Re: REDATING THE TEMPEST:If any Shakespeare play could definitively be dated after 1604, then de Vere is kicked to the curb, UNQUOTE.
Tom Reedy
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> On Mar 20, 12:32 pm, Lyra <M.Q.at....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 8:30 pm, Lyra wrote:
>
> > (quote)
>
> > Wednesday, March 19, 2008
>
> (Lyra quoting a blogger, Mark Alexander?).
>
> > The Tempest was written before 1604.
>
> There's much scientific evidence to the contrary.
>
> Dr. Dean Simonton, a leading scholar in the area of
> scientific studies of genius and creativity states at
> UC Davis states that Stratfordian dating of the plays
> is correct and the Oxfordian dating of the plays is wrong.
>
> That means that the Oxfordians are wrong about
> Redating The Tempest and that the Jacobean plays
> are not going to be moved into the Elizabethan era
> just to get around the problem of the date of Oxford's
> decease.
>
> I was searching around for some verification of Oxford's
> 5th grade accessibility score on the Cornell Lex when
> I came upong Prof. Simonton's seven stylometric studies
> of Oxfords texts v. the Shakespeare texts (Simonton is
> also an expert in this area).
>
> After studying Simonton's method and results, I felt that
> Simonton was overinterpreting the conclusions.
>
> Apparently Simonton came to the same view a year or
> so later since all traces of Oxford, his alleged authorship,
> and Simonton's stylometric studies on Oxford v Shakespeare
> had been taken down from his website.
>
> Further proof that Simonton no longer supports Oxfordian
> authorship is in Simonton's own statements below.
>
> In the abstract for his article, Thematic Content and
> Political Context In Shakespeare's Dramatic Output,
> With Implications for Authorship and Chronology
>
> Controversies, Simonton writes:
>
> Empirical studies of Shakespeare's plays have usually
> assumed that the traditional Stratfordian chronology is
> basically correct. This assumption is cast in doubt by
> Oxfordians who claim that the plays were authored by
> Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.
>
> However, prior investigations have shown that Strat-
> fordian chronologies are more strongly supported by
> stylometric analyses than are Oxfordian chronologies.
>
> In this study the two authorship positions are evaluated
> by examining the correlation between the thematic
> content of the plays and the political context in which
> the plays would be written according to rival sets of
> dates.
>
> Stratfordian chronologies, when lagged just two years,
> yield substantively meaningful associations between
> thematic content and political context, whereas Oxfordian
> chronologies YEILD NO RELATIONSHIPS, however lagged.
> Hence, ONLY the Stratfordian results are consistent with
> previous research indicating that artistic creativity is respon-
> sive to conspicuous political events.
>
> (emphasis mine).
>
> I would add that Strats have designed over one hundred
> and twenty peer-reviewed stylometric studies, each one
> measuring some element of the text, each one distinct
> from the others, all studies coming to the same conclusion:
> The traditional dating of the Shakespeare works based on
> topical material is correct, the topical evidencel in turn
> supoorts the scientific dating of the plays.
>
> I'm not claiming that Simonton's paper is sufficient to
> overturn Oxfordian claims to authorship but Simonton's paper
> confirms Stratfordian findings and Stratfordian findings
> confirm Simonton's conclusions.
>
> Now that the Oxfordians have managed to get the Oxford-
> ian case into academia, the Oxfordians are going to come
> up against more than mere literary criticism, they're going
> to be exposed to a thorough scientific critique. I don't doubt
> that Don Foster will jump into it and Vickers right after.
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/23skl5>
> <http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Simonton/default.html#E>
>
> Thanks, Lyra.
>
> **************************************************************
You are laboring under a delusion.
All the evidence in the world would not convince an Oxfordian that
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, because their belief does not rest on
historical or logical premises. In fact, it is based on no evidence
whatsoever. The belief in Oxford fulfills some type of psychological
need or wish fantasy, so it's not subject to logical or historical or
any type of evidence in the conventional sense of the word.
The danger in Oxfordism or any kind of antiStratfordism is not that
any of the ideas is going to take the place of the conventional
Shakespeare scholarship; the only real danger is that it promotes
sloppy and unsound thinking. (Of course there is all that wasted life,
too, but the believers, like delusionists or addicts of all kinds,
don't really seem to mind. It does, after all, give them something to
do.)
TR
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are laboring under a delusion.
>
> All the evidence in the world would not convince an Oxfordian that
> Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, because their belief does not rest
> on historical or logical premises. In fact, it is based on no evidence
> whatsoever. The belief in Oxford fulfills some type of psychological
> need or wish fantasy, so it's not subject to logical or historical or
> any type of evidence in the conventional sense of the word.
>
> The danger in Oxfordism or any kind of antiStratfordism is not that
> any of the ideas is going to take the place of the conventional
> Shakespeare scholarship; the only real danger is
> that it promotes sloppy and unsound thinking.
13 people were burned at the stake on June 27, 1556
at STRATFORD atte Bowe [in London]. One of them:
.
_ "John Routh said, that he was convented
_ before the [16th] earle of Oxford,
_ and by him sent to the Castle of Colchester:"
------------------------------------------------------
____ STRATFORD upon Avon
________ Guild Chapel
_______ white-WASHING
_______ CHAMBERLAIN
________ ALDERMAN/Bailiff
_________________________ /----------------------\
______________ John ----- MARY MARgerY Webbe
_____ [wrote his 'marke'] | [wrote her 'marke']__[d. St.Adrian's]
__[bur. St.Adrian's Day]- | [d. St.Adrian's Day]
_________________ |
_______ /---------------\ ___________ [illiterate]
. MARgerY Shakspere ------------ Anne
_______________ | [b. 1556]
_ [BROOK House] __ | [only son,
___ [Shaxpere's Boys] | b.1584, dies]
___- [Shaxpere Gloves] |
___- [ *TANNERY* ] |
__ [TINer of AVERland] __ |
_ [Cervantes' "lame hand" ] |
___ [W. Smith : mentor] |
|||||| [Catholic Relatives persecuted] |
____ [Thomas Trussell] |
_ [Sweet Swan of Avon] |
___ [By ME : WIL(cu)L] __ |
____- [Bend Spear crest] |
_______- [Golding's 'OVID'] |
__ [Camden's: 'pregnant witt'] |
______ [Qu. of Scots Trial] |
___ [Yoricke's Scounce] |
___ ["Gentleman" poet] |
_ [NESTOR reference] |
|||||||||| [MERMAID tAVERn] __ |
_ ['For TRUTH is TRUTH'] |
_____- [Paul's 'I am that I am'] |
|||||| [Hamlet's 'To Be or not To Be'] |
|||||||||| [stole from Raphael Holinshed] |
- [1586 deer park poacher] |
||||||||||||||||| [pinch-FART penny-FATheR] |
||||||||||||||||| [1616 Faust/FAMA Frat. death] |
|||||||||||||||||| [John Manningham's 1602 diary] |
_-- [£1,000/year for 18 years] |
_ [- Item, £10 unto the poore ] |
| [ARD(en) plot/tower/exec.]__ |
------___ [7 Year exile for indiscretion] |
||||||| [Stephen Bellott dowry: £200] |
||||||| [Hothead Gastrell: Esdras 6:9] |
||||||||||||||||||| [Anne Cornwaleys book 1588?] |
|||||||||||||| [not a *COMPANY* keeper ] |
|||||||||| [Richard Field recognized 1593] |
||||||||||||||||| [Meres' Top 10 in comedy 1598] |
|||||||||||||||||||[Baroness Elizabeth of Abbingdon] |
|||||||||||||||||||[drunken B.Knell suicide attack] |
___________________ |
|||||||||||||||| [falcon w./spear in dexter CLAW] |
_____ [ Henry Evans > ____ |
|||| 1608 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.] |
||||||||||||||||| dies unnoticed / tomb unmarked |
||||| Church Burial Record "X"ed |
___________________ |
______ Hall M.D. -------- SVSANna
|||||||| [d. on Lope de Vega's 73rd birthday [b.May 26, 1583]
_ 3 mo. after Lope dies] ____ [could write name]
______________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------
_____ STRATFORD atte Bowe
________ Pontius Pilate
______ hand-WASHING
___ GREAT CHAMBERLAIN
_____ EALDORMAN/Bailiff
_______ John ----------- MARgerY
________ |
___ /-----------\ ___ m. on OPALIA [Sonneteer]
. MARY Oxford --------------- Anne
________________ | [b. 1556]
- [BROOKE House] __ |[only son dies
_______ [Oxford's Boys] | b.May 1583]
_______- [Oxford Gloves] |
_______- [ *STANNARY* ] |
__ [TINner of VEREland] __ |
_ [Cervantes' "lame hand" ] |
______ [T. Smith : mentor] |
|||| [Catholic Relatives persecuted] |
_____ [Thomas Trussell] |
___ [Sweet Oxford/Ned] |
___ [yb NV : DRO(fx)O] __ |
______- [bent Spear crest] |
_______ [Golding's 'OVID'] |
__ [Golding's 'pregnancy of wit'] |
______ [Qu. of Scots Trial] |
__- [Yorke's Scounces] |
___ ["Gentleman" poet] |
- [NESTOR reference] |
|||||||||||| [MERMAID grand-dam] |
. ['For TRUTH is TRUTH'] |
______ [Paul's 'I am that I am'] |
- [Hamlet's 'være eller ikke være'] |
|||||||||| [judged by Raphael Holinshed] |
_ [1604 deer park warden] |
|||||||| [bend-FART quenny-forgetter] |
|||||||||||||||[1604 Faust/FAMA Frat. death] |
|||||||||||||| [John Manningham's 1602 diary] |
___ [£1,000/year for 18 years] |
__ [- Item, £10 unto a Beggar ] |
|| [(how)ARD plot/tower/exec.] |
____- [7 Year exile for indiscretion] |
||||||| [Thomas Bellott dowry: £2,000] |
|| [Hothead Gastrell: Esdras 6:9] |
|||||||||| [Anne Cornwaleys book 1588?] ||| |
||||||||| [denouncing aye the *Company* ] ||||| |
|| [Richard Field recognized 1589] ||| |
||||||||| [Meres' Top 10 in comedy 1598] ||| |
|||||||| [Baroness Elizabeth of Abingdon] ||| |
|| [drunken B-Knell suicide attack] || |
_____________________ |
||||||||||[lion w./broken lance in dexter PAW]|| |
________ [ Henry Evans > |
_ 1583 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.] |
|||||||||||| dies unnoticed / tomb unmarked |
- Church Burial Record "X"ed ___ |
_____________________ |
_________ Herbert (Philip) ----- SVSAN
||||| [b. St. LONGINUS day] [b. May 26]
_______________________________________________
"I admit that some of them are not VERy important . . .
. but look at *the NUMBER of* them"
. - Sam Spade ( Maltese FALCON)
.
Sam Diamond: You pit your wits with me, little man,
and you won't have your wits to pit with, know what I mean?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
accepted Oxford as Shakespeare confirmed it, his dropping Oxford
because of stylistic studies doubly confirms it. But I have to say
I'm surprised he was able to change his mind. I have to give him
credit for that.
--Bob G.
nordicskiv2
<fada4898-4b3b-4818...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > chronologies YEILD [sic] NO RELATIONSHIPS, however lagged.
> > Hence, ONLY the Stratfordian results are consistent with
> > previous research indicating that artistic creativity is respon-
> > sive to conspicuous political events.
> >
> > (emphasis mine).
Obviously.
> > I would add that Strats have designed over one hundred
> > and twenty peer-reviewed stylometric studies, each one
> > measuring some element of the text, each one distinct
> > from the others, all studies coming to the same conclusion:
> > The traditional dating of the Shakespeare works based on
> > topical material is correct, the topical evidencel in turn
> > supoorts the scientific dating of the plays.
> >
> > I'm not claiming that Simonton's paper is sufficient to
> > overturn Oxfordian claims to authorship but Simonton's paper
> > confirms Stratfordian findings and Stratfordian findings
> > confirm Simonton's conclusions.
> >
> > Now that the Oxfordians have managed to get the Oxford-
> > ian case into academia, the Oxfordians are going to come
> > up against more than mere literary criticism, they're going
> > to be exposed to a thorough scientific critique. I don't doubt
> > that Don Foster will jump into it and Vickers right after.
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/23skl5>
> > <http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Simonton/default.html#E>
> >
> > Thanks, Lyra.
> >
> > **************************************************************
> You are laboring under a delusion.
Correction: Elizabeth is laboring under a plethora of delusions;
indeed, this one is among the most innocuous of the lot.
> All the evidence in the world would not convince an Oxfordian that
> Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, because their belief does not rest on
> historical or logical premises.
...just as all the scientific evidence and mathematical proof in
the world does not convince science cranks like Elizabeth that their
angle trisection algorithms, "refutations" of relativity, etc. are
incorrect, because their belief does not rest upon empirical or
logical premises, but rather upon _a priori_ ideological biases.
> In fact, it is based on no evidence
> whatsoever.
...apart from invented "evidence," some of which is exceedingly
amusing.
> The belief in Oxford fulfills some type of psychological
> need or wish fantasy, so it's not subject to logical or historical or
> any type of evidence in the conventional sense of the word.
...just as Elizabeth's belief in the failure of special relativity
is based upon no evidence whatever, fulfilling instead some sort of
bizarre ideological fantasy not subject to logical or empirical
evidence.
> The danger in Oxfordism or any kind of antiStratfordism is not that
> any of the ideas is going to take the place of the conventional
> Shakespeare scholarship;
...just as there is no danger that Elizabeth's crank pseudo-science
is going to take the place of conventional relativistic kinematics.
> the only real danger is that it promotes
> sloppy and unsound thinking.
> (Of course there is all that wasted life,
> too, but the believers, like delusionists or addicts of all kinds,
> don't really seem to mind. It does, after all, give them something to
> do.)
Very well put.
> TR
Art Neuendorffer
> > >
> > > Stratfordian chronologies, when lagged just two years,
> > > yield substantively meaningful associations between
> > > thematic content and political context, whereas Oxfordian
> > > chronologies YEILD [sic] NO RELATIONSHIPS, however lagged.
> > > Hence, ONLY the Stratfordian results are consistent with
> > > previous research indicating that artistic creativity
>
> > > (emphasis mine).
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Obviously.
YELL, v.i. To cry out, or shriek, with a hideous noise;
. to cry or scream as with agony or horror.
.
"Infernal ghosts and hellish furies round Environed thee;
. some howled, some YELL'D." -Milton.
> > > I would add that Strats have designed over one hundred
> > > and twenty peer-reviewed stylometric studies, each one
> > > measuring some element of the text, each one distinct
> > > from the others, all studies coming to the same conclusion:
> > > The traditional dating of the Shakespeare works based on
> > > topical material is correct, the topical evidencel in turn
> > > supoorts the scientific dating of the plays.
>
> > > I'm not claiming that Simonton's paper is sufficient to
> > > overturn Oxfordian claims to authorship but Simonton's paper
> > > confirms Stratfordian findings and Stratfordian findings
> > > confirm Simonton's conclusions.
>
> > > Now that the Oxfordians have managed to get the Oxford-
> > > ian case into academia, the Oxfordians are going to come
> > > up against more than mere literary criticism, they're going
> > > to be exposed to a thorough scientific critique. I don't doubt
> > > that Don Foster will jump into it and Vickers right after.
>
> > > <http://tinyurl.com/23skl5>
> > > <http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Simonton/default.html#E>
.
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > You are laboring under a delusion.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Correction: Elizabeth is laboring under a plethora of delusions;
> indeed, this one is among the most innocuous of the lot.
.
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > All the evidence in the world would not convince an Oxfordian that
> > Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, because their belief does not rest on
> > historical or logical premises.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> ...just as all the scientific evidence and mathematical proof in
> the world does not convince science cranks like Elizabeth that their
> angle trisection algorithms, "refutations" of relativity, etc. are
> incorrect, because their belief does not rest upon empirical or
> logical premises, but rather upon _a priori_ ideological biases.
.
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > In fact, it is based on no evidence whatsoever.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> ...apart from invented "evidence," some of which is exceedingly
> amusing.
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > The belief in Oxford fulfills some type of psychological need
> > or wish fantasy, so it's not subject to logical or historical
> > or any type of evidence in the conventional sense of the word.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> ...just as Elizabeth's belief in the failure of special relativity
> is based upon no evidence whatever, fulfilling instead some sort of
> bizarre ideological fantasy not subject to logical or empirical
> evidence.
Elizabeth wrote: I'm NOT an anti-Strat.
> Politically, I'm aligned with the Strats.
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > The danger in Oxfordism or any kind of antiStratfordism is not
> > that any of the ideas is going to take the place
> > of the conventional Shakespeare scholarship;
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> ...just as there is no danger that Elizabeth's crank pseudo-science
> is going to take the place of conventional relativistic kinematics.
.
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > the only real danger is that it promotes
> > sloppy and unsound thinking.
Well, you and Dwebb don't HAVE TO respond.
> > (Of course there is all that wasted life,
> > too, but the believers, like delusionists or addicts of all kinds,
> > don't really seem to mind. It does, after all,
> > give them something to do.)
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Very well put.
----------------------------------------------------------
Put, n. A rustic; a clown; an awkward or uncouth person.
...........[See Shaksper]
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth
wrote:
>
> > Correction: Elizabeth is laboring under a plethora of delusions;
> > indeed, this one is among the most innocuous of the lot.
> .
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > > All the evidence in the world would not convince an Oxfordian that
> > > Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, because their belief does not rest on
> > > historical or logical premises.
>
>
> > ...just as all the scientific evidence and mathematical proof in
> > the world does not convince science cranks like Elizabeth that their
> > angle trisection algorithms, "refutations" of relativity, etc. are
> > incorrect, because their belief does not rest upon empirical or
> > logical premises, but rather upon _a priori_ ideological biases.
> .
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > > In fact, it is based on no evidence whatsoever.
>
------------------------------------------------------
I rest my case.
------------------------------------------------------
> read more »
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>>> All the evidence in the world would not convince an Oxfordian that
>>>> Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, because their belief does not
>>>> rest on historical or logical premises.
>
>> .nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> ...just as all the scientific evidence and mathematical proof in
>>> the world does not convince science cranks like Elizabeth that
>>> their angle trisection algorithms, "refutations" of relativity, etc. are
>>> incorrect, because their belief does not rest upon empirical or
>>> logical premises, but rather upon _a priori_ ideological biases.
>> .
>>> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
>>>> In fact, it is based on no evidence whatsoever.
>
>> .nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> ...apart from invented "evidence,"
>>> some of which is exceedingly amusing.
>
> I rest my case.
I believe that's my case.
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth
wrote:
I thought it was an anomaly.
Ms. Mouse
> > All the evidence in the world would not convince an Oxfordian that
> > Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, because their belief does not rest on
> > historical or logical premises.
This is a very interesting beginning sentence. It starts by speaking
about "an Oxfordian." Which Oxfordian would this be? Roger? Me?
Someone else? In any case, you must know of whom you're speaking
because "all the evidence in the world" would not persuade whoever it
is that "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare." How do you know this? One
might as well say that no amount of evidence would convince a
Stratfordian that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. Would you say this is
true? If so, true of whom? Which Stratfordian would we be talking
about? In the second half of the sentence you progress from the
particular to the general. You are now speaking of ALL Oxfordians,
whose beliefs apparently do not rest on either historical or logical
premises. Apart from the fact that your grammar is faulty, your
statement is true of only SOME Oxfordians as well as SOME
Stratfordians, as you well know. I can point a couple of the
Stratfordian ones out to you, if you so wish, although I'm sure you
can do it for yourself.
>>In fact, it is based on no evidence whatsoever.
This is untrue. It is merely based on evidence you don't accept.
>>The belief in Oxford fulfills some type of psychological need or wish fantasy, so it's >>not subject to logical or >>historical or any type of evidence in the conventional sense of >>the word.
How do you know that belief in Oxford fulfils some "psychological need
or fantasy"? Perhaps it does for some, just as it does for some
Stratfordians who need to feel that a common man could have written
the canon because it would mean that nothing is unattainable. But for
most Oxfordians it's an aggregate of a subtle but nonetheless present
kind of evidence that suggests to us that Oxford is the author, just
as the name on the plays and the monument suggests to you that WS of
Stratford is the author.
> >
> > The danger in Oxfordism or any kind of antiStratfordism is not that
>> any of the ideas is going to take the place of the conventional
> > Shakespeare scholarship; the only real danger is that it promotes
> > sloppy and unsound thinking.
Well, I can only hope it's not as sloppy and unsound as the thinking
that led you to write this post.
> > (Of course there is all that wasted life,
> > too, but the believers, like delusionists or addicts of all kinds,
> > don't really seem to mind. It does, after all, give them something to
> > do.)
Whose life is more unsound? I would suggest it's the life of someone
who spends his time insulting the work and the belief of others rather
than getting on with evidencing his own case.
In other words, this is a truly silly post, Tommy boy. I'm sorry you
didn't realize it before committing it to paper. Perhaps you need to
go back to bed and exit on the other side.
And no, I'm not going to argue further about it. I'm much too busy.
Mouse
rstrit...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Food for thought:
http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html
Greg Reynolds
> Food for thought:
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html
On Mar 23, 10:14 am, rstritmat...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Food for thought:
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html
Thank you, Roger. I lightly scanned this document and I will read it
diligently. When I respond, I will welcome your own participation.
I see already that the title word "pseudonymous" is unsupported and
abandoned, and the reason is that the article does not intend to
responsibly address authorship. I see, though, that you are praised
within, Roger. Thanks for sharing. We'll look at that.
If this be food for thought, let it be nutritious to a thinking
person.
If not, Roger, well, please let Richard know we'll be chewing on it
this week. He may want to see what is food and what is wholly
unpalatable Oxfordian leftoVERs.
Let me say again that Oxfordian vagueness, falsehood, and spite will
not be tolerated if the only goal is to discredit Shakespeare.
You are the aggressors. You are on the offense. And when Oxfordians
lie to discredit Shakespeare, they are the villians and I will rub
their faces in it and demand they change their mischievous words.
This can only be as friendly a discussion as you want it to be.
Don't tread on Shakespeare.
When I respond, I will expect justification or retraction of
statements. We've been through this before and we've seen retraction
by you, making me wonder why you bothered in the first place. Please
alert Richard M. Waugaman he will get a public reading here and he may
want to participate.
Lynne claims to be busy? Well, she may find herself even busier!
I recall a similar episode with a Dr. Altrocchi. Why are you
Oxfordians so devoted to shipwrecks?
Greg Reynolds,
"treating Oxfordians better than they treat Shakespeare" -- since 1998
Ms. Mouse
> On Mar 23, 10:14 am, rstritmat...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Food for thought:
>
> >http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html
>
> On Mar 23, 10:14 am, rstritmat...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Food for thought:
>
> >http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html
>
> Thank you, Roger. I lightly scanned this document and I will read it
> diligently. When I respond, I will welcome your own participation.
>
> I see already that the title word "pseudonymous" is unsupported and
> abandoned, and the reason is that the article does not intend to
> responsibly address authorship. I see, though, that you are praised
> within, Roger. Thanks for sharing. We'll look at that.
>
> If this be food for thought, let it be nutritious to a thinking
> person.
> If not, Roger, well, please let Richard know we'll be chewing on it
> this week. He may want to see what is food and what is wholly
> unpalatable Oxfordian leftoVERs.
>
> Let me say again that Oxfordian vagueness, falsehood, and spite will
> not be tolerated if the only goal is to discredit Shakespeare.
>
> You are the aggressors. You are on the offense. And when Oxfordians
> lie to discredit Shakespeare, they are the villians and I will rub
> their faces in it and demand they change their mischievous words.
Oh Greg, give it a rest, for heaven's sake. No one would know from
reading this what a nice person you are.
>
> This can only be as friendly a discussion as you want it to be.
> Don't tread on Shakespeare.
>
> When I respond, I will expect justification or retraction of
> statements. We've been through this before and we've seen retraction
> by you, making me wonder why you bothered in the first place. Please
> alert Richard M. Waugaman he will get a public reading here and he may
> want to participate.
>
> Lynne claims to be busy? Well, she may find herself even busier!
Lynne is busy. Sometimes she's not, but at the moment she is. Very
busy. Lynne's time is limited, and at the moment she's finished a new
novel that's getting a look see at a publisher's, and has started
research on another. She is also reading a very interesting book and
cooking a turkey with all the trimmings, as well as helping edit some
articles that Greg no doubt wouldn't like. In any event, Lynne is
generally not interested in participating in authorship discussions
that inevitably include gratuitous insults.
Happy Easter.
Mouse
Elizabeth
rstritmat...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 20, 11:30�pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 11:03 pm, Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Food for thought:
How many decades did Freud and his ridiculous
unscientific theories reign supreme in medical
schools, Roger.
Freud's 'science' had less science in it than
Goldilock's empirical testing of the porridge, the
chairs and the beds. This one is too hot, this one
is too cold, this one is just right. Freud couldn't
get that far.
Since Freud and Looney shill their theories in
the same form of romantic Victorian brain-
entraining rhetoric, it's no wonder that ex-Freudians fall right into
line behind Looney.
It's involuntary.
If Freudianism can be thoroughly debunked,
Looney is next because every Looney claim
is not only ridiculous on the face of it, nothing
is supported by FACT.
In rhetoric we call this a narrative unsupported
by evidence.
I'm writing a post on the hard marriage law
in Romeo and Juliet yet we are supposed to
believe that a feudal twelve year old, one who
was never called a genius (in his life), wrote
Romeo and Juliet to bring attention to the
post-Tridentine crisis in marriage law?
How insane is this?
(1562), "The Tragical History of Romeus and
Juliet" proposed by Ogburn to be a CHILDHOOD
work of Oxford, under the pseudonym Arthur
Brooke.
We know from Oxford's letters to Cecil ca 1600
that Oxford knew nothing about law, he let an
inhieritance of a hundred manners slip through his
hands because he couldn't follow the process.
Yet the author of the Shakespeare works writes
three plays about the crises in marriage law, each
play illustrating one of the three contradictory forms of English
marriage (Taming, Measure and
(R & J).
This author not only KNOWS law he knew
how to make it the basis of his plots. Brian
Jay Corrigan, PhD, J.D., shows that Antony
& Cleopatra is PLOTTED OVER, the Statute
of Uses. The Statute of Uses features in nearly
all the Shakespeare plays yet this is the very Statute that cost
Oxford, who didn't have a clue about what was going on at the hearing
before
the Board of Escheaters, his Danvers escheat
to one of the finest fiefs in England.
I am personally sorry that Oxford was deprived
of his rightful inheritance because Oxford changed
at the end of his life, but Danvers had used the
'use' to tie up his hundred manors knowing that he
was going to commit treason.
The Queen only used her vassal Oxford to seize the estates.
Depressing especially since Oxford was by then a changed man, no doubt
thanks to his highly intelligent Catholic wife.
Francis, Lord Verulam (his proper name), wrote his
Double Reader (post-graduate degree) on the Statute of Uses, his
Reading on the Statute of Uses still appears in law school syllabi.
Oxfordians have never been introduced to the
historical Oxford. Oxford was a feudal earl, the
Shakespeare works are English Reformation and
all the plays focus on reform.
In his Cogita et Visa,Verulam states that he
will write 'productions for the people,and that
those productions will pit morality against the human passions. He
adds that there will be
those who will 'try to imitate these productions
but will fail.'
Do you wonder why the plays are so stuffed
with law?
And incidently, that's the Protestant Anne Cecil's
Geneva Bible. What Kathman calls 'a juvenile hand'
is HER juvenile hand. Oxford was R.C. and that
bible was at the top of the Index of the Council of
Trent. By the post-Tridentine reforms of the 1570s
Oxford was permitted to read a Catholic translation
of the New Testament, in fact he gave Erasmus'
translation to Cecil as an engagement gift. A slap
in the face to a Calvinist Puritan and a portent of tragedies to come.
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html
Greg Reynolds
Happy Easter to you, Lynne, though you have neVER resurrected Oxford
to any status other than disappointed would-be tin, wool, oil, and
fruit purveyor.
i picture Oxfordians over a pot of boiled eggs yelling "Dye! Dye!
Dye!"
Greg Reynolds
i've read Oxford.
I've downloaded Oxford.
Shakespeare, Lynne, is no Oxford!
ben-Jonson
>
> - Show quoted text -
For the record, I have as little interest, Elizabeth, in responding to
your baiting as you apparently do in understanding the significance of
Dr. Waugamun's participation in the authorship question.
I posted the link as a notice to those here who may wish to take
notice of the fact that Shakespearean orthodoxy is continuing to lose
the battle for the hearts and minds of the wider anglo-American
intelligentsia.
For those interested in more about who Dr. Waugaman is, here is his
google scholar portfolio:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=r+waugaman&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=0&sa=N
That's all I have to say. Carry on.
Elizabeth
<snip>
> > Happy Easter.
>
> > Mouse
>
> Happy Easter to you, Lynne, though you have neVER resurrected Oxford
> to any status other than disappointed would-be tin, wool, oil, and
> fruit purveyor.
>
> i picture Oxfordians over a pot of boiled eggs yelling "Dye! Dye!
> Dye!"
>
> Greg Reynolds
Were this the sixteenth century this
post would cost you a thumb, as it
is I fear it could cost you a friend.
I don't see this in terms of individual
persons, we're having a quarrel about
IDEAS (and 16th century papers).
> i've read Oxford.
> I've downloaded Oxford.
> Shakespeare, Lynne, is no Oxford!
I can support that statement. At this
point all the authorship candidates
have been reduced (by death) to
mere words in the works of their
biographers.
The question is really which biographer
is giving us a true picture of the author
of the Shakespeare works.
I can't find it in Looney.
Even Spedding was caught in the act
of supressing certain documents that
suggested that Verulam wrote
Shakespeare.
My rant is against Oxford's biographer
Looney, not against Oxford himself who
like Moore was really caught out of his
time.
Elizabeth
ben-Jonson wrote:
> On Mar 23, 3:09 pm, Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> That's all I have to say. Carry on.
That's one Oxfordian statement that can
be taken literally.
Greg Reynolds
> For the record, I have as little interest, Elizabeth, in responding to
> your baiting as you apparently do in understanding the significance of
> Dr. Waugamun's participation in the authorship question.
It is good to know what you're playing for.
> I posted the link as a notice to those here who may wish to take
> notice of the fact that Shakespearean orthodoxy is continuing to lose
> the battle for the hearts and minds of the wider anglo-American
> intelligentsia.
Hearts and minds it is.
We will appeal to hearts and minds, right here.
You and Dr. Waugamun will attack Shakespeare.
... wow do you look ready, Roger!...
And for the practice, I will defend.
Our battleground? The food for thought!
http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html
> For those interested in more about who Dr. Waugaman is, here is his
> google scholar portfolio:
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=r+waugaman&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sta...
>
> That's all I have to say. Carry on.
10-4
oVER and out
Elizabeth
> On Mar 23, 3:09 pm, Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For those interested in more about who Dr. Waugaman is, here is his
> google scholar portfolio:
>
What, other than speculation on the sanity of
Shakespeare authorship disputants, does
Waugaman's academic specialty to do with
the question of Shakespeare authorship?
I posted on an EXPERT in the field of the study
of genius and creativity, Dr. Dean Simonton.
Simonton is apparently a one-time Oxfordian
since he has taken down the pages on the seven
stylometric studies he designed to test Oxford's
genius against the genius of the author of the
Shakespeare works .Oxford flunked all seven.
Simonton fairly gushed in his enthusiasm for
His Lordshippe but he's not gushing anymore.
Simonton has not only taken down his Oxford
pages, he has also written a paper in which he
states that his reivew of Strat stylometric studies
confirms that the plays are not going to be redated
to Oxford's lifetime.
Simonton is an expert in this area.
Oxfordians are wasting their time, Roger. Over
one hundred and twenty stylometric studies, each
independently conducted, each confirming the
dating the others, PROVE that Oxford did not
write the Shakespeare works.
You can publish all the literaryl criticism you like,
Oxfordianism is not going to be able to overturn
this settled science.
And Simonton has three or four many times the
publications on Google Scholar as Waugaman.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,750 for dean simonton.
Results 1 - 10 of about 565 for r waugaman.
Take a look at this curriculum vitae.
Ignoto
> On Mar 23, 10:14 am, rstritmat...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Food for thought:
>>
>> http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html
>
>
> On Mar 23, 10:14 am, rstritmat...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Food for thought:
>>
>> http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html
>
>
> Thank you, Roger. I lightly scanned this document and I will read it
> diligently. When I respond, I will welcome your own participation.
I like this:
"He employed a handwriting expert who verified with high confidence that
the notes the margins of the Folger’s 1570 Bible were in fact written by
de Vere."
then:
"De Vere used several methods to mark Biblical passages – he might
underline the entire verse, or underline the verse number, or write a
key word in the margin, or draw a fleur-de-lys in the margin (a medieval
form of annotation that he still used)"
Which is (to use a phrase coined by Strawson) a non sequitur of mind
numbing grossness.
Then this:
"But literary studies lack a reliable methodology to evaluate such
authorship claims."
Actually the 'methodology' does exist. It's called history. The
historical evidence for Shakespeare of Stratford is completely
dispositive of the authorship 'dispute'. Of course anti-stratfordians
pay no attention to historical method, preferring to pursue their own
sui generis modes of analysis - like, e.g. the completely non-sensical
claim that Oxford's life can be seen in the Shakespeare plays therefore
Oxford wrote Shakespeare.
As for the comments on Wegener- scientific method is hardly an apt
comparison for anti-stratfordinia. Science has the ability to discover
new facts about the world that are basically dispositive of any
(rational) dispute. Contiental drift is a good example of this.
Anti-stratfordinia on the other had typically makes no new factual
discoveries but instead produce new 'evidence' by re-interpretation (see
Diana Price for a perfect example of this). Anti-stratfordiania then is
just a kind of hermeneutics for the historically inept. This is not to
say that anti-stratfordinia won;t find a place in the academy- there are
plenty of crackpot theories parading in academicals- in this, the age of
post-Neitzschean nihilism, an inability to assess the true value (or
truth) of theory is (unfortunately) not unique.
Then the 'compelling' evidence is cited:
"We have abundant evidence that he was regarded by his contemporaries as
the best of the Elizabethan courtier poets"
Which abundant evidence is that? The fact that Oxenforde was an Earl
typically propelled him to the top of lists of poets. His existant
poetry tends to confirm that he was inferior to many and superior to few.
"that a few of his contemporaries knew he wrote anonymously"
Which is based on a few *very* controversial re-interpretations. Even if
we accept that he wrote anonymously (there is no good reason why we
should), there is no reason to connect his output with Shakespeare.
"that he sponsored theatrical companies most of his life"
None of which appear, AFAIR, to have played any of the Shakespeare works.
"and that he was regarded as one of the best Elizabethan authors of
comedies".
Again, the fact that he was an Earl pushed him to the top of the list.
We have no existant works by de vere and we have no way to judge the
quality of his composition (unless we decide to imagine he was WS
because "We want to believe he was every bit as perfect as his works").
"There are hundreds of connections between the content of the plays and
poems of Shakespeare and the documented facts of de Vere’s life."
Which is just the fallacious psycho-biography argument.
"The first 17 sonnets entreat a young man to marry..." (I'll just
paraphrase the rest of the 'argument') De vere's father in law was
ordering Southampton (who, by a curious quirk of fate was once 'a young
man') to marry Oxenforde's daughter, THEREFORE de vere wrote those 17
sonnets. To add weight to this 'argument' it is observed that
Shakespeare V&A and Lucrece were dedicated to Southampton, the first
publications by 'Shakes-peare'. Needless to say (for it is evident on
its face) the above 'argument' is completely witout merit. At best all
it can establish is that De Vere's life COULD be MADE to 'fit' in with
certain aspects of Shakespeare's life. But no basis in FACT is offered
for this (no basis in fact CAN be offered because there is no such basis).
Ign.
hj
> For the record, I have as little interest, Elizabeth, in responding to
> your baiting as you apparently do in understanding the significance of
> Dr. Waugamun's participation in the authorship question.
>
> I posted the link as a notice to those here who may wish to take
> notice of the fact that Shakespearean orthodoxy is continuing to lose
> the battle for the hearts and minds of the wider anglo-American
> intelligentsia.
>
> For those interested in more about who Dr. Waugaman is, here is his
> google scholar portfolio:
>
>
> That's all I have to say. Carry on.
==> Yes, I think I will carry on. Waugaman's "significance"?
==> In a letter to the editors of "Psychiatric News" Stritmatter's new
standard bearer trumpets a paper he gave at a conference at which
Dorothy and Jerome Grunes had discussed mothers in Shakespeare's
works. He mentions Freud's very interesting belief and concludes with:
"An excellent resource on de Vere is the superb new biography by Mark
Anderson, "Shakespeare" by Another Name. An impartial review of the
evidence will convince anyone that de Vere's claim is considerably
stronger than that of Shakespeare of Stratford. Although we can't yet
be certain, in my opinion it is time to re-Vere Shakespeare!"
==> Yes. Certainly. This is serious stuff. One wonders what "evidence"
he means. The general documentary record? The wills (including
Will's)? The name on title pages? The praise and criticism from other
people during and after his life? The monument? The First Folio
material? The statistical stylometric analyses? This is so bothersome,
so much of the same old same old. If Stritmatter were correct about
the "hearts and minds" of the intelligentsia, the supposed "fact"
would amount to another sad commentary on our intellectual community.
hj
lackpurity
> Food for thought:
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html
MM:
Saints appear on this earth, and they teach us the truth. After
Saints die, Satan creeps in. Satan will try to confuse everyone,
regarding the authorship, the teachings, etc., in order to lead people
astray. We might take note of the fact that Anti-Stratfordianism
would have been laughed out of Dodge. That is why it didn't even
exist until 150 years after William Shakespeare's death.
If Oxfordianism becomes more popular, it wouldn't be surprising, since
already, 400 years has passed. I'd expect the truth to be less
respected. It's a normal occurence. If we look at the lives of other
past Saints, we see that the truth often becomes altered and
corrupted. Look at how many denominations of Christianity there are.
Many. All claim to be following Christ's teachings. Look at Islam.
Sunnis and Shiites. Look at Buddhism and its many factions. Judaism
started with Judah, son of Jacob and Leah. How many different
versions of Judaism are there, now?
Regarding Oxford's Bible, even if he made some notes of Shakespeare's
Biblical quotes, what woud it mean? It doesn't automatically make him
the author of the canon. Oxford was a follower of the teachings of
the Wilton Cult. He had his ups and down with them, but it certainly
appears that he followed those mystic teachings. So, if he read
Shakespeare, or any other author of the Wilton Cult, and made some
notes on those quotes in the Bible, it wouldn't be at all surprising
to me. It would have nothing to do with the authorship of the canon.
I think that woud be an Anti-Strafordian leap of imagination.
Michael Martin
John W. Kennedy
> All the evidence in the world would not convince an Oxfordian that
> Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, because their belief does not rest on
> historical or logical premises. In fact, it is based on no evidence
> whatsoever. The belief in Oxford fulfills some type of psychological
> need or wish fantasy, so it's not subject to logical or historical or
> any type of evidence in the conventional sense of the word.
There is a more profound problem, and that is that admitting you were
wrong is /hard/; cognitive dissonance is one of the most powerful of
motivators. (There's a new book, "True Enough: Learning to Live in a
Post-Fact Society", by Farhad Manjoo, that goes into the matter.)
--
John W. Kennedy
A proud member of the reality-based community.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
stylistic study of Bacon. If it decides as strongly against Bacon as
Shakespeare as his study decides against Oxford as Shakespeare, will
you forsake Baconism?
--Bob G.
Jim KQKnave
ben-Jonson <stritmatte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I posted the link as a notice to those here who may wish to take
> notice of the fact that Shakespearean orthodoxy is continuing to lose
> the battle for the hearts and minds of the wider anglo-American
> intelligentsia.
Oh yeah, any day now.
"Shakespeare: The World as Stage" by Bill Bryson, Atlas Books, 2007
(note the date)
p182:
"So it needs to be said that nearly all of the
anti-Shakespeare sentiment - actually all of it,
every bit - involves manipulative scholarship
or sweeping misstatements of fact. Shakespeare
"never owned a book," a writer for the New
York Times gravely informed readers in one
doubting article in 2002. The statement cannot
actually be refuted, for we know nothing about
his incidental possessions. But the writer might
just as well have suggested that Shakespeare never
owned a pair of shoes or pants."
p183
"Daniel Wright, a professor at Concordia University
in Portland, Oregon, and an active anti-Stratfordian,
wrote in Harper's Magazine that Shakespeare was
"a simple, untutored wool and grain merchant" and
"a rather ordinary man who had no connections to
the literary world." Such statements can only be
characterized as wildly imaginative."
p191
"Despite the manifest shortcomings of Looney's book,
in both argument and scholarship, it found a curious
measure of support. The British Nobel Laureate
John Galsworthy praised it, as did Sigmund Freud
(though Freud later came to have a private theory
that Shakespeare was of French stock and was really
named Jacques Pierre - an interesting but ultimately
solitary delusion)."
p192
"Yet another theory holds that Shakespeare was too
brilliant to be a single person, but was actually a
syndicate of stellar talents, including nearly all
of those mentioned already....Unfortunately the
theory not only lacks evidence but would involve
a conspiracy of silence of improbable proportions.
p194
"Shakespeare, was, it would seem, unashamedly a
country boy, and nothing in his work suggests any
desire, in the words of Stephen Greenblatt, to
"repudiate it or pass himself off as something
other than he was.""
p195
"In short it is possible, with a kind of selective
squinting, to endow the alternative claimants with
the necessary time, talent and motive for anonymity
to write the plays of William Shakespeare. But
what no one has ever produced is the tiniest
particle of evidence to suggest that they actually
did so."
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
for abuse and hashcash info.
Elizabeth
Because no computer scientist has developed a
stylometrics test that compares verse to prose. It
calls for a much more sophisticated program than
just straight across calculations of pairs and sets.
The only hope is Bayseian statistics. It can already
identify handwriting better than human handwriting
analysts, maybe it can be applied to a comparison
of prose and verse.
Elizabeth
It's this way. Anyone who gets caught up in the Freudian
narative-without-evidence is going to get whalloped by the
even more romantic Looneyian narrative-without-evidence.
The human brain is also inately structure to respond to
hierarchies. If My Lorde of Oxenforde were another local
genius, say a school teacher, there would be no Oxford-
ianism.
This is all about AWE and WONDER of His Lordshippe as
describe by J. Thomas Looney. I detect a sort of religiosity
in the Oxfordians.
And anyway, as empires crumble it always falls to the sect-
arians so this is just part of a larger process going in the
same direction. Sadly.
Verulam would have been Shakespeare from the get go
if he'd been a hereditary peer. He was almost that but
the Queen was too cheap to give the official that saved
her life and realm a peerage (Sir Nicholas Bacon, 'the
father of our country' as he was called).
I'm here mainly because I'm fascinated by the turns of
fate in this saga. Think about it. Two Shakespeare
authorship candidates, both wards of Burghley, both
raised in the same house.
What are the odds.
Peter Farey
The Earl of Oxford was the true author of Shakespeare's
works is what Mark Anderson refers to as "the 1604 question":
the fact that according to the chronologies offered by most
Shakespearian scholars many of the plays were written after
1604, the year of Edward de Vere's death. Oxfordians' answer
to this is to claim that they could have been written much
earlier than the orthodox datings suggest, and to try and
find evidence to back up this claim for the plays concerned.
to the development of dramatic blank verse over the years,
particularly two techniques tending to vary the end of what
Nashe called the "drumming decasyllabon" of the iambic
pentameter - enjambment (or the run-on line) and the feminine
ending. To illustrate each of these for those to whom these
terms are unfamiliar, here are Prospero's famous lines in
Act 4 Scene 1 of *The Tempest*:
(As I foretold you) were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air.
fact it would not be possible to put any sort of punctuation
at the end of line two without wrecking the sense. That's a
run-on line, or enjambment. And a feminine ending? The usual
rhythm of Shakespeare's blank verse is the iambic (di-dum)
pentameter (repeated five times). You see this operating in
lines two and three above. Not in line one, however, which
seems to have acquired an extra "di" at the end. That's a
feminine ending. What we can say with complete confidence is
that there was a continuous increase in the use of both of
these techniques in dramatic blank verse from the times of
Sackville and Norton, when feminine endings were almost
unheard of, through to Beaumont and Fletcher, by which time
the use of both techniques was very common.
published. It contained the following remarks about William
Shakespeare's plays:
Comedy and Tragedy among the Latines : so *Shakespeare*
among th' English is the most excellent in both kinds for
the stage; for Comedy, witnes his *Ge'tleme' of Verona*,
his *Errors*, his *Love labors lost*, his *Love labours
wonne*, his *Midsummer night dreame*, & his *Merchant of
Venice* : for Tragedy his *Richard the 2*. *Richard the 3*.
*Henry the 4*. *King John*, *Titus Andronicus* and his
*Romeo and Juliet*."
nizable, so Meres has given us clear evidence that by 1598
the following eleven plays had certainly been written and
performed: *The Two Gentlemen of Verona*, *The Comedy of
Errors*, *Love's Labour's Lost*, *A Midsummer Night's Dream*,
*The Merchant of Venice*, *King Richard II*, *King Richard
III*, *King Henry IV* (part one), *King John*, *Titus
Andronicus* and *Romeo and Juliet*.
are known to have been written by then, however, since there
is good evidence for the plays which we know of as *King
Henry VI* (parts one, two and three), and *The Taming of
the Shrew* also to have been performed by then. Meres seems
to have omitted them because he was listing only those plays
he knew from the repertory of the Lord Chamberlain's Men,
founded in 1594, and not those more associated with the
earlier Lord Strange/Earl of Pembroke groups - as these four
all were - where the authorship may well have been far less
clear (and still is).
by Shakespeare and known to have been written before Meres's
list was published. What was the rate at which run-on lines
and feminine endings were used in them? On average, one or
other of these techniques occurs about 25 times per hundred
lines of verse, the lowest being *A Midsummer Night's Dream*
at just under 17, and the highest *The Merchant of Venice*
at just over 38. Here are the figures.
whose dates are used here because he gives a very complete
account of how he arrived at each of them. The other data
are based upon figures produced by Fleay (corrected by
Chambers) for the lines of verse and the feminine endings,
and by Koenig for the enjambments.
ToS 1590.5 26.31 *************
2H6 1591.0 23.71 ************
3H6 1591.0 22.61 ***********
1H6 1592.0 17.12 *********
Tit 1592.0 20.02 **********
R3 1592.5 31.02 ****************
CoE 1594.0 25.90 *************
LLL 1594.5 19.49 **********
R2 1595.0 29.34 ***************
R&J 1595.0 20.53 **********
MND 1595.0 16.77 ********
KJ 1596.0 23.85 ************
MoV 1596.5 38.02 *******************
1H4 1596.5 28.46 **************
evidence of an early date exists. Calculating this for the
remaining plays in the First Folio, we find an average of
over twice as many run-on lines and feminine endings per
hundred lines of verse - 52 in fact. Of these the lowest
is *Twelfth Night* with just under 33, and the highest
*Cymbeline*, with 75! Taking a breakpoint of 35, in fact,
we find that all except one of the 'pre-Meres' ones are
below that figure, and all except one of the others above
it. The statistical significance of this - odds of about
10 billion to 1 against it happening by chance - gives
enormous support to confirming that Meres's list (plus
those four additional ones) does indeed cover all of the
plays written by Shakespeare up until then and that the
vast majority of the others were written after the list
was prepared.
MWW 1597.5 42.50 *********************
2H4 1597.5 35.79 ******************
Ado 1598.0 39.03 ********************
H5 1598.5 43.47 **********************
JC 1599.0 36.94 ******************
AYL 1599.5 37.10 *******************
Ham 1600.5 43.47 **********************
TN 1601.0 32.73 ****************
MfM 1603.0 45.62 ***********************
Oth 1603.5 45.80 ***********************
AW 1604.5 51.48 **************************
Tim 1605.0 52.96 **************************
KL 1605.5 53.10 ***************************
Mac 1606.0 60.33 ******************************
A&C 1606.0 66.99 *********************************
Cor 1608.0 73.54 *************************************
WT 1609.0 69.16 ***********************************
Cym 1610.0 75.27 **************************************
Tem 1611.0 73.23 *************************************
H8 1613.0 71.21 ************************************
basic approach was to use every bit of relevant evidence he
could find, both internal and external. The use of these
particular techniques played just a negligible part in this,
being included only in a portmanteau figure covering a great
many metrical characteristics and which was itself only
occasionally referred to as one of many factors considered.
So any suggestion that the dates are in any sense 'based'
upon the use of these techniques can be rejected. That
there was such a trend in Shakespeare's plays is therefore
irrefutable, and whilst individual plays may still be mis-
dated slightly it gives enormous support to the validity of
Taylor's overall chronology, which differs in only very
minor ways from those of other Shakespearian scholars.
question". As can be easily seen from the above, the break-
point of 50 instances per 100 lines appears to be reached
right around then - every single play with a rate below 50
being given a date before 1604 and every one above 50 app-
earing after it. The conclusion that most of the 'over 50'
plays were written after the others is therefore inescapable.
have not born this clear trend in mind is clearly illustrated
below. The first shows the earliest attempt, made in 1931 by
Eva Turner Clark , and the second - possibly the latest - to
be found on-line via Wikipedia. As can be seen in both
cases, little if any of the trend remains.
CoE 1577 25.90 *************
Tim 1577 52.96 **************************
AW 1578 51.48 **************************
Cym 1578 75.27 **************************************
2GV 1579 28.39 **************
ToS 1579 26.31 *************
2H6 1579 23.71 ************
LLL 1579 19.49 **********
MoV 1579 38.02 *******************
A&C 1579 66.99 *********************************
3H6 1580 22.61 ***********
R3 1580 31.02 ****************
TN 1580 32.73 ****************
Cor 1580 73.54 *************************************
R2 1581 29.34 ***************
R&J 1581 20.53 **********
KJ 1581 23.85 ************
AYL 1581 37.10 *******************
MfM 1581 45.62 ***********************
Ado 1583 39.03 ********************
JC 1583 36.94 ******************
Oth 1583 45.80 ***********************
Tem 1583 73.23 *************************************
MND 1584 16.77 ********
1H4 1585 28.46 **************
MWW 1585 42.50 *********************
Ham 1585 43.47 **********************
1H6 1586 17.12 *********
2H4 1586 35.79 ******************
H5 1586 43.47 **********************
WT 1586 69.16 ***********************************
Mac 1588 60.33 ******************************
KL 1590 53.10 ***************************
H8 1603 71.21 ************************************
CoE 1577 25.90 *************
Cym 1578 75.27 **************************************
ToS 1579 26.31 *************
LLL 1579 19.49 **********
MoV 1579 38.02 *******************
AW 1579 51.48 **************************
3H6 1581 22.61 ***********
R3 1581 31.02 ****************
R&J 1581 20.53 **********
Ado 1583 39.03 ********************
1H6 1584 17.12 *********
2H6 1585 23.71 ************
H5 1586 43.47 **********************
AYL 1588 37.10 *******************
2H4 1589 35.79 ******************
JC 1589 36.94 ******************
Ham 1589 43.47 **********************
KJ 1590 23.85 ************
Oth 1591 45.80 ***********************
TN 1592 32.73 ****************
H8 1593 71.21 ************************************
2GV 1594 28.39 **************
KL 1594 53.10 ***************************
Mac 1594 60.33 ******************************
WT 1594 69.16 ***********************************
R2 1595 29.34 ***************
MND 1595 16.77 ********
1H4 1597 28.46 **************
MWW 1598 42.50 *********************
MfM 1602 45.62 ***********************
Tim 1603 52.96 **************************
A&C 1603 66.99 *********************************
Cor 1603 73.54 *************************************
Tem 1603 73.23 *************************************
It is therefore essential for Oxfordians to come up with a
chronology which does not do such violence to the trend,
although attempting to do so is of course fraught with
difficulty.
amount the trend would remain just as valid. If it were by
only five years, however, we would have to ask why the
examples of someone who is "best for Comedy" did not include
*Much Ado* and *As You Like It*, and why the "best for
Tragedy" omitted *Julius Caesar* and *Hamlet*. Make it the
strictly necessary eight years, and both *Twelfth Night*
and *Othello*, among others, are missed out too. Any
argument that, after having been written, the plays were
'held back' from performance for some reason - given the
complete lack of supporting evidence and the huge demand
there was for good new plays - can be rejected out of hand.
1598-1604 whilst retaining the orthodox order, or even making
it follow the trend even more closely. Needless to say, any
attempt to do this in order to retain such a trend would be
completely fallacious. Unless the new dates are clearly
arrived at by a process no less rigorous than that of Taylor
or, for example, the individual editors of the Arden editions,
they will be rightly rejected as based upon nothing but
circular reasoning.
drew attention to the trend in the use of femininine endings
and its impact on the Oxfordian case as long ago as 1991.
As yet, however, no Oxfordian has publicly attempted to find
a satisfactory answer to this problem, let alone actually
succeeding in doing so. But until they do - as they should
have worked out by now - the Oxfordian theory is really a
non-starter.
Peter Groves
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:fs7ng4$it8$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Peter is absolutely right about this, and I think the reason that few people seem to pay much attention to such evidence is that the kind of facts he attests hardly count as facts nowadays, because fewer and fewer people are capable of registering them. In a recent article ("Shakespeare’s Pentameter and the End of Editing", <Shakespeare> (Journal of the British Shakespeare Association), 3:2 (2007), 126-42) I show that some of Shakespeare's modern *editors* (Jonathan Bates is the most recent example -- too recent for my article) simply cannot hear the structure of pentameter, and mis-edit accordingly. Imagine the manuscripts of Mozart edited by someone who was tone-deaf.
--
Peter G.“A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the Templars.” (Umberto Eco)
Paul Crowley
news:SMJFj.2058$n8....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fs7ng4$it8$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> What we can say with complete confidence is
>> that there was a continuous increase in the use of both of
>> these techniques in dramatic blank verse from the times of
>> Sackville and Norton, when feminine endings were almost
>> unheard of, through to Beaumont and Fletcher, by which time
>> the use of both techniques was very common.
What we can say with complete confidence is that
there was a continuous increase in the use of brass
and a continuous decline in the use of the organ in
orchestral music composition between 1850 and 1930.
We can therefore, with complete confidence, date
any musical work in that period to a precise year
by measuring the extent of the use of those
instruments.
> Peter is absolutely right about this
And this clown agrees.
Paul.
lackpurity
wrote:
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
MM:
Good post, Mr. Farey. According to Oxfordians the canon was begun in
1577, when Shakespeare was 13 years old? I find that very difficult
to believe. The dates suggested by Gary Taylor, from 1590, seem much
more reasonable. The Oxfordians claim nothing was written after
1603? That would seem out of kilter, also.
Shakespeare was not obliged to follow any trend, but following the
trend seems more likely than what Oxfordians claim. I can see why
Oxfordians would tend to avoid this issue. It appears that by
tinkering with the dates, they've made it appear unlikely that William
Shakespeare could have been the author, and conversely made it appear
more posible that Oxford could have written them.
The dates suggested by Gary Taylor seem to be more likely the true
dates. History, as we have it, is corroborating those dates (of Gary
Taylor.)
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> � "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:fs7ng4$it8$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> � <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
>
> � Peter is absolutely right about this, and I think the reason that few people seem to pay much attention to such evidence is that the kind of facts he attests hardly count as facts nowadays, because fewer and fewer people are capable of registering them. �In a recent article ("Shakespeare's Pentameter and the End of Editing", <Shakespeare> (Journal of the British Shakespeare Association), 3:2 (2007), 126-42) I show that some of Shakespeare's modern *editors* (Jonathan Bates is the most recent example -- too recent for my article) simply cannot hear the structure of pentameter, and mis-edit accordingly. �Imagine the manuscripts of Mozart edited by someone who was tone-deaf.
>
> � --
> � Peter G.
MM:
I agree. I think it highly likely that Shakespeare would have
followed that trend. Mystics are generally not "all over the map," as
Oxfordian theory would have you believe. They train the mind, and
they generally follow routines. I think this is a significant defeat
for the Oxfordians. Elizabeth are you reading? :-) Again, let's
give Mr. Farey a round of applause for pointing this out.
Now, I'm going to look at Crowley's post. This ought to be a good
one. :-(
Michael Martin
> � "A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the Templars." (Umberto Eco)
nordicskiv2
<5841fa79-72e5-4ffd...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Elizabeth <elizabe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 12:56 pm, ben-Jonson <stritmatte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 3:09 pm, Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > For those interested in more about who Dr. Waugaman is, here is his
> > google scholar portfolio:
> >
> > http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=r+waugaman&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sta...
> What, other than speculation on the sanity of
> Shakespeare authorship disputants, does
> Waugaman's academic specialty to do with
> the question of Shakespeare authorship?
>
> I posted on an EXPERT in the field of the study
> of genius and creativity, Dr. Dean Simonton.
>
> Simonton is apparently a one-time Oxfordian
Can Elizabeth cite any published work in which Simonton identifies
himself as an Oxfordian?
> since he has taken down the pages on the seven
> stylometric studies he designed to test Oxford's
> genius against the genius of the author of the
> Shakespeare works .Oxford flunked all seven.
> Simonton fairly gushed in his enthusiasm for
> His Lordshippe but he's not gushing anymore.
Please provide a precise citation -- where does Simonton "gush" in
his enthusiasm for Oxford?
> Simonton has not only taken down his Oxford
> pages, he has also written a paper in which he
> states that his reivew of Strat stylometric studies
> confirms that the plays are not going to be redated
> to Oxford's lifetime.
>
> Simonton is an expert in this area.
>
> Oxfordians are wasting their time, Roger. Over
> one hundred and twenty stylometric studies, each
> independently conducted, each confirming the
> dating the others, PROVE that Oxford did not
> write the Shakespeare works.
>
> You can publish all the literaryl criticism you like,
> Oxfordianism is not going to be able to overturn
> this settled science.
>
> And Simonton has three or four many times the
> publications on Google Scholar as Waugaman.
>
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 1,750 for dean simonton.
> Results 1 - 10 of about 565 for r waugaman.
Regrettably, Elizabeth displays here the same dismal incompetence
in the use of Google Scholar that she has previously displayed in the
use of other online references and search engines. The Google Scholar
query for "dean simonton" that Elizabeth tried does indeed return an
estimated 1,750 hits, but the majority are to articles mentioning
Simonton in the text (e.g., reviews of his books and the like), not to
articles authored by Simonton himself. To retrieve the latter,
Elizabeth should have used the Advanced Search feature. In fact, an
Advanced Scholar Search with "dean simonton" typed into the box
"Return articles written by" returns a much more reasonable
"Results 1 - 10 of about 163 for author:dean author:simonton. (0.07
seconds) "
Of course, this is apt to be a considerable underestimate, in part
because Google is not as efficient as the professional disciplinary
review databases in listing published material from a variety of
scholarly sources, and in part because the professional review volumes
(e.g., in my field, _Zentralblatt_ and _Mathematical Reviews_) are
much more adept at catching articles with variant author names (e.g.,
D. Simonton, D. K. Simonton, etc.). A similar author search with "D K
Simonton" as author produces around 400 hits, which is apt to be an
overestimate. If Elizabeth wished to obtain even a ballpark estimate
of the number of Simonton's professional publications, she should have
resorted to one of the professional reviewing databases for Simonton's
discipline.
However, in this case, a much simpler expedient suffices: had
Elizabeth looked at Simonton's own web page at
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/simonton/>,
she would have found a link to his complete publication list at
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/simonton/dkspubs.html>;
this list contains a year by year list of all Simonton's publications,
beginning with his unpublished 1974 doctoral dissertation and
concluding with some dozen or so papers that are still in press and
hence do not appear on Google or the professional review databases.
There are 346 numbered publications on this list -- needless to say,
this is nowhere close to the 1,750 of Elizabeth's habitual folly.
> Take a look at this curriculum vitae.
>
> <http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/simonton/>
If Elizabeth had actually followed her own advice and done so, she
could have avoided making a conspicuous fool of herself, as usual.
However, there is a more serious point to be made here: both
Simonton and Waugaman are distinguished professionals in their
respective fields; both have had illustrious professional careers.
Neither one is trained as an expert in Elizabethan/Jacobean literary
history. To compare their fitness as experts on questions in
Elizabethan literary history by comparing their professional
publication records in their two completely different fields makes
about as much sense as deciding which one would be the better
President by comparing the number of points that one man scored in
basketball with the number of points that the other man scored in
hockey.
In short, Elizabeth's remarkable Reign of Error continues unabated.
lackpurity
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Peter Groves" <whate...@whatever.org> wrote in message
>
> news:SMJFj.2058$n8....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:fs7ng4$it8$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> >> What we can say with complete confidence is
> >> that there was a continuous increase in the use of both of
> >> these techniques in dramatic blank verse from the times of
> >> Sackville and Norton, when feminine endings were almost
> >> unheard of, through to Beaumont and Fletcher, by which time
> >> the use of both techniques was very common.
>
> What we can say with complete confidence is that
> there was a continuous increase in the use of brass
> and a continuous decline in the use of the organ in
> orchestral music composition between 1850 and 1930.
> We can therefore, with complete confidence, date
> any musical work in that period to a precise year
> by measuring the extent of the use of those
> instruments.
>
> > Peter is absolutely right about this
>
> And this clown agrees.
>
> Paul.
MM:
Crowley, precise? Oxfordians claim Shakespeare started writing the
canon when he was 13 years old? Taylor's dates have him starting
when
he was 26 or 27. That's a rather big difference, I'd say. That's 14
years difference? Precise?
It appears to me, that when Oxfordians started making wholesale
changes with the dates, they forgot an important point, the
trendline. Their mistake seems rather obvious, and very likely. I'm
glad that Mr. Farey brought this up. He says that it has been around
for a while, and Oxfordians have never even attempted to justify what
they did with the dates, vis-a-vis, the trendlines.
You're talking about precision, Mr. Crowley? Actually, we can use
linear regression on the trends of Gary Taylor. We could create a
band, much as I used to do when I was a commodity broker. We can
draw
bands, and to go out of those bands either too high or too low would
require beating some very long odds, like 100 to 1...
Look at his theory of Oxfordians:
Tem 1583 73.23 *************************************
MND 1584 16.77 ********
Oxfordians might want to explain why Shakespeare would have
changed style so radically, from one play to the next?? In only one
year??
> > � Peter is absolutely right about this
> And this clown agrees.
> Paul.
MM:
Groves and Farey are correct, IMO.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> In article
> <5841fa79-72e5-4ffd-90db-2d0f93760...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
MM:
Elizabeth is correct that Oxfordianism can't be justified based on
dates or stylometrics. Mr. Farey has made his point clear with his
trends, also. Let's don't lose the forest because of the trees.
Michael Martin
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Yes, but if Simonton did a study and said it showed Bacon could not
have wirtten Shakespeare's works, would you accept it? You seem to be
saying you would not. Why not? Or, why accept his findings against
Oxford? Any Oxfordian could find the kind of faults with his methods
you would find with them applied to Bacon. For instance, I'm sure he
made big use of Oxford's letters. And he could not have compared
Oxford's plays with Shakespeare's. And the sample of Oxford's poems
is not large, and are not certainly all his, and were probably written
when he was young. The Farey View makes sense to me, if only
intuitively--that it's silly to compare a very young writer's style an
unknown writer's mature style. I'm sure that there will be
similarities if the two are the same, but I'm equally sure there will
be differneces, large ones.
By the way, who does Simonton now think wrote the plays. I
automatically assumed he accepted Shakespeare, but now am not so sure
he would have. He could have done a Price Move, and said we may never
know who wrote the Shakespeare oeuvre, only that Shakespeare did not.
(My hunch is that he can't accept Shakespeare because he can't find
any Important Mentor for him, and his theory of creativity makes a big
deal of mentors. Like all anti-Stratfordians, he hates the
possibility that self-reliance can get a person anywhere.
--Bob G.
Elizabeth
> On Mar 23, 8:47�pm, Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 5:23�pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
> >
> > The only hope is Bayseian statistics. �It can already
> > identify handwriting better than human handwriting
> > analysts, maybe it can be applied to a comparison
> > of prose and verse.
>
> Yes, but if Simonton did a study and said it showed Bacon could not
> have wirtten Shakespeare's works, would you accept it?
I'd do what I always do. I'd try to understand the study,
I'd look up terms, I'd look for studies that validated it
or invalidated it.
If the evidence against Bacon's authorship was
conclusive, then I'd become an authorship agnostic
politically aligned to the Strats.
> You seem to be
> saying you would not.
I didn't say I 'would not.'
> Why not? Or, why accept his findings against
> Oxford?
I didn't claim that four hundred years of Strat
stylometrics constituted settled science without
first looking into the history of Strat stylomentrics.
I've written at least three posts on the subject,
none as brilliant as Farey's.
I read about the founder of stylometrics, Malone,
who correctly dated an astonishing twenty-three
plays without a computer. Malone's correct dates
have been verified by computers hundreds of times.
I read (the Irish genius) Boas on his sucess in using
stylometrics to date the later plays and this was done
with pen and paper, Grumman. Boas came close to
getting all the plays right.
I read as much as I could find online on Stanley
Wells and Gary Taylor's stylometric studies, primarily
their colloquialism-in-verse test which, when compared
with other stylometric studies reveals an astonishing
characteristic of our author: He was systematically
experimenting with stylometrics from the beginning of
the plays, he makes minute changes to his experiments
in metre, etc., in each successive play.
He's an empirical scientist, in other words.
I am really impressed with Farey's application of the
Wells and Taylor feminine endings test to the Oxfordian
chronology.
What a brilliant idea.
So the question is, Grumman, are Strats going to get off
their butts and make Farey's chart the centerpiece of a
website that refutes the Looneyian claim or is Farey's
genius idea going to rot in the Google Groups archive?
> Any Oxfordian could find the kind of faults with his methods
> you would find with them applied to Bacon.
That's the kind of claim that's normally made after one
investigates the question. You and the rest in HLAS
have never looked into Bacon's evidence. It's a very
difficult question because there's just so much evidence
to wade through although search engines have tended
to speed things up.
Bacon aced a parallelism pop quiz that Jim put
up based on some document connected to the
Virginia Company . In about twenty minutes II was
able to locate good parallels with a search engine
that would have taken months, perhaps years, without
a computer.
> For instance, I'm sure he
> made big use of Oxford's letters.
A genius with a vocabularly that exceeds the First Folio's
(with 400,000 English words left to index) would naturally
turn to the writings of a feudal with a vocabulary the size
of modern first graders. Probably less polysyllabic than
Oxford's but the size of the vocabularies is about the
same.
Kids raised on television have bigger vocabularies than
feudal earls. And I don't doubt that Oxford had the
biggest vocabulary among the earls.
> And he could not have compared
> Oxford's plays with Shakespeare's.
I'm not aware that Oxford wrote any plays.
> And the sample of Oxford's poems
> is not large, and are not certainly all his, and were probably written
> when he was young. The Farey View makes sense to me, if only
> intuitively. . .
Grumman. The 'Farey View' as you put it, is meant to
take us beyond mere intuition, it's replicable science.
It's SCIENCE, Grumman. S C I E N C E.
The Oxfordians HAVE NO SCIENCE. Strats do..
Take advantage of that fact. Farey shows the way.
> that it's silly to compare a very young writer's style an
> unknown writer's mature style. I'm sure that there will be
> similarities if the two are the same, but I'm equally sure there will
> be differneces, large ones.
I had to scroll down to see if I was in the wrong post.
I'm going to take this as satire.
> By the way, who does Simonton now think wrote the plays.
There's nothing wrong with skepticism, Grumman.
> automatically assumed he accepted Shakespeare, but now am not so sure
> he would have. He could have done a Price Move, and said we may never
> know who wrote the Shakespeare oeuvre, only that Shakespeare did not.
> (My hunch is that he can't accept Shakespeare because he can't find
> any Important Mentor for him, and his theory of creativity makes a big
> deal of mentors. Like all anti-Stratfordians, he hates the
> possibility that self-reliance can get a person anywhere.
Thank you for the post. I always enjoy hearing from
you.,
> --Bob G.
Elizabeth
Webb is a bona fide cyberbully. Just ignore him.
Don't post to him. Don't post about him.
Elizabeth
but.net> wrote:
> Simonton is a moron. His studies of creativity suggest it, his having
> accepted Oxford as Shakespeare confirmed it, his dropping Oxford
> because of stylistic studies doubly confirms it. But I have to say
> I'm surprised he was able to change his mind. I have to give him
> credit for that.
>
> --Bob G.
Bob. Did you go to Simonton's vitae link?
All we can know about a scholar is from his
publications. Simonton is published by the
top university presses. I think he deserves
some respect whether he's an Oxfordian
or not.
I have read his Oxford webpages, I did a url hack
on his site, they've been taken down.
Anyway, if he were still an Oxfordian he wouldn't
be publishing papers on the fact that the Strats
are right and the Oxfordians are wrong.
Take it as an auspicious portent.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> >> that there was a continuous increase in the use of both of
> >> these techniques in dramatic blank verse from the times of
> >> Sackville and Norton, when feminine endings were almost
> >> unheard of, through to Beaumont and Fletcher, by which time
> >> the use of both techniques was very common.
>
> What we can say with complete confidence is that
> there was a continuous increase in the use of brass
> and a continuous decline in the use of the organ in
> orchestral music composition between 1850 and 1930.
> We can therefore, with complete confidence, date
> any musical work in that period to a precise year
> by measuring the extent of the use of those
> instruments.
>
> > Peter is absolutely right about this
>
> And this clown agrees.
>
> Paul.
Paul, why do you so often misrepresent your opponents'
arguments before responding them? The argument here
is that a relatively high ratio of certain metrical techniques
per line in dramatic verse is EVIDENCE that the verse in
question was composed later than dramatic verse with a
relatively low ratio of the metrical techniques. To claim
that the argument states that a relatively high ratio of the
metrical techniques can be used "with complete confidence,
[to] date any [dramatic] work in that period to a precise
year" is to ridiculously lie.
A responsible disputant would accept the argument but
try to demonstrate that other, stronger arguments contradict it.
You are never a responsible disputant, however.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > Simonton is a moron. His studies of creativity suggest it, his having
> > accepted Oxford as Shakespeare confirmed it, his dropping Oxford
> > because of stylistic studies doubly confirms it. But I have to say
> > I'm surprised he was able to change his mind. I have to give him
> > credit for that.
Do you poop out at parties? Are you unpublishable?
The answer to all your problems is in this little bottle.
Simonton's VITAMEATAVEGAMIN.
Simonton's Vitameatavegamin contains Vitamins, Meat, Vegetables, and
Minerals.
Yes, with Simonton's Vitameatavegamin, you can spoon your way to
health.
All you do is take a great big tablespoonful after EVERy meal.
Mmmmmm.... It's so tasty, too! Tastes just like candy!
So why don't you join all the thousands of happy peppy people and
get a great big bottle of Simonton's Vitameatavegamin tomorrow!
Thats Simonton's Vita-meata-vegamin!
---------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All we can know about a scholar is from his
> publications. Simonton is published by the
> top university presses. I think he deserves
> some respect whether he's an Oxfordian
> or not.
And we all think that you deserve some respect,
Elizabeth, despite the fact that you are a Baconian.
.
Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have read his Oxford webpages, I did a url hack
> on his site, they've been taken down.
You hacked his site?
.
Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, if he were still an Oxfordian he wouldn't
> be publishing papers on the fact that the Strats
> are right and the Oxfordians are wrong.
I'm always arguing that Orthodox Oxfordians
have got it wrong yet I'm an Oxfordian.
--------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
MM:
He couldn't find Fulke Greville and Christopher Marlowe? Give me a
break. He couldn't find the Wilton Cult? What's his problem?
Shakespeare had a lot of self-reliance, self-confidence, or whatever
you want to call it, since he was the reincarnation of Shaykh Kabir.
Even he needed a Master, however, so that should be a lesson for all
of us.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
wrote:
> > "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > > Simonton is a moron. �His studies of creativity suggest it, his having
> > > accepted Oxford as Shakespeare confirmed it, his dropping Oxford
> > > because of stylistic studies doubly confirms it. �But I have to say
> > > I'm surprised he was able to change his mind. �I have to give him
> > > credit for that.
>
MM:
Art, how many factions of Oxfordians are there? Crowley replied to me
that he doesn't agree with Oxfordians who think Oxford faked his
death. Which Oxfordians have orthodox fantasies, and which ones have
unorthodox fantasies? Many thanks. To me all Oxfordians look alike.
LOL Just kidding.
Michael Martin
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Webb is a bona fide cyberbully. Just ignore him.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I'd appreciate it if you would answer his question about how
you know Simonton was an Oxfordian, Elizabeth. I could have sworn I
knew he was, but can't find any reference to it on the Internet. The
Shakespeare Fellowship has nothing about him though I was sure Roger
bragged about his being an Oxfordian. I may have Simonton mixed up
with someone else. I do have a book of his on creativity, though. It
didn't impress me. Empiricism and statistics sans imagination.
--Bob G.
Greg Reynolds
> MM:
> He couldn't find Fulke Greville and Christopher Marlowe? Give me a
> break. He couldn't find the Wilton Cult? What's his problem?
He is the reincarnation of Shish Kabob.
> Shakespeare had a lot of self-reliance, self-confidence, or whatever
> you want to call it,
Ignorant people describing him?
> since he was the reincarnation of Shaykh Kabir.
with a heavy dose of Boy-Ar-Dee
> Even he needed a Master, however, so that should be a lesson for all
> of us.
But you're the only idiot here.
You take the lesson and get the answers if it ever comes up again!
And enough of the Mary Magdalene
(you've never touched a woman)!
Greg Reynolds
Elizabeth
but.net> wrote:
> > Webb is a bona fide cyberbully. Just ignore him.
> > Don't post to him. Don't post about him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, I'd appreciate it if you would answer his question about how
> you know Simonton was an Oxfordian, Elizabeth. I could have sworn I
> knew he was, but can't find any reference to it on the Internet.
Simonton posted his methodology, his results,
and his conclusions on his webpage. I was
skeptical, his conclusions looked biased.
Some time later I was searching online and
the long abstract for his paper comparing Strat
stylometrics to Oxfordian came up in the
results.
The Stats tested Shakespeare allusions
against a chronology of political and other events.
The Strat chronology was found to be congruent
with events with a two-year lag time (which makes
sense since our author was, in fact, a 'mechanical
mate' who wrote and rewrote his plays).
Simonton found that the Oxfordian chronology
was kinda incoherent. Farey's chart shows
exactly that.
> The
> Shakespeare Fellowship has nothing about him though I was sure Roger
> bragged about his being an Oxfordian.
Not everybody's a joiner.
> I may have Simonton mixed up
> with someone else. I do have a book of his on creativity, though. It
> didn't impress me. Empiricism and statistics sans imagination.
I admire the fact that he can entangle himself in
a belief system but then use scientific reasoning
to dig his way out. Admirable.
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
Thanks Bob.
The draft article from which my post was largely taken
also had several footnotes which I chose not to include.
After my sentence "Needless to say, any attempt to do
this in order to retain such a trend would be completely
fallacious" I did in fact have the following footnote:
"In fact the frequency with which such techniques are
used was long before this abandoned as a sufficiently
accurate way of dating individual plays."
Paul's pretence that I said anything at all about these
techniques allowing one with complete confidence to date
any single work is a straw man, nothing more. He uses it
because at heart he knows the probability of those plays
which Taylor dates post-1604 being exactly the same ones
as all those having a rate of over fifty is so low as to
make it impossible to have happened by chance. And once
you have eliminated any other causal link between the
two sets of criteria, as I have, then all that is left
as a possible cause is the passing of time.
In other words, almost all (if not every single one) of
the 10 'over 50' plays must have been written after
almost all (if not every single one) of the 25 'below
50' ones. And almost all (if not every single one) of
the 20 'post-Meres' plays must have been written after
almost all (if not every single one) of the 15 'pre-
Meres' ones.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > you know Simonton was an Oxfordian, Elizabeth. I could have sworn I
> > knew he was, but can't find any reference to it on the Internet.
You didn't answer my question, Elizabeth. What is the evidence that
Simonton at one time was an Oxforfdian?
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
>
>> >> Anyway, if [Simonton] were still an Oxfordian he wouldn't
>> >> be publishing papers on the fact that the Strats
>> >> are right and the Oxfordians are wrong.
>> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm always arguing that Orthodox Oxfordians
>> > have got it wrong yet I'm an Oxfordian.
>> > --------------------------------------------------
Maybe ten or so.
.
> lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Crowley replied to me that he doesn't agree
>> with Oxfordians who think Oxford faked his death.
Crowley is a faction in and of himself (as am I for that matter).
.
> lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Which Oxfordians have orthodox fantasies, and which ones have
>> unorthodox fantasies?
Can you name one Strat who doesn't think that you are living in a
fantasy world?
.
> lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Many thanks. To me all Oxfordians look alike. LOL Just kidding.
Like you, my most vehement critics are those who
actually share my belief in Shakespearean authorship.
webfilelib <webfile...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> At present the De Vere society offers this:
> http://www.deveresociety.co.uk/OxfordBiography.html
>
> Parish records state that he was buried in Hackney Church on July 6,
> but a family history by his first cousin Percival Golding, states
> "Edward de Veer ....a man in mind and body absolutely accomplished
> with honorable endowments....lieth buried at Westminster".
>
> From his widow we have this:
> I joyfully commit my body to the earth from whence it was taken,
> desiring to be buried in the church of Hackney within the County of
> Middlesex, as near unto the body of my said late dear and noble Lord
> and husband as may be, and that to be done as privately and with as
> little pomp and ceremony as may be. Only I will that there be in the
> said church erected for us a tomb fitting our degree...
>
> Or for comparison you could try:
>
> http://www.jeremycrick.info/TrenthamFamily-1.html
>
> Oxford's widow, Elizabeth Trentham, was in possession of all the
> material in Oxford's study on his death and she outlived him by nine
> years. Oxford's study at King's Place in Hackney must have been the
> original source for all the material that was gathered for the First
> Folio that hadn't already been published in various Quarto editions -
> at least nineteen plays. The study would have contained notebooks,
> masses of loose leaves, working drafts, polished drafts, copies in the
> hands of Oxford's secretaries, prompt copies with notes on stage
> direction, literary correspondence as well as extensive marginalia
> in Oxford's source books.
>
> see also:http://www.jeremycrick.info/TrenthamFamily-6.html
>
> ...the record is full of Elizabethan men coming a cropper
> through their entanglement with the Queen's ladies -
> as the Oxford-Vavasour imbroglio so vividly illustrates.
>
> ...Yet somehow it was all so very different when
> it came to the Earl of Oxford and Miss Trentham.
----------------------------------------
"Peter Farey" wrote:
> "Faked (or wrongly presumed) death, disgrace,
> banishment, and changed identity are of course
> major ingredients in Shakespeare's plays."
--------------------------------------------
Were I a king I could command content ;
Were I obscure, unknown should be my cares;
And were I dead, no thoughts should me torment,
Nor words, nor wrongs, nor loves, nor hopes, nor fears.
A doubtful choice, of three things one to crave,
A kingdom, or a cottage, or a grave.
-------------------------------------------
. False Deaths
-------------------------------------
c.1590 Henry VI, Parts II and III
.
c.1590-1591 Henry VI, Part I
.
c.1592 Richard III
_____ The Comedy of Errors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marlowe was released from the Privy Council on May 20, 1593 (Julian)
_ and was killed the same *SUNday* : May 30, 1593 (Greg.)
.
during the eclipse of the *SUN* that started the 1001st Ramadan.
.
There was simultaneously a *SATURN / VENUS* conjunction.
_ (the 29+ *SATURN* period ~ Marlowe's age.)
.
PRINCE HAL (aside to Poins) *SATURN & VENUS* this
_ year in conjunction! What says th' almanac to that?
_. (Henry IV, Part I, 2.4.264-6)
..................................................
Sun 1593 May 30(NS) 13:05 UTC
.
. Right Distance From 53°N 0°W:
. Ascension Declination (AU) Altitude Azimuth
Sun 4h 28m 23s +21° 49.3' 1.015 56.141 29.623 Up
Moon 4h 28m 23s +21° 48.5' 57.4 ER 56.128 29.616 Up
.
Venus 7h 41m 43s +24° 5.2' 0.585 52.796 -51.205 Up
Saturn 7h 44m 7s +21° 41.1' 9.753 50.445 -50.017 Up
-----------------------------------------------------
c.1593 Titus Andronicus
_____ Taming of the Shrew
.
c.1594 Two Gentlemen of Verona
_____ Love's Labour's Lost
_____ Romeo And Juliet...........Juliet
.
c.1595 Richard II
_____ A Midsummer Night's Dream..Thisbe
.
c.1596 King John
_____ The Merchant of Venice
.........................................
. The Merchant of Venice Act 5, Scene 1
.
JESSICA: In such a night
. Did Thisbe fearfully o'ertrip the dew
. And saw the lion's shadow ere himself
. And ran dismay'd away.
.........................................
c.1597 Henry IV part I...Falstaffe
.
c.1597-1598 Henry IV part II
.
c.1599 Much Ado About Nothing......Hero
_____ Henry V
_____ Julius Ceasar......Brutus, Titinius
_____ As You Like It
.
c.1601 Twelfth Night.......Sebastian, Viola
_____ Hamlet..............Claudius, Hamlet
.
c.1602 Troilus and Cressida (1609)
.
c.1603 All's Well That Ends Well (1623)..Helena
------------------------------------------------
Edward de Vere
..................................................
"No longer mourn for me when I am dead,
Than you shall hear-the surly sullen bell;
Give warning to the world that I am fled
.
From this vile world, with vilest worms to dwell;
.
Nay, if you read this line, remember not
The hand that writ it."
------------------------------------------------
c.1604 Measure for Measure (1623)....Claudio
_____ Othello (1622)................Desdemona
.
c.1605 King Lear (1608)
_____ Macbeth (1623)
.
c.1606 Antony and Cleopatra (1623)....Cleopatra
.
c.1607 Coriolanus (1623)
_____ Timon of Athens (1623)
.
c.1608 Pericles Prince of Tyre (1609)..Thaisa, Marina
.
c.1609 Cymbeline (1623).....Imogen/Fidele, Posthumous
.
c.1610 The Winter's Tale (1623)...........Hermione
.
c.1611 The Tempest (1623)...Prospero, Ferdinand, Alonso
.
c.1612 Henry VIII (1623)
----------------------------------
I have concluded that Oxford probably lived in hiding
until his actual death in 1612:
..............................................................
1) Oxford certainly didn't die on St.John's day/Midsummer's Night.
. A death that went totally unnoticed & without a trace.
.
2) Oxford's widow didn't bother to write
. her Will until Nov. 25, 1612.
.
3) Lear's favorite daughter (Cordelia) was married
. so it would have been nice if Oxford had known
. that his favorite daughter (Susan) was married.
.
4) Once he had a male heir entering puberty Oxford probably
would have been much happier living a gay lifestyle in hiding,
while being allowed to work in peace on the rest of
his oeuvre (including, possibly, KJV & Don Quixote).
.
5) It would have been strange for Oxford to die
. just as Neville's five year payment ran out.
. The flurry of 1608/9 activity was to thank Neville
. for his patronage (& not because Oxford had died).
.
6) The Ashbourne painting & the Wellbeck painting
. are similar in many ways...including, possibly,
. having Oxford's TWO dates of death written in gold.
.
7) Oxford's swan song: _The Tempest_ (A COMEDY!)
. was performed in court on Nov. 1, 1611.
.
8) The 1612 MINERVA BRITANNA "MENTE VIDEBOR"
___________ anagram is clearly "DE VERE IN TOMB".
Presumably, the burial had to be soon after Oxford's actual death.
.
9) The MINERVA BRITANNA Banner Folding clearly demonstrates
how the Equidistant Linear Sequence decoding is to be performed:
...............................................
-_ V I [V] I T U R I
. N G [E] N I O C Æ
- T E [R] A M O R T
_ I S [E] R U N T.
.
. VIVITUR INGENIO, CÆTERA MORTIS ERUNT.
.
"all thinges perish and come to theyr last end,but workes
of learned WITS and monuments of Poetry abide for EUER."
----------------------------------------------------
July 6th 1604 - *Edward VEARE* earl of oxford (burial)
.
*AT VÆRE ELLER IKKE VÆRE* : *To Be or Not to Be* (Danish)
.
*VARE* : continue, endure, keep on, last (Danish)
*VARE* : A wand or *STAFF* of authority or justice.
.
*PROSPERO* : This airy charm is for, I'll break my *STAFF*
. Bury it certain fathoms in the earth,
. And deeper than did ever plummet sound
. I'll drown my book.
-------------------------------------------
*St. PROSPERO's EVE* : July 6th
--------------------------------------------------
July 6, 1189 - King Henry II dies
July 6, 1415 - Jan Hus, Bohemian reformer (burned at the stake)
July 6, 1483 - Richard III is crowned king of England.
July 6, 1533 - Ludovico Ariosto dies
July 6, 1535 - Sir Thomas More executed
July 6, 1553 - King Edward VI of England dies
July 6, 1560 - Treaty of Edinburgh is signed by Scotland & England.
July 6, 1609 - Bohemia is granted freedom of religion.
---------------------------------------------------------
. *CHRISTOPHER*
___ {anagram}
. *THOR'S CIPHER*
-----------------------------------------------------
Queen Elizabeth dies: THURSday, March 24.
Queen Mary __ THURSday, November 17.
King Edward VI. THURSday, July 6.
Henry VIII _____ THURSday, Jan. 28.
.
. BloomsDay of James Joyce's _Ulysses_:
THURSday June 16, 1904 exactly 301 (52 week "years")
. after Oxford's "death" THURSday June 24, 1604
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta33.htm
.
<<A great number of scholars and philosophers,
among them Sir Francis Bacon & Wolfgang von Goethe,
have been suspected of affiliation with the R(osicrucian) O(rder)>>
....................................................
THE CREST OF JOHANN VALENTIN ANDREÆ.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/img/14000.jpg
....................................................
<<The reference to four red roses and a white cross in the Chymical
Marriage of Christian Rosencreutz identified Johann Valentin Andreæ
as its author, for his family crest, shown above,
consisted of four red roses and a white cross.>>
--------------------------------------------
____*OXENFORD*
.
____*R.O. : FOX DEN*
____*R(osicrucian) O(rder) : FOX DEN*
____ *FOX* : *REV* (Norwegian)
-------------------------------------------------------
__ \_*_/
__ _\_/
_ * _X * Edward de Vere, Erle of Oxenford was buryed
__ _/_\ __________ the 6th daye of Julye Å 1604
__ _/ *_\ ____________ [ *St. PROSPERO's EVE* ]
.
<<The strange, large 'X' type symbol appears to have been put there
much later. According to Paul Altrocchi, this must have happened
many decades later "...since pencils withsuch a sharp point did
not appear until the late 1600's." It really is anybody's guess
who put it there - perhaps an over-enthusiastic Oxfordian?>>
- _The Death of Edward de Vere_ by Michael Llewellyn
------------------------------------------------------
. Sonnet 16
.
So should the lines of life that life repair,
Which this, Time's *PENCIL* , or my PUPIL PEN,
Neither in inward *WORTH* nor outward fair,
Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
....................................................
____ *VERD* : *WORTH* (Norwegian)
---------------------------------------------------------
1604 WHITgift dies on February 29th.
1604 1000th anniversary of St.Augustine's death.
1604 Tomb of Christian Rosenkreutz discovered.
1604 Hamlet published
1604 FAMA Fraternitatis published
1604 Tragical History of Doctor Faustus (V1) published
1604 Oxford dies on the Feastday of John the Baptist.
1604 Oxford buried on *St. PROSPERO's EVE*
1604 Kepler's NOVA/AVON.
1604 Susan marries Pembroke on the Feastday of John the Devine
---------------------------------------------------
Goethe's poem :"The Mysteries," in which Brother Mark is
guided to the Temple where the Rose Cross is on the door.
-----------------------------------------------
J.W. von Goethe: _Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship_
. Book II Chapter X
.
WHEN our friends began to think of going home, they looked about them
for their clergyman; but he had vanished, and was nowhere to be found.
.
'It is not polite in the man, who otherwise displayed
good breeding,' said Madam Melina, 'to desert a company
that welcomed him so kindly, without taking leave.'
'I have all the time been thinking,' said Laertes,
'where I can have seen this singular man before.
I fully intended to ask him about it at parting.'
'I too had the same feeling,' said Wilhelm, 'and certainly
I should not have let him go, till he had told us something
more about his circumstances. I am much mistaken
if I have not ere now spoken with him somewhere.'
'And you may in TRUTH,' said Philina, 'be mistaken there.
This person seems to have the air of an acquaintance,
because he looks like a man, and not like *JACK or KIT* '
'What is this?' said Laertes. 'Do not we two look like men?'
'I know what I am saying,? cried Philina;
'and if you cannot understand me, nEVER mind. In the end
my words will be found to require no commentary.'
---------------------------------------------
. Beaumont and Fletcher. Philaster.
. Act the Fifth Scene IV
.
1ST CIT.: I'll have a leg, that's certain.
2ND CIT.: I'll have an arm.
3RD CIT.: I'll have his nose, and at mine own charge
. build a college and clap't upon the gate.
4TH CIT.: I'll have his little gut to string a *KIT* with;
. For certainly a royal gut will sound like silVER.
---------------------------------------------
. sudore non supore - by labour not sleep
.......................................
. http://www.st-ives.info/
.
As I was going to St Ives I met a man with seven wives.
Each wife had seven sacks, Each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven KITs;
KITs, cats, sacks and wives -
How many were going to St Ives?
--------------------------------------------
____ *OXENFORD*
____ {anagram}
____*R.O. : FOX DEN*
____*R(osicrucian) O(rder) : FOX DEN*
.
____*KITS*
----------------------------------------------
Peter Bull's 14 letter *TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW*
is somewhat less impressive but quite similar
to John Rollett's 15 letter discovery of
*HENRY-WR-IOTH-ESLEY* in the Sonnets
dedication (: i.e., a name closely associated with
William Shakespeare which is broken into 4 pieces).
.
Rollett's solution is clearly statistically significant
in its own right. Peter Bull's *TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW*
is probably statistically significant as well given
the apriori existence & legitimacy of Rollett's find.
---------------------------------------------------
[T]hou wilt restore, to be my comfort still:
[I]s't not enough to torture me alone,
[K]nowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
[I]f Nature, sovereign mistress over WRACK, [short sonnet!]
[T]o weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
[M]ine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
[A]nd peace proclaims olives of endless age.
[R]eturn, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
[L]ike a deceived husband; so love's face
[O]f faults conceal'd, wherein I am attainted,
[W]hen others would give life and bring a TOMB.
--------------------------------------------------
(W)hy of eyes' falsehood hast thou forged hooks,
(I)n things of great receipt with ease we prove
(S)hall Will in others seem right gracious,
(H)e learn'd but surety-like to write for me
.
Sonnet 135: WhoEVER hath her *WISH* , thou hast thy 'Will,'
.
. King Lear Act 2, Scene 4
.
REGAN: so will you *WISH ON* me,
.
. Measure for Measure Act 2, Scene 1
.
FROTH: I nEVER come into any room in a *TAP-house*
. but I am drawn in.
-------------------------------------------------
Philip Massinger: _A New Way to Pay Old Debts_ Act I Scene I
.
[Enter] TAPWELL, WELLBORN [in tattered apparel,] and FROTH
.
TAP. [to his wife.] Cry out for help!
.
WELL. Stir, and thou diest:
Your potent prince, the constable, shall not save you.
Hear me ungrateful hell-hound! Did not I
Make purses for you? Then you lick'd my boots,
And thought your holiday *CLOAK* too coarse to clean them.
'Twas I that, when I heard thee swear if EVER
Thou couldst arrive at FORTY pounds thou wouldst
Live like an emperor, 'twas I that gave it
In ready gold. Deny this, wretch!
.
TAP. I must, sir;
For, from the tavern to the *TAPhouse* , all,
On forfeiture of their licenses, stand bound
Ne'er to remember who their best guests were,
If they grew poor like you.
.
WELL. They are well reWARDED
That beggar themselves to make such CUckolds rich.
---------------------------------------------------------
______ *LVCRECE*
______ {anagram}
______ *VERE CCL*
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/maune/images/Lucrece.jpg
.
And my TRUE eyes have nEVER practised how
To *CLOAKE* offences with a cunning brow.
.
'O Night, thou furnace of foul-reeking smoke,
Let not the jealous Day behold that face
Which underneath thy *BLACK ALL-HIDDING CLOAKE*
Immodestly lies *MARTYR'D WITH DISGRACE* !
Keep still possession of thy gloomy place,
That all the faults which in thy reign are made
May likewise be *SEPULCHRED* in thy shade
..........................................................
_. GOOD FREND FO_{R}_[IE]{SVS}'_S(AKE)__ FOR[BE]ARE,
___ TO DIGG THE D_{V}_[ST] ___ EN(CLO)ASED [HE]ARE:
...........................................................
__ BLESTE BE Ye MA_{N} Yt___ SPA[RE]S THES STONES,
___ AND CVRST BE H_{E} Yt___ MO[VE]S MY BONES.
...............................................
http://library.thinkquest.org/5175/images/grave1.jpg
-------------------------------------------------
What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones,
The labour of an age in piled *STONES* ,
.....................................
_____*STONES*
_____{anagram}
_____*SONETS*
--------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html
.
. <= 12 =>
.
137 T T T Y I B(W)W W W O T
136 I S A T W I(I)A T T F T
135 W A M T W N(S)A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F(H)V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A[O]A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B[N]D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T(T)A A A O T
130 M C[I I}I B(A)T I T I M
129 T I{I}S I P(P)O M H A B
128 H V W[T]D{T)W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W{T|I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
.99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
.98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
.97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
.96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
.95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
.94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
.93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
.92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
.91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
.90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
.89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
.88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
.87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
.86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
.85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
.84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
.83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
----------------------------------
Recalculated for first 12 lines:
-------------------------------------------
*KITM-MARL-LOW* probability ~ 1/760
----------------------------------------------------
Consider the "Bull Sonnets Acrostic Array" at Terry's site:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html
.
Use a 'String Find' to count (in first 12 columns):
.
. 4 K's
. 68 M's
. 41 L's
.
. This automatically gives:
.
. 4 x 68 "K-M" pairs and
. 68 x 41 "M-L" pairs
.
However, each "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER string
must be separated by multiples of 3 rows & 3 columns
.
Hence, the [E]xpected [V]alue number of interesting
. "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
. in the Bull array
.
. "K**M" E.V.: ~ 4*68/(3*3) ~ 30
. "M**L" E.V.: ~ 67*41/(3*3) ~ 305
-------------------------------------------------
Now use 'String Find' {e.g., on "I T" & "T I"}
.to count (for whole 14 lines):
.
50 "IT"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
.8 "AR"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
31 "OW"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
.
. "IT" probability: 50/4000
. "AR" probability: 8/4000
. "OW" probability: 31/4000
--------------------------------------------
. Now applying the
.
"IT" prob: 50/4000 = 1/80
"AR" prob: 8/4000 = 1/500
.
. to the [E]xpected [V]alue of interesting
. "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
.
gives [E]xpected [V]alue of
.
. "KITM" E.V. = 30 / 80
. "MARL" E.V.= 305 / 500
.
Hence one would be lucky to expect ONE of each
(which presumeably is what Peter Bull found)
----------------------------------------------
However, one would NOT expect these
. two (expected) 4 LETTER strings:
"KITM" & "MARL" to share the SAME "M"!
.
. For these two strings to share the SAME "M"
.
"KITM-MARL" E.V.: 30*305/(80*500*68) ~ 1/297
------------------------------------------------------
The additional of "LOW" adds a little bit more to this:
--------------------------------------------------
Given the prior spacings in "KITM" & "MARL"
it would be reasonable to look for the "O"
. of the "OW" pair in one of 62 positions:
.
. [L]M T F T I I
. F A F T W I T
. S S S A W B A
. N I A A C G T
. A S A T T A I
. A V A W V[O]T
. A T M F A T A
. B T M W A N G
. W R A I A T I
.
Only one "[O]W" is found out of 62.
.
. How does this compare with and
. expected "OW" prob: ~31/4000?
-----------------------------------------
. Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
.
. TABLE = [ 1 , 61 , 31 , 3970 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.38980385512773885
-----------------------------------------
. So the [E]xpected [V]alue of
. the final "OW" is ~0.39
.
"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability: 0.39/297 ~ 1/760
.
A respectable if not overly impressive number in itself.
--------------------------------------------------------
. Now things get interesting:
--------------------------------------------
____*OXENFORD*
.
____*R.O. : FOX DEN*
____*R(osicrucian) O(rder) : FOX DEN*
.
_______4 *KITs*
------------------------------------------------------------
. "KITM-MARL-LOW" + 4 close "KIT"s probability?
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull points out:
.
<<1 The beginning of the message is very clearly signposted. The
K forming the first letter of the message is the starting point of no
less than five regularly formed KITs, one of which appears in adjacent
squares and all of which are straight-line examples, with left to
right orientation and tight letter spacing. This KIT node is
'highly anomalous' in the grid. It is eye-catching. Its occurence
is highly unlikely to be the product of random forces.
.
2. The line of the message as it unfolds from the initial K
is also indicated because the KITM of the first section is
exactly superimposed on a seperate KIT line. This is a
signal of its intentionality. It is an anomaly compounded.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
So what about the four other "regularly formed KITs"
.
. The pertinent I's lie within the 25 spaces
. of a half-diamond surrounding the K in "KITM":
.
. S
. A M
. A M[T]
. F[I]B M
. [K]H L A B
. A F T Y
. C[I I}
. I{I}
. V [T] {T}
.
. {T}
.
. So 4 of these 25 spaces produce
. the "I" for a "KIT" while 19 do not
. [; ignoring the "K" & "T"]
.
Compare this with the 50 "IT"s found in ~ 4000
. left right pairs in the "Bull array":
---------------------------------------------
. Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
.
. TABLE = [ 4 , 19 , 50 , 3950 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.00021257190299677967
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore there is only ~ 1/4700!! probability
. for this close clustering of 4 "KIT"s!
----------------------------------------------
Hence, the chance of "KITM-MARL-LOW"
. PLUS 4 close "KIT"s
.
. ~ 1/(760 x 4700) ~1/3,600,000!!!
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.masoncode.com/Great%20Seal%20Sonnets.htm
As an Oxfordian the base 17 pyramid is ideal!
-----------------------------------------------
A nice pattern emerges if
the sonnets are written out in
boustrophedon "ox path" style:
..................................................
*Under a STAR-Y-pointing PYRAMID* -- Milton (1630)
.
---------- *SONET EYES*
...
---------------- * 154
--------------- 0 0 153
-------------- 0 * * 151
------------- 0 * * * 148
------------ 0 0 Y * * 144
----------- 0 * 0 * * * 139
---------- 0 * * 0 * 0 0 133
-------------------------------------------
--------- * * * * 0 * 0 * 125
-------- * * * * 0 0 * * * 117
------- * * 0 * 0 * * * * * 108
------ 0 * * * * 0 * 0 * * * 98
----- * * * * 0 * 0 * * 0 * * 87
---- * * * * * * 0 * * * * * * 75
--- 0 0 * * * * 0 0 * * * * * 0 62
-- * * * * * * * * * 0 * * 0 0 * 48
- 0 * 0 0 0 * * * 0 0 0 * * 0 * 0 33
. 0 0 * * 0 * 0 * 0 * * * * 0 * 0 0 17
----------------------------------------------------
What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones,
The labour of an age in piled *STONES* ,
.....................................
_____*STONES*
_____{anagram}
_____*SONETS*
.....................................
Or that his hallow'd relics should be hid
*Under a STAR-Y-pointing PYRAMID* ?
Dear son of memory, great heir of fame,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
-----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Parish records state that he was buried in Hackney Church on July 6,
> but a family history by his first cousin Percival Golding, states
> "Edward de Veer ....a man in mind and body absolutely accomplished
> with honorable endowments....lieth buried at Westminster".
MM:
Well, which version is the truth? Westminster or Hackney?
> From his widow we have this:
> I joyfully commit my body to the earth from whence it was taken,
> desiring to be buried in the church of Hackney within the County of
> Middlesex, as near unto the body of my said late dear and noble Lord
> and husband as may be, and that to be done as privately and with as
> little pomp and ceremony as may be. Only I will that there be in the
> said church erected for us a tomb fitting our degree...
MM:
This one claim Hackney to be the burial site. Sounds a little
egotistical regarding her reference to "our degree."
> From your own remote muses we have this:
> "Edward de Vere died in 1604. He was reborn, but died while still a
> baby. It's unusual to me, that he had such a mixture of good and bad
> karma."
MM:
Sometimes, after 400 years the truth is remote. That's not my fault.
That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
> Or for comparison you could try:
>
> http://www.jeremycrick.info/TrenthamFamily-1.html
>
> Oxford’s widow, Elizabeth Trentham, was in possession of all the
> material in Oxford’s study on his death and she outlived him by nine
> years. Oxford’s study at King’s Place in Hackney must have been the
> original source for all the material that was gathered for the First
> Folio that hadn’t already been published in various Quarto editions -
> at least nineteen plays.
MM:
Must have been? How about a little proof?
> The study would have contained notebooks,
> masses of loose leaves, working drafts, polished drafts, copies in the
> hands of Oxford’s secretaries, prompt copies with notes on stage
> direction, literary correspondence as well as extensive marginalia in
> Oxford’s source books.
>
> see also:http://www.jeremycrick.info/TrenthamFamily-6.html
>
> ...the record is full of Elizabethan men coming a cropper through
> their entanglement with the Queen’s ladies - as the Oxford-Vavasour
> imbroglio so vividly illustrates.
>
> ...Yet somehow it was all so very different when it came to the Earl
> of Oxford and Miss Trentham.
MM:
It was different, but where is the proof? This reminds me of Mr.
Farey's trendlines. We've seen a trend of Oxford's life, even
involving a bastard being born. So, this would make us think that
this claim seems "out of the trend." Far-fetched, IOW. But, thanks
for your reply.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
wrote:
> >> > Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Anyway, if [Simonton] were still an Oxfordian he wouldn't
> >> >> be publishing papers on the fact that the Strats
> >> >> are right and the Oxfordians are wrong.
> .
> >> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> >> > I'm always arguing that Orthodox Oxfordians
> >> > have got it wrong yet I'm an Oxfordian.
> >> > --------------------------------------------------
> > lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Art, how many factions of Oxfordians are there?
>
> Maybe ten or so.
MM:
Why so many disagreements? Ten different fantasies, perhaps?
> > lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> �Crowley replied to me that he doesn't agree
> >> with Oxfordians who think Oxford faked his death.
>
> Crowley is a faction in and of himself (as am I for that matter).
> .
>
> > lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> �Which Oxfordians have orthodox fantasies, and which ones have
> >> unorthodox fantasies?
>
> Can you name one Strat who doesn't think that you are living in a
> fantasy world?
> .
MM:
This question is inherently unfair, Art. The whole world has been
groping in the dark, especially since Anti-Strats like you came on the
scene about 150 years after William Shakespeare's death. It's not
fair to use someone groping in the dark to define me. It's also not
too smart to align yourself with those groping in the dark. Bible
says, "If blind lead the blind, then both shall fall into a ditch."
Enough said.
> > lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Many thanks. �To me all Oxfordians look alike. LOL �Just kidding.
>
> Like you, my most vehement critics are those who
> actually share my belief in Shakespearean authorship.
MM:
I follow that. Just out of curiosity, where do you think the Earl was
hiding for those 8 years, and did he come out to see his family
members? Wasn't that a big sacrifice, if he didn't see them, until he
really died, according to you? Your theory seems to raise a lot of
questions, Art?
Michael Martin
> . � � � � � � N G [E] N I O C �
> - � � � � � � T E [R] A M O R T
> _ � � � � � � I S [E] R U N T.
> .
> . � �VIVITUR INGENIO, C�TERA MORTIS ERUNT.
> .
> "all thinges perish and come to theyr last end,but workes
> of learned WITS and monuments of Poetry abide for EUER."
> ----------------------------------------------------
> July 6th 1604 - *Edward VEARE* earl of oxford (burial)
> .
> *AT V�RE ELLER IKKE V�RE* : *To Be or Not to Be* (Danish)
> THURSday- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more �
Paul Crowley
news:fs7ng4$it8$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> WHERE THE OXFORDIAN CASE FAILS
> What they do not do, however, is to relate this in any way
> to the development of dramatic blank verse over the years,
There was no significant 'development'
in these matters. They are not complex.
Both had long been familiar to poets and
dramatists.
> particularly two techniques tending to vary the end of what
> Nashe called the "drumming decasyllabon" of the iambic
> pentameter - enjambment (or the run-on line) and the feminine
> ending.
> Of these, all except *Love labours wonne* are easily recog-
> nizable
And the "Loves labours wonne" is, of
course, a joke -- at the expense of those
who were ignorant of the multiple
significances of "Loves Labours Lost".
(Meres himself was probably one of
the victims.)
> so Meres has given us clear evidence that by 1598
> the following eleven plays had certainly been written and
> performed:
Nope. He gives us evidence that he
knew the names -- but he does not say
how he acquired that knowledge.
> *The Two Gentlemen of Verona*, *The Comedy of
> Errors*, *Love's Labour's Lost*, *A Midsummer Night's Dream*,
> *The Merchant of Venice*, *King Richard II*, *King Richard
> III*, *King Henry IV* (part one), *King John*, *Titus
> Andronicus* and *Romeo and Juliet*.
> So here we have a total of fifteen plays said to have been
> by Shakespeare and known to have been written before Meres's
> list was published. What was the rate at which run-on lines
> and feminine endings were used in them? On average, one or
> other of these techniques occurs about 25 times per hundred
> lines of verse,
And why not add together two wholly
independent variables?
At this point, anyone with the slightest
grasp of maths will throw their hands up
in horror. This is a complete NO-NO.
You don't add together the number of
washing machines in China over the last
20 years with the annual rainfail in Chile,
and hope to get a meaningful figure.
Anyone who tries an operation like this
is either a fool or a fraud -- or, as in
Peter's case -- both.
It is accepted that the rate of run-on lines
broadly increased over time. Likewise it
is accepted that the number of feminine
endings broadly increased over time.
But there is NO SUCH ENTITY as
'feminine endings + run-on lines".
> Taking a breakpoint of 35
No doubt selected at random -- I dont'
think. What bullshit.
> in fact,
> we find that all except one of the 'pre-Meres' ones are
> below that figure, and all except one of the others above
> it. The statistical significance of this - odds of about
> 10 billion to 1 against it happening by chance
Except that (a) you have selected two
independent trends (which you knew
in advance moved upward); and
(b) you've added them together.
Any clown can do this with almost any
set of complex data. (A) You look at it
and decide what (broadly) goes up.
(B) You add the figures for each 'trend'
together.
And (C) You get a tremendous going-up
'super-trend' -- which will 'prove' whatever
you wanted to 'prove' in the first place.
Imagine doing this with any complex
body of work -- let's say Beatles' songs.
Given the huge numbers of variables
available, you could get two that (broadly)
go up. (Of course, you might have to
investigate and reject many variables in
the process -- ones that don't go up well
enough). Then you add the two (or more)
together and get a super-duper-super-
trend.
And this is maths!
> - gives
> enormous support to confirming that Meres's list (plus
> those four additional ones) does indeed cover all of the
> plays written by Shakespeare up until then and that the
> vast majority of the others were written after the list
> was prepared.
Total trash. How do you know that Meres
was (a) omniscient; and (b) truthful?
> Now we need to look at the impact this has on "The 1604
> question". As can be easily seen from the above, the break-
> point of 50 instances per 100 lines appears to be reached
> right around then - every single play with a rate below 50
> being given a date before 1604 and every one above 50 app-
> earing after it. The conclusion that most of the 'over 50'
> plays were written after the others is therefore inescapable.
Utter trash.
> It is therefore essential for Oxfordians to come up with a
> chronology which does not do such violence to the trend,
> although attempting to do so is of course fraught with
> difficulty.
'Violence to the trend' --- what a laugh!
If you forgot your silly 'maths' and tried to
express your 'propositions' in ordinary
English, you might begin to have some
awareness of their nonsensical nature.
> If they shifted all of the plays back in time by an equal
> amount the trend would remain just as valid. If it were by
> only five years, however, we would have to ask why the
> examples of someone who is "best for Comedy" did not include
> *Much Ado* and *As You Like It*, and why the "best for
> Tragedy" omitted *Julius Caesar* and *Hamlet*. Make it the
> strictly necessary eight years, and both *Twelfth Night*
> and *Othello*, among others, are missed out too.
The answer is boring simple: Meres did
not know of these plays -- OR they were
not in the list he was given.
Since, by 1598, the Stratman was firmly
ensconced as stooge, and since he had
only been located in 1593, and could not
be said to have had much of a "writing
career" before 1590, he could not be said
to have written much more than about 15
plays.
> Any
> argument that, after having been written, the plays were
> 'held back' from performance for some reason - given the
> complete lack of supporting evidence and the huge demand
> there was for good new plays - can be rejected out of hand.
Sure. The Queen and her premier earl
were under intense commercial pressure
to get the works on to the public stage.
What a fool!
I am also astonished by the Strat, and
quasi-Strat, inability to read the works
-- or to listen to them in peformance.
They are FAR above the level of
typical modern audiences, all of which
are literate, often highly educated, and
often thoroughly familiar with the texts
They were MUCH further above the
level of Elizabethan public audiences.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>
> Bob Grumman wrote:
>> > What we can say with complete confidence is that
>> > there was a continuous increase in the use of brass
>> > and a continuous decline in the use of the organ in
>> > orchestral music composition between 1850 and 1930.
>> > We can therefore, with complete confidence, date
>> > any musical work in that period to a precise year
>> > by measuring the extent of the use of those
>> > instruments.
>> Paul, why do you so often misrepresent your opponents'
>> arguments before responding them?
It was only a minor extension of Peter's
'argument' -- and fully justified in the
context.
>> The argument here
>> is that a relatively high ratio of certain metrical
>> techniques per line in dramatic verse is EVIDENCE
>> that the verse in question was composed later than
>> dramatic verse with a relatively low ratio of the
>> metrical techniques.
If that were all, then it MIGHT be acceptable
-- however Peter uses it to reach some truly
absurd conclusions.
His most objectionable assumption is that
Shake-speare (of all people) was a slavish
adherent to literary fashion. Also he fails
to realise that much of the conventional
'dating' of the canon is based on the criteria
he uses to justify that dating. The worst
example of this is the late dating of the close-
to-juvenile *Cymbeline*.
His core notions are absurdity itself. NO
ONE has EVER applied similar 'reasoning'
to the work of any other artist in any other
discipline. (No, on second thoughts, I'll
amend that to 'no SERIOUS critic' -- no
doubt the occasional over-enthusiastic but
quite naive first-year student has sometimes
thought it up as a bright idea for an essay.)
Both feminine endings and run-on lines
were established dramatic (and poetic)
techniques long before Shake-speare
began to write. Good artists use such
techniques for their own purposes, and
certainly do not blindly follow fashion.
Perhaps it is possible to discern a rough trend
for him to use them more later in his career.
But, so what? You can discern rough trends
in the work of most great artists. But NO
useful conclusions can be drawn from any
such observations. He was free, at any time,
to reverse that trend for his own purposes.
Many artists produce more complex work
as time goes on. But they will often produce
something simple when it takes their fancy.
>> A responsible disputant would accept the argument but
>> try to demonstrate that other, stronger arguments
>> contradict it. You are never a responsible disputant,
>> however.
I have torn Farey's 'arguments' to bits on
numerous occasions -- including his 'brilliant'
mathematical analyses. (These are worth
studying as almost classical examples of
classical mistakes.) He never seeks to present
a defence against my points, merely churning
out with the same irresponsible garbage time
and time again. And the fake maths can readily
fool the mathematically illiterate.
Paul.
nordicskiv2
Translation: besides being incompetent, Elizabeth is utterly
indifferent to fact. She does not care whether what she says is
factually accurate, and she is quite content, in making what she takes
to be an "argument," to inflate grossly the published output of her
star witness -- by over 500%, in fact! This utter indifference to
factual accuracy is the hallmark of the rabid ideologue, not of the
scholar. The latter would have acknowledged the correction.
As I noted before, neither Simonton nor Waugaman is trained as an
expert in Elizabethan/Jacobean literary
history; thus, to compare their fitness as experts on questions in
Elizabethan literary history by comparing their professional
publication records -- in two *completely different fields*! -- makes
about as much sense as deciding who is right by comparing one man's
golf score to the other's bowling score. Sadly, that appears to be
the best that Elizabeth can do.
But there is a still more serious question here: whether in fact
Simonton was ever an Oxfordian, or whether Elizabeth is
misrepresenting his position, as she has done to others in the past.
Simonton may have been an Oxfordian, but Elizabeth has thus far
adduced no evidence for such a stance. Elizabeth reports that
"Simonton fairly gushed in his enthusiasm for His Lordshippe
[Oxford]," but she furnishes no citation in which he does so.
Moreover, a cursory examination of the abstracts of all Simonton's
published (or in press) papers gives not the slightest indication of
any Oxfordian "gushing" whatever. In light of what Alan Jones
charitably called Elizabeth's "casual reading, or at least imperfect
recollection":
one must wonder whether Elizabeth's version of Simonton's beliefs is
accurate. As Alan wrote,
"What's at issue, as alas so often, is
whether we can rely on you to cite your
sources fairly and accurately. In this
instance none of your arguments about
authorship depends on the derivation
and meaning of 'dispute'; but it is another
disquieting example of your casual reading,
or at least imperfect recollection."
In another post in the same thread, at
Alan summarized the situation nicely in a post addressed to Elizabeth:
"So in the course of a single short
sentence based on a single website
page, you have demonstrably invented
every single 'fact'. How do you expect
us to believe the 'facts' you offer on any
other topic, including the authorship of
the Shakespeare texts, or take seriously
any deduction you make from those
'facts'?"
If Simonton was indeed an Oxfordian, which is possible, the least
Elizabeth could do would be to furnish a citation to the text to which
she alludes, in which Simonton "gushes" about Oxford. We've all heard
the one about the perishable internet too often. To ascribe to an
eminent scholar a borderline crackpot position, then refuse to provide
any basis whatever for such an ascription is a hallmark of
intellectual bankruptcy.
nordicskiv2
<b5fa8090-ce56-49ac...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> >> > Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Anyway, if [Simonton] were still an Oxfordian he wouldn't
> >> >> be publishing papers on the fact that the Strats
> >> >> are right and the Oxfordians are wrong.
> >> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'm always arguing that Orthodox Oxfordians
> >> > have got it wrong yet I'm an Oxfordian.
> >> > --------------------------------------------------
> > lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Art, how many factions of Oxfordians are there?
> Maybe ten or so.
Surely there have been more schisms than that! In fact, there seem
to be enough singleton Oxfordian factions to account for at least ten.
> > lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Crowley replied to me that he doesn't agree
> >> with Oxfordians who think Oxford faked his death.
> Crowley is a faction in and of himself (as am I for that matter).
Each of you is a singleton faction, specializing in fiction.
> > lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Which Oxfordians have orthodox fantasies, and which ones have
> >> unorthodox fantasies?
> Can you name one Strat who doesn't think that you are living in a
> fantasy world?
No, there seems to be a robust consensus concerning lackpurity's
connection -- or the lack thereof -- to reality.
> > lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Many thanks. To me all Oxfordians look alike. LOL Just kidding.
> Like you, my most vehement critics are those who
> actually share my belief in Shakespearean authorship.
What about me, Art? Am I not vehement enough to qualify?
[...]
> Were I a king I could command content ;
Not so, Art -- even if you were king of the uniVERse, your posts
would *still* be utterly devoid of content.
[Many screenfuls of content-free lunatic logorrhea snipped]
Peter Groves
news:8Q9Gj.24917$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
Interesting evidence of Crowley's grotesque incompetence as a reader: I
supected him of having a tin ear, but I didn't think it was quite this bad.
It's rather like suggesting that one of Beethoven's late quartets might have
been written in the 1790s.
--
Peter G.
"A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the
Templars." (Umberto Eco)
rpari...@yahoo.com
Peter is absolutely right about this, and I think the reason that
few people seem to pay much attention to such evidence is that the
kind of facts he attests hardly count as facts nowadays, because fewer
and fewer people are capable of registering them. In a recent article
("Shakespeare's Pentameter and the End of Editing", <Shakespeare>
(Journal of the British Shakespeare Association), 3:2 (2007), 126-42)
I show that some of Shakespeare's modern *editors* (Jonathan Bates is
the most recent example -- too recent for my article) simply cannot
hear the structure of pentameter, and mis-edit accordingly. Imagine
the manuscripts of Mozart edited by someone who was tone-deaf.
--
Peter G.
"A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the
Templars." (Umberto Eco)
RNP
None of the better poets whom I have known(and I have had both a
preface from W.H.Auden, and an enthusiastic review from Kathleen
Raine ) would have regarded this observation as surprising ,nor would
they have regarded it as an academic disability which is less common
among Yeats or Faulkner critics than among Elizabehan experts. Still,I
am glad that Peter wrote it.
Oddly enough the woman,Eva Turner Clark, who is getting blamed here
by Peter Farey,did not suffer from this difficency.In fact,she and
J.M.Robertson are virtually alone among twentieth century Elizabethan
critics (as distinct from some practicing poets and actors that I have
known) in insisting that the low percentage of double endings and the
handling of the run on lines(two sides of the same coin) found
throughout King John, Midsummer's Night's Dream,Henry IV,Part I,and
approximately the first two acts of Henry IV,Part ll mark an
absolutely distinct development in Shakespeare's art and make no
sense sandwiched into a 1594 -1596 time slot between prior works
which already show consistently higher percentages of run-on lines
and double endings and later works ,starting in the MIDDLE of Henry
IVth,Part II and continue to accelerate non-stop according to the
standard(and I believe mistaken) chronology to the conclusion of his
career.
Clark never suggested that her hypothetical ur-drafts(1578-1590)
were written in post 1590 iambic pentameter but rather that the above
cited plays marked the earliest transition to the rewritten
Shakespeare which we now have. She pushed this authorial innovation
back a bit too far to the central eighties.
But if "King John" is placed in 1588(1590 at the latest as a
number of the better Stratfordian ears now allow),and the critic
allows for (a quite slow) authorial production at the rate of two
plays per year thereafter ( with a 2dHenry 1V rewrite circa .early
1597) ,neither internal topical allusions nor overall metrecal form
require or reasonably allow for any Shakespearean production later
than earlier 1607 and quite reasonably terminating around the time of
Hamlet Quarto 2.
19th century Stratfordians already pointed out (to name only one
instance of many ) that Sterling's Darius(1603) showed clear
imitations of Prospero's "Our revels now are ended." And this summer
we have seen a prominent Stratfordian arguing for a 1605 date for
"Pericles".The list could be extended iindefinitely.
Tom Reedy
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> > All the evidence in the world would not convince an Oxfordian that
> > Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, because their belief does not rest on
> > historical or logical premises. In fact, it is based on no evidence
> > whatsoever. The belief in Oxford fulfills some type of psychological
> > need or wish fantasy, so it's not subject to logical or historical or
> > any type of evidence in the conventional sense of the word.
>
> There is a more profound problem, and that is that admitting you were
> wrong is /hard/; cognitive dissonance is one of the most powerful of
> motivators.
Yes, it's the same trait that keeps people investing in losing
propositions: once we have actually committed a large sum, we are
inclined to add to it more than we would have ever accepted to invest
at the beginning.
> (There's a new book, "True Enough: Learning to Live in a
> Post-Fact Society", by Farhad Manjoo, that goes into the matter.)
Thanks for the book title.
Another good one mentioned by Mac Jackson is "Inevitable Illusions:
How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," by Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini.
He goes into the subject of the framing of choices and probability
illusions that shed a lot of light on Diana Price's method, plus a lot
of other interesting mental tunnles we unconsciously live in.
TR
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
> A proud member of the reality-based community.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > His most objectionable assumption is that
> > Shake-speare (of all people) was a slavish
> > adherent to literary fashion. Also he fails
> > to realise that much of the conventional
> > 'dating' of the canon is based on the criteria
> > he uses to justify that dating. The worst
> > example of this is the late dating of the close-
> > to-juvenile *Cymbeline*.
>
> Interesting evidence of Crowley's grotesque incompetence as a reader: I
> supected him of having a tin ear, but I didn't think it was quite this bad.
> It's rather like suggesting that one of Beethoven's late quartets might have
> been written in the 1790s.
>
> --
> Peter G.
Note, too, the bardolatry--as though we should consider Beethoven a
slavish adherent to musical fashion if it could be shown that Haydn or
Mozart influenced him. He knows nothing about either poetry or the
creative process.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
> On Mar 20, 11:30 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > All the evidence in the world would not convince an Oxfordian that
> > > Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, because their belief does not rest on
> > > historical or logical premises.
>
> about "an Oxfordian." Which Oxfordian would this be? Roger?
Yes.
> Me?
Yes.
> Someone else?
Almost all of them. I admit I overspoke a bit for effect: there have
been cases of Oxfordians changing their minds. I know of two such
cases in the ten years or so I've been familiar with the condition.
> In any case, you must know of whom you're speaking
> because "all the evidence in the world" would not persuade whoever it
> is that "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare." How do you know this?
Because they've been exposed to it and cannot see the mistakes in
reasoning and logic their belief necessarily entails. Since this is
so, it follows that reason and logic is not the basis of their
beliefs, therefore it is impenetrable to evidence based on such.
> One
> might as well say that no amount of evidence would convince a
> Stratfordian that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. Would you say this is
> true?
I would say that no evidence has yet to be presented that would
persuade an educated Stratfordian that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. The
general public, however, is certainly vulnerable. Almost with
clockwork regularity the general public believes and acts on things
that are untrue or that are opposite of its own self-interest. These
are your likely market.
> If so, true of whom? Which Stratfordian would we be talking
> about? In the second half of the sentence you progress from the
> particular to the general. You are now speaking of ALL Oxfordians,
> whose beliefs apparently do not rest on either historical or logical
> premises. Apart from the fact that your grammar is faulty, your
> statement is true of only SOME Oxfordians
No, because if their beliefs rested on historical or logical
principles, they would not be Oxfordians.
> as well as SOME
> Stratfordians, as you well know. I can point a couple of the
> Stratfordian ones out to you, if you so wish, although I'm sure you
> can do it for yourself.
People such as MM and the like are not what I would call card-carrying
Stratfordians, even though they do share the belief that WS wrote WS.
>
> >>In fact, it is based on no evidence whatsoever.
>
> This is untrue. It is merely based on evidence you don't accept.
It would be nice to see some of this "evidence," but I have yet to see
any that qualifies as bona fide evidence.
> >>The belief in Oxford fulfills some type of psychological need or wish fantasy, so it's >>not subject to logical or >>historical or any type of evidence in the conventional sense of >>the word.
>
> How do you know that belief in Oxford fulfils some "psychological need
> or fantasy"? Perhaps it does for some, just as it does for some
> Stratfordians who need to feel that a common man could have written
> the canon because it would mean that nothing is unattainable. But for
> most Oxfordians it's an aggregate of a subtle but nonetheless present
> kind of evidence that suggests to us that Oxford is the author, just
> as the name on the plays and the monument suggests to you that WS of
> Stratford is the author.
>
>
>
> > > The danger in Oxfordism or any kind of antiStratfordism is not that
> >> any of the ideas is going to take the place of the conventional
> > > Shakespeare scholarship; the only real danger is that it promotes
> > > sloppy and unsound thinking.
>
> Well, I can only hope it's not as sloppy and unsound as the thinking
> that led you to write this post.
>
> > > (Of course there is all that wasted life,
> > > too, but the believers, like delusionists or addicts of all kinds,
> > > don't really seem to mind. It does, after all, give them something to
> > > do.)
>
> Whose life is more unsound? I would suggest it's the life of someone
> who spends his time insulting the work and the belief of others rather
> than getting on with evidencing his own case.
>
> In other words, this is a truly silly post, Tommy boy. I'm sorry you
> didn't realize it before committing it to paper. Perhaps you need to
> go back to bed and exit on the other side.
Well, apparently this post began one of the most substantive and--to
me, at least--interesting threads hlas has seen in a while.
> And no, I'm not going to argue further about it. I'm much too busy.
So I guess we're not going to see any of that evidence, huh?
TR
>
> Mouse
Ms. Mouse
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You didn't respond to the faulty grammar bit.
Mouse
nordicskiv2
<72613679-f26c-4d3c...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"bobgr...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> > > Well, I'd appreciate it if you would answer his question about how
> > > you know Simonton was an Oxfordian, Elizabeth. I could have sworn I
> > > knew he was, but can't find any reference to it on the Internet.
> You didn't answer my question, Elizabeth.
You didn't really expect her to, did you, Bob? Elizabeth's record
for producing her supposed sources is regrettably risible. One of my
favorite examples is this claim from Elizabeth, posted in May 2002:
"The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang for
the factotum who toted scenery around between acts."
Peter Groves, with justifiable skepticism, inquired:
"Do you have a source for this assertion? There's always a
first time, I suppose."
After that, many people asked Elizabeth repeatedly, over an extended
period of time, what her source for this gem might be. It was not
until February 2004, nearly two years later, that Elizabeth offered,
in a thread that she grandiosely entitled "SHAKE-SCENE: 'Some Scholars
Think He Was A Scene-shifter Or Stagehand'," the following anemic
response:
"Shakespeare Cross-Examination: A Compilation of Articles First
Appearing in the American Bar Association Journal. Tappan
Gregory; Cuneo Press, 1961 p. 68"
Dave Kathman's rejoinder summed up the matter admirably:
"I have this volume on my shelf, and this passage was written
by Richard Bentley, a lawyer and crackpot antistratfordian, but
most definitely *not* an Elizabethan scholar by any stretch
of the imagination. The entire article is full of the typical
distortions and invented 'facts' that characterize most
antistratfordian writings. Of course, Bentley gives no
citation for these 'scholars' who believe that 'Shake-scene'
means 'stagehand', an assertion which he either pulled out
of his ass or saw in the writings of some Baconian who
pulled it out of *his* ass. Elizabeth citing Bentley is an
example of the usual antistrat circle-jerk, where antistrats
just cite each other rather than real scholars."
As Christine Cooper inquired at the time,
"Regardless of who the 'some scholars' might be, these
same 'some scholars' merely 'believe' that the term
shake-scene may refer to a 'scene-shifter' or 'stage-hand,'
thereby qualifying the statement as speculation. By
referring to this statement as the source of your
authority for the proposition, are you retro-actively
qualifying your own assertion as speculation as well?"
In summary, Elizabeth very rarely produces the supposed "sources" for
her often risible claims. On the rare occasions that she finally does
(generally after being prodded repeatedly), those sources often turn
out to be farcically unreliable, or in many cases say exactly the
opposite of what Elizabeth claims that they say.
> What is the evidence that
> Simonton at one time was an Oxforfdian?
It's not impossible that Simonton was at one time an Oxfordian,
although I can find no convincing evidence in a cursory perusal of the
abstracts of his publications to suggest that he was. However, I
certainly would not take Elizabeth's word for it until she produces
the citation(s) in which Simonton alleged "gushes" about His
Lordship. Elizabeth's track record for misreading, misremembering,
and inventing "facts" outright is too well documented to leave her
with any credibility intact. Elizabeth not only cries "wolf," she
generally hallucinates whole packs of them.
But let's repeat the question, in the hope that, contrary to her
usual practice, Elizabeth actually has some credible source this time:
What is the evidence that Simonton at one time was an Oxfordian?
> --Bob G.
lackpurity
> �Art Neuendorffer <aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net>
MM:
Robust consensuses have often been wrong. They were wrong about
Socrates, Jesus, St. Paul, St. Peter, Mansur, etc., etc.. Why don't
you write something meaningful for a change?
> > > lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Many thanks. �To me all Oxfordians look alike. LOL �Just kidding.
> > Like you, my most vehement critics are those who
> > actually share my belief in Shakespearean authorship.
>
> � �What about me, Art? �Am I not vehement enough to qualify?
> [...]
>
> > Were I a king I could command content ;
>
> � �Not so, Art -- even if you were king of the uniVERse, your posts
> would *still* be utterly devoid of content.
MM:
Your posts are like the feeder bands of a hurricane. They have no
idea of the peace at the eye of the hurricane.
Michael Martin
Peter Farey
Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > WHERE THE OXFORDIAN CASE FAILS
>
> > What they do not do, however, is to relate this in any way
> > to the development of dramatic blank verse over the years,
>
> There was no significant 'development'
> in these matters. They are not complex.
> Both had long been familiar to poets and
> dramatists.
however, but what they chose to do.
> > Nashe called the "drumming decasyllabon" of the iambic
> > pentameter - enjambment (or the run-on line) and the feminine
> > ending.
>
> > Of these, all except *Love labours wonne* are easily recog-
> > nizable
>
> And the "Loves labours wonne" is, of
> course, a joke -- at the expense of those
> who were ignorant of the multiple
> significances of "Loves Labours Lost".
> (Meres himself was probably one of
> the victims.)
which we now know as *Twelfth Night*, of which the prose
was rapidly updated by William Shakespeare to make it
more topical and relevant to the visit of Don Virginio
Orsino to court on Twelfth Night, 1600/1. When asked if
he minded it being given a new name for the occasion, I
can hear the original author saying "You may call it
*Love's Labour's Won*, *Twelfth Night*, or what you
will!" You won't have noticed this, but the level of
run-on lines and feminine endings in the verse does
suggest a date before Meres's list was written.
> > the following eleven plays had certainly been written and
> > performed:
>
> Nope. He gives us evidence that he
> knew the names -- but he does not say
> how he acquired that knowledge.
they probably hadn't been written and performed by then.
provide any authoritative source for your claim that
what I have done is incorrect. Your personal opinion
on anything, as is demonstrated daily, is worthless.
>
> No doubt selected at random -- I dont'
> think. What bullshit.
rate below which all except one of the 'pre-Meres' plays
that I had listed appeared.
what happens if we chart just the run-on lines. You can't
ToS 1590.5 7.96% ****
2H6 1591.0 10.99% *****
3H6 1591.0 10.00% *****
1H6 1592.0 9.98% *****
Tit 1592.0 11.97% ******
R3 1592.5 12.98% ******
CoE 1594.0 12.98% ******
LLL 1594.5 17.99% *********
R2 1595.0 19.99% **********
R&J 1595.0 13.99% *******
MND 1595.0 12.95% ******
KJ 1596.0 17.98% *********
MoV 1596.5 21.98% ***********
1H4 1596.5 22.99% ***********
MWW 1597.5 20.00% **********
2H4 1597.5 20.98% **********
Ado 1598.0 18.89% *********
H5 1598.5 21.96% ***********
JC 1599.0 18.99% *********
AYL 1599.5 16.97% ********
Ham 1600.5 22.99% ***********
TN 1601.0 14.93% *******
MfM 1603.0 22.99% ***********
Oth 1603.5 19.99% **********
Tim 1605.0 32.99% ****************
KL 1605.5 28.96% **************
Mac 1606.0 37.00% *******************
A&C 1606.0 42.97% *********************
Cor 1608.0 45.98% ***********************
WT 1609.0 38.00% *******************
Cym 1610.0 45.99% ***********************
Tem 1611.0 41.95% *********************
H8 1613.0 38.97% *******************
> quasi-Strat, inability to read the works
> -- or to listen to them in peformance.
> typical modern audiences, all of which
> are literate, often highly educated, and
> often thoroughly familiar with the texts
> They were MUCH further above the
> level of Elizabethan public audiences.
rpari...@yahoo.com
PF
Oh look! See how every single play given a date after
1604 has a rate higher than every single play given a
date before that. Different authors, perhaps?
Snip
RNP
Since those who have been most frequently named(by Stratfordians)
as collaborators,revisers,or ghosts,for the post 1604 "Shakespearean"
productions(Middleton,Wilkes,Fletcher,Chapman,and,,just occasionally,
Beaumont) were all younger men who generally started with double
ending rates nearly as high as those which you allege Shakespeare to
have finished,the ratio is exactly what would be expected with
Middleton coming on first and Fletcher last.
In the fact the remarkable thing here is that - considering there
were a minimum of three later contributors and probably at least
another three including Beaumont in a revised Julius Caesar(as I have
been contending since my fourteenth year)-there is not a more erratic
quality in the double-ending ratios.
It be can well understand,Peter, that you as a Marlovian would
want as few of people as possible to know that Marlowe was still
alive,and are there resistent to the presence of later
"collaborators".I suggest you have him dead between 1604 and 1607 and
your case ,like absolutle everybody else's case(except
Reidy's,Kathman's and the Knave's )will work much better than it does
now.
lackpurity
MM:
Apparently you believe there must have been collaborators. A genius
(Sat Guru) can't use collaborations, because nobody else has the
spiritual knowledge. They would mess up his classic work, to put it
frankly.
Michael Martin
Elizabeth
<snip>
To the charge that I have offered 'no proof' that
Simonton has escaped Looney's cult, I offered
Simonton's own proof:
Stratfordian chronologies, when lagged just
two years, yield substantively meaningful
associations between thematic content and
political context, whereas Oxfordian chronologies
yield no relationships, however lagged. Hence,
ONLY the Stratfordian results are consistent with
previous research indicating that artistic creativity
is responsive to conspicuous political events.
(emphasis mine).
Are we to believe that Waugaman would find that
Simonton suffers from 'multiple personality disorder'
and therefore believes that both Stratfordian and
Oxfordian studies are valid?
No. Simonton has found that Strat dating of the
Shakespeare chronology is valid, and that
Oxfordian dating is invalid.
Since Simonton is an expert in the area of stylometric
studies of creativity and genius, while Waugaman
specializes in psychiatric studies, Simonton's results
carry more weight than Waugaman's opinion.
I'm not sure why Stritmatter introduced Waugaman
into this discussion. Waugaman's subjective account
of his conversion to Oxfordianism after rejecting
Freudianism only raises the question of why he would
fall for something as pseudoscientific as Freudianism
in the first place.
The Oxfordian chronology, as Farey has so ingeniously
shown, is completely chaotic.
The chronology doesn't reflect topical events, it doesn't
account for the complete reversal of thematic parallels
at the accession of James I from Elizabethan republican-
ism to a subversive 'support' of imperialism in the
Jacobean plays. (One of Verulam's political problems
is that he supported the politics of Prince Henry, while
James I's hatred of his son was so public that many
Englishmen not to speak of a few scholars believed that
James I had Prince Henry assassinated),
Oxford died within a month or a few months of the
submission of James I's imperialist act to Parliament
in which he demands that Parliament incorporate
England, Ireland, and Wales under the name 'Great
Britain' (Scotland would apparently remain an inde-
pendent kingdom).
Parliament denounced the act, James I didn't give up,
he simply used the name 'Great Britain' on official
documents. England, Ireland and Wales only became
'Great Britain in the early 18th century. 1718? .
There's no way that Oxford could have written the
dozen imperialist Jacobean plays unless he crammed
them into a three month period between April 1 and
June 30 of 1604.
That's how wildly far off the Oxfordian chronology is.
Tom Reedy
> On Mar 25, 6:16 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 10:12 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 20, 11:30 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > All the evidence in the world would not convince an Oxfordian that
> > > > > historical or logical premises.
>
> > > This is a very interesting beginning sentence. It starts by speaking
> > > about "an Oxfordian." Which Oxfordian would this be? Roger?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > Me?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > Someone else?
>
> > Almost all of them. I admit I overspoke a bit for effect: there have
> > been cases of Oxfordians changing their minds. I know of two such
> > cases in the ten years or so I've been familiar with the condition.
>
> > > In any case, you must know of whom you're speaking
> > > because "all the evidence in the world" would not persuade whoever it
>
> > Because they've been exposed to it and cannot see the mistakes in
> > reasoning and logic their belief necessarily entails. Since this is
> > so, it follows that reason and logic is not the basis of their
> > beliefs, therefore it is impenetrable to evidence based on such.
>
> > > One
> > > might as well say that no amount of evidence would convince a
> > > true?
>
> > I would say that no evidence has yet to be presented that would
> > > > > sloppy and unsound thinking.
>
> > > Well, I can only hope it's not as sloppy and unsound as the thinking
> > > that led you to write this post.
>
> > > > > (Of course there is all that wasted life,
> > > > > too, but the believers, like delusionists or addicts of all kinds,
> > > > > don't really seem to mind. It does, after all, give them something to
> > > > > do.)
>
> > > Whose life is more unsound? I would suggest it's the life of someone
> > > who spends his time insulting the work and the belief of others rather
> > > than getting on with evidencing his own case.
>
> > > In other words, this is a truly silly post, Tommy boy. I'm sorry you
> > > didn't realize it before committing it to paper. Perhaps you need to
> > > go back to bed and exit on the other side.
>
> > Well, apparently this post began one of the most substantive and--to
> > me, at least--interesting threads hlas has seen in a while.
>
> > > And no, I'm not going to argue further about it. I'm much too busy.
>
> > So I guess we're not going to see any of that evidence, huh?
>
> > TR
>
> > > Mouse- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You didn't respond to the faulty grammar bit.
> Mouse
I plead guilty.
TR
Paul Crowley
>>> What they do not do, however, is to relate this in any way
>>> to the development of dramatic blank verse over the years,
>>
>> There was no significant 'development'
>> in these matters. They are not complex.
>> Both had long been familiar to poets and
>> dramatists.
>
> Yes, of course they had. The point is not what they knew,
> however, but what they chose to do.
Indeed. In every case it was a conscious
issue of artistic choice -- made for a complex
variety of reasons. Such matters are quite
inappropriate for statistical analysis. It's
like asking why musical composers bring
in strings, or use pianissimo, why a writer
uses long or short sentences.
>>> so Meres has given us clear evidence that by 1598
>>> the following eleven plays had certainly been written and
>>> performed:
>>
>> Nope. He gives us evidence that he
>> knew the names -- but he does not say
>> how he acquired that knowledge.
>
> I see. We don't know who told him about them, therefore
> they probably hadn't been written and performed by then.
Most of them were written about 20 years
earlier. You have to get the Stratfordian
'for the public stage' nonsense out of
your head.
>> It is accepted that the rate of run-on lines
>> broadly increased over time. Likewise it
>> is accepted that the number of feminine
>> endings broadly increased over time.
>> But there is NO SUCH ENTITY as
>> 'feminine endings + run-on lines".
>
> Yes there is, as I have demonstrated.
Absolutely and totally absurd. You
cannot add the chicken population of
Indonesia to the rainfall of Argentina and
claim you have an entity -- no matter how
nicely the "maths" seems to work out.
> You have yet to
> provide any authoritative source for your claim that
> what I have done is incorrect.
I could take your work around to
various mathematicians for their
opinions -- but it's not my job.
It's YOURS.
>>> in fact,
>>> we find that all except one of the 'pre-Meres' ones are
>>> below that figure, and all except one of the others above
>>> it. The statistical significance of this - odds of about
>>> 10 billion to 1 against it happening by chance
When you get results of this nature,
you should know you've gone wrong.
It is another of your insanities. It is
the result of piling mathematical bullshit
on top of mathematical bullshit.
Every competent mathematician would
be horrified at each of your manoeuvres.
Why can't you track one down?
You are like a small child who arranges
his ducks in a row, and then comes
back sometime later and is amazed to
find his ducks arranged in a row.
While there is undoubtedly a trend, the
'dates' for each play were established
to fit that trend. For example, it is quite
crazy to date Cymbeline and Henry8 so
late. Strats have to adopt the notion of
the Bard's sad decline into senility in his
early forties. No doubt you apply the
same 'reasoning' to Marlowe.
Paul.
John W. Kennedy
Oh, he's been claiming it here at least since late 1999.
In fact, you've been repressing the ugly memory. I find, going over my
old messages, that you discovered this back in 2002, and even then I
told you it was old news. And again, about a year ago. I certainly don't
blame you; I wish I had your gift for amnesia, really.
<URL:http://icanhascheezburger.com/?s=unseen>
I keep pointing out that, by his standards, I, who have written several
ballades and, once, an acrostic in terza rima, must obviously be a
better poet than Shakespeare, but he still doesn't seem to get it.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"
lackpurity
MM:
That's right, Elizabeth, and that is what is important. Bob Grumman
and David Webb are out tiptoeing through the tulips, it seems. You
mentioned that Simonton took down the Oxfordian stuff, and based on
this post he must have switched to Stratfordianism.
What I've noticed recently is that Oxfordians are aiming too high, or
too low. In both cases they miss the target. By "aiming too high," I
mean Oxfordians, such as Art Neuendorffer, who want to make Oxford
live past 1604.
The Oxfordians who "aim too low," are the ones who change the dating
of the plays. They have them starting in 1577, when William
Shakespeare was only 13 years old, and his predecessor, Christopher
Marlowe was only 13. Bacon must have been 16, so they're not doing
him any favors, either. Did you notice that, Elizabeth?
Even after aiming too high, or aiming too low, then the problem of
stylometrics raises its ugly head to the Oxfordians. Then there is
the lack of character, as see in the tennis court fiasco. I don't see
how anyone could put their faith in Oxford, quite frankly. Thanks for
all the information, Elizabeth. I read your posts.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:fsddoa$6ge$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> >>> What they do not do, however, is to relate this in any way
> >>> to the development of dramatic blank verse over the years,
>
> >> There was no significant 'development'
> >> in these matters. �They are not complex.
> >> Both had long been familiar to poets and
> >> dramatists.
>
> > Yes, of course they had. The point is not what they knew,
> > however, but what they chose to do.
>
> Indeed. �In every case it was a conscious
> �issue of artistic choice -- made for a complex
> variety of reasons. �Such matters are quite
MM:
Ridiculous. You have the numbers, and there's nothing wrong with
drawing trend lines. Seems like you're pulling your usual Anti-Strat
spinning, skating, and dodging, Crowley.
> It's
> like asking why musical composers bring
> in strings, or use pianissimo, why a writer
> uses long or short sentences.
MM:
Nobody was asking questions. They just drew trendlines based on the
years and the numbers they had. Still going spin, skate, and dodge?
> >>> �so Meres has given us clear evidence that by 1598
> >>> the following eleven plays had certainly been written and
> >>> performed:
>
> >> Nope. �He gives us evidence that he
> >> knew the names -- but he does not say
> >> how he acquired that knowledge.
>
> > I see. We don't know who told him about them, therefore
> > they probably hadn't been written and performed by then.
>
> Most of them were written about 20 years
> earlier. �You have to get the Stratfordian
> 'for the public stage' nonsense out of
> your head.
MM:
Crowley, do you expect us to believe that the plays were gathering
dust for 20 years? Give us a break. Oxfordians always spin, skate,
and dodge. They always wants us to go to fantasyland with them. Mr.
Farey pointed out that your reasoning is ridiculous, and you went off
tiptoeing through the tulips.
> >> It is accepted that the rate of run-on lines
> >> broadly increased over time. �Likewise it
> >> is accepted that the number of feminine
> >> endings broadly increased over time.
> >> But there is NO SUCH ENTITY as
> >> 'feminine endings + run-on lines".
>
> > Yes there is, as I have demonstrated.
MM:
Yes, Mr. Farey. The numbers and the dates are there. They did exist.
> Absolutely and totally absurd. �You
> cannot add the chicken population of
> Indonesia to the rainfall of Argentina and
> claim you have an entity -- no matter how
> nicely the "maths" seems to work out.
MM:
Crowley, you're not making any sense. Mr. Farey is making a lot of
sense. It's so simple. You take the dates, plot them on the X-axis,
then take the number of feminine endings, run-on lines, use the Y-
axis, and plot them. No problem.
Mr. Crowley is again spinning, skating, and dodging. He's doing a lot
of that in this post. LOL
> > You have yet to
> > provide any authoritative source for your claim that
> > what I have done is incorrect.
>
> I could take your work around to
> various mathematicians for their
> opinions -- but it's �not my job.
> It's YOURS.
MM:
You're the one who was just whining, Crowley. Either fish, or cut
bait. LOL
> >>> �in fact,
> >>> we find that all except one of the 'pre-Meres' ones are
> >>> below that figure, and all except one of the others above
> >>> it. The statistical significance of this - odds of about
> >>> 10 billion to 1 against it happening by chance
>
> When you get results of this nature,
> you should know you've gone wrong.
> It is another of your insanities. �It is
> the result of piling mathematical bullshit
> on top of mathematical bullshit.
MM:
More Anti-Strat whining. He can't handle the truth, which is shown by
the numbers, by the trends. I haven't checked Mr. Farey's odds, which
he claims are 10 billion to 1, but I know it would be way up there. I
wouldn't be surprised, if he were correct.
> Every competent mathematician would
> be horrified at each of your manoeuvres.
MM:
A mathematician wouldn't be horrified, at all. It's just a
mathematical graph, trendlines. Oxfordians, on the other hand, might
start whining, trying to spin, skate, and dodge out of it.
> Why can't you track one down?
MM:
He doesn't need to track one down. It's easy enough for us to
understand, already.
MM:
Get ready for some more whining. Mr. Farey took out the complex
entity, which really only had two factors, and made it simple for
Crowley. The result is exactly the same, however. Good work, again,
Mr. Farey.
> You are like a small child who arranges
> his ducks in a row, and then comes
> back sometime later and is amazed to
> find his ducks arranged in a row.
MM:
Mr. Farey didn't do the arranging. History and the writer of the
canon did the arranging. Mr. Farey and others have simply noticed the
trends, simple or complex, the result is the same.
> While there is undoubtedly a trend, the
> 'dates' for each play were established
> to fit that trend. �
MM:
The dates were already there, for Stratfordians. I know Oxfordians
have constructed their own dates, to try to make Oxford the author.
> For example, it is quite
> crazy to date Cymbeline and Henry8 so
> late. �
MM:
Why is it crazy?
> Strats have to adopt the notion of
> the Bard's sad decline into senility in his
> early forties. �
MM:
I've never adopted that notion, Crowley, and I'm a Strat. I haven't
the slightest idea what you're trying to say. I guess it is more Anti-
Strat whining.
> No doubt you apply the
> same 'reasoning' to Marlowe.
MM:
The absurdity continues. I wonder if Crowley is finally losing it?
> Paul.
Michael Martin
Peter Farey
<rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Snip
>
> PF
> Oh look! See how every single play given a date after
> 1604 has a rate higher than every single play given a
> date before that. Different authors, perhaps?
>
> Snip
>
> RNP
> Since those who have been most frequently named(by
> Stratfordians) as collaborators,revisers,or ghosts,for
> the post 1604 "Shakespearean" productions(Middleton,
> Wilkes,Fletcher,Chapman,and,,just occasionally,
> Beaumont) were all younger men who generally started
> with double ending rates nearly as high as those which
> you allege Shakespeare to have finished,the ratio is
> exactly what would be expected with Middleton coming
> on first and Fletcher last.
The chart you are commenting on shows enjambments,
not "double endings", and contains no "allegation" of
mine whatsoever.
Assuming the same applies to run-ons, however, I don't
see what effect it has upon the point I was making.
Every single play given a date after 1604 by Taylor has
a rate higher than every single play given a date before
that. Since we know that the occurrence of enjamb-
ments played no significant part in this dating, it gives
enormous support to his claim that those plays were
written after 1604 no matter who was responsible for
them.
> In the fact the remarkable thing here is that -
> considering there were a minimum of three later
> contributors and probably at least another three
> including Beaumont in a revised Julius Caesar(as I
> have been contending since my fourteenth year)-there
> is not a more erratic quality in the double-ending
> ratios.
> It be can well understand,Peter, that you as a
> Marlovian would want as few of people as possible to
> know that Marlowe was still alive,and are there[fore?]
> resistent to the presence of later "collaborators".
What on earth are you talking about? This has nothing at
all to do with my beliefs about who wrote the canon. Nor
does what I "want" play any part in my argument here (or
in any other argument for that matter). As it happens,
however, I have no problem at all with the idea of
further collaboration in the later years, since I think
that every single play was the result of a certain amount
of collaboration anyway.
> I suggest you have him dead between 1604 and 1607 and
> your case ,like absolutle everybody else's case
> (except Reidy's,Kathman's and the Knave's ) will work
> much better than it does now.
Thank you for the advice, but that's not the way I work.
I base any thoughts I may have about when he really
died to actual words I believe to have some bearing on
that issue, and certainly not upon anything just because
it may happen to support my overall theory.
Elizabeth
> On Mar 26, 2:37?pm, Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> MM:
> That's right, Elizabeth, and that is what is important. Bob Grumman
> and David Webb are out tiptoeing through the tulips, it seems. You
> mentioned that Simonton took down the Oxfordian stuff, and based on
> this post he must have switched to Stratfordianism.
Grumman is ok. He's just intense about his
subject.
> What I've noticed recently is that Oxfordians are aiming too high, or
> too low. In both cases they miss the target. By "aiming too high," I
> mean Oxfordians, such as Art Neuendorffer, who want to make Oxford
> live past 1604.
People get into these rhetorically-constructed
'realities' and it's hard to get out of them. I
suppose they secrete the same endorphins
as those madly in love.
Verulam was so bashful and reclusive we can
only know his works. I like that about him.
On the other hand it's interesting to read about
Newton's tantrums, his vendettas, his putting his
foot through Hooke's portrait at the Royal Society,
> The Oxfordians who "aim too low," are the ones who change the dating
> of the plays. They have them starting in 1577, when William
> Shakespeare was only 13 years old, and his predecessor, Christopher
> Marlowe was only 13. Bacon must have been 16, so they're not doing
> him any favors, either. Did you notice that, Elizabeth?
There's no evidence. It's just attributing titles of
old plays to Oxford, there's not a shred of evidence
that Oxford wrote any plays. Nothing in the record,
no motivation for Oxford to spend his life in seculsion
writing as Verulam did.
It kind of reminds me of Hillary's claim that she
was dodging bullets in Bosnia.
Her surrogates came out and said 'well, it was
a risky situation and the plane had to
do a high speed landing and it could have been
very dangerous, etc etc.'
The first never happened -- that's the Looney part.
The second could have happened -- that's the
Oxfordian part.
Then the generals came out and showed that
military protocol had been followed to the letter
and that Mrs. Clinton was never in danger. In
other words, reality was restored.
In this scenario Farey is the generals.
> Even after aiming too high, or aiming too low, then the problem of
> stylometrics raises its ugly head to the Oxfordians. Then there is
> the lack of character, as see in the tennis court fiasco. I don't see
> how anyone could put their faith in Oxford, quite frankly. Thanks for
> all the information, Elizabeth. I read your posts.
Thanks.
>
> Michael Martin
Peter Farey
Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > > > to the development of dramatic blank verse over the years,
> > >
> > > There was no significant 'development'
> > > in these matters. They are not complex.
> > > Both had long been familiar to poets and
> > > dramatists.
> >
> > Yes, of course they had. The point is not what they knew,
> > however, but what they chose to do.
>
> Indeed. In every case it was a conscious
> issue of artistic choice -- made for a complex
> variety of reasons. Such matters are quite
> inappropriate for statistical analysis.
It is therefore surprising that statistics is such an
important tool in the marketing research profession,
where the choices people make for a complex variety
of reasons are exactly what it is all about.
> It's like asking why musical composers bring in
> strings, or use pianissimo, why a writer uses long
> or short sentences.
No it isn't. It's like asking whether they do these
things or not.
> > > > so Meres has given us clear evidence that by 1598
> > > > the following eleven plays had certainly been written and
> > > > performed:
> > >
> > > Nope. He gives us evidence that he
> > > knew the names -- but he does not say
> > > how he acquired that knowledge.
> >
> > I see. We don't know who told him about them, therefore
> > they probably hadn't been written and performed by then.
>
> Most of them were written about 20 years
> earlier. You have to get the Stratfordian
> 'for the public stage' nonsense out of
> your head.
If there is anyone who has nonsense in his head it is you,
Paul, as just about everyone here keeps reminding you.
Just for your information, though, my statement that Meres
"has given us clear evidence that by 1598 the following
eleven plays had certainly been written and performed" is
not actually refuted by your claim that "Most of them were
written about 20 years earlier". You may not grasp this
simple fact, but others will.
> > > It is accepted that the rate of run-on lines
> > > broadly increased over time. Likewise it
> > > is accepted that the number of feminine
> > > endings broadly increased over time.
> > > But there is NO SUCH ENTITY as
> > > 'feminine endings + run-on lines".
> >
> > Yes there is, as I have demonstrated.
>
> Absolutely and totally absurd. You
> cannot add the chicken population of
> Indonesia to the rainfall of Argentina and
> claim you have an entity -- no matter how
> nicely the "maths" seems to work out.
This is true. What you can do, however, is to count the
number of times the ends of the iambic pentameter are
affected by run-on lines and feminine endings and express
this in terms of how many occurrences of these two techn-
iques there are on average per hundred lines of verse.
Ideally, I would have liked to express it in terms of what
*percentage* of the lines of verse had such features, (and
did in fact wrongly express it this way originally) but
the raw data I had available did not permit this calcul-
ation, and I was not prepared to go through the whole
Shakespeare canon counting them up for myself. It was bad
enough doing it for Marlowe's works, for which as far as
I'm aware no such data existed before I counted them.
> > You have yet to
> > provide any authoritative source for your claim that
> > what I have done is incorrect.
>
> I could take your work around to
> various mathematicians for their
> opinions -- but it's not my job.
> It's YOURS.
I don't need to, because you are the only person to have
ever expressed the view that there is something wrong
with it, and your views are irrelevant.
> > > > in fact,
> > > > we find that all except one of the 'pre-Meres' ones are
> > > > below that figure, and all except one of the others above
> > > > it. The statistical significance of this - odds of about
> > > > 10 billion to 1 against it happening by chance
>
> When you get results of this nature,
> you should know you've gone wrong.
> It is another of your insanities. It is
> the result of piling mathematical bullshit
> on top of mathematical bullshit.
>
> Every competent mathematician would
> be horrified at each of your manoeuvres.
>
> Why can't you track one down?
Because they aren't. They might suggest that some other
technique (such as multivariate analysis) would be more
appropriate, but this would give results like 'PC1' and
there is NO SUCH ENTITY in that case either.
I have done nothing but bring together sets of data
compiled by other people and shown the result. I did no
"arranging" at all. I note that you fail to acknowledge
that my using just the one set of data has driven a
horse and cart through your main argument against my
figures.
> While there is undoubtedly a trend, the
> 'dates' for each play were established
> to fit that trend.
No they weren't. And if you got off your butt and took
a look at my source for the dates you would know prec-
cisely how each of them *was* arrived at.
> For example, it is quite crazy to date Cymbeline and
> Henry8 so late. Strats have to adopt the notion of
> the Bard's sad decline into senility in his early
> forties. No doubt you apply the same 'reasoning'
> to Marlowe.
The sad decline into senility is what I would apply to
you, Paul, except that I suspect in your case it has
been a lifelong problem.
Tom Reedy
> On Mar 23, 3:09 pm, Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > How many decades did Freud and his ridiculous
> > unscientific theories reign supreme in medical
> > schools, Roger.
>
> > Freud's 'science' had less science in it than
> > Goldilock's empirical testing of the porridge, the
> > chairs and the beds. This one is too hot, this one
> > is too cold, this one is just right. Freud couldn't
> > get that far.
>
> > Since Freud and Looney shill their theories in
> > the same form of romantic Victorian brain-
> > entraining rhetoric, it's no wonder that ex-Freudians fall right into
> > line behind Looney.
> > It's involuntary.
>
> > If Freudianism can be thoroughly debunked,
> > Looney is next because every Looney claim
> > is not only ridiculous on the face of it, nothing
> > is supported by FACT.
>
> > In rhetoric we call this a narrative unsupported
> > by evidence.
>
> > I'm writing a post on the hard marriage law
> > in Romeo and Juliet yet we are supposed to
> > believe that a feudal twelve year old, one who
> > was never called a genius (in his life), wrote
> > Romeo and Juliet to bring attention to the
> > post-Tridentine crisis in marriage law?
>
> > How insane is this?
>
> > (1562), "The Tragical History of Romeus and
> > Juliet" proposed by Ogburn to be a CHILDHOOD
> > work of Oxford, under the pseudonym Arthur
> > Brooke.
>
> > We know from Oxford's letters to Cecil ca 1600
> > that Oxford knew nothing about law, he let an
> > inhieritance of a hundred manners slip through his
> > hands because he couldn't follow the process.
>
> > Yet the author of theShakespeareworks writes
> > three plays about the crises in marriage law, each
> > play illustrating one of the three contradictory forms of English
> > marriage (Taming, Measure and
> > (R & J).
>
> > This author not only KNOWS law he knew
> > how to make it the basis of his plots. Brian
> > Jay Corrigan, PhD, J.D., shows that Antony
> > & Cleopatra is PLOTTED OVER, the Statute
> > of Uses. The Statute of Uses features in nearly
> > all theShakespeareplays yet this is the very Statute that cost
> > Oxford, who didn't have a clue about what was going on at the hearing
> > before
> > the Board of Escheaters, his Danvers escheat
> > to one of the finest fiefs in England.
>
> > I am personally sorry that Oxford was deprived
> > of his rightful inheritance because Oxford changed
> > at the end of his life, but Danvers had used the
> > 'use' to tie up his hundred manors knowing that he
> > was going to commit treason.
>
> > The Queen only used her vassal Oxford to seize the estates.
> > Depressing especially since Oxford was by then a changed man, no doubt
> > thanks to his highly intelligent Catholic wife.
>
> > Francis, Lord Verulam (his proper name), wrote his
> > Double Reader (post-graduate degree) on the Statute of Uses, his
> > Reading on the Statute of Uses still appears in law school syllabi.
>
> > Oxfordians have never been introduced to the
> > historical Oxford. Oxford was a feudal earl, the
> >Shakespeareworks are English Reformation and
> > all the plays focus on reform.
>
> > In his Cogita et Visa,Verulam states that he
> > will write 'productions for the people,and that
> > those productions will pit morality against the human passions. He
> > adds that there will be
> > those who will 'try to imitate these productions
> > but will fail.'
>
> > Do you wonder why the plays are so stuffed
> > with law?
>
> > And incidently, that's the Protestant Anne Cecil's
> > Geneva Bible. What Kathman calls 'a juvenile hand'
> > is HER juvenile hand. Oxford was R.C. and that
> > bible was at the top of the Index of the Council of
> > Trent. By the post-Tridentine reforms of the 1570s
> > Oxford was permitted to read a Catholic translation
> > of the New Testament, in fact he gave Erasmus'
> > translation to Cecil as an engagement gift. A slap
> > in the face to a Calvinist Puritan and a portent of tragedies to come.
>
> > >http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.h...Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> your baiting as you apparently do in understanding the significance of
> Dr. Waugamun's participation in the authorship question.
I daresay it is at least as important as the significance of Harvard's
Professor of Psychiatry John E. Mack's participation in the belief of
space alien abductions. In fact, I'd have a hard time saying which is
more important.
> I posted the link as a notice to those here who may wish to take
> notice of the fact that Shakespearean orthodoxy is continuing to lose
> the battle for the hearts and minds of the wider anglo-American
> intelligentsia.
If by intelligentsia you mean the uninformed, gullible public, I
suppose you're right, but if by that term you mean the class of people
who engage in complex mental and creative labor, I doubt that very
seriously.
> For those interested in more about who Dr. Waugaman is, here is his
> google scholar portfolio:
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=r+waugaman&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sta...
I checked it out and didn't see any literary credentials at all. OTOH,
I say an interesting article concerning patients with borderline
personality disorder. I wonder if he might be listening a bit too
closely to the literary opinions of his patients.
> That's all I have to say.
Until the next earth-shaking development within the wild and wacky
world of Oxfordism, I'm sure.
> Carry on.
An interesting sign-off. I wonder what Dr. Waugaman would say about
what it indicates about delusions of control and reality.
TR
John Andrews
> 19th century Stratfordians already pointed out (to name only one
> instance of many ) that Sterling's Darius(1603) showed clear
> imitations of Prospero's "Our revels now are ended." And this summer
> we have seen a prominent Stratfordian arguing for a 1605 date for
> "Pericles".The list could be extended iindefinitely.
I would be fascinated by any analysis of such "imitation" which could
prove that Sterling (or whoever) imitated Propero's speech rather than
the other way round. But why bother with literary history when we can
just make it all up?
Best wishes
John Andrews
Greg Reynolds
i think " That's all I have to say. Carry on." were the words of John
de Vere, Earl of Oxford (1443-1513) before the Battle of Tewkesbury,
which he fled.
The phrase may also have been invoked by the 17th Earl of Oxford
during service for the Dutch Republic, which he fled.
In both case, the respective earl just brought more and more baggage
to the lineage, hence the term "carry-on luggage."
rpari...@yahoo.com
s...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 22:47, rparisi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > 19th century Stratfordians already pointed out (to name only one
> > instance of many ) that Sterling's Darius(1603) showed clear
> > imitations of Prospero's "Our revels now are ended." And this summer
> > we have seen a prominent Stratfordian arguing for a 1605 date for
> > "Pericles".The list could be extended iindefinitely.
But why bother with literary history when we can
> just make it all up?
>
> Best wishes
>
> John Andrews
Do you deny either of these citations( among many other similar
items )exist ? You are neither more or less delusional than others
here.
Best wishes,
RNP
Tom Reedy
Yes, quite so. Carry on, Greg.
TR
rpari...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <rparisi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Snip
>
> > PF
> > Oh look! See how every single play given a date after
> > 1604 has a rate higher than every single play given a
> > date before that. Different authors, perhaps?
>
> > Snip
>
> > RNP
> > Since those who have been most frequently named(by
> > Stratfordians) as collaborators,revisers,or ghosts,for
> > the post 1604 "Shakespearean" productions(Middleton,
> > Wilkes,Fletcher,Chapman,and,,just occasionally,
> > Beaumont) were all younger men who generally started
> > with double ending rates nearly as high as those which
> > you allege Shakespeare to have finished,the ratio is
> > exactly what would be expected with Middleton coming
> > on first and Fletcher last.
>
> The chart you are commenting on shows enjambments,
> not "double endings", and contains no "allegation" of
> mine whatsoever.
Peter,I previously wrote(emphasis now added for your attention)
in commenting on your observations :
Oddly enough the woman,Eva Turner Clark, who is getting blamed
here
by Peter Farey,did not suffer from this difficency.In fact,she and
J.M.Robertson are virtually alone among twentieth century
Elizabethan
critics (as distinct from some practicing poets and actors that I
have
known) in insisting that the low percentage of double endings and
the
handling of the run on lines(TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN) found
throughout King John, Midsummer's Night's Dream,Henry IV,Part I,and
approximately the first two acts of Henry IV,Part ll mark an
absolutely distinct development in Shakespeare's art and make no
sense sandwiched into a 1594 -1596 time slot between prior works
which already show consistently higher percentages of run-on lines
and double endings and later works ,starting in the MIDDLE of Henry
IVth,Part II and continue to accelerate non-stop according to the
standard(and I believe mistaken) chronology to the conclusion of his
career.
> PF
> Assuming the same applies to run-ons, however, I don't
> see what effect it has upon the point I was making.
> Every single play given a date after 1604 by Taylor has
> a rate higher than every single play given a date before
> that. Since we know that the occurrence of enjamb-
> ments played no significant part in this dating, it gives
> enormous support to his claim that those plays were
> written after 1604 no matter who was responsible for
> them.
RNP(new)
But there are good reasons for pushing Shakespeare's chronology
further back than Taylor is wont to do.And therefore on your theory
of the evolution of Shakespeare-Marlowe's verse techniques he should
have reached the given percentages some years earlier than 1604..
On the other hand,to take an alternative, Stratfordian Robertson
argued that Marlowe, not Shakespeare, was the pioneer in this
respect.And that Will only very reluctantly took up the metrecal
patterns ( which his predecesser had previously pioneered) in the
later nineties(i.e.in Robertson's opinion the earlier
"Shakespearean"work with said characteristics was written by Marlowe
right up through and including most of "Richard II")..
On whatever grounds Taylor made his assumptions,how much does he
differ from the standard late nineteenth chronology as promulgated by
Furnival,Dowden and the Germans?That chronology was shaped on the
verse tests(among others) which we are discussing.
>
> > In the fact the remarkable thing here is that -
> > considering there were a minimum of three later
> > contributors and probably at least another three
> > including Beaumont in a revised Julius Caesar(as I
> > have been contending since my fourteenth year)-there
> > is not a more erratic quality in the double-ending
> > ratios.
> > It be can well understand,Peter, that you as a
> > Marlovian would want as few of people as possible to
> > know that Marlowe was still alive,and are there[fore?]
> > resistent to the presence of later "collaborators".
>
> What on earth are you talking about? This has nothing at
> all to do with my beliefs about who wrote the canon. Nor
> does what I "want" play any part in my argument here (or
> in any other argument for that matter). As it happens,
> however, I have no problem at all with the idea of
> further collaboration in the later years, since I think
> that every single play was the result of a certain amount
> of collaboration anyway.
RNP( new)
Peter, when I not spoken respectfully of your work? I do not
believe I have ever attacked you in a single instance on this forum.
But I do suggest that, unless you choose to do so,the metrecal
evidence in no way compels a chronological extension to 1613 and your
theory does better without.it.
>
> > I suggest you have him dead between 1604 and 1607 and
> > your case ,like absolutely everybody else's case
> > (except Reidy's,Kathman's and the Knave's ) will work
> > much better than it does now.
>
> Thank you for the advice, but that's not the way I work.
> I base any thoughts I may have about when he really
> died to actual words I believe to have some bearing on
> that issue, and certainly not upon anything just because
> it may happen to support my overall theory.
RNP(new)
Still you can do better with Robertson than with Taylor to get
the same effect.Though you will then have to have Marloowe reverting
to a less complex form of versification for four plays written between
1594-95 and 1597-1598.
>
> Peter F.
> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>- Hide quoted text -
Elizabeth
Witty, Tom. I'm laughing out loud.
> TR
John W. Kennedy
Perhaps Neddie wrote the screenplay for "Carry On Hamlet"?
--
John W. Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
Elizabeth
This is darned witty. Perhaps you two should collaborate
on a satire about Looney or even Oxford..Take on the Oxfordians.
Satire desolves all ideologies as Mel Brooks well
knows.
.
Tom Reedy
It is extremely difficult *not* to write satire about Looney and the
Oxfordians. A straight, sober report on their beliefs is hard to
surpass.
BTW, last week I met a woman whose last name is Looney, and she said
the pronunciation was just as it looks, rhyming with gooney, as in
gooney bird, not with boney, as most Oxfordians insist.
TR
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Saints appear on this earth, and they teach us the truth.
And we know this because they tell us they are Saints and that what
they teach us is the Truth.
--Bob G., Exalted High Sat Goober
lackpurity
MM:
If we have "perfect faith," as Whitman wrote Emerson, in a True
Master, then we will become onmiscient, just as William Shakespeare
became omniscient as his Masters, Christopher Marlowe and Fulke
Greville.
If one follows a False Master, then that is due to karma. We do need
to use some discretion, of course. We should make the best choice
that we can. That's all that we can do.
Michael Martin
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Roger Strittmatter wrote:
> >
> > For the record, I have as little interest, Elizabeth,
> > in responding to your baiting as you apparently do
> > in understanding the significance of Dr. Waugamun's
> > participation in the authorship question.
>
> icance of Harvard's Professor of Psychiatry John E.
What I find genuinely baffling about the Oxfordian approach
to these matters is the way in which the Roger Stritmatters
of this world will do anything rather than stay around long
enough to discuss reasons such as those I gave for rejecting
their theory.
As far as I am concerned, the most valuable inputs I have
had to my own beliefs have arisen not from fellow-Marlovians
but from argument with reasonably bright and knowledgable
people who had beliefs diametrically opposed to my own and
who were determined to prove me wrong. If I didn't know
enough to start with about the area of expertise on which
their argument was based, I made sure I found out about it
double-quick. I know that unless I can truly understand my
opponent's case and satisfy myself that they have got it
wrong, then *I* most probably am!
Why don't *they* see it that way?
book...@yahoo.com
For one thing, "they" perhaps rely on suasion by repetition, as in
first advancing some parts of a belief system, and when not confuted,
make bold to advance and repeat them while bringing along sympathizers
into a collective. Repeated often enough, the "big lie" of contriving
authorities is accepted by the rest of an unorganized democracy, even
its elected representatives.
"They" might be better identified if you would conduct "know your
enemy" orientation programs for us, who need some suspect profiling,
awareness of suspicious ruses, and security measures to take. I would
buy the book you write on "Oxfordian trojan horses, moles, and
viruses", with examples from Internet news groups.
bookburn <[:>)
Tom Reedy
IMO, their beliefs are too brittle to withstand close examination and
some part of their mind knows that. Also for the most part they
believe themselves more clever than experience has shown, and I think
some part of their mind knows that, also, and not engaging in debate
helps keep the denial intact.
> >As far as I am concerned, the most valuable inputs I have
> >had to my own beliefs have arisen not from fellow-Marlovians
> >but from argument with reasonably bright and knowledgable
> >people who had beliefs diametrically opposed to my own and
> >who were determined to prove me wrong.
I agree. It hones one's thinking and is a stimulus to research.
> If I didn't know
> >enough to start with about the area of expertise on which
> >their argument was based, I made sure I found out about it
> >double-quick. I know that unless I can truly understand my
> >opponent's case and satisfy myself that they have got it
> >wrong, then *I* most probably am!
I dunno, Peter. Although I understand your arguments (I think), I
don't understand why you hold the belief that Marlowe wrote the
Shakespearean canon. I don't know that you've ever explained that.
> >Why don't *they* see it that way?
>
> >Peter F.
> ><pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> ><http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
>
> For one thing, "they" perhaps rely on suasion by repetition, as in
> first advancing some parts of a belief system, and when not confuted,
> make bold to advance and repeat them while bringing along sympathizers
> into a collective. Repeated often enough, the "big lie" of contriving
> authorities is accepted by the rest of an unorganized democracy, even
> its elected representatives.
You might be on to something. Studies have shown that repetition, even
if the repetition includes the information that the repeated datum is
false, is one of the strongest tools to persuade people that the
information is in fact true. That is one explanation of why Oxfordian
"facts" get recycled among the faithful, even though they have been
demonstrated time and again to be wrong.
TR
>
> "They" might be better identified if you would conduct "know your
> enemy" orientation programs for us, who need some suspect profiling,
> awareness of suspicious ruses, and security measures to take. I would
> buy the book you write on "Oxfordian trojan horses, moles, and
> viruses", with examples from Internet news groups.
>
> bookburn <[:>)- Hide quoted text -
Greg Reynolds
>
> BTW, last week I met a woman whose last name is Looney, and she said
> the pronunciation was just as it looks, rhyming with gooney, as in
> gooney bird, not with boney, as most Oxfordians insist.
>
> TR
She was distancing herself.
John Andrews
I'm embarrassed by being unable to return your kind words. If you
believe that Sterling's echoing of words of Propero's speech (I'd like
to see the detail) are evidence that Shakespeare wrote his play prior
to 1604, then you are clearly more delusional than most who post here.
All the evidence we have - details of first and subsequent
performances, style, dramaturgy etc. points to a 1611 date. You ignore
all of that evidence whilst accepting the plainly ambiguous evidence
of Sterling - you can't determine the direction of influence - which
is what I mean by "making it all up".
On a more positive note, may I thank you for advocating Robertson and
encouraging me to obtain and read his work. I am not persuaded with
most of his re-attributions and I don't see his methods as standing up
to the best textual work of today, but he's an intelligent and
interesting writer and I've enjoyed reading him.
Best wishes
John Andrews
Paul Crowley
news:7caf6a5f-9f26-4734...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>What I find genuinely baffling about the Oxfordian approach
>>>to these matters is the way in which the Roger Stritmatters
>>>of this world will do anything rather than stay around long
>>>enough
Quasi-Strats (such as yourself) have
not thought out their position, and
know that too much close questioning
will expose contradictions.
>>> to discuss reasons such as those I gave for rejecting
>>>their theory.
Was this was your "ten billion to one"
argument . . ?
Do you expect ANYONE to take that
seriously? -- Especially since it is unique
to your very goodself.
> IMO, their beliefs are too brittle to withstand close examination and
> some part of their mind knows that. Also for the most part they
> believe themselves more clever than experience has shown, and I think
> some part of their mind knows that, also, and not engaging in debate
> helps keep the denial intact.
Yep. People who are confused about their
ideas (or, at least, more confused than their
interlocutors) get a drubbing in debate.
They find it an uncomfortable experience
and avoid occasions where it might be
repeated. That's why we see so little of
Dave Kathman, Terry Ross, et al. They
discovered that it was amazingly hard to
defend Stratfordianism.
>>>As far as I am concerned, the most valuable inputs I have
>>>had to my own beliefs have arisen not from fellow-Marlovians
>>>but from argument with reasonably bright and knowledgable
>>>people who had beliefs diametrically opposed to my own and
>>>who were determined to prove me wrong.
I have regularly pointed out the childish
errors in your work. You have not paid a
blind bit of attention -- regurgitating the
same ignorant nonsense year after year.
>> If I didn't know
>>>enough to start with about the area of expertise on which
>>>their argument was based, I made sure I found out about it
>>>double-quick.
What a laugh!
You don't consult anyone competent in
maths -- because you KNOW you've
got it right.
>>> I know that unless I can truly understand my
>>>opponent's case and satisfy myself that they have got it
>>>wrong, then *I* most probably am!
A total lie. You have made NO effort
to understand any of my points about
your crazy "maths" -- consulting no one.
> I dunno, Peter. Although I understand your arguments (I think)
You don't.
> I don't understand why you hold the belief that Marlowe wrote the
> Shakespearean canon. I don't know that you've ever explained that.
Peter will never explain his Marlite position.
For some strange reason, he's proud of this.
Like other quasi-Strats, he will avoid almost
every question. There will never be any
account of who he thinks was behind the
Marlite plot, nor why it was mounted, nor
why it was maintained. The Stratman's
position will never be explained nor justified.
You will only see one huge fog.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:47eb06b1$0$27566$607e...@cv.net...
>>> His most objectionable assumption is that
>>> Shake-speare (of all people) was a slavish
>>> adherent to literary fashion. Also he fails
>>> to realise that much of the conventional
>>> 'dating' of the canon is based on the criteria
>>> he uses to justify that dating. The worst
>>> example of this is the late dating of the close-
>>> to-juvenile *Cymbeline*.
>>
>> Interesting evidence of Crowley's grotesque incompetence as a reader: I
>> supected him of having a tin ear, but I didn't think it was quite this bad.
>> It's rather like suggesting that one of Beethoven's late quartets might have
>> been written in the 1790s.
It is not in the least like suggesting that one
of Beethoven's late quartets might have been
written in the 1790s. A good musician could
readily list a hundred differences between
Beethoven's early and late work. With a bit
of time he could probably list a thousand
differences. Yet Strats can only list two --
both of which have to be measured by bean
counters. (And that's the very apex
Stratfordian criticism.)
> Oh, he's been claiming it here at least since late 1999.
>
> In fact, you've been repressing the ugly memory. I find, going over my old messages, that you
> discovered this back in 2002, and even then I told you it was old news. And again, about a
> year ago. I certainly don't blame you; I wish I had your gift for amnesia, really.
And not once in the meantime has he got
beyond the vague slur. You'd think that
a professional in the field could be a little
more articulate. Of course, much the same
applies to you -- dumb as a lump of 2 x 4.
> I keep pointing out that, by his standards, I, who have written several ballades and, once, an
> acrostic in terza rima, must obviously be a better poet than Shakespeare, but he still doesn't
> seem to get it.
You have got it wrong -- in several dimensions.
Any competent Elizabethan poet could write
blank verse with (or without) run-on lines.
Our poet put a lot into Cymbeline (for whatever
reason) close to the start of his play-writing
career. And, as we might expect. the rest of
the play reflects his close-to-juvenile interests
and abilities at the time.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:fsfvri$sim$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> > Yes, of course they had. The point is not what they knew,
>> > however, but what they chose to do.
>>
>> Indeed. In every case it was a conscious
>> issue of artistic choice -- made for a complex
>> variety of reasons. Such matters are quite
>> inappropriate for statistical analysis.
>
> It is therefore surprising that statistics is such an
> important tool in the marketing research profession,
> where the choices people make for a complex variety
> of reasons are exactly what it is all about.
'Market Research' promises returns of
billions of dollars but rarely produces
anything. It is a 'profession' of bullshitters,
as all articulate businessmen (such as
Alan Sugar) will tell you.
>> It's like asking why musical composers bring in
>> strings, or use pianissimo, why a writer uses long
>> or short sentences.
>
> No it isn't. It's like asking whether they do these
> things or not.
How come you have NEVER seen the
application of similar 'maths' to real work?
>> > > > so Meres has given us clear evidence that by 1598
>> > > > the following eleven plays had certainly been written and
>> > > > performed:
>> > >
>> > > Nope. He gives us evidence that he
>> > > knew the names -- but he does not say
>> > > how he acquired that knowledge.
>> >
>> > I see. We don't know who told him about them, therefore
>> > they probably hadn't been written and performed by then.
>>
>> Most of them were written about 20 years
>> earlier. You have to get the Stratfordian
>> 'for the public stage' nonsense out of
>> your head.
>
> If there is anyone who has nonsense in his head it is you,
> Paul, as just about everyone here keeps reminding you.
>
> Just for your information, though, my statement that Meres
> "has given us clear evidence that by 1598 the following
> eleven plays had certainly been written and performed" is
> not actually refuted by your claim that "Most of them were
> written about 20 years earlier". You may not grasp this
> simple fact, but others will.
I was objection to your statement in the
context you made it -- implying that
such plays had recently hit the London
stage, and Meres was telling us what
he knew -- from his own experience.
In fact, as is fairly obvious, Meres was
not a theatre-going man, nor did he know
much about current literature. In this
case, he probably asked someone he
thought knew about such matters, and
he was given a list -- including the joke
of 'Loves Labours Won'. That list,
highly probably, came from those who
decided what 'Shake-speare' ought to
have written up to that point. Earlier
plays would have been included, but
not later ones, such as Hamlet, even if
it was quite well known (in certain circles)
that they had long been in existence.
>> > > It is accepted that the rate of run-on lines
>> > > broadly increased over time. Likewise it
>> > > is accepted that the number of feminine
>> > > endings broadly increased over time.
>> > > But there is NO SUCH ENTITY as
>> > > 'feminine endings + run-on lines".
>> >
>> > Yes there is, as I have demonstrated.
>>
>> Absolutely and totally absurd. You
>> cannot add the chicken population of
>> Indonesia to the rainfall of Argentina and
>> claim you have an entity -- no matter how
>> nicely the "maths" seems to work out.
>
> This is true. What you can do, however, is to count the
> number of times the ends of the iambic pentameter are
> affected by run-on lines and feminine endings and express
> this in terms of how many occurrences of these two techn-
> iques there are on average per hundred lines of verse.
There is NOT one scrap of difference
between your manoeuvres and my example.
Run-on lines and feminine endings are
wholly different things, employed for
wholly different reasons. Only a foolish
(and mathematically illiterate) clown, intent
on the 'proving' a theory, would add them
together and think he had found something.
> Ideally, I would have liked to express it
There is no 'it'. There is only your
faked contrivance -- created for your
own purposes.
>> > You have yet to
>> > provide any authoritative source for your claim that
>> > what I have done is incorrect.
>>
>> I could take your work around to
>> various mathematicians for their
>> opinions -- but it's not my job.
>> It's YOURS.
>
> I don't need to
That is grossly irresponsible. Even the
best of us (which certainly does not
include you) can make elementary mistakes
in mathematical work. This sort of arrogant
foolishness is yet more evidence of your
total incompetence in this field.
> , because you are the only person to have
> ever expressed the view that there is something wrong
> with it, and your views are irrelevant.
Clearly most around here are mathematically
illiterate (at least at this fairly basic level).
Those who aren't simply have not bothered
to look. Or if they have, prefer to keep silent.
>> > > > in fact,
>> > > > we find that all except one of the 'pre-Meres' ones are
>> > > > below that figure, and all except one of the others above
>> > > > it. The statistical significance of this - odds of about
>> > > > 10 billion to 1 against it happening by chance
>>
>> When you get results of this nature,
>> you should know you've gone wrong.
>> It is another of your insanities. It is
>> the result of piling mathematical bullshit
>> on top of mathematical bullshit.
>>
>> Every competent mathematician would
>> be horrified at each of your manoeuvres.
>>
>> Why can't you track one down?
>
> Because they aren't.
If there really were statistical odds of
"10 billion to one" to be found in this
data, don't you think some Stratfordian
might have noticed it a while ago?
> They might suggest that some other
> technique (such as multivariate analysis) would be more
> appropriate, but this would give results like 'PC1' and
> there is NO SUCH ENTITY in that case either.
Ridiculous. The creation of fake entities
is a routine operation. Psychology
consists of little else. When backed up
by 'maths' it can get really perverse.
Think of all that IQ nonsense. The guys
responsible for it were often extremely
expert in maths. And all would have been
horrified by the crudity of your errors.
>> > WT 1609.0 38.00% *******************
>> > Cym 1610.0 45.99% ***********************
>> > Tem 1611.0 41.95% *********************
>> > H8 1613.0 38.97% *******************
>> >
>> > Oh look! See how every single play given a date after
>> > 1604 has a rate higher than every single play given a
>> > date before that. Different authors, perhaps?
>>
>> You are like a small child who arranges
>> his ducks in a row, and then comes
>> back sometime later and is amazed to
>> find his ducks arranged in a row.
>
> I have done nothing but bring together sets of data
> compiled by other people and shown the result. I did no
> "arranging" at all.
You fail to notice their 'arranging'.
>> While there is undoubtedly a trend, the
>> 'dates' for each play were established
>> to fit that trend.
>
> No they weren't. And if you got off your butt and took
> a look at my source for the dates you would know prec-
> cisely how each of them *was* arrived at.
I am very well aware of how Stratfordians
reach their 'dates'. The 'operations' are
next to crazy. It is all based on assumptions,
with data that indicates a 'too early' date
being rejected -- or, more commonly -- not
considered at all.
>> For example, it is quite crazy to date Cymbeline and
>> Henry8 so late. Strats have to adopt the notion of
>> the Bard's sad decline into senility in his early
>> forties. No doubt you apply the same 'reasoning'
>> to Marlowe.
>
> The sad decline into senility is what I would apply to
> you, Paul, except that I suspect in your case it has
> been a lifelong problem.
No answer. *Henry 8* was, IYHO,
the culmination of his work, and reflects
decades of practice and experience?
It should be obvious, even to you, that
you are a Strat, through and through.
You have merely (for some peculiar
reason) put another name on your T-shirt.
Paul.