" said Roberto.
"A player," quoth Roberto, "I took you rather for a gentleman
"So am I where I dwell," quoth the player, "reputed able at my
proper cost to build a WINDMILL. What though the world once went
tempora mutantur -- I know you know the meaning of it better than
I, but I thus conster it; it's otherwise now -- for my share in
playing apparel will not be sold for two hundred pounds."
Voyage Out - Virginia Woolf
<<"I wish you knew Bennett. He's the greatest man in the world."
"Bennett?" she enquired. Becoming more at ease, St. John dropped
the concentrated abruptness of his manner, and explained that Bennett
was a man who lived in an old WINDMILL six miles out of Cambridge.
He lived the perfect life, according to St. John, VERy lonely,
VERy simple, caring only for the TRUTH of things, always ready to talk,
and extraordinarily modest, though his mind was of the greatest.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
`And where does she live, your Grandmother?'
`She lives at the other side of the wood, in the first house
`Ah! yes! I know now,' said the Wolf.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<When Charnel chapel, St. Paul's, was taken down by the Protector
Somerset, in 1549, more than 1,000 cart-loads of bones were removed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncommercial Traveller - Charles Dickens
<<A windmilly country this, though the WINDMILLS are so
Three Musketeers - Dumas
<<With such a VADE MECUM D'Artagnan was morally and physically an
exact copy of the hero of Cervantes, to whom we so happily
compared him when our duty of an historian placed us under the
necessity of sketching his portrait. Don Quixote took WINDMILLS
for giants, and sheep for armies; D'Artagnan took EVERy smile
for an insult, and every look as a provocation-->>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kipling ** ( THE LIGHT THAT FAILED )
<<There's the WINDMILL above the potato-fields; they haven't
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Henry IV:
III.ii. SHALLOW O, Sir John, do you remember since we lay all night
III.ii. in the WINDMILL in SAINT GEORGE's field?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
S.G.(Saint George) was tortured & executed at Nicomedia Apr.23, 303.
-----------------------------------------
Jewish Cabala numerology:
G = 3
S/Sh = 300
G + S/Sh = 303
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
G.S.(Gulielmus Shakspere) was born in Stratford on Apr.23, 1564.
G.S.(Gulielmus Shakspere) was poisoned in Stratford on Apr.23, 1616.
miGuel de cervantes Saavedra "died" in poverty in Madrid Apr.23, 1616.
He was borne from his house "with his face uncoVEREd."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford started writing _Don Quixote_ when they both were in their
50's. He didn't get much past the WINDMILL episode before
Antiquary, The - Sir Walter Scott
<<The collection was indeed a curious one, and might well be
envied by an amateur. Yet it was not collected at the enormous
prices of modern times, which are sufficient to have appalled
the most determined as well as earliest bibliomaniac upon
record, whom we take to have been none else than the renowned
Don Quixote de la Mancha, as, among other slight indications
of an infirm understanding, he is stated, by his VERacious
historian, Cid Hamet Benengeli, to have exchanged fields
knights, and squires of our own day, though we have not yet
heard of any that has mistaken an inn for a castle, or laid his
lance in rest against a WINDMILL.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<At this point they came in sight of thirty forty WINDMILLS that
there are on plain, and as soon as Don Quixote saw them he said to his
squire, "Fortune is arranging matters for us better than we could have
shaped our desires ourselves, for look there, friend Sancho Panza,
where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves, all of
whom I mean to engage in battle and slay, and with whose spoils
"What giants?" said Sancho Panza.
and some have them nearly two leagues long."
Mirror of the Sea - Joseph Conrad
<<No adventure ever came to one for the asking. He who starts on a
deliberate quest of adventure goes forth but to gather dead-sea fruit,
unless, indeed, he be beloved of the gods and great amongst heroes, like
that most excellent cavalier Don Quixote de la Mancha. By us ordinary
mortals of a mediocre animus that is only too anxious to pass by
wicked giants for so many honest WINDMILLs, adventures are
The real author of Shake-speare: Edward deVere supposedly died
June 24, 1604 (Julian) = July 4, 1604 (Gregorian)
On July 4, 1826 (222 years later!) two famous FreeMasons (Thomas
Jefferson & John Adams) up and died simultaneously! That particular
This is the stuff from which legends are made
- and no one enjoyed a good legend more than FreeMason-Rosicrucians.
And this is WHY both Shakespeare and Cervantes both "died"
on the 1313th Anniversary of St.George.
DE GUICHE ... Avez-vous lu Don Quichot ?
CYRANO Je l'ai lu.
Et me découvre au nom de cet hurluberlu.
DE GUICHE Veuillez donc méditer alors...
Sur le chapitre des moulins !
CYRANO Chapitre treize.
DE GUICHE Car lorsqu'on les attaque, il arrive souvent...
CYRANO J'attaque donc des gens qui tournent à tout vent ?
DE GUICHE Qu'un moulinet de leurs grands bras
CYRANO Ou bien dans les étoiles !
Fox's Book of Martyrs
<<At Clownes seventeen men were buried alive; and an Englishman,
_Lorne Doone_ -- Blackmore
<<. . .what our people said about it may have been true enough, although
most of them are such liars—at least, I mean, they make mistakes, as all
mankind must do. Perchance it was no mistake at all to say that this
ancient gun had belonged to a noble Spaniard, the captain of a fine
large ship in the ‘Invincible Armada,’ which we of England managed to
conquer, with God and the weather helping us, a hundred years ago or
more—I can’t say to a month or so. After a little while, when John had
fired away at a rat the charge I held so sacred, it came to me as a
natural thing to practise shooting with that great gun, instead of John
Fry’s blunderbuss, which looked like a bell with a stalk to it. Perhaps
for a boy there is nothing better than a good WINDMILL to shoot at,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WINDMILL - Henry W. Longfellow
Behold! a giant am I!
Aloft here in my tower,
With my granite jaws I devour
The maize, and the wheat, and the rye,
And grind them into flour.
I look down over the farms;
In the fields of grain I see
The harvest that is to be,
And I fling to the air my arms,
For I know it is all for me.
I hear the sound of flails
Far off, from the threshing-floors
In barns, with their open doors,
And the wind, the wind in my sails,
Louder and louder roars.
I stand here in my place,
With my foot on the rock below,
And whichever way it may blow
I meet it face to face,
As a brave man meets his foe.
And while we wrestle and strive
My master, the miller, stands
And feeds me with his hands;
For he knows who makes him thrive,
Who makes him lord of lands.
On Sundays I take my rest;
Church-going bells begin
Their low, melodious din;
I cross my arms on my breast,
And all is peace within.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poe, Edgar Allan - Selected Works ** ( THE QUACKS OF HELICON )
<<The fact is that our author, in the rank exuberance of his zeal,
seems to think as little of discrimination as the Bishop of Autun*
did of the Bible. Poetical "things in general" are the WINDMILLS at
which he spurs his Rozinante. He as often tilts at what is TRUE
temples of Smyrna, which represent the fairest images as deformed.
book, will suffice to preserve it from that dreadful damnation of
"silent contempt," to which editors throughout the country, if we
are not much mistaken, will endeavour, one and all to consign it.>>
<<A slight breeze at this moment sprang up, and the great sails
began to move, seeing which Don Quixote exclaimed, "Though ye flourish
more arms than the giant Briareus, ye have to reckon with me."
So saying, and commending himself with all his heart to his lady
Dulcinea, imploring her to support him in such a peril, with lance
in rest and covered by his buckler, he charged at Rocinante's
fullest gallop and fell upon the first mill that stood in front of
him; but as he drove his lance-point into the sail the wind whirled it
round with such force that it shivered the lance to pieces, sweeping
with it horse and rider, who went rolling over on the plain, in a sorry
condition. Sancho hastened to his assistance as fast as his ass could
go, and when he came up found him unable to move, with such a shock had
Rocinante fallen with him.
"God bless me!" said Sancho, "did I not tell your worship to mind
what you were about, for they were only WINDMILLS? and no one could
have made any mistake about it but one who had something of the same
kind in his head."
"Hush, friend Sancho," replied Don Quixote, "the fortunes of war
more than any other are liable to frequent fluctuations; and
moreover I think, and it is the truth, that that same sage Friston who
carried off my study and books, has turned these giants into mills in
order to rob me of the glory of vanquishing them, such is the enmity he
bears me; but in the end his wicked arts will avail but little against
my good sword.">>
<<"That is not an objection of any importance," replied Carrasco.
"Certainly not," said Don Quixote; "but tell me, senor bachelor,
what deeds of mine are they that are made most of in this history?"
"On that point," replied the bachelor, "opinions differ, as tastes
do; some swear by the adventure of the WINDMILLS that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Henry IV:
III.i HOTSPUR I cannot choose: sometime he angers me
III.i With telling me of the mouldwarp and the ant,
III.i Of the dreamer Merlin and his prophecies,
III.i And of a DrAGON and a finless fish,
III.i A clip-wing'd griffin and a moulten raven,
III.i A couching LION and a ramping cat,
to couch = to lower a spear into the attacking position
deVere's Bolebec crest [ http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/ ]
shows a battered lion holding/shaking a broken spear.
It is Quixote after the WINDMILL
III.i And such a deal of skimble-skamble stuff
III.i As puts me from my faith. I tell you what;
III.i He held me last night at least nine hours
III.i In reckoning up the several DEVILS' NAMES
III.i That were his lackeys: I cried 'hum,' and 'well, go to,'
III.i But mark'd him not a word. O, he is as tedious
III.i As A TIRED HORSE, a railing wife;
III.i Worse than a smoky house: I had rather live
III.i With cheese and garlic in a WINDMILL, far,
III.i Than feed on cates and have him talk to me
III.i In any summer-house in Christendom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Adventures of Robin Hood
<<Over the top of the windy hill peeped the eaves of a few houses of the
village that fell back into the valley behind; there, also, showed the
top of a WINDMILL, the sails slowly rising and dipping from behind
<< So Robin, with all the empty road to himself, strode along whistling
merrily, his bags and pouches bobbing and dangling at his thighs. At
last he came to where a little grass-grown path left the road and,
passing through a stile and down a hill, led into a little dell and on
across a rill in the valley and up the hill on the other side, till it
reached a WINDMILL that stood on the cap of the rise where the wind bent
the trees in swaying motion. Robin looked at the spot and liked it, and,
for no reason but that his fancy led him, he took the little path and
walked down the grassy sunny slope of the open meadow, and so came to
the little dingle and, ere he knew it, upon four lusty fellows that sat
with legs outstretched around a goodly feast spread upon the ground.
Four merry beggars were they, and each had slung about his neck a little
board that rested upon his breast. One board had written upon it,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW SIX MEN TRAVELLED THROUGH THE WIDE WORLD
<<The hunter agreed and went with him, and they came to seven
was not a breath of wind, nor was a leaf moving. The man said,
'I don't know what is turning those WINDMILLS; there is not the
slightest breeze blowing.' So he walked on with his servants,
and when they had gone two miles they saw a man sitting on a
tree, holding one of his nostrils and blowing out of the other.
'Fellow, what are you puffing at up there?' asked the man.
He replied, 'Two miles from this place are standing seven
'Oh, go with me,' said the man; 'if we four are together
we shall easily travel through the wide world.'>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Widenostrils. (French, Bringuenarilles.) A huge giant, who subsisted on
fleet reached this island no food could be cooked because Widenostrils
had swallowed “every individual pan, skillet, kettle, frying-pan,
dripping-pan, boiler, and saucepan in the land,” and died from eating a
lump of butter. Tohu and Bohu, two contiguous islands (in Hebrew, toil
and confusion), mean lands laid waste by war. The giant had eaten
everything, so that there was “nothing to fry with,” as the French say-
i.e. nothing left to live upon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox's Book of Martyrs
Joan Waste
<<This poor, honest woman, Blind from her birth, and unmarried, aged
twenty-two, was of the parish of Allhallows, Derby. Her father was a
barber, and also made ropes for a living: in which she assisted him, and
also learned to knit several articles of apparel. Refusing to
communicate with those who maintained doctrines contrary to those she
had learned in the days of the pious Edward, she was called before Dr.
Draicot, the chancellor of Bishop Blaine, and Peter Finch, official of
Derby. With sophisitcal arguments and threats they endeavored to
confound the poor girl; but she proffered to yield to the bishop's
doctrine, if he would answer for her at the Day of Judgment, (as pious
Dr. Taylor had done in his sermons) that his belief of the real presence
of the Sacrament was true. The bishop at first answered that he would;
but Dr. Draicot reminding him that he might not in any way answer for a
heretic, he withdrew his confirmation of his own tenets; and she replied
that if their consciences would not permit them to answer at God's bar
for that truth they wished her to subscribe to, she would answer no more
questions. Sentence was then adjudged, and Dr.Draicot appointed to
preach her condemned sermon, which took place August 1, 1556, the day of
her martyrdom. His fulminating discourse being finished, the poor,
sightless object was taken to a place called WINDMILL Pit, near the
town, where she for a time held her brother by the hand, and then
prepared herself for the fire, calling upon the pitying multitude to
pray with her, and upon Christ to have mercy upon her, until the
glorious light of the everlasting Sun of righteousness beamed upon her
departed spirit.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Karenina - Tolstoy
<<His father punished Seriozha by not letting him go to see Nadinka,
Lidia Ivanovna's niece; but this punishment turned out happily for
Seriozha. Vassilii Lukich was in a good humor, and showed him how to
make WINDMILL. The whole evening passed over this work and in
dreaming how to make a WINDMILL on which he could turn himself-
clutching at the wings or tying himself on and whirling round.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bleak House by Charles Dickens
<<On our way home, I so conciliated Peepy's affections by buying him
a WINDMILL and two flour-sacks that he would suffer nobody else to
take off his hat and gloves and would sit nowhere at dinner but at
my side. Caddy sat upon the other side of me, next to Ada, to whom
we imparted the whole history of the engagement as soon as we got
back. We made much of Caddy, and Peepy too; and Caddy brightened
exceedingly; and my guardian was as merry as we were; and we were
all very happy indeed until Caddy went home at night in a hackney-
coach, with Peepy fast asleep, but holding tight to the WINDMILL.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
French Revolution - Thomas Carlyle
<<A man of the WINDMILL species, that grinds always, turning towards all
winds; not in the steadiest manner. In all these men there is talent,
faculty to work; and they will do it: working and shaping, not without
effect, though alas not in marble, only in quicksand!>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Expectations by Charles Dickens
<<It was a fresh kind of place, all circumstances considered, where the
wind from the river had room to turn itself round; and there were two or
three trees in it, and there was the stump of a ruined WINDMILL, and
there was the Old Green Copper Rope-Walk>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens
<<You have no idea how many people want to be left alone.
You have no idea how the Genius of the country (overlook the
Parliamentary nature of the phrase, and don't be bored by it) tends
to being left alone. Believe me, Mr Clennam,' said the sprightly
young Barnacle in his pleasantest manner, 'our place is not a
wicked Giant to be charged at full tilt; but only a WINDMILL
showing you, as it grinds immense quantities of chaff, which way
the country wind blows.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Street - Sinclair Lewis
<<She realized the vastness and the emptiness of the land. The
skeleton iron WINDMILL on the farm a few blocks away, at the
north end of Main Street, was like the ribs of a dead cow.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeste Mignon by Honore de Balzac
<<Art, on the contrary, Egyptian, Mexican, Grecian, Roman art, with
their masterpieces--now called useless!--reveal the existence of races
back in the vague immense of time, beyond where the great intermediary
nations, denuded of men of genius, have disappeared, leaving not a line
nor a trace behind them! The works of genius are the 'summum' of
civilization, and presuppose utility. Surely a pair of boots are not as
agreeable to your eyes as a fine play at the theatre; and you don't
prefer a WINDMILL to the church of Saint-Ouen, do you? Well then,
nations are imbued with the same feelings as the individual man, and the
man's cherished desire is to survive himself morally just as he
propagates himself physically. The survival of a people is the work of
its men of genius.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Voyages of Doctor Doolittle - Hugh Lofting ** (THE COBBLER'S SON)
<<Three great friends I had in Puddleby in those days. One was Joe,
the mussel-man, who lived in a tiny hut by the edge of the water
under the bridge. This old man was simply marvelous at making
things. I never saw a man so clever with his hands. He used to
mend my toy ships for me which I sailed upon the river; he built
----------------------------------------------------------------------
History of Science - Henry Smith Williams
<< [Isaac Newton] was a sickly child from birth,
and a boy of little seeming promise. He was an indifferent
student, yet, on the other hand, he cared little for the common
amusements of boyhood. He early exhibited, however, a taste for
mechanical contrivances, and spent much time in devising
were interested only in having kites that would fly, Newton--at
least so the stories of a later time would have us
understand--cared more for the investigation of the seeming
principles involved, or for testing the best methods of attaching
the strings, or the best materials to be used in construction.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poe, Edgar Allan "THOU ART THE MAN"
<<During the latter part of the last century, the question arose among
mathematicians- "to determine the best form that can be given to the
sails of a WINDMILL, according to their varying distances from the
revolving vanes, and likewise from the centres of the revolution."
This is an excessively complex problem, for it is, in other words,
to find the best possible position at an infinity of varied distances,
and at an infinity of points on the arm. There were a thousand futile
attempts to answer the query on the part of the most illustrious
mathematicians; and when, at length, an undeniable solution was
discovered, men found that the wing of a bird had given it with
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Waverly - Sir Walter Scott
<<he followed the stranger up a narrow foot-path, which led
them up the hills to the singular eminence stuck betwixt the most
southern and the centre peaks, and called from its resemblance to such
an animal in its form, the Lucken Hare. At the foot of this eminence,
which is almost as famous for witch meetings as the neighbouring
conductor entered the hill side by a passage or cavern, of which he
himself, though well acquainted with the spot, had never seen or heard.
``You may still return,'' said his guide, looking ominously back upon
him;---but Dick scorned to show the white feather, and on they went.
They entered a very long range of stables; in every stall stood a
coal-black horse; by every horse lay a knight in coal-black armour, with
a drawn sword in his hand; but all were as silent, hoof and limb, as if
they had been cut out of marble. A great number of torches lent a gloomy
lustre to the hall, which, like those of the Caliph Vathek, was of large
dimensions. At the upper end, however, they at length arrived, where a
sword and horn lay on an antique table.
``He that shall sound that horn and draw that sword,'' said the
stranger, who now intimated that he was the famous Thomas of
Hersildoune, ``shall, if his heart fail him not, be king over all broad
Britain. So speaks the tongue that cannot lie. But all depends on
courage, and much on your taking the sword or the horn first.'' Dick was
much disposed to take the sword, but his bold spirit was quailed by the
supernatural terrors of the hall, and he thought to
unsheath the sword first, might be construed into defiance, and give
offence to the powers of the Mountain. He took the bugle with a
trembling hand, and a feeble note, but loud enough to produce a terrible
answer. Thunder rolled in stunning peals through the immense hall;
horses and men started to life; the, steeds snorted, stamped, grinded
their bits, and tossed on high their heads---the warriors sprung to
their feet, clashed their armour, and brandished their swords. Dick's
terror was extreme at seeing the whole army, which had been so lately
silent as the grave, in uproar, and about to rush on him. He dropped the
horn, and made a feeble attempt to seize the enchanted sword; but at the
same moment a voice pronounced aloud the mysterious words:---
``Woe to the coward, that ever he was born, Who did not draw the sword
before he blew the horn!''
At the same time a whirlwind of irresistible fury howled through the
long hall, bore the unfortunate horse-jockey clear out of the mouth of
the cavern, and precipitated him over a steep, bank of loose stones,
where the shepherds found him the next morning, with just breath
sufficient to tell his fearful tale, after concluding which he expired.
This legend, with several variations, is found in many parts of Scotland
and England---the scene is sometimes laid in some favourite glen of the
Highlands, sometimes in the deep coal-mines of Northumberland and
Cumberland, which run so far beneath the ocean. It is also to be found
in Reginald Scott's book on Witchcraft, which was written in the
sixteenth century. It would be in vain to ask what was the original of
the tradition. The choice between the horn and sword may include as a
moral, that it is fool-hardy to awaken danger before we have arms in our
hands to resist it.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mysterious Island - Jules Verne
<<In fact, they had corn, but not flour, and the establishment of a mill
was necessary. Cyrus Harding could have utilized the second fall which
flowed into the Mercy to establish his motive power, the first being
already occupied with moving the felting mill, but, after some
consultation, it was decided that a simple WINDMILL should be built on
Prospect Heights. The building of this presented no more difficulty than
the building of the former, and it was moreover certain that there would
be no want of wind on the plateau, exposed as it was to the sea breezes.
"Not to mention," said Pencroft, "that the WINDMILL will be more lively
and will have a good effect in the landscape!">>
<<However that may be, we ought to do everything we can to hide
our presence here. The WINDMILL on Prospect Heights is too easily seen.
Let Ayrton and Neb go and take down the sails. We must also conceal the
windows of Granite House with thick branches. All the fires must be
extinguished, so that nothing may betray the presence of men on the
island.">>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Child's History of England by Charles Dickens
<<The Prince and his division were at this time so hard-pressed, that
the Earl of Warwick sent a message to the King, who was overlooking
the battle from a WINDMILL, beseeching him to send more aid.
'Is my son killed?' said the King.
'No, sire, please God,' returned the messenger.
'Is he wounded?' said the King.
'No, sire.'
'Is he thrown to the ground?' said the King.
'No, sire, not so; but, he is very hard-pressed.'
'Then,' said the King, 'go back to those who sent you, and tell
them I shall send no aid; because I set my heart upon my son
proving himself this day a brave knight, and because I am resolved,
please God, that the honour of a great victory shall be his!'>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poe, Edgar Allan - Selected Works ** ( MYSTIFICATION )
<<I now remember that, in all which passed before my mind's eye,
motion was a predominant idea. Thus, I never fancied any stationary
object, such as a house, a mountain, or any thing of that kind; but
WINDMILL, ships, large birds, balloons, people on horseback,
carriages driving furiously, and similar moving objects, presented
themselves in endless succession.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
MISCELLANIES UPON VARIOUS SUBJECTS.
BY JOHN AUBREY, F.RS.
http://library28.tripod.com/13-1.html
such as have it Taishatrin, from Taish, which is properly a shadowy
substance, or such naughty, and imperceptible thing, as can only, or
rather scarcely be discerned by the eye; but not caught by the hands:
for which they assigned it to Bugles or Ghosts, so that Taishtar, is
as much as one that converses with ghosts or spirits, or as they
commonly call them, the Fairies or Fairy-Folks. Others call these men
Phissicin, from Phis, which is properly fore-sight, or fore-knowledge.
This is the surest and clearest account of second-sighted men that I
can now find, and I have set it down fully, as if I were transiently
telling it, in your own presence, being curious for nothing but the
verity, so far as I could. What you find improper or superfluous you
can best compendise it, &c,
Thus far this letter, written in a familiar and homely stile, which I
have here set down at length. Meg Mullach, and Brownie mentioned in
the end of it, are two ghosts, which (as it is constantly reported) of
old, haunted a family in Straths-pey of the name of Grant. They
appeared at first in the likeness of a young lass; the second of a
young lad.
Orkney; but I have just now spoken with one, who not only hath
acquaintance in that country, but also entertains some thoughts of
going thither himself, to get me an account of the cures usually
practised there. The Cortex Winteranus, mentioned by you as an
excellent medicine, I have heard it commended as good for the scurvy;
if you know it to be eminent or specific (such as the Peruvian Bark
is) for any disease, I shall be well pleased to be informed by you.
Thus, Sir, you have an account of all my informations concerning
second-sighted men: I have also briefly touched all the other
particulars in both your letters, which needed a reply, except your
thanks so liberally and obligingly returned to me for my letters, and
the kind sense you express of that small service. The kind reception
which you have given to those poor trifles, and the value which you
put on them, I consider as effects of your kindness to myself, and as
engagements on me to serve you to better purpose when it shall be in
the power of
Your faithful friend,
and servant, &c. ADDITAMENTS OF SECOND-SIGHT.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"I knew that Blind man too. His name was Pew."
"It was!" cried Silver, now quite excited.
"Pew! That were his name for certain.
Old Pew, as had lost his sight,
and might have thought shame, spends twelve
hundred pound in a year, like a lord in Parliament.
Where is he now? Well, he's dead now and under hatches;
but for two year before that, shiver my timbers,
the man was starving! He begged, and he stole, and
he cut throats, and starved at that, by the powers!"
Luigi Grotto: Il Cieco (the Blind), Italian poet (1541-1585)
Grot, n. [F. grotte, It. grotta.] A grotto. [Poetic] --MILTON.
Grotto, n.; pl. {Grottoes}. [Formerly grotta, fr. It. grotta,
LL. grupta, fr. L. crypta a concealed subterranran passage vault,
cavern, Gr. ?, fr. ? concealed, fr. ? to conceal.]
A natural covered opening in the earth; a cave;
also, an artificial recess, cave, or cavernlike apartment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Blindness contagious?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1638 Galileo is now totally Blind. He petitions
the Inquisition to be freed, but his petition is denied.
September 1640 John MILTON visits Galileo.
<<When barely thirty, John MILTON(1608-1674) called on the Blind Galileo
in Arcetri near Florence where the astronomer had been confined by papal
order. Then, in his _Areopagitica_ (1644) MILTON described Galileo as a
heroic victim: "This was it which had damped the glory of Italian wits .
. . nothing had been there written now these many years but flattery
and fustian.">> - The Discoverers_ Daniel Boorstin
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORB, n. [OF. ORB Blind, fr. L. ORBus destitute.]
(Arch.) A blank window or panel. [Obs.] --Oxf. Gloss.
----------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 1616 Francis Beaumont Tomb in Westminster Abbey:
<<MORTALITY, behold and FEAR!
What a change of flesh is HERE!
Think how many royal BONES
Sleep within this heap of STONES:>>
-------------------------------------------------------
April 23, 1616 William Shakspere grave in Stratford:
<<Good friend for Iesus sake F(orb)EAR(e)
To digg the dust encloased HE(a)RE:
Blest be ye man yt spares thes STONES
And CURST be he yt moves my BONES.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORB, n. [F. ORBE, fr. L. ORBis circle, ORB. Cf. {ORBit}.]
1. A spherical body; a globe;
Whether the prime ORB, Incredible how swift, had thither rolled.
--MILTON.
3. A circle; esp., a circle, or nearly circular ORBit, described
In ORBs Of circuit inexpressible they stood, ORB within ORB. --MILTON.
4. A period of time marked off by the revolution of a heavenly body.
[R.] --MILTON.
5. The eye, as luminous and spherical. [Poetic]
A drop serene hath quenched their ORBs. --MILTON.
6. A revolving circular body; a wheel. [Poetic]
The ORBs Of his fierce chariot rolled. --MILTON
-------------------------------------------------------
V. MILTON His life during the commonwealth.
http://www.bartleby.com/217/0504.html
<<What MILTON thought or felt on the death of his first wife we have no
means of knowing. He did not write a sonnet on it, as he did on that of
his second; and, so far as memory serves, there is not any passage in
his entire work which can be taken as even glancing at it. But the year
in which it occurred was a black one for him in another way. He had now,
for a full decade, occupied himself in violent and constant
pamphleteering, writing nothing else but a few sonnets and some
psalm-paraphrases. He had, indeed, published his early Poems in 1645,
but he had added nothing to them; and, in 1649, he had undertaken the
duties of Latin secretary to the new parliamentary committee for foreign
affairs with a salary of £288. 13s. 6d., worth between three and four
times the amount to-day. We know a little of his private affairs during
this decade, besides the marriage troubles. His wife's father had died
in 1646, and a complicated series of transactions in relation to the
marriage settlements, and to old loans, left MILTON in possession of
property at Wheatley, between Oxford and Thame, worth, with charges off
it, perhaps £50 a year. His own father died shortly afterwards; and,
late in 1647, MILTON gave up his pupils and moved to Holborn, with
Lincoln's inn fields behind him. On his appointment, he had, for a time
(some two years), rooms at Whitehall; but in 1651, he moved to ?Petty
France? later, York street. The house, till some thirty years ago, was
well known, and, after his time, it belonged to Bentham and was occupied
by Hazlitt.>>
<<Although MILTON's regular official duties of translation and writing
seem to have been rather multifarious than hard, they were, in
themselves, not good for a man with very weak eyesight; and his
unfortunate aptitude for pamphleteering marked him out for overtime
work, which was still worse. The last stroke was believed by himself, as
a famous boast records, to have been given by his reply to Salmasius's
Defensio Regia. This appeared in the spring of 1651, and, a year later,
he was totally Blind. No scientific account of the case exists.>>
<<The personal calamity could hardly have been severer; but, as regards
the poet, not the man, it was, perhaps, rather a gain than a loss,
though it required outward circumstances of a different kind to replace
MILTON in his true office. His Blindness does not seem to have been
regarded as a disablement from his official employment, though it led to
the appointment of coadjutors and a division of salary; and it was not
until later that he engaged in the last and most discreditable of his
angry and undignified controversies. Those with Ussher and Hall had, at
least, the excuse, in matter if not in manner, of religious convictions;
the divorce tracts, of intense personal interest; Eikonoklastes, of
political consistency; and Defensio pro Populo Anglicano, of the same,
and of official commission. No one of these excuses really applies to
the supplementary wrangle with Alexander MORUS or Moir. This Franco-Scot
had published and prefaced a strong royalist declamation, Regii
Sanguinis Clamor, directed against regicides in general and MILTON in
particular, and written, but not signed, by Peter du Moulin. MILTON
cooked his spleen for two whole years, rummaged the continent for
scandal against MORUS, refused to believe the latter's true assertion
that he was only the editor of the book and, in May, 1654, published a
Defensio Secunda which is simply a long, clumsy, would-be satiric
invective against his enemy.>>
<<Of his private life, during this time, we again know very little. His
nephews, like nine tenths of the people of England, turned royalists,
and wrote light and ungodly literature. He seems to have had a fair
number of friends though they hardly included any men of literary
distinction except Marvell, all such, as a rule, being in the opposite
camp. D'Avenant may have been another exception, if the agreeable, but
not quite proved, legend that each protected the other in turn be true;
and, as Dryden's relatives, the Pickerings, were close friends of
Cromwell, the younger poet's acquaintance with the elder
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mulberry, n. 1. The berry of any tree of the genus MORUS.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MORUS <=> ORMUS
http://www.execulink.com/~idris/ormus.html
<<According to Masonic teachings, ORMUS was the name of an Egyptian sage
& mystic, a gnostic 'adept' of Alexandria who may have lived during
the early years of the Christian epoch. In A.D. 46 he and six of his
followers were supposedly converted to a form of Christianty by one of
Jesus' disciples, St. Mark in most accounts. From this conversion a new
sect or order is said to have been born, which fused the tenets of
early Christianity with the teachings of older mystery schools.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
John MILTON. 1608-1674.
Paradise Lost. Plate 6 by Gustave Dore:
http://www.stedwards.edu/hum/klawitter/doreindex.htm
http://www.stedwards.edu/hum/klawitter/dore6.htm
33 High on a throne of royal state, which far
Outshone the wealth of ORMUS and of Ind,
Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand
Showers on her kings barbaric pearl and gold,
Satan exalted sat, by merit rais'd
To that bad eminence.
Book ii. Line 1.
http://www.bartleby.com/99/173.html
2 Or if SION hill
Delight thee more, and Siloa's brook, that flow'd
Fast by the oracle of God.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> Yo, Art.
>
> You are obviously bored with your message
Boared?
>. Painting them doesn't help.
That remains to be seen. (It can't hurt.)
> Please post in plain text. Your reliance on pink and
> green characters is simply distracting. Not only is
> your audience distracted with your goofy color schemes,
> but you, too, are daunted by your clashing arrays of
> hue, light, and saturation.
What audience? I don't see any frigin' audience!
Art Neuendorffer
LynnE
Your word play was ambiguous. I took it to mean that you had friends and
(very good) Friends. So I replied I had a few very very good FRIENDS. But I
do have a Friend, meaning a Quaker, who believes he has raised himself to a
higher level (not really power) by becoming a Lutheran. Or something.
Now you've changed your language a bit. You've gone from "nutty" to "nutty
on that issue." There's a big difference. When my son was a baby, I became a
bit nutty about germs. I wouldn't say I was perfectly sane otherwise,
however, because I never have been. ;)
>I know an
> otherwise sane person who is sending mass-emails promoting the idea that
the
> US Military destroyed the World Trade Center as an excuse for intervention
> abroad:
>
> "Was 11 September 2001 Kristallnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?"
>
> According to your standards, I shouldn't call the guy "nutty".
You might call him "nutty on that issue." "Wrong-headed" would pershaps be
better. But I've heard lots of people suggest that Bush fiddled while the
twin towers burned. Just a step down, really, from what your friend, Friend,
FRIEND (?) is suggesting.
>
>
>
>
Tom Veal
> "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:c87247a2.0403...@posting.google.com...
> > I've devoted a lot of hours to Brame, Popova and Stritmatter
>
>
> be published?
I don't really have a schedule. The next installment will consider
what Dr. Stritmatter calls "diagnostic verses". Then I'll look at his
comparative data (parallels or absence thereof between verses marked
in the De Vere Bible and writers other than Shakespeare). The agenda
beyond that is being formulated, but Dr. Stritmatter's is such a mine
of oddities that I will be sorry ever to reach an end to commenting on
it.
Tom Reedy
> >
> > I wonder, though, whether your mind is entirely open on this point.
> > Tom Reedy has presented pretty clear proof that Mr. Howard believed
> > that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Shakespeare. Against it
> > dialogue in a movie is an extremely light counterweight.
>
> I would say that Tom's evidence was pretty lightweight also,
Really? Let's compare the evidence for both sides.
I've got three biographers of Leslie Howard, two of them his children, none
of whom even intimate that Howard believed anyone other than Shakespeare
wrote the works attributed to him. One of them even flatly states that
Howard believed "that William Shakespeare and nobody else was the author of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark."
I've got two people knowledgeable about Howard who maintain entertainment
Web sites and who both say Howard never said a word indicating he thought
someone other than Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.
I've got Howard's own testimony in an article he wrote explaining how he
approached playing Hamlet that includes unequivocal references that
indicates he believed William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.
And you've got . . . some lines of dialog in a fictional romance?
I would say that the fact that Howard played William Shakespeare in a stage
play counters the weight of your "evidence."
and that unlike
> many (both traditionalists and non-Strats) I'm extremely open on this and
> other points. I have never said I have unreservedly accepted that LH was
an
> Oxfordian, though as one of the token Oxfordians here I am arguing the
> Oxfordian side. I do believe he was likely an Oxfordian, or at least,
> interested in the authorship question, but I would like to see more
evidence
> before finally making up my mind.
I've shown you more evidence -- real evidence, not dialog from a motion
picture.
I looked up every reference to Howard in the RGPL from the 1920's until
after his death. I read every New York Times and London Times article
published about him, and I read every article he wrote and every interview
he gave during the last 20 years of his life. (Did you know he was friends
with F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife?) There is not one jot of evidence
that he was an Oxfordian or any other variety of antiStratfordian.
TR
Tom Reedy
> "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
news:<Chvac.5551$NL4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:c87247a2.0403...@posting.google.com...
> > > I've devoted a lot of hours to Brame, Popova and Stritmatter
> >
> >
> > When is the next installment of your destruction of Stritmatter's thesis
to
> > be published?
>
> I don't really have a schedule. The next installment will consider
> what Dr. Stritmatter calls "diagnostic verses". Then I'll look at his
> comparative data (parallels or absence thereof between verses marked
> in the De Vere Bible and writers other than Shakespeare).
He didn't do that himself? Or do you mean you're looking at his examples?
TR
Art Neuendorffer
> > When is the next installment of
> >your destruction of Stritmatter's thesis to be published?
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I don't really have a schedule. The next installment will consider
> what Dr. Stritmatter calls "diagnostic verses". Then I'll look at his
> comparative data (parallels or absence thereof between verses marked
> in the De Vere Bible and writers other than Shakespeare).
And we're nutty for believing in conspiracies!
Art Neuendorffer
LynnE
Never mind, Tom. When you do finally come to an end, you could always start
on Dr. Alan Nelson's book. Or perhaps Dr. Michael Wood's book and film. They
should keep you commenting for some time. And after that you could try
writing your own book or dissertation (unless you've already done so, of
course). Then perhaps we could all dig into your mine of oddities. ;)
Best wishes,
LynnE
Art Neuendorffer
> I've got three biographers of Leslie Howard, two of them his children,
none
> of whom even intimate that Howard believed anyone other than Shakespeare
> wrote the works attributed to him. One of them even flatly states that
> Howard believed "that William Shakespeare and nobody else was the author
of
> Hamlet, Prince of Denmark."
>
> I've got two people knowledgeable about Howard who maintain entertainment
> Web sites and who both say Howard never said a word indicating he thought
> someone other than Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.
>
> I've got Howard's own testimony in an article he wrote explaining how he
> approached playing Hamlet that includes unequivocal references that
> indicates he believed William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to
him.
>
> And you've got . . . some lines of dialog in a fictional romance?
>
> I would say that the fact that Howard played William Shakespeare in
> a stage play counters the weight of your "evidence."
I agree. There is a consistent pattern of "knowledgeable" Stratfordians
like Howard, Hawthorne, Ben Jonson, Orson Welles, Rollett, etc. teasing us
about authorship in ambiguous ways but then always backtracking in the end.
I wonder why they do that? :-)
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
news:7f-dnR9NNvV...@comcast.com...
The statement, "Night is dark" is ambiguous to you, Art.
TR
>
Art Neuendorffer
> [I posted] that I'd read The Scarlet Pimpernel in translation.
> We had to read it in school, many, many years ago, in French, and then
> reread it prior to exams. I believe it was called Le Mouron Rouge.
> We nicknamed it Le Mouton Rouge (Red Sheep).
The plant appears in the Herbals & Vocabularies
'If she'd only used my pimpernel water, for
The virtues of the Pimpernel.'
"THOMA(s) SNOUT rire"
"MArTiN (d)rOeSHOUT"
(E.So)uthampton (H)enry(W)riothesley, (1573-1624)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: *WHOSE* NAME, <=> *E. So. H.W.* NAME
: *SIEH* ALL, <=> *HE IS* ALL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southampton MOTTO: ONE for ALL, ALL for ONE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALLANTINE learned that authors of Greek tragedies
traditionally constructed their plays
'so that . . . anagrams [in] the FIRST TWO LINES
. . . . . gave the name of the author.'>>
Home-keeping youth, haue {EUER HOMELY WITS},
____________ {M}
____________ {U}
W R I O T H E {S} L E Y
____________ {E}
----------------------------------------------------
mixed with HONEY and dropped into the eyes.
it draweth forth THORNS and splinters gotten into the flesh.'
to prevent witchcraft, as Mother Bumby doth affirm.'
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
>Tom...@ix.netcom.com (Tom Veal) wrote in message news:<c87247a2.04032...@posting.google.com>...
>> I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
>> plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
>> the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
>> Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism would
>> neatly fit that persona.
>
>Baroness Orczy's book, which was adapted "straight" for Howard's
>earlier French-Revolution-era Scarlet Pimpernel film, the heroic
>Pimpernel character adopts the cover identity of a foolish,
>superficial twit in order to avoid detection. It is only when
>Pimpernel Smith is posing as an idiot that he mentions Oxford's
>putative authorship of the Shakespeare plays. If anything, Howard and
>his collaborators are satirizing the Oxfordians.
Might it be part of the idea that the enemy are stupid enough to
believe anything? Or that it would be fun to make them look that
stupid?
I am reminded of Will Hay, in 'The Goose Steps Out', teaching a class
of trainee German spies (one was Peter Ustinov) to perform a
two-fingered salute towards the Fuehrer's portrait.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
Robert Stonehouse
<lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
...
>P.S. Interesting bio. Ironic that Howard was considered the perfect English
>gentleman at a time when there was rampant anti-semitism in England. But
>then, of course, most people didn't know he was Jewish.
Not rampant - think what it was like in Germany! There was some
(indeed, there is now) and people were less tactful in their language
than they are now. But everybody knew Disraeli was Jewish - a few
years earlier, admittedly.
LynnE
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:406a6554...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:56:31 -0500, "LynnE"
> <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> ...
> >P.S. Interesting bio. Ironic that Howard was considered the perfect
English
> >gentleman at a time when there was rampant anti-semitism in England. But
> >then, of course, most people didn't know he was Jewish.
> ...
> Not rampant - think what it was like in Germany! There was some
> (indeed, there is now) and people were less tactful in their language
> than they are now. But everybody knew Disraeli was Jewish - a few
> years earlier, admittedly.
My mother would disagree with you, Robert. She lived in the east end of
London and remembers frequent anti-semitic rants, as well as Fascist marches
led by men such as Oswald Mosley through the "Jewish" streets before the
war. She also faced terrible anti-semitism in school, as I did in the
nineteen fifites and sixties in the suburbs. She was, by the way, madly in
love with LH when she was a teen, but had no idea he was Jewish as it was
something he didn't advertise for obvious reasons. I could draw a parallel
here between his covert Judaism and the possible dangers to his career if it
were discovered he was an Oxfordian, but I won't.
I also remember my husband teaching at an English public school in
Derbyshire during the seventies, at which time we both had to cope with
rather noxious and what I would call institutionalised anti-semitism. After
living there for five years, I found out that a close friend of mine was
Jewish. I was stunned that she had kept it a secret from me. She didn't dare
admit it publicly for fear of repercussions.
In Germany, many Jews were fully integrated before Hitler came to power, and
it is arguable (though I wouldn't be the one to argue it) that there was
actually less anti-semitism there than in England. Of course, later the word
Jew became synonymous with "devil," and it is not completely off the wall to
suggest that Howard's plane was shot down at least in part because of his
Judaism and his strong anti-Nazi stance as displayed in _Pimpernel Smith_. I
wouldn't suggest for a moment that he was shot down because he might have
been an Oxfordian. ;)
Best wishes,
Lynne
P.S. Disraeli was a converted Jew, though he remained sympathetic to
Judaism. I understand that Benjamin's father converted the entire family to
Christianity when BD was in his early teens. It was at least the second time
his family had converted to Christianity. They had become nominal Christians
hundreds of years before in Spain while secretly practising their religion.
I'm not absolutely sure, but I don't think he could have become PM if
Jewish. And one website (Wikipedia) suggests that anti-semitism was "rife"
in England at the time.
Tom Reedy
Thank you. The comparison would be ridiculous.
>
> I also remember my husband teaching at an English public school in
> Derbyshire during the seventies, at which time we both had to cope with
> rather noxious and what I would call institutionalised anti-semitism.
After
> living there for five years, I found out that a close friend of mine was
> Jewish. I was stunned that she had kept it a secret from me. She didn't
dare
> admit it publicly for fear of repercussions.
>
> In Germany, many Jews were fully integrated before Hitler came to power,
and
> it is arguable (though I wouldn't be the one to argue it) that there was
> actually less anti-semitism there than in England. Of course, later the
word
> Jew became synonymous with "devil," and it is not completely off the wall
to
> suggest that Howard's plane was shot down at least in part because of his
> Judaism and his strong anti-Nazi stance as displayed in _Pimpernel Smith_.
I
> wouldn't suggest for a moment that he was shot down because he might have
> been an Oxfordian. ;)
The Nazis supposedly bragged about shooting him down, according to Charles
Boyle: "'Pimpernel Howard Has Made His Last Trip!' crowed the banner
headline in the Nazi newspaper *Der Angriff*, run by Josef Goebbels,
Hitler's Minister of Propaganda (1)." Despite Boyle's excretatiousnous
scholarship (he sees a parallel between Howard's death and Hamlet being
captured by pirates), I have no reason to doubt the quotation. I could find
no references to it, and the newspaper reports I read said the Nazis claimed
it was a mistake.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
>
> P.S. Disraeli was a converted Jew, though he remained sympathetic to
> Judaism. I understand that Benjamin's father converted the entire family
to
> Christianity when BD was in his early teens. It was at least the second
time
> his family had converted to Christianity. They had become nominal
Christians
> hundreds of years before in Spain while secretly practising their
religion.
>
> I'm not absolutely sure, but I don't think he could have become PM if
> Jewish. And one website (Wikipedia) suggests that anti-semitism was "rife"
> in England at the time.
I thought anti-semitism was part of the British national character, along
with class snobbery.
TR
David L. Webb
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > >You have more than one friend? ;)
> > > Yes. And some of them are not just friends, but Friends.
> > Nice. I have a few FRIENDS.
> Is that supposed to mean they are Quakers raised to a higher power? Or was
> my little word-play too subtle?
>
> http://www.fgcquaker.org/ao/whenyouretheonly.html
It isn't really too subtle -- it's just not what would come naturally
to mind when Lynne surveys her circle of friends, many of whom are far
more closely associated with quackery than with Quakery. :-) (The
nickname Charlatan Ogburn was not idly bestowed -- indeed, one must
almost agree with Nabokov in seeing a puckish Creator at play in the odd
coincidences that abound in life, in this instance in the curious fact
that so many prominent anti-Stratfordians' names seem so unsettlingly
apt -- Looney, Charlatan Ogburn, Dr. antiStratnutter, George Battey,
Elizabeth Weird, "Dr." Faker, aneuendor...@comicass.nut, etc.)
> > > > > I can assure you that not one of them is
> > > > > > nutty, although I certainly don't go along with much that Brame
> and
> > > > Popova
> > > > > > say.
> > > > > How much of what Brame and Popova dish up do you swallow? 20%? 10%?
> > > Less?
> > > > > How much of what they write must you reject before you can call them
> > > > nutty?
> > > > I reject almost everything they write. But that doesn't make them
> nutty.
> > > It
> > > > makes their theories, imho, flawed.
> > > So let's say an Oxfordian corners people at dinner parties and and
> > explains
> > > at length to his captive audience that all Elizabethean lit was written
> by
> > > Oxford to the Queen his mum as an invitation to a royal defecation
> derby.
> > > Would you consider him nuts? I want to see where you draw the line.
What would Lynne make of someone who corners and importunes inanimate
sculptural simulacra that cannot even exercise the option of flight
available to the more fortunate? :-)
> > I would consider him a bit alarming if he cornered people at dinner
> parties,
> > and also consider his ideas unusual. But I wouldn't call him nuts, because
> > there's always that one in a million chance he might be right.
So Lynne thinks that there is a small probability that the Sonnets
were indeed written as invitations to a royal defecation derby?!
> > Just as
> there
> > is with you. ;)
> I would consider such a person to be nutty on that issue. I know an
> otherwise sane person who is sending mass-emails promoting the idea that the
> US Military destroyed the World Trade Center as an excuse for intervention
> abroad:
>
> "Was 11 September 2001 Kristallnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?"
>
> According to your standards, I shouldn't call the guy "nutty".
It's a curious phenomenon -- some people who seem sane enough in
ordinary circumstances turn out to be inveterate cranks in one
particular area. (Of course, as I've noted before, one of the most
fascinating things about anti-Stratfordians is how many of them are
multipurpose cranks: anti-Einstein or anti-Bernoulli science cranks,
AIDS-as-a-hoax cranks, "aquatic ape" advocates, Apollo lunar landing
deniers, Gemstone conspiracy theorists, cryptographic cranks, Kennedy
assassination conspiracy cranks, etc.)
LynnE
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RHFac.9330$Dv2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Go to a site called N/461: http://www.n461.com/howard.html
It contains the quote you're looking for from *Der Angriff*. It also says
that the papers from Howard's estate will remain closed until 2056. I know
this has posed a problem for Oxfordians who are looking for more
information, but I imagine the documents have been reclassified because of
Howard's role in the war.
L.
Art Neuendorffer
> The statement, "Night is dark" is ambiguous to you, Art.
What says the almanac to that?
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1422/lincoln_almanac.html
<<In our office hangs a reproduction of a painting by Norman Rockwell
depicting Abraham Lincoln standing in front of a jury holding the 1857
edition of an almanac in his hand. Was it The Old Farmer's Almanac? It's
difficult to prove conclusively, but everything I've read about the case -
and certainly my examination of the 1857 edition - indicates that it was.
The occasion depicted in the Rockwell painting is the 1858 murder trial of
an Illinois man named William "Duff" Armstrong. Armstrong was accused of
murdering James Preston Metzker with a "slung-shot" - a weight tied to a
leather thong, sort of an early blackjack - a few minutes before midnight on
August 29, 1857. Lincoln was a friend of the accused man's father, Jack
Armstrong, who'd just died, and so he offered to help defend young Duff
Armstrong, without pay, as a favor to Jack Armstrong's widow. The principal
prosecution witness against Armstrong was a man named Charles Allen, who
testified that he'd seen the murder from about 150 feet away. When Lincoln
asked Allen how he could tell it was Armstrong given that it was the middle
of the night and he was a considerable distance away from the murder scene,
Allen replied, "By the light of the moon." Upon hearing Allen's testimony,
Lincoln produced a copy of the 1857 edition, turned to the two calendar
pages for August, and showed the jury that not only was the moon in the
first quarter but it was riding "low" on the horizon, about to set, at the
precise time of the murder. There would not have been enough light for Allen
to identify Armstrong or anyone else, said Lincoln. The jury agreed, and
Duff Armstrong was acquitted.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0403/hudf_hst_big.jpg
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/night-is-large/
"Man is a small thing, and the NIGHT is VERy large, and full of
wonders". King Karos, in The Laughter of the Gods by Lord Dunsay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
He has hidden his own name, a fair name, William, in the plays,
a super here, a clown there, as a painter of old Italy set his face
in a DARK CORNER of his canvas. He has revealed it in the sonnets
where there is Will in OVERplus. Like John o'Gaunt his name is dear
to him, as dear as the coat and crest he toadied for, on a bend
sable a spear or steeled argent, honorificabilitudinitatibus,
dearer than his glory of greatest shakescene in the country.
What's in a name? That is what we ask ourselves in childhood
when we write the name that we are told is ours.
A STAR, a daySTAR, a firedrake, rose at his birth. It shone by day in
the HeaVENs alone, brighter than Venus in the NIGHT, and by NIGHT it
shone over delta in Cassiopeia, the recumbent CONSTELLATION which is the
signature of his initial among the stars. His eyes watched it, lowlying
on the horizon, eastward of the bear, as he walked by the slumberous
summer fields at midNIGHT returning from Shottery and from her arms.
----------------------------------------------------------
Julius Caesar, Act 2,2
When beggars die, there are no comets seen;
The HeaVENs themselves blaze forth the death of princes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sweet swan of AVON! what a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appeare,
And make those flights upon the bankes of Thames,
That so did take Eliza, and our James !
But stay, I see thee in the Hemisphere
Advanc'd, and made a CONSTELLATION there !
Shine forth, thou Starre of Poets, and with rage,
Or influence, chide, or cheere the drooping Stage;
Which, since thy flight fro' hence, hath mourn'd like night,
And despaires day, but for thy Volumes light."
----------------------------------------------------------
Two superNOVA were pertinent to Shake-speare/Oxford's life/death:
[Tycho & Kepler recorded these NOVA from the island
of HVEN just a few miles south of Elsinore castle.]
------------------
Tycho's NOVA: In November, 1572 in Cassiopeia
(Five months after Eliza had executed Oxford's
beloved cousin, the Duke of Norfolk).
[Cassiopeia was the Ethiopian Queen who boasted that
she and daughter Andromeda were more beautiful than
the Nereids. Andromeda had to be sacrificed to the
sea monster Cetus to appease Poseidon but was rescued
by Perseus. Cassiopeia then tried to stop Perseus from
marrying Andromeda but Perseus turned her to stone
with the evil eye (Algol/1572 nova?) of Medusa.]
The Nov. 1572 nova transformed Cassiopeia into a crooked cross
or small Cygnus/swan constellation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
October 9, c 275, St Denis beheaded on a hill north of Paris
(afterwards called Montmartre) and then
walked to Notre Dame with his head in his hand.
October 9, 1604, Mars/Jupiter conjunction brings on Kepler's NOVA
October 9, 1615, the suit of (Thomasina) Ostler v. Heminges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kepler's NOVA: In October, 1604 in Ophiuchus/SERPENS.
Four months after Oxford himself died.
<<Ophiuchus (off-ih-YOU-cus) struggling with the monster SERPENT
constellation SERPENS symbolizes the struggle of light against
darkness, order versus chaos, and good versus evil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/klein/_disc11/00000025.htm
<<The 'Rainbow' portrait (1600) displays the Queen in
an intricate costume holding a rainbow in her right hand.
SERPENT, heart & celestial globe are on Elizabeth's sleeve.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hebrew word for SERPENT: "NA(ha)SH" (same as BRASS)
The Hebrew word for SERPENT: "(wi)VERE"
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.digitalelf.home.ro/beastiary.html
<<The SERPENT typifies darkness in connection with Apollo,
for he slew the Python which came from the mud of the deluge
of Deucalion; Apollo at Delphi is light overcoming darkness.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://f01.middlebury.edu/FS010A/students/Minerva/034.jpg
http://mesl.itd.umich.edu/w/wantz/images/vesdi01.jpg
<<"The emblem shows Bacon's direct connection with the Knights of the
Helmet from which Freemasonry evolved. The Knight is wearing a high
hat which simulates the Knight's Helmet and the Mason's high hat,
to indicate his order and invisibilty; and he has the staff in his
right hand in the act of destroying the SERPENT of Ignorance.">>
--from Bacon Masonry by George Tudhope
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/resumeandarticles/page23.html
<<The dragon or SERPENT is a metaphor
for everything that stops us from being FREE -
tyranny, injustice, hunger, greed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonnet 4: Nature's bequest gives nothing but doth lend,
And being *FRANK* she lends to those are *FREE*.
------------- T{O}.
------------- TH[E].
-------- ONLI[E].
BEGETTE[R].
--------------- O[F].
= combination of "E.O." or "O" & "FREE" [= "FRANCIS"]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/resumeandarticles/page23.html
<<The dragon-slaying myth is a myth of death & rebirth.
St George, whose Greek name means "FARMER",
is linked in Eurasian folk memory to the *GREEN Man*, that
mocking nature spirit who grimaces from Cathedrals & country
churches to remind the worshippers of the power of EVIL.
At the tomb of George in Lod, there is a bas-relief of Constantine
trampling on a dragon and piercing it with his LABARUM or SPEAR.
(The use of the sword although known in the early centuries
was commonly depicted only in the late middle ages.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
[Ophiuchus was Asclepius/ son of Apollo by unfaithful wife
Coronis. Asclepius learned the healing arts from Chiron
and angered Hades by granting virtual immortality with the
blood of Medusa. Zeus struck Asclepius with a thunderbolt.]
The Oct. 1604 nova (& nearby Jupiter & Saturn) transformed
Ophiuchus/Serpens into a new constellation that very much
resembled a large Swan taking off from S.West horizon
just over the setting sun (in Scorpius). It was a phoenix
like symbol (carrying English language & culture across
the Atlantic to the New World in the South West).
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the First Folio frontispiece:
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/clspg100.htm
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/images/big/sha1968a.jpg
the leg less archer is *clearly* the constellation SAGITTARIUS
the (RUTLAND) peacock is a reasonably facsimile of nearby SCORPIUS.
Now it just so happens that the CORNUCOPIA situated between these
'constellations' is precisely in the location of Kepler's 1604 NOVA.
If this is what was intended then Ben Jonson's
*new* constellation of CORNUCOPIA consisted
of Kepler's NOVA with flanking planets Jupiter & Saturn.
(See Chet Raymo's 365 Starry Nights, p. 216.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What suggested scene was then constructed by Stephen?
Solitary hotel in mountain pass. Autumn. Twilight.
Fire lit. In DARK CORNER young man seated. Young
woman enters. Restless. Solitary. She sits. She goes to
window. She stands. She sits. Twilight. She thinks. On
solitary hotel paper she writes. She thinks. She writes.
She sighs. Wheels and hoofs. She hurries out. He
comes from his DARK CORNER. He seizes solitary paper.
He holds it towards fire. Twilight. He reads. Solitary.
--------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
>
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:RHFac.9330$Dv2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> >
> > The Nazis supposedly bragged about shooting him down, according to
Charles
> > Boyle: "'Pimpernel Howard Has Made His Last Trip!' crowed the banner
> > headline in the Nazi newspaper *Der Angriff*, run by Josef Goebbels,
> > Hitler's Minister of Propaganda (1)." Despite Boyle's excretatiousnous
> > scholarship (he sees a parallel between Howard's death and Hamlet being
> > captured by pirates), I have no reason to doubt the quotation. I could
> find
> > no references to it, and the newspaper reports I read said the Nazis
> claimed
> > it was a mistake.
>
> Go to a site called N/461: http://www.n461.com/howard.html
>
> It contains the quote you're looking for from *Der Angriff*. It also says
> that the papers from Howard's estate will remain closed until 2056. I know
> this has posed a problem for Oxfordians who are looking for more
> information,
If it is still extant, the film treatment for *Pimpernel Smith* might
provide some clues on whether the Oxfordian comments were meant to be taken
seriously or to characterize Smith as a harmless eccentric not to be taken
seriously by the Nazis. The movie was filmed at British National Studios,
now BBC Elstree, and released by United Artists, according to Internet
sources. Perhaps some enterprising Oxfordian will do some actual research
and score a coup for his or her side. Until then, there is no evidence for
Howard's purported Oxfordism. It is a complete fabrication by Oxfordians who
apparently need all the help they can get, be it ever so fictional.
> but I imagine the documents have been reclassified because of
> Howard's role in the war.
You've got to wonder what could be so sensitive that it has to be kept
secret for more than 100 years. Colvin's book said the materials were
declassified and then immediately reclassified.
TR
Tom Veal
> "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:c87247a2.04033...@posting.google.com...
> > "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<Chvac.5551$NL4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > > "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c87247a2.0403...@posting.google.com...
> > > > I've devoted a lot of hours to Brame, Popova and Stritmatter
> > >
> > >
> > > When is the next installment of your destruction of Stritmatter's thesis
> to
> > > be published?
> >
> > I don't really have a schedule. The next installment will consider
> > what Dr. Stritmatter calls "diagnostic verses". Then I'll look at his
> > comparative data (parallels or absence thereof between verses marked
> > in the De Vere Bible and writers other than Shakespeare).
>
> He didn't do that himself? Or do you mean you're looking at his examples?
>
Vere Bible are less frequently used by other Elizabethan writers than
by Shakespeare. Thomas Larque has made a good start on this rather
tedious phase of the project and has sent me his materials.
It should be noted that the correspondence between the De Vere
markings and Shakespeare is so weak (*much* less than chance, to the
extent that reliable quantification is feasible) that comparative data
are mere lily painting.
Art Neuendorffer
> What would Lynne make of someone who corners and importunes
> inanimate sculptural simulacra that cannot even exercise the option
> of flight available to the more fortunate? :-)
Mason was free to leave at any time
(assuming his finger wasn't permanently stuck in Cicero)
http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/aneuendorffer.php
Art N.
BCD
> [...]
> It's a curious phenomenon -- some people who seem sane enough in
> ordinary circumstances turn out to be inveterate cranks in one
> particular area. (Of course, as I've noted before, one of the most
> fascinating things about anti-Stratfordians is how many of them are
> multipurpose cranks: anti-Einstein or anti-Bernoulli science cranks,
> AIDS-as-a-hoax cranks, "aquatic ape" advocates, Apollo lunar landing
> deniers, Gemstone conspiracy theorists, cryptographic cranks, Kennedy
> assassination conspiracy cranks, etc.)
***One wonders if it's just a pathological propensity to rage against
what is perceived as "authority" or "the accepted," a morbid holdover
from the often-observed knee-jerk rebelliousness characteristic of the
teen years. The particular objects of their rage vary perhaps
according to mere convenience and chance; had they "but world enough,
and time," at least some would, I suspect, object to everything,
absolutely everything, each thing in order as it came their way.
Others, cannily sensing the limitations of world and time, limit their
rage, seeming perfectly rational and well-adjusted until their
personal bête noire walks through the door.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
Art Neuendorffer
> ***One wonders if it's just a pathological propensity to rage
> against what is perceived as "authority" or "the accepted,"
What about the pathological propensity to accept without
question what is perceived as "authority" or "the accepted,"
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
LynnE wrote:
>"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
>news:406A273...@core.com...
>
>
>>LynnE wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Allan Rogg" <ar...@payroll.nyc.gov> wrote in message
>>>news:7ae5c54d.04033...@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tom...@ix.netcom.com (Tom Veal) wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>news:<c87247a2.04032...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I haven't seen "Pimpernel Smith", but, if it follows Baroness Orczy's
>>>>>plot, the hero does his best to look like a silly ass to the bad guys,
>>>>>the better to disguise his role as a rescuer of victims of oppression.
>>>>>Pretending to be fascinated by a delusion like Oxenfordianism would
>>>>>neatly fit that persona.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Precisely. Having seen the film, I would point out that, as in
>>>>Baroness Orczy's book, which was adapted "straight" for Howard's
>>>>earlier French-Revolution-era Scarlet Pimpernel film, the heroic
>>>>Pimpernel character adopts the cover identity of a foolish,
>>>>superficial twit in order to avoid detection. It is only when
>>>>Pimpernel Smith is posing as an idiot that he mentions Oxford's
>>>>putative authorship of the Shakespeare plays. If anything, Howard and
>>>>his collaborators are satirizing the Oxfordians.
>>>>
>>>>Allan Rogg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I'm going to try to watch the movie again this weekend as it's two years
>>>since I've seen it. I agree that Percy Blakeney was an affected, foolish
>>>
>>>
>fop
>
>
>>>in the original Pimpernel; however, I believe that when portraying
>>>
>>>
>Pimpernel
>
>
>>>Smith, LH was acting more like a smart alec than an idiot, whilst
>>>
>>>
>annoying
>
>
>>>and besting the Nazi, but I'd like to be sure before discussing it
>>>
>>>
>further.
>
>
>>>Best wishes,
>>>Lynne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It sounds as though feigning madness (believing
>>Oxford wrote Shakespeare) is a parody of Hamlet.
>>What other justification is there for the skull/Yorick
>>scene?
>>
>>
>
>I'm thinking about it, Greg. There's definitely a parody of the graveyard
>scene, and of course, Smith is called Horatio, also meant to bring _Hamlet_
>to mind. But in addition, Smith shows the Nazi a book which is almost
>certainly meant to be Looney's, given the date of the movie, and Looney
>makes much of the similarities between Hamlet and Oxford. This would be
>Chapter XVI: "Dramatic Self-Revelation: Hamlet." One of the marginal notes
>(not sure of the correct term here) in the chapter is "Hamlet is
>Shakespeare. De Vere is Hamlet."
>
>Best wishes,
>LynnE
>
>P.S. Interesting bio. Ironic that Howard was considered the perfect English
>gentleman at a time when there was rampant anti-semitism in England. But
>then, of course, most people didn't know he was Jewish.
>
>
>
>>Greg Reynolds
>>
>>
>> From Find a Grave (though you'll not be finding Leslie's)...
>>
>>Leslie Howard
>>Apr 3 1893 - Jun 1 1943
>>
>>Actor.
>>He is most remembered for his role of Ashley Wilkes,
>>in the movie "Gone With the Wind" (1939).
>>
Ashley Wilkes = Willey Shakes = Yes, Will Shake = Will Shakes, Ye
So Oxfordians, you'll need a better bunch of doubters.
This one is... doubtful.
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer
> From Find a Grave (though you'll not be finding Leslie's)...
>
> Leslie Howard
> Apr 3 1893 - Jun 1 1943
>
> Actor.
> He is most remembered for his role of Ashley Wilkes,
> in the movie "Gone With the Wind" (1939).
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> Ashley Wilkes = Willey Shakes =
> Yes, Will Shake = Will Shakes, Ye
> So Oxfordians, you'll need a better bunch of doubters.
> This one is... doubtful.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Harvey and the Genesis of "William Shakespeare"
by Andrew Hannas
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/essays/harvey.html
(Originally printed in The Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter,
Winter 1993, Volume 29, No. 1B)
<<Harvey's description occurred in a 168-line poem composed in dactylic
hexameter verses which he styled an Apostrophe ad eundem (Apostrophe
to the same man, i.e. De Vere), printed in Gratulationis Valdinensis Liber
Quartus (The Fourth Book of Walden Rejoicing), London, 1578,
in September. The Latin words in question end line 40 and begin line 41:
. . . vultus
Tela vibrat . . .
Ward's "Thy countenance shakes spears", while stretching
Tela (things thrown by hand) a permissible bit into "spears",
actually missed the signification of vultus, as "will",
such that "thy will shakes spears" already stands as a
more telling rendition than hitherto has been appreciated.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
"vultus tela vibrat"
"THY WILL SHAKES SPEARS"
"ASHLEY WILKES'S SPARTH"
-----------------------------------------------------------
SPARTH, n. An Anglo-Saxon battle-ax, or HALBERD. [Obs.]
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canterbury Tales: The Knight's Tale
The feast and the night at Theseus' court
Somme seyden thus, somme seyde "it shal be so";
Somme helden with hym with the blake berd,
Somme with the balled, somme with the thikke-herd,
Somme seyde he looked grymme, and he wolde fighte,
"He hath a SPARTH of twenty pound of wighte."
Thus was the halle ful of divynynge,
Longe after that the sonne gan to sprynge.
Some put it thus, some said, "It's so by rights."
Some held with him who had the great black beard,
Some with the bald-heads, some with the thick haired;
Some said, "He looks grim, and he'll fight like hate;
He has an axe of twenty pound in weight."
And thus the hall was full of gossiping
Long after the bright sun began to spring.
-------------------------------------------------------
<<Matthew: [occupation: toll-gatherer,]
He wrote his gospel in Hebrew, afterwards translated into Greek
by James the Less. The scene of his labors was Parthia, and
Ethiopia, in which latter country he suffered martyrdom,
being slain with a HALBERD in the city of Nadabah, A.D. 60.>>
HALBERD, n. [F. halleBARDE; of German origin; cf. MHG. helmbarte, G.
hellebarte; prob. orig., an ax to SPLIT a helmet, fr. G. barte a broad
ax (orig. from the same source as E. beard; cf. Icel. bar[eth]a, a kind
of ax, skegg beard, skeggja a kind of halberd) + helm helmet; but cf.
also MHG. helm, halm, handle, and E. helve.] An ancient long-handled
weapon, of which the head had a point and several long, sharp edges,
curved or straight, and sometimes additional points.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Poleax, POLEAXE, n. [OE. pollax; cf. OD. pollexe.]
Anciently, a kind of battle-ax with a long handle; later, an ax
or hatchet with a short handle, and a head variously patterned;
-- used by soldiers, and also by sailors in boarding a vessel.
-------------------------------------------------------
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 1, Scene 1
Mar. Is it not like the King?
Hor. As thou art to thy selfe,
Such was the VERy Armour he had on,
When th'Ambitious *NORWEY* combatted:
So frown'd he once, when in an angry parle
He smot the sledded Pollax on the Ice.
'Tis strange.
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOB (Vulgate)
41:20 quasi stipulam aestimabit malleum
[POLEAXES]
et deridebit vibrantem hastam
[he laugheth at the SHAKING of a SPEAR]
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.malory.net/pt1_txt.htm
FOR THIS WAS DRAWYN BY A KNYGHT PRESONER, SIR THOMAS MALLEORRE,
THAT GOD SENDE HYM GOOD RECOVER. AMEN.
<<[Thoms Malory] was "bailed out several times,
and on one occasion seems to have joined an old crony on a
horse-stealing expedition across East Anglia that ended in Colchester
jail. He escaped from there too, 'using swords, daggers, and
langues-de-boeuf' (a kind of halberd), but was recaptured and returned
to prison in London. After this date he was shifted frequently from
prison to prison, and the penalties put on his jailers for his secure
keeping reached a record for medieval England".>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
You and many of your coreligionists are nutty for a bewildering
variety of reasons, Art; believing in farcical conspiracies is merely
one such.
For example, Elizabeth Weird believes all manner of hilarious crap
about Einstein and modern physics; indeed, she runs the gamut from
extolling the virtues of "aether theory" ("Aether theory describes
why a strand of light wave would accelerate inside a cesium cell but
also explains why an incoherent totally collapsed wave would instantly
become coherent as it emerges from the cell. !! [sic -- one wonders what
would enable Elizabeth herself to become coherent]") to declaring
special relativity to be a quantum theory (I am not making this up) to
pontificating that contemporary physicists are no longer trained in
Newtonian mechanics and classical electrodynamics (I'm sure that's news
to you, Art -- in that case, you won't need many of those volumes of
Landau and Lifshitz, so you can just send them along) to pronouncing
that special relativity is both hopelessly wrong *and* "plagerized" from
Lorentz and Poincaré who therefore deserve the credit. For good
measure, she believes that the Poincaré geometry of hyperbolic space is
the same as the geometry of Minkowski space, that Old English was spoken
as late as the nineteenth century, that "Verulam" means "state of truth"
in Latin, and that the German Idealist philosophers were "sentenced
at Nuremburg [sic]."
"Dr." Faker believes that the Apollo lunar landings were faked, that
he has discovered a simple "solution" of Fermat's Last Theorem, that
Franck wrote an organ symphony, that Faker himself possesses a Ph.D.,
and much hilarious hogwash of a similar nature.
Not to be outdone, Mr. Streitz believes that AIDS is "a hoax," that
the Bernoulli Principle is inapplicable in aviation, that Elizabethan
spelling was regularized (and even that inferences about Shakespeare's
preferred spellings can be drawn from modern editions in which the
spellings have been modernized), that only one of Shakespeare's plays is
set in a foreign country other than Italy (which one, I wonder?), that
the Mexican _reconquista_ is poised to return California and Arizona to
Mexico, and many other amusing oddities that it would require a
book-length document to enumerate (Mr. Streitz has fortunately obliged
us by producing such a document).
Mr. Crowley believes that certain of the Sonnets constitute an
invitation to a royal defecation derby -- perhaps his only worthy
competitor is the nutcase who believes that Sonnet 20 was written by the
Earl of Oxford, and that the addressee thereof is the Earl's own penis.
Of his "aquatic ape" theorizing, the less said, the better.
The above make Stephanie Caruana's preposterously paranoid Gemstone
conspiracy theory appear almost sane by comparison. As you can see,
Art, belief in conspiracy theories is merely one of a long list of
eccentric notions that makes many anti-Stratfordians most entertaining.
Paul Crowley
news:c87247a2.0403...@posting.google.com...
> > > Should I ever happen to see "Pimpernel Smith", keeping an open mind
> > > won't be difficult. It would, after all, do my side of the debate no
> > > harm if Leslie Howard had been as nutty as Brame, Popova, Crowley,
> > > Streitz and Stritmatter combined and cubed.
This whole thread is idle. Who cares what Leslie
Howard thought? Perhaps one or two Oxfordians
have been over-enthusiastic in claiming him as a
supporter. They may be wrong. Yawn.
It seems that anti-Strats are reduced to this -- as
their 'best' argument.
> I mean, of course, nutty on the authorship question - mad
> north-northwest. Whether they can tell a hawk from a handsaw when the
> wind is southerly I don't know; I have no special reason to doubt it.
>
> But with that important qualification I stand by my adjective. Someone
> who devotes years to a subject and commits the elementary blunders in
> discerning facts and making logical connections that one sees in the
> writers whom I listed is operating outside the framework of rational
> discourse. To say that is not, let me stress, an "ad hominem attack".
> I've devoted a lot of hours to Brame, Popova and Stritmatter (less to
> Crowley and Streitz, I'll concede, but enough, I believe, to form an
> accurate opinion)
You have never begun to indicate any "elementary
blunders in discerning facts and making logical
connections" in any response to me . . . . nor
begun to hint how I may be . . "operating outside
the framework of rational discourse . .". You will
not from any of our exchanges, be able to produce
anything that begins to support your nonsensical
claim.
In fact, you lose in all arguments you have with
me -- usually badly . . . to the extent that you no
longer feel that you can address me directly.
You are obliged always to refer to me in the third
person.
What a pathetic fool you are.
It is to be expected, of course. Those who are
personally and financially committed to the
Stratfordian theory must necessarily end up
looking idiotic in nearly all arguments based
on fact and logic. Only a near-total fool could
seriously maintain that our great poet was
brought up by illiterate parents, spent his first
25 years or so in a small obscure country town,
and then himself brought up his own children
as illiterate.
> "These
> writers (on this particular subject) are crazy, because their
> arguments are so preposterous."
There will always be plenty of semi-crazy people
on the fringes of great literary debates, who put
forward preposterous arguments. It is extremely
easy to cherry-pick the most extreme and
demonstrate that they are so. While I'm sure doing
so makes you feel better, do you really think that
helps to demonstrate the truth of the Stratfordian
theory?
Nothing better illustrates the strength of your
'case' than the fact that you have to run away so
fast and so hard from any competent opponent.
You opted out from our recent discussion how the
Stratman (stuck in his small midland town) could
have come to love the aesthetics of the Roman
church.
I see Schoenbaum (in 'Compact documentary life',
page 55) says:
"The religious training provided for Shakespeare by his community
was orthodox and Protestant."
On page 61 he writes:
"The facts are ambiguous: [we have to remember -- ridiculous as
it may seem -- that Schoenbaum's notion of 'facts' includes the
Stratman's authorship of the canon . . ] too ambiguous to justify
a recent Jesuit commentator's conclusion that Shakespeare felt a
positive nostalgia for England's Catholic past, although the same
writer is on safer ground when he claims that Shakespeare shows
much familiarity but little awkwardness in his treatment of Catholic
customs and beliefs. "
'Nostalgia' is a sound perception, but Schoenbaum
cannot accept it -- because that would imply that
the poet had experienced Catholicism, and his
candidate had not lived through any of it.
Schoenbaum has to recognise some of the truth;
however, like all other Stratfordians, he forgets to
tell us where the Stratman would have acquired
that 'much familiarity . . [with]. . Catholic customs
and beliefs'.
On the same page, he writes:
" . . Shakespeare seems to err in his only overt reference to the sacrifice
of the Mass-when Juliet asks the Friar whether she should come to
'evening mass'-for Pope Pius V and the Council of Trent had in 1566
done away with evening Mass . . . and anyway the allusion appears in
Shakespeare's source."
Why did Schoenbaum think the action of *Romeo
and Juliet* had to be after 1566? I think he must
have been (in some confused way) expressing
amazement that the playwright would have known
about evening Mass at all. After all, it had not
been celebrated in England since early 1559.
An English playwright, writing in the late 1590s,
(some 40 years later) would not have thought of
it; even if he had, he would not have put it into a
play written for audience of Protestant Londoners.
In fact, Oxford had probably often attended
evening Mass as a child -- in the latter years of
Mary and the first of Elizabeth. He would have
written *Romeus and Juliet* (Shakespeare's
'source') not long after. Elizabeth would also
have often attended evening Mass in the first
26 years of her life. In the play (probably first
performed around 1570) her poet reminded her
of a relatively recent style of life, the passing
of which she much regretted -- in many ways.
Paul.
Tom Reedy
All that E. coli bacteria from indulging in his favorite treat must have
infected his brain.
TR
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:iShbc.3072$qP2....@news.indigo.ie...
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > When is the next installment of
> > > >your destruction of Stritmatter's thesis to be published?
>
> > "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't really have a schedule. The next installment will consider
> > > what Dr. Stritmatter calls "diagnostic verses". Then I'll look at his
> > > comparative data (parallels or absence thereof between verses marked
> > > in the De Vere Bible and writers other than Shakespeare).
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > And we're nutty for believing in conspiracies!
Dave Webb wrote:
> You and many of your coreligionists are nutty for a bewildering
> variety of reasons, Art; believing in farcical conspiracies is merely
> one such.
I would never denounce your conspiracy as farcical, Dave.
Art Neuendorffer
Bob Grumman
>Howard thought? Perhaps one or two Oxfordians
>have been over-enthusiastic in claiming him as a
>supporter. They may be wrong. Yawn.
>
>It seems that anti-Strats are reduced to this -- as
>their 'best' argument.
Why must you almost inevitably misrepresent Stratfordians every chance you get,
Paul? Do any of us contend that the best anti-Stratfordian argument is the fact
that Leslie Howard played a movie character who voiced Oxfordian beliefs? That
is the equivalent of what you are saying.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
says...
>
>This is an example of the level of discourse you can expect from Crowley.
>All that E. coli bacteria from indulging in his favorite treat must have
>infected his brain.
>
>TR
No, no, Tom--the problem is that he CAN'T indulge in his favorite treat, which
isn't ANY fecal matter, but only that which is fresh from the bowels of queens!
This has understandably caused the over-heated excretory center of his brain to
melt into all other portions of his brain.
--Dr. Grumman
Tom Veal
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message news:<iShbc.3072$qP2....@news.indigo.ie>...
> "The religious training provided for Shakespeare by his com衫unity
> was orthodox and Protestant."
>
> On page 61 he writes:
> "The facts are ambiguous: [we have to remember -- ridiculous as
> it may seem -- that Schoenbaum's notion of 'facts' includes the
> Stratman's authorship of the canon . . ] too ambiguous to justify
> a recent Jesuit commentator's conclusion that Shakespeare felt a
> positive nostalgia for England's Catholic past, although the same
> writer is on safer ground when he claims that Shakespeare shows
> much familiarity but little awkward要ess in his treatment of Catholic
Neil Brennen
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c4kp8...@drn.newsguy.com...
But it may be true, Bob. Recall the Kositsky/Stritmatter response to
Reedy/Kathman. That wasn't better than Leslie Howard's lines, was it?
BCD
***Such as what comes as accepted from the authority Art Neuendorffer?
Do you object to our questioning that authority?
***What about the pathological propensity to assume that questioning
authority mandates an inevitable subsequent rejection of authority?
Or that anyone who has accepted "authority" or "the accepted" has not
at some time questioned either or both ...? What about the
pathological propensity to assume that any piece of data is suspect
simply by virtue of the fact that it happens to support "the
accepted"? What indeed about the prejudice of assuming that, because
more people have accepted something, that something must therefore be
wrong, and those who accepted it must therefore be less acute than
you?
***I question such assumptions.
Bob Grumman
says...
wrote Shakespeare because Leslie Howard's character in a movie argued that he
did, which is what I was trying to say.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> I learned many years ago to stop feeding trolls.
You mean that you are happy to admit to being
the worthless, gutless, (i.e. Stratfordian) academic
that we all know you to be.
It was YOU who stated:
> > > > > It would, after all, do my side of the debate no
> > > > > harm if Leslie Howard had been as nutty as Brame, Popova, Crowley,
> > > > > Streitz and Stritmatter combined and cubed.
Yet when challenged to back up the charge of
'nuttiness' in my case, you call the challenge
a "troll".
OK, ok, we know Strat academics are necessarily
profoundly stupid. But surely you don't have to
take it to this level?
Paul.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > I've got three biographers of Leslie Howard, two of them his children,
> none
> > of whom even intimate that Howard believed anyone other than Shakespeare
> > wrote the works attributed to him. One of them even flatly states that
> > Howard believed "that William Shakespeare and nobody else was the author
> of
> > Hamlet, Prince of Denmark."
> >
> > I've got two people knowledgeable about Howard who maintain entertainment
> > Web sites and who both say Howard never said a word indicating he thought
> > someone other than Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.
> >
> > I've got Howard's own testimony in an article he wrote explaining how he
> > approached playing Hamlet that includes unequivocal references that
> > indicates he believed William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to
> him.
> >
> > And you've got . . . some lines of dialog in a fictional romance?
> >
> > I would say that the fact that Howard played William Shakespeare in
> > a stage play counters the weight of your "evidence."
> I agree. There is a consistent pattern of "knowledgeable" Stratfordians
> like Howard, Hawthorne, Ben Jonson, Orson Welles, Rollett,
Rollett? Since when is Rollett a "Stratfordian," Art? Granted, he
has exploded a few of the less tenable Oxfordian myths, but that fact
scarcely makes him a "Stratfordian"; he might merely have been striving
to make the Oxfordian cult appear slightly saner. (MoreoVER, Rollett's
name does not appear on the complete roster of the Grand Master's agents
working undercoVER.)
> etc. teasing us
> about authorship in ambiguous ways but then always backtracking in the end.
> I wonder why they do that? :-)
Your notion that Howard, Hawthorne, and Jonson are "teasing [you]
about authorship in ambiguous ways" is most amusing, Art -- it makes one
wonder whether a nonreader like aneuendor...@comicass.nut finds
the telephone directory or a stop sign "ambiguous."
Indeed, upon a moment's reflection, a stop sign probably *would* seem
ambiguous to you, Art -- you would probably note that "stop" is an
anagram of "opts," undoubtedly an abbreviation of "options," so the sign
is suggesting that it is up to the driVER's discretion whether to stop
or not. Or, it could be an anagram of "post," so perhaps you've tried
depositing letters there, Art. (The image of a thoroughly flummOXed
aneuendor...@comicass.nut searching for the mail slot in a stop
sign is at least as plausible as the image of the aforementioned
Clueless Cretin importuning a bronze statue.)
Neil Brennen
> "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:c87247a2.04040...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I learned many years ago to stop feeding trolls.
>
> You mean that you are happy to admit to being
> the worthless, gutless, (i.e. Stratfordian) academic
> that we all know you to be.
Is Mr. Veal an academic? I wasn't aware he claimed to be one. Intellectual,
yes, but academic?
I think this is a slip on Crowley's part. His deep-seated hatred of
education is showing.
> It was YOU who stated:
>
> > > > > > It would, after all, do my side of the debate no
> > > > > > harm if Leslie Howard had been as nutty as Brame, Popova,
Crowley,
> > > > > > Streitz and Stritmatter combined and cubed.
>
> Yet when challenged to back up the charge of
> 'nuttiness' in my case, you call the challenge
> a "troll".
No, he is calling YOU a troll, Paul - just as I do.
Tom Reedy
>
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> news:NhAbc.3174$qP2....@news.indigo.ie...
> > "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:c87247a2.04040...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > I learned many years ago to stop feeding trolls.
> >
> > You mean that you are happy to admit to being
> > the worthless, gutless, (i.e. Stratfordian) academic
> > that we all know you to be.
>
> Is Mr. Veal an academic? I wasn't aware he claimed to be one.
Intellectual,
> yes, but academic?
>
> I think this is a slip on Crowley's part. His deep-seated hatred of
> education is showing.
Even more pathetic, Crowley has passed down his hatred of knowledge to his
son. His excuse for his pathetic life is the class system, which according
to him no one in the British Isles has ever overcome. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1194440244d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe
=UTF-8&selm=36100b00.21299159%40news.indigo.ie
>
> > It was YOU who stated:
> >
> > > > > > > It would, after all, do my side of the debate no
> > > > > > > harm if Leslie Howard had been as nutty as Brame, Popova,
> Crowley,
> > > > > > > Streitz and Stritmatter combined and cubed.
> >
> > Yet when challenged to back up the charge of
> > 'nuttiness' in my case, you call the challenge
> > a "troll".
>
> No, he is calling YOU a troll, Paul - just as I do.
Crowley is many things more than a troll. All of them are equally pathetic.
TR
Art Neuendorffer
> > There is a consistent pattern of "knowledgeable" Stratfordians
> > like Howard, Hawthorne, Ben Jonson, Orson Welles, Rollett,
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Rollett? Since when is Rollett a "Stratfordian," Art?
Well at least anti-Oxfordian then (which is not necessarily
incompatible with his "HENRY WR-IOTH-ESLEY" discovery).
------------------------------------------------------
" The End of Oxford" by John Rollett
Shakespeare Fellowship Forum
The Authorship Debate 04/06/2003 07:38
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=8074&page=&view=&sb=5&o=
<<My confidence in Oxford as the Bard . . .has now reached vanishing point,
as the title of this thread indicates.>>
------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Granted, [Rollett]
> has exploded a few of the less tenable Oxfordian myths,
Only the less tenable ones?
Which ones are more tenable in your opinion?
(More elevenable?)
> but that fact scarcely makes him a "Stratfordian";
I probably misspoke in Rollett's case.
In fact I happen to know of an ex-Oxfordian
who is now in Dyer straits.
(There are Weirder cases of defection.)
> he might merely have been striving to make the
> Oxfordian cult appear slightly saner. (MoreoVER, Rollett's
> name does not appear on the complete roster of the
> Grand Master's agents working undercoVER.)
------------------------------------------------------
The complete rooster of Grand Master's agents:
http://www.theshop.net/jeffgrey/31.jpg
http://www.trickfilmwelt.de/foghorn.htm
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~balab/151/ADD/Chicken_Gun/1rooster.jpg
------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > etc. teasing us about authorship in ambiguous ways
> > but then always backtracking in the end.
> > I wonder why they do that? :-)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Your notion that Howard, Hawthorne, and Jonson are "teasing
> [you] about authorship in ambiguous ways" is most amusing, Art -
So is the photo of Hawthorne in drag:
http://216.10.26.55/delia_bacont.jpg
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> it makes one
> wonder whether a nonreader like aneuendor...@comicass.nut
> finds the telephone directory or a stop sign "ambiguous."
> Indeed, upon a moment's reflection, a stop sign probably *would* seem
> ambiguous to you, Art -- you would probably note that "stop" is an
> anagram of "opts," undoubtedly an abbreviation of "options," so the sign
> is suggesting that it is up to the driVER's discretion whether to stop
> or not. Or, it could be an anagram of "post," so perhaps you've tried
> depositing letters there, Art. (The image of a thoroughly flummOXed
> aneuendor...@comicass.nut searching for the mail slot in a stop
> sign is at least as plausible as the image of the aforementioned
> Clueless Cretin importuning a bronze statue.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/pr/media/releases/1997/vanstone.html
<<In Homer's Odyssey, Homer is sacked from the nuclear power plant in front
of Bart who is visiting the plant on a school excursion. He has trouble
finding a job. Marge goes out to work to support the family. Homer lies at
home VERy depressed and VERy unshaven on the couch. On TV he sees a Duff
beer commercial but has no money to buy any. In desperation he breaks open
Bart's piggybank and immediately realises what he has done. He decides to
kill himself. He writes out a farewell note, ties a large rock to his waist
and sets our for the bridge from which he will jump. The kids wake up
thinking the house is being burgled. They find the note and wake up Marge.
Together they look for Homer.
Homer is about to jump when Marge and the kids arrive. It looks as though
they will be hit by a car. Homer saves them. It suddenly dawns on Homer that
the intersection is dangerous and that some one ought to put a stop sign
there. A beam of sunlight lights up Homer's face. "Kill myself? Killing
myself is the last thing I'd ever do. Now I have a purpose, a reason to
live. I don't care who I have to face, I don't care who I have to fight, I
will not rest until this street gets a stop sign!" The family is reconciled.
Homer has a purpose; he approaches the local council who agree to put in the
stop sign. Homer becomes a hero .>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
"If they think I'm going to stop at that stop sign, they're sadly
mistaken!" --Homer Simpson
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<By a bizarre coincidence, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Nathanael West died on
the same weekend in December 1940. West was killed in an automobile accident
on December 22, near El Centro, California, with his wife Eileen McKenney.
He was recently married, with better-paid script work coming in, and
returning from a trip to Mexico. Distraught over hearing of his friend's
Fitzgerald's death, he crashed his car after ignoring a STOP SIGN. Eileen
McKenney become the subject of a book, My Sister Eileen (1938), written by
Ruth McKenney, her sister.
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/nwest.htm
Nathanael West was born Nathan Weinstein in New York, N.Y., the son of
immigrant German Jews from Lithuania. His mother was Anna (Wallenstein)
Weinstein, and father, Max Weinstein, a construction contractor. As a young
man West showed little ambition. He studied at Brown University, Providence,
where he befriended the writer and humorist S.J. Perelman - he married
West's sister. West did not take his studies seriously - he borrowed his
cousin's work and presented it as his own and failed a crucial course in
modern drama.
At the age of twenty-three he changed his name legally to Nathanael West,
later referring to Horace Greely who said, "Go West young man." He spent a
couple of years in Paris, and wrote there his first novel, The Dream Life of
Balso Snell (1931). The fantasy, some fifty pages, was set in the innards of
the Trojan horse. Back in the United States, West managed small hotels,
Kenmore Hall from 1927 to 1930 and the Sutton Club Hotel from 1930 to 1933.
In these jobs West was able to assist other writers offering them free
housing. Among his visitors were Dashiell Hammett, James T. Farrell, and
Erskine Caldwell. "We all lived there half-free, sometimes all-free,"
recalled Lillian Hellman. "Dash wrote The Thin Man at the Sutton Hotel. Pep
West's uncle or cousin owned it, I think... Dash had the Royal Suite - three
very small rooms. And we had to eat there most of the time because we didn't
have enough money to eat anyplace else. It was awful food, almost spoiled. I
think Pep brought it extra cheap. But it was the depression and I couldn't
get a job. I remember reading the manuscript of The Dream Life of Balso
Snell in the hotel. And I think he was also writing Miss Lonelyhearts at
that time." (Lillian Hellman in Playwrights at Work, ed. by George Plimpton,
2000)
"At college, and perhaps for a year afterwards, they had believed in
literature, had believed in Beauty and in personal expression as an absolute
end. When they lost this belief, they lost everything. Money and fame meant
nothing to them. They were not worldly men." (from Miss Lonelyhearts, 1933)
Hotel life provided West with numerous anecdotes which he used in his works.
In the early 1930s he worked as a journalist and was involved with a couple
of literary magazines. These experiences gave him material for his masterful
second novel, MISS LONELYHEARTS (1933), an allegory of America as it
struggled through the Depression. The tragic farce was published when West
was just thirty. It depicts a male newspaper columnist, whose correspondence
pen name is Miss Lonelyhearts. He writes his agony column in the New York
Post-Dispatch daily newspaper. Shrike, the editor, is a kind of Satan and
torments Miss Lonelyhearts, who has developed a Christ complex. Shrike says
to him: "Explain that man cannot live by bread alone and give them stones."
Miss Lonelyhearts is a therapist, priest and messiah to those alienated and
in pain, such as a sixteen-year-old girl who was born WITHOUT A NOSE:
"I sit and look at myself all day and cry. I have a big hole in the middle
of my face that scares people even myself so I can't blame the boys for not
wanting to take me out. My mother loves me, but she cries terrible when she
looks at me."
Eventually Miss Lonelyhearts becomes involved with one of his
correspondents, but he realises that he is himself unable to live by the
help he offers others in this world of decay and emptiness. In the final
section the crippled Peter Doyle, married to the ungratified Fay, arrives
with a gun. "The gun inside the package exploded and Miss Lonelyhearts fell,
dragging the cripple with him. They both rolled part of the way down the
stairs."
Despite critical success the book sold poorly. West continued with a similar
theme of good aims gone wrong in his next novel, A COOL MILLION (1934), an
attack on the optimistic rags-to riches ideal. His hero is robbed, his life
is full of trials, he loses parts of his body, and eventually he is shot.
The story reflected West's childhood memories, when his father gave him
several popular Horatio Alger novels to read - hoping that he would enter
the family business.
West moved for the first time to Hollywood in 1933, to work on a film
version of Miss Lonelyhearts. He returned in 1935, and lived in a cheap
hotel called the Pa-Va-Sed, on North Ivar Street, near Hollywood Boulevard.
In the years before he found employment, West spent time among the outcasts
of Los Angeles. He remained in Hollywood for the rest of his life, working
as a scriptwriter for smaller studios like Monogram. With Jerry Cody and
Dalton Trumbo he wrote Five Came Back (1939), directed by John Farrow,
starring Chester Morris, Lucille Ball, C. Aubrey Smith. The story, an
original of Richard Carroll, concerned a planeload of twelve passengers
forced down in head-hunter infested Amazon jungle. In this threatening
situation the varied characters of the passengers come to the surface. When
the plane is repaired, it is found that it can carry back only five
survivors, and head-hunters are coming closer... The script was assigned
from Jerry Cady, former radio writer, to Dalton Trumbo, who retained most of
West's work while discarding Cady's and adding touches of his own, notably
building the character of an anarchist, played by Carradine, into a
sympathetic one, in contrast to West's conception. Five Came Back
established John Farrow as a director. The film was acclaimed a critical
success and achieved gradually a cult status. Later the story was remade as
Back to Eternity (1956) and became a starting point for many variations,
among them The Flight of the Phoenix (1965), directed by Robert Aldrich and
based on Elleston Trevor's novel.
During his years in Hollywood West wrote THE DAY OF THE LOCUST (1939), a
study of the fragility of illusion. Many critics consider it with F. Scott
Fitzgerald's unfinished masterpiece The Last Tycoon (1941) among the best
novels written about Hollywood. The narrator, Tod Hackett, comes to
California in the hope of a career as a scenic artist but soon joins the
disenchanted second-rate actors, technicians, laborers and other characters
living on the fringes of the movie industry. Tod tries to seduce Faye
GREENer; she is seventeen.
Her protector is an old man named Homer Simpson.
http://www.evil-ernie.de/Simpsons/Simpsons-Cliparts/Homer-004-Donut.jpg >>
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Veal
> news:NhAbc.3174$qP2....@news.indigo.ie...
> > "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:c87247a2.04040...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > I learned many years ago to stop feeding trolls.
> >
> > You mean that you are happy to admit to being
> > the worthless, gutless, (i.e. Stratfordian) academic
> > that we all know you to be.
>
> Is Mr. Veal an academic? I wasn't aware he claimed to be one. Intellectual,
> yes, but academic?
>
> I think this is a slip on Crowley's part. His deep-seated hatred of
> education is showing.
>
have never claimed to be one, though I'm sure that Mr. Trolley would
find my real profession almost as distasteful.
Has anyone else noticed how odd it is that a man who loathes higher
education as fiercely as Mr. Trolley believes that Shakespeare of
Stratford's lack of the same disqualifies him as an author?
Neil Brennen
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:c87247a2.04040...@posting.google.com...
> "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
news:<kKAbc.9952$yN6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> > news:NhAbc.3174$qP2....@news.indigo.ie...
> > > "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c87247a2.04040...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > I learned many years ago to stop feeding trolls.
> > >
> > > You mean that you are happy to admit to being
> > > the worthless, gutless, (i.e. Stratfordian) academic
> > > that we all know you to be.
> >
> > Is Mr. Veal an academic? I wasn't aware he claimed to be one.
Intellectual,
> > yes, but academic?
> >
> > I think this is a slip on Crowley's part. His deep-seated hatred of
> > education is showing.
> >
> Just for the record, I am not now and never have been an academic and
> have never claimed to be one, though I'm sure that Mr. Trolley would
> find my real profession almost as distasteful.
You already have a strike against you as an American, Tom.
> Has anyone else noticed how odd it is that a man who loathes higher
> education as fiercely as Mr. Trolley believes that Shakespeare of
> Stratford's lack of the same disqualifies him as an author?
I don't find it odd at all. Crowley is justifying his own lack of success by
bashing Shakespeare. He needs to drag anyone who escapes their class back
down to the lower depths. Oxford MUST have been the author, since the
example of a lower or middle class Shakespeare becoming the 'worlds greatest
author' means that Crowley's failure must be the result of something aside
from the class structure of the UK.
Neil Brennen
--
...you can't know how miserably unbearable my life's become. It's but an
earthworm sandwich made with neither mayonnaise nor butter.
-Bob Grumman, "Werebird"
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> I probably misspoke in Rollett's case.
>
> In fact I happen to know of an ex-Oxfordian
> who is now in Dyer straits.
>
> (There are Weirder cases of defection.)
---------
"Defection"?! Did you misspell "defecation," Art? If not, your
choice of words is a bit strong, isn't it? You seem to view Rollett's
doubts as a sort of military or ideological treason or even a religious
apostasy, not as a rational change of opinion based upon careful
examination of the available evidence.
But perhaps you merely misspelled "defecation." Indeed, your
allusion to "Weirder cases" strongly suggests that possibility -- after
all, surely there is no weirder case of "defection" then Elizabeth's,
initiated, as she informs us, by a cranial vacuuming procedure.
[...]
> > > etc. teasing us about authorship in ambiguous ways
> > > but then always backtracking in the end.
> > > I wonder why they do that? :-)
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Your notion that Howard, Hawthorne, and Jonson are "teasing
> > [you] about authorship in ambiguous ways" is most amusing, Art -
> So is the photo of Hawthorne in drag:
> http://216.10.26.55/delia_bacont.jpg
That isn't Hawthorne, Art -- not that I would expect you to be able
to tell the difference.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > it makes one
> > wonder whether a nonreader like aneuendor...@comicass.nut
> > finds the telephone directory or a stop sign "ambiguous."
>
> > Indeed, upon a moment's reflection, a stop sign probably *would* seem
> > ambiguous to you, Art -- you would probably note that "stop" is an
> > anagram of "opts," undoubtedly an abbreviation of "options," so the sign
> > is suggesting that it is up to the driVER's discretion whether to stop
> > or not. Or, it could be an anagram of "post," so perhaps you've tried
> > depositing letters there, Art. (The image of a thoroughly flummOXed
> > aneuendor...@comicass.nut searching for the mail slot in a stop
> > sign is at least as plausible as the image of the aforementioned
> > Clueless Cretin importuning a bronze statue.)
> http://www.adelaide.edu.au/pr/media/releases/1997/vanstone.html
>
> <<In Homer's Odyssey, Homer is sacked from the nuclear power plant in front
> of Bart who is visiting the plant on a school excursion. He has trouble
> finding a job. Marge goes out to work to support the family. Homer lies at
> home VERy depressed and VERy unshaven on the couch. On TV he sees a Duff
> beer commercial but has no money to buy any. In desperation he breaks open
> Bart's piggybank and immediately realises what he has done. He decides to
> kill himself. He writes out a farewell note, ties a large rock to his waist
> and sets our for the bridge from which he will jump. The kids wake up
> thinking the house is being burgled. They find the note and wake up Marge.
> Together they look for Homer.
>
> Homer is about to jump when Marge and the kids arrive. It looks as though
> they will be hit by a car. Homer saves them. It suddenly dawns on Homer that
> the intersection is dangerous and that some one ought to put a stop sign
> there. A beam of sunlight lights up Homer's face. "Kill myself? Killing
> myself is the last thing I'd ever do. Now I have a purpose, a reason to
> live. I don't care who I have to face, I don't care who I have to fight, I
> will not rest until this street gets a stop sign!" The family is reconciled.
> Homer has a purpose; he approaches the local council who agree to put in the
> stop sign. Homer becomes a hero .>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> "If they think I'm going to stop at that stop sign, they're sadly
> mistaken!" --Homer Simpson
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to liken yourself to Homer Simpson, Art, I doubt that
anyone would gainsay you.
Incidentally, Art, I suspect that the material from "The Simpsons"
would afford a treasure trove for your Clueless Cretin persona to
analyze. For example, the son's name is Bart -- the final letter is a
voiceless alveolar stop; if one subsitutes the corresponding voiced
alveolar stop, one obtains "Bard." The show is carried by the Fox (fOX
is an anagram of "Oxf."!) network. Bart's mother's name is Marge, and I
scarcely need remind you of the Marges in both Oxford's and
Shakespeare's family tree. Get busy, Art!
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
Art Neuendorffer
> > I probably misspoke in Rollett's case.
> >
> > In fact I happen to know of an ex-Oxfordian
> > who is now in Dyer straits.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You seem to view Rollett's
> doubts as a sort of military or ideological treason or even a religious
> apostasy, not as a rational change of opinion based upon careful
> examination of the available evidence.
I can certainly understand why Rollett might prefer having Wriothesely as
Shakespeare (given his discovery).
> But perhaps you merely misspelled "defecation." Indeed, your
> allusion to "Weirder cases" strongly suggests that possibility -- after
> all, surely there is no weirder case of "defection" then Elizabeth's,
> initiated, as she informs us, by a cranial vacuuming procedure.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Your notion that Howard, Hawthorne, and Jonson are "teasing
> > > [you] about authorship in ambiguous ways" is most amusing, Art -
>
> > So is the photo of Hawthorne in drag:
> > http://216.10.26.55/delia_bacont.jpg
>
> That isn't Hawthorne, Art -- not that I would expect you to be able
> to tell the difference.
It's pretty close:
http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/KNO/7052P-Hawthorne.jpg
http://www.houseofwaterdancer.com/images/writers/hawthorne-nathaniel/hawthorne-nathaniel-01.JPG
In any event those aren't dainty lady hands:
http://216.10.26.55/delia_bacont.jpg
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > it makes one
> > > wonder whether a nonreader like aneuendor...@comicass.nut
> > > finds the telephone directory or a stop sign "ambiguous."
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> If you wish to liken yourself to Homer Simpson, Art,
> I doubt that anyone would gainsay you.
I did have an MIT physics lab instructor express concern that I might
end up working at a nuclear plant.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Incidentally, Art, I suspect that the material from "The Simpsons"
> would afford a treasure trove for your Clueless Cretin persona to
> analyze. For example, the son's name is Bart -- the final letter is a
> voiceless alveolar stop; if one subsitutes the corresponding voiced
> alveolar stop, one obtains "Bard." The show is carried by the Fox (fOX
> is an anagram of "Oxf."!) network. Bart's mother's name is Marge, and I
> scarcely need remind you of the Marges in both Oxford's and
> Shakespeare's family tree. Get busy, Art!
Why? You're doing the work.
Art Neuendorffer
John W. Kennedy
> I looked up every reference to Howard in the RGPL from the 1920's until
> after his death. I read every New York Times and London Times article
> published about him, and I read every article he wrote and every interview
> he gave during the last 20 years of his life. (Did you know he was friends
> with F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife?) There is not one jot of evidence
> that he was an Oxfordian or any other variety of antiStratfordian.
And I just rewatched the movie. It's a favorite of mine, but I hadn't
checked it since it came up here. I had forgotten how late the
references to Oxford-as-Shakespeare come. It is not until the villain
knows that Smith is the mysterious Rescuer, and Smith knows that the
villain knows. The only reason Smith is still alive and free is that
the villain is too proud to arrest Smith with no concrete evidence at
all, even though, as a high-ranking Nazi, he could. So we're in the
middle of a verbal chess game, with almost a dozen lives at stake --
/and only then/ does Smith bring up the Oxford theory as part of his
obstinate sticking to his chosen role of absent-minded half-wit.
If Howard _had_ been an Oxfordian, he could not possibly have introduced
the Oxford theory at this point. It would have been a dramatic
obscenity, like a Hamlet interrupting the graveyard scene with an
interpolated speech about Catholic rights, or Blanche DuBois making an
impassioned plea to shut down the HUAC.
Just another example of the complete inability of Oxfordians to
comprehend the nature of drama.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
David L. Webb
odin...@csulb.edu (BCD) wrote:
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<UrudnSTHwfP...@comcast.com>...
> > "BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote
> >
> > > ***One wonders if it's just a pathological propensity to rage
> > > against what is perceived as "authority" or "the accepted,"
> >
> > What about the pathological propensity to accept without
> > question what is perceived as "authority" or "the accepted,"
> ***Such as what comes as accepted from the authority Art Neuendorffer?
> Do you object to our questioning that authority?
>
> ***What about the pathological propensity to assume that questioning
> authority mandates an inevitable subsequent rejection of authority?
> Or that anyone who has accepted "authority" or "the accepted" has not
> at some time questioned either or both ...? What about the
> pathological propensity to assume that any piece of data is suspect
> simply by virtue of the fact that it happens to support "the
> accepted"? What indeed about the prejudice of assuming that, because
> more people have accepted something, that something must therefore be
> wrong, and those who accepted it must therefore be less acute than
> you?
>
> ***I question such assumptions.
Very well put. No doubt Art approves of "Dr." Faker's questioning of
authority in the case of NASA's account of the Apollo lunar landings.
Art may well also approve of Elizabeth Weird's questioning of authority
in the case of the special theory of relativity, of Mr. Streitz's brave
questioning of authority in the matter of the Bernoulli Principle, etc.
To paraphrase Sokal, if Art doubts authority in the matter of the law of
universal gravitation, I invite him to take a long walk on a short pier.
Art Neuendorffer
> > >
> > > > ***One wonders if it's just a pathological propensity to rage
> > > > against what is perceived as "authority" or "the accepted,"
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > What about the pathological propensity to accept without
> > > question what is perceived as "authority" or "the accepted,"
> odin...@csulb.edu (BCD) wrote:
>
> > ***Such as what comes as accepted from the authority Art Neuendorffer?
> > Do you object to our questioning that authority?
> >
> > ***What about the pathological propensity to assume that questioning
> > authority mandates an inevitable subsequent rejection of authority?
> > Or that anyone who has accepted "authority" or "the accepted" has not
> > at some time questioned either or both ...? What about the
> > pathological propensity to assume that any piece of data is suspect
> > simply by virtue of the fact that it happens to support "the
> > accepted"? What indeed about the prejudice of assuming that, because
> > more people have accepted something, that something must therefore be
> > wrong, and those who accepted it must therefore be less acute than
> > you?
> >
> > ***I question such assumptions.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> if Art doubts authority in the matter of the law of universal
> gravitation, I invite him to take a long walk on a short pier.
UniVEREsal? VERE was a "short Peer."
-----------------------------------------------------
King John Act 2, Scene 1
KING JOHN Alack, thou dost usurp AUTHORITY.
Act 4, Scene 2
KING JOHN It is the curse of kings to be attended
By slaves that take their humours for a warrant
To break within the bloody house of life,
And on the WINKing of AUTHORITY
To understand a LAW, to know the meaning
Of dangerous majesty, when perchance it frowns
More upon humour than advised respect.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Winter's Tale Act 4, Scene 4
Clown: He seems to be of great AUTHORITY: close with him,
give him gold; and though AUTHORITY be a stubborn
bear, yet he is oft led by the NOSE with gold: show
the inside of your purse to the outside of his hand,
and no more ado. Remember 'stoned,' and 'flayed alive
-----------------------------------------------------
King Lear Act 4, Scene 6
KING LEAR: There thou mightst behold the great
image of AUTHORITY: a dog's obeyed in office.
-----------------------------------------------------
Measure for Measure Act 1, Scene 2
CLAUDIO Thus can the demigod AUTHORITY
Make us pay down for our offence by weight
The words of heaven; on whom it will, it will;
On whom it will not, so; yet still 'tis just.
Act 2, Scene 2
ANGELO Thieves for their robbery have AUTHORITY
-----------------------------------------------------
Love's Labour's Lost Act 4, Scene 3
LONGAVILLE O, some AUTHORITY how to proceed;
Some tricks, some quillets, how to cheat the devil [i.e. Webb]
-----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
BCD
***
[...] The spirit that I have seen
May be a devil, and the devil hath power
T'assume a pleasing shape, yea, and perhaps
Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
As he is very potent with such spirits,
Abuses me to damn me. [...]
Hamlet II:2
Paul Crowley
news:F22cc.829$YK.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> > I looked up every reference to Howard in the RGPL from the 1920's until
> > after his death. I read every New York Times and London Times article
> > published about him, and I read every article he wrote and every interview
> > he gave during the last 20 years of his life. (Did you know he was friends
> > with F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife?) There is not one jot of evidence
> > that he was an Oxfordian or any other variety of antiStratfordian.
>
> And I just rewatched the movie. It's a favorite of mine, but I hadn't
> checked it since it came up here. I had forgotten how late the
> references to Oxford-as-Shakespeare come. It is not until the villain
> knows that Smith is the mysterious Rescuer, and Smith knows that the
> villain knows. The only reason Smith is still alive and free is that
> the villain is too proud to arrest Smith with no concrete evidence at
> all, even though, as a high-ranking Nazi, he could. So we're in the
> middle of a verbal chess game, with almost a dozen lives at stake --
> /and only then/ does Smith bring up the Oxford theory as part of his
> obstinate sticking to his chosen role of absent-minded half-wit.
>
> If Howard _had_ been an Oxfordian, he could not possibly have introduced
> the Oxford theory at this point. It would have been a dramatic
> obscenity, like a Hamlet interrupting the graveyard scene with an
> interpolated speech about Catholic rights, or Blanche DuBois making an
> impassioned plea to shut down the HUAC.
>
> Just another example of the complete inability of Oxfordians to
> comprehend the nature of drama.
Which Oxfordians have actually claimed that
Leslie Howard supported the cause?
I suspect that your information on them comes
entirely from the likes of Veal or Reedy -- in other
words, they are, in effect, fictitious strawmen.
And strawmen Oxfordians are SO much easier to
knock down than real ones. Also they have the
great virtue of not answering back. They don't
regularly make you look ridiculous and ignorant.
That's why Veal and Reedy adore them. They
prefer to give real live Oxfordians a very wide
berth.
Let's try to discuss something more sensible,
such as, for example, when and where the poet
acquired his love for the aesthetics of the Old
Religion. Or do I get the impression that is a
yet another topic Strats prefer to avoid?
Paul.
bookburn
Can you provide an example of your idea that the poet loves Old
Religion, not just medieval aesthetics, as in codes of knighthood? I
assume you say a religious criterion is involved that applies to art.
bb