Shakespeare Fellowship
paul streitz
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/
paul streitz
Tom Reedy
movie as proof that he was an Oxforidian!
He also quotes Emerson and Dickens, but apparently subtlety is beyond
Streitz, because they weren't antistrats.
TR
"paul streitz" <oxins...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5daf239d.02010...@posting.google.com...
Elizabeth Weir
Emerson and Dickens were antistrats. They weren't Oxfordians.
Most of the antistrats in that era were Baconians. Emerson's friend
Walt Whitman was a Baconian. His library holdings are online. A lot
of Baconian books.
Greg Reynolds
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
Please direct me to Whitman's library holdings.
Are they Bacon books or Baconian books?
Weir, oh, Weir, can they be found?
Thomas Larque
Dickens was demonstrably not anti-Stratfordian. He was a supporter of
what became the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in the mission to
purchase Shakespeare's Birthplace (of the real Shakespeare, in
Stratford) for the Nation before P.T. Barnum shipped it off to
America. His signature is on display in the Birthplace itself. One
of his letters talks about his visit to Shakespeare's Birthplace, and
his last book, "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" - which he was still
writing when he died - refers to Shakespeare as "the Bard of Avon" and
"the Swan of his native river".
The quote that Oxfordians and other hapless anti-Strats seize upon is
*not* Anti-Stratfordian. Dickens says that the life of William
Shakespeare is a great mystery, and he is eagerly waiting for more
documents about William Shakespeare to emerge from unread historical
records - in both cases he is fairly obviously talking about William
Shakespeare of Stratford, whose house he helped to preserve.
Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk
Ken Kaplan
In that case he will have to wait for an eternity, won't he?
Ken Kaplan
Thomas Larque
Many new documents about Shakespeare have turned up since Dickens'
time. On the other hand, those who wait for proof that the Earl of
Oxford was Shakespeare, or who even wait for Oxfordianism to become a
popular and respected viewpoint, will have to wait much longer.
"Until hell freezes over ..." does not quite suggest enough
desperation to describe the state of the Oxfordian cause.
Stephanie Caruana
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:4qbm3u4uu01dv16al...@4ax.com...
>
>
<snip>
>
> Many new documents about Shakespeare have turned up since Dickens'
> time. On the other hand, those who wait for proof that the Earl of
> Oxford was Shakespeare, or who even wait for Oxfordianism to become a
> popular and respected viewpoint, will have to wait much longer.
> "Until hell freezes over ..." does not quite suggest enough
> desperation to describe the state of the Oxfordian cause.
>
> Thomas Larque.
>
> "Shakespeare and His Critics"
> http://shakespearean.org.uk
We are getting along all right, thanks! See my post on the upcoming deVere
Studies Conference. Note the many PhD's and such on the speakers' list.
Define popularity and respectability. Twnety points off the top for
distortion and omission in your reply.
Stephanie
--
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Stephanie Caruana
author/editor:
The Gemstone File of Bruce Roberts
http://gemstone-file.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Thomas Larque
>> time. On the other hand, those who wait for proof that the Earl of
>> Oxford was Shakespeare, or who even wait for Oxfordianism to become a
>> popular and respected viewpoint, will have to wait much longer.
>> "Until hell freezes over ..." does not quite suggest enough
>> desperation to describe the state of the Oxfordian cause.
>>
>> Thomas Larque.
>>
>> "Shakespeare and His Critics"
>> http://shakespearean.org.uk
>
>We are getting along all right, thanks! See my post on the upcoming deVere
>Studies Conference. Note the many PhD's and such on the speakers' list.
>Define popularity and respectability. Twnety points off the top for
>distortion and omission in your reply.
Interesting to note that many of the speakers are not Oxfordians
(including the most highly qualified speakers, and the real De Vere
experts, May and Nelson) and that the award for De Vere related
scholarship is having to be given to an ardent Stratfordian, due - no
doubt - to the complete lack of any real scholarship (even about De
Vere) by Oxfordians. The De Vere conference, in any case, seems to be
evidence only of the minor success of Daniel Wright (the only
Oxfordian to have such a position, as far as I am aware) and will be
attended by no more than 180 individuals. It is hardly evidence that
Oxfordianism has obtained any academic respectability, and is
certainly not evidence of the popularity of Oxfordianism (would you
bet that more than 1% of the Western World was Oxfordian? would you
bet that more than 1% of the Western World had heard of
Oxfordianism?). Oxfordians are not really doing any better today than
the Baconians were a century ago, and Baconianism - as Oxfordians tend
to heartily agree - is pretty much a spent force in the 21st Century.
Thomas Larque
>>> time. On the other hand, those who wait for proof that the Earl of
>>> Oxford was Shakespeare, or who even wait for Oxfordianism to become a
>>> popular and respected viewpoint, will have to wait much longer.
>>> "Until hell freezes over ..." does not quite suggest enough
>>> desperation to describe the state of the Oxfordian cause.
>>>
>>> Thomas Larque.
>>>
>>> "Shakespeare and His Critics"
>>> http://shakespearean.org.uk
>>
>>We are getting along all right, thanks! See my post on the upcoming deVere
>>Studies Conference. Note the many PhD's and such on the speakers' list.
>>Define popularity and respectability. Twnety points off the top for
>>distortion and omission in your reply.
So let us just run through the Professors and Ph.Ds on that list, and
see what their expertise is actually in.
Dr. Daniel Wright, PhD, Conference Chairman
[Professor of English at Concordia University, teaches Shakespeare.
Dissertation apparently - SHAKESPEARE AS ANGLICAN APOLOGIST:
SACRAMENTAL RHETORIC AND ICONOGRAPHY IN THE LANCASTRIAN TETRALOGY).
Professor Paul Altrocchi, PhD
[Neurologist. No qualifications in Shakespeare or related subjects.]
Dr. Eric Altschuler
[Psychologist. No qualifications in Shakespeare or related subjects.]
Rev. John Baker
[Seems to have imagined his PhD, not to mention his Bishopric.
Possible MA in Political Philosophy. No qualifications in Shakespeare
or related subjects.]
Dr. Charles Berney
[Researcher for Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dissertation
possibly - THE HIGH-RESOLUTION INFRARED SPECTRUM OF
OXYGEN-18-ENRICHED. BERNEY, CHARLES VICTOR, PHD. UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON, 1962. Apparently no qualifications in Shakespeare or
related subjects]
Professor Michael Delahoyde, PhD
[Instructor of English at Washington State University, teaches
Shakespeare (among other courses). Dissertation - 'HERYNG TH'EFFECT':
POETIC TECHNIQUE IN CHAUCER'S 'TROILUS AND CRISEYDE' (HERYNG
TH'EFFECT). DELAHOYDE, MICHAEL, PHD. THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 1989.
Judging by Ph.D and publications, *not* a Shakespeare specialist.
Specialises in Mediaeval Literature].
Professor Ren Draya, PhD
[Professor of English at Blackburn College. Dissertation - THE
FRIGHTENED HEART: A STUDY OF CHARACTER AND THEME IN THE FICTION,
POETRY, SHORT PLAYS, AND RECENT DRAMA OF TENNESSEE WILLIAMS.. DRAYA,
REN, PHD. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER, 1977. May teach
Shakespeare, College website does not say, but did not specialise in
Shakespeare at Ph.D level.]
Professor Kevin Simpson, PhD
[Professor in Social Sciences at College of Eastern Utah. Apparently
no qualifications in Shakespeare or related subjects].
Dr. Roger Stritmatter
[Very poor dissertation on Edward De Vere's Bible - as seen on HLAS].
***
So of the 20 presumably Anti-Stratfordian speakers at the De Vere
Conference (not counting the two Stratfordian Professors - Nelson and
May) only two have Shakespeare related Ph.Ds, only two certainly teach
Shakespeare at College level (of which apparently only one is a
Shakespeare specialist), and only three are professionally involved
with the study of English Literature. So much for the evidence of
Oxfordian popularity and respectability in the academic world.
Stephanie Caruana
"Thomas Larque" <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:hjjm3uoalmusogvv5...@4ax.com...
> >> Many new documents about Shakespeare have turned up since Dickens'
> >> time. On the other hand, those who wait for proof that the Earl of
> >> Oxford was Shakespeare, or who even wait for Oxfordianism to become a
> >> popular and respected viewpoint, will have to wait much longer.
> >> "Until hell freezes over ..." does not quite suggest enough
> >> desperation to describe the state of the Oxfordian cause.
> >>
> >> Thomas Larque.
> >>
> >> "Shakespeare and His Critics"
> >> http://shakespearean.org.uk
> >
> >We are getting along all right, thanks! See my post on the upcoming
deVere
> >Studies Conference. Note the many PhD's and such on the speakers' list.
> >Define popularity and respectability. Twnety points off the top for
> >distortion and omission in your reply.
>
> Interesting to note that many of the speakers are not Oxfordians
> (including the most highly qualified speakers, and the real De Vere
> experts, May and Nelson)
They might better be called "Shakespeareans," perhaps, and they are welcome
at this conference. Both submitted abstracts for their proposed
presentations that fit into this year's Conference theme: "Ver-ifying
Shakespeare."
and that the award for De Vere related
> scholarship is having to be given to an ardent Stratfordian, due - no
> doubt - to the complete lack of any real scholarship (even about De
> Vere) by Oxfordians.
Do you know anything about the proposed presentations by the other speakers?
Then how can you be sure they contain no real scholarship? I think I'll
have to deduct 5 points there, for asserting something about which you can
have no sure knowledge.
>The De Vere conference, in any case, seems to be
> evidence only of the minor success of Daniel Wright (the only
> Oxfordian to have such a position, as far as I am aware)
Do you know the positions of the other speakers? There goes another 5
points, for the same reason as above.
and will be
> attended by no more than 180 individuals.
That limitation has to do with site limitations. True, it isn't the SAA,
but give it time.
It is hardly evidence that
> Oxfordianism has obtained any academic respectability, and is
> certainly not evidence of the popularity of Oxfordianism (would you
> bet that more than 1% of the Western World was Oxfordian?
Yes, I would.
would you
> bet that more than 1% of the Western World had heard of
> Oxfordianism?).
Definitely, yes.
Oxfordians are not really doing any better today than
> the Baconians were a century ago, and Baconianism - as Oxfordians tend
> to heartily agree - is pretty much a spent force in the 21st Century.
The difference is that Oxfordianism is only 80 years old, and is on the way
up.
>
> Thomas Larque.
>
> "Shakespeare and His Critics"
> http://shakespearean.org.uk
Stephanie Caruana
Thomas Larque
>> scholarship is having to be given to an ardent Stratfordian, due - no
>> doubt - to the complete lack of any real scholarship (even about De
>> Vere) by Oxfordians.
>
>Do you know anything about the proposed presentations by the other speakers?
>Then how can you be sure they contain no real scholarship? I think I'll
>have to deduct 5 points there, for asserting something about which you can
>have no sure knowledge.
I have seen no real scholarship in any Oxfordian published material,
of which I have read a fair amount. Can you offer any examples of
real scholarship published by any Oxfordian? I might have to deduct
100 points from your score for gullibility.
>>The De Vere conference, in any case, seems to be
>> evidence only of the minor success of Daniel Wright (the only
>> Oxfordian to have such a position, as far as I am aware)
>
>Do you know the positions of the other speakers? There goes another 5
>points, for the same reason as above.
Apparently you missed the post in which I listed the positions of all
the other speakers with Doctorates or Ph.Ds. There were minor grey
areas with some, but it is fairly obvious that only Wright is actually
a professional Shakespearean who teaches, specialises in, and
publishes professionally on Shakespearean topics. Can you name any
other Oxfordian in the speakers list who fits such a description? You
will lose lots of points (for dishonesty) if you can't.
> and will be
>> attended by no more than 180 individuals.
>
>That limitation has to do with site limitations. True, it isn't the SAA,
>but give it time.
>
> It is hardly evidence that
>> Oxfordianism has obtained any academic respectability, and is
>> certainly not evidence of the popularity of Oxfordianism (would you
>> bet that more than 1% of the Western World was Oxfordian?
>
>Yes, I would.
Now you lose lots more points for "asserting something about which
you can have no sure knowledge". We would have to carry out a survey
to be sure, but I have never met an Oxfordian in the flesh. What are
the chances against that if there are so many of them around? But put
it another way, would you like to bet that there are more Oxfordians
than Creationists or Scientologists or UFO-believers? The truth is
that all of these crank theories get more support than Oxfordianism.
> would you
>> bet that more than 1% of the Western World had heard of
>> Oxfordianism?).
>
>Definitely, yes.
I would be very amused to see you try to prove this. Baconianism is
still better known than Oxfordianism by the public at large, and a lot
of people have never heard of that.
> Oxfordians are not really doing any better today than
>> the Baconians were a century ago, and Baconianism - as Oxfordians tend
>> to heartily agree - is pretty much a spent force in the 21st Century.
>
>The difference is that Oxfordianism is only 80 years old, and is on the way
>up.
So was Baconianism when it reached 80, but since such crank theories
will never go up very far, they end up with only one way to go. Down.
Tom Reedy
> >> Emerson and Dickens were antistrats. They weren't Oxfordians.
>
> Dickens was demonstrably not anti-Stratfordian.
Neither was Emerson or Orsen Wells, as far as I can tell.
<snip>
>
> The quote that Oxfordians and other hapless anti-Strats seize upon is
> *not* Anti-Stratfordian. Dickens says that the life of William
> Shakespeare is a great mystery, and he is eagerly waiting for more
> documents about William Shakespeare to emerge from unread historical
> records - in both cases he is fairly obviously talking about William
> Shakespeare of Stratford, whose house he helped to preserve.
>
> Thomas Larque.
Mmmm. That's one interpretation, I reckon, but it's not mine. Here's what he
said:
"It is a great comfort, to my way of thinking, that so little is known
concerning the poet. The life of Shakespeare is a fine mystery, and I
tremble everyday lest something should turn up."
It reads to me that Dickens is *not* eagerly waiting for more documents
about WS to emerge. To me, he's saying he wants the author's life to stay
mysterious. He's showing contempt for intrusive, vulgar curiosity of the
"National Enquirer" type. (I disagree with him; I love gossip, especially
about talented and accomplished people.)
Regardless of the correct interpretation, there is nothing in the quote that
anyone but an Oxfordian could read as Dickens doubting the authorship of
William Shakespeare. And we all know how honest Oxfordians are, so we hold
them to lower standards than ordinary people.
TR
Thomas Larque
>the other speakers with Doctorates or Ph.Ds.
Doctorates or Professorships, I meant to type. Doctorates and Ph.Ds
are obviously the same thing.
Ken Kaplan
As I remember some pertinent lessons from real life, Ph.D's or any
other "qualifications", especially from insulated academic
institutions, by themselves are rather meaningless. It is the content
of what one expresses, and the character of their soul that matters.
Who gives a damn about "credentials"?
One other thing. From recent discussions here, and in the past, it is
clear to me that for many across the divide of this NG, the conception
of who the author was in terms of his art and creation is vastly
different. Whatever you may think of Oxfordianism, in my experience it
presents a _far_ more elegant, philosophical, multilayered, and
multifaceted portrait of Shakespeare than most of what I have seen
from Stratfordian critics and texts. I find the core Stratfordian
conception of the author as I have seen it most expressed appalling
and unbelievably limited. So much for your "authority".
Ken Kaplan
KQKnave
kenka...@yahoo.com (Ken Kaplan) writes:
> Whatever you may think of Oxfordianism, in my experience it
>presents a _far_ more elegant, philosophical, multilayered, and
>multifaceted portrait of Shakespeare than most of what I have seen
>from Stratfordian critics and texts. I find the core Stratfordian
>conception of the author as I have seen it most expressed appalling
>and unbelievably limited. So much for your "authority".
Actually, it is the Oxfordian point of view, which negates any
kind of artistry or imagination in the author, and instead requires
that his entire oevre be a literal diary of his life, that is so
simple minded and unbelievably limited.
See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Thomas Larque
>Thomas Larque <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote in message news:<derm3u001dootchql...@4ax.com>...
>> >Apparently you missed the post in which I listed the positions of all
>> >the other speakers with Doctorates or Ph.Ds.
>>
>> Doctorates or Professorships, I meant to type. Doctorates and Ph.Ds
>> are obviously the same thing.
>>
>> Thomas Larque.
>>
>> "Shakespeare and His Critics"
>> http://shakespearean.org.uk
>
>As I remember some pertinent lessons from real life, Ph.D's or any
>other "qualifications", especially from insulated academic
>institutions, by themselves are rather meaningless. It is the content
>of what one expresses, and the character of their soul that matters.
>Who gives a damn about "credentials"?
For anybody who wants to pretend that Oxfordianism is, or ever can be,
academically respectable, the existence of Oxfordian academic
Shakespeareans is a major point. From all that I know, there is only
one - Professor Daniel Wright - who is in the lowest ranks of academia
as far as anybody except the Oxfordians are concerned. Why are there
so few Oxfordian academic Shakespeareans? Because you have to have an
amateurish understanding of Renaissance History, Literature and
Theatre to believe any of Ogburn's tome or any other Oxfordian
material. Anybody with an academic background in Shakespeare (or in
any aspect of Renaissance History, Theatre or Literature) should be
able to see through Oxfordianism immediately.
I am quite happy to judge Oxfordians on the content of what they
express - which is universally mindless junk - and the character of
their souls - since they are invariably twisted fantasists. Their
lack of credentials just proves that other people see them this way as
well. An Oxfordian attempting scholarship is like Dr. Johnson's dog
walking on his hind legs - one is not surprised by how well he does
it, merely by the fact that he tries it at all (and in the Oxfordian
case, invariably fails).
>One other thing. From recent discussions here, and in the past, it is
>clear to me that for many across the divide of this NG, the conception
>of who the author was in terms of his art and creation is vastly
>different. Whatever you may think of Oxfordianism, in my experience it
>presents a _far_ more elegant, philosophical, multilayered, and
>multifaceted portrait of Shakespeare than most of what I have seen
>from Stratfordian critics and texts.
This is the fantasist's version of history. Oxfordians don't like the
truth, they just want a pretty picture. Most Oxfordians want blue
blood and superior education (Paul Crowley, for example, hates the
Middle Classes and comically seems to imagine that he has something in
common with the Earl of Oxford's supposed superiority to all things
Middle Class) and can't understand that real people don't fit
Hollywood stereotypes. Oxfordianism is History for the simple-minded,
who prefer a fictional script (of the sort written by Ogburn, who
makes up his facts, or by Streitz, who dizzily invents Elizabethan
History) to the boring historical record. I once quoted on this
newsgroup a spectacularly uneducated American tourist who visited
Shakespeare's Birthplace and expressed huge disappointment that
Shakespeare did not live in a Castle (having apparently learnt her
English history from Disney Fairy Tales), an Oxfordian on this
newsgroup promptly leapt up to proclaim her vision as entirely
accurate. Oxfordianism is to History what Disney cartoons are to
Literature, wish-fulfilment for children.
>I find the core Stratfordian
>conception of the author as I have seen it most expressed appalling
>and unbelievably limited.
A real person. Revolting, isn't it? You had much better stick to
your fantasy figure. You do realise that the real Earl of Oxford was
nothing like the Oxfordian fantasy of him, don't you?
>So much for your "authority".
We are not discussing *my* "authority" here, but the authority of
Stratfordianism, which has all of the documentary record on its side
(there are no records that even suggest that Oxford wrote Shakespeare,
except when interpreted by fantasists using Creation Science-type
thinking), which is supported by everybody who has any authority in
the study of Shakespeare or the Renaissance (Daniel Wright, the only
exception, seems to have no authority at all), and which accepts
gritty historical realities rather than appealing to the Fairy Tale
Romantic version of History. If you prefer playing with your "Edward
De Vere, Literary Superhero" doll to thinking about real people, go
ahead. Just don't expect anybody to give you, or your views, any
respect.
Ken Kaplan
For starters, this is a "sophisticated" retooling of Reedy's Holocaust
denier argument that surfaced here many years ago. I suppose it never
occured to you that perhaps one reason why there are so few Oxfordian
academics and Phd's is the enormous resistance of the establishment to
following this line of inquiry. Let's not start with "Oxford wrote the
plays", let's start with "there seems to be some indications of a
relationship between Edward Devere and the Shakespeare canon from
many angles. Perhaps it merits investigation on its own terms". But
forget it. How many professed or interested Oxfordians in the past
have been let up the ranks, or encouraged with the vast resources the
Shakespeare establishment has?
The climate is better now, but I had a friend whose father was denied
tenure from Temple soley because he was an Oxfordian in the seventies.
Recently, a young woman who expressed the position that she did not
accept the traditional attribution was denied an interview for a job
because of that belief. Lot's of room there in those academic circles
for dissent, isn't there?
>
> I am quite happy to judge Oxfordians on the content of what they
> express - which is universally mindless junk - and the character of
> their souls - since they are invariably twisted fantasists. Their
> lack of credentials just proves that other people see them this way as
> well. An Oxfordian attempting scholarship is like Dr. Johnson's dog
> walking on his hind legs - one is not surprised by how well he does
> it, merely by the fact that he tries it at all (and in the Oxfordian
> case, invariably fails).
Secondly, this tired piece of bull shit you are throwing out is simply
_not true_. As I told Reedy two years ago, there are many, many
bright, even brilliant intellects in society, today or in history,
who are either troubled by the traditional attribution, or find merit
in the Oxfordian point of view.
So this harping on "mindless junk" is just_your_ opinion. The fact
that the ascademic establishment is stonewalling the whole piece has
to do with many factors. Richmond Crinkley talked about it at great
length in his essay years ago in Shakespeare Quarterly. Its
interesting that you are such a keeper of the old flame. "Bizarre form
of mutant racism"-I think that was his phrase. You articulate it well.
>
> >One other thing. From recent discussions here, and in the past, it is
> >clear to me that for many across the divide of this NG, the conception
> >of who the author was in terms of his art and creation is vastly
> >different. Whatever you may think of Oxfordianism, in my experience it
> >presents a _far_ more elegant, philosophical, multilayered, and
> >multifaceted portrait of Shakespeare than most of what I have seen
> >from Stratfordian critics and texts.
>
> This is the fantasist's version of history. Oxfordians don't like the
> truth, they just want a pretty picture. Most Oxfordians want blue
> blood and superior education (Paul Crowley, for example, hates the
> Middle Classes and comically seems to imagine that he has something in
> common with the Earl of Oxford's supposed superiority to all things
> Middle Class) and can't understand that real people don't fit
> Hollywood stereotypes. Oxfordianism is History for the simple-minded,
> who prefer a fictional script (of the sort written by Ogburn, who
> makes up his facts, or by Streitz, who dizzily invents Elizabethan
> History) to the boring historical record. I once quoted on this
> newsgroup a spectacularly uneducated American tourist who visited
> Shakespeare's Birthplace and expressed huge disappointment that
> Shakespeare did not live in a Castle (having apparently learnt her
> English history from Disney Fairy Tales), an Oxfordian on this
> newsgroup promptly leapt up to proclaim her vision as entirely
> accurate. Oxfordianism is to History what Disney cartoons are to
> Literature, wish-fulfilment for children.
Is that why "Shakespeare in Love" was fawned over so completely by the
society as a whole, and where was the indignent outrage from the
"scholars" on this NG when it came out. Funny, I didn't see it. Talk
about Disney. By the way, ever read Harold Goddard? Bloom loves him.
So do Oxfordians. Very different conception of the author than the old
"wrote for money" line.
>
> >I find the core Stratfordian
> >conception of the author as I have seen it most expressed appalling
> >and unbelievably limited.
>
> A real person. Revolting, isn't it? You had much better stick to
> your fantasy figure. You do realise that the real Earl of Oxford was
> nothing like the Oxfordian fantasy of him, don't you?
No its not about a "real" person. Its about no one being home. I
consider you a fairly smart person, but your response to Diana Price's
core assertion was nothing short of pathetic. You had to dig and
scrape the bottom of the barrel in desperation to try and counter her.
Your argument violated all common sense based only on a highly
technical point that indeed you could find scraps of evidence that
indicated in the most minute fashion that she was wrong. Terrific
stuff. You must have studied for decades at the Terry Ross school of
debate.
> >So much for your "authority".
>
> We are not discussing *my* "authority" here, but the authority of
> Stratfordianism, which has all of the documentary record on its side
> (there are no records that even suggest that Oxford wrote Shakespeare,
> except when interpreted by fantasists using Creation Science-type
> thinking), which is supported by everybody who has any authority in
> the study of Shakespeare or the Renaissance (Daniel Wright, the only
> exception, seems to have no authority at all), and which accepts
> gritty historical realities rather than appealing to the Fairy Tale
> Romantic version of History. If you prefer playing with your "Edward
> De Vere, Literary Superhero" doll to thinking about real people, go
> ahead. Just don't expect anybody to give you, or your views, any
> respect.
Mark Alexander calls this like it is. Have *one* major document(folio)
on your side, take the high ground, and demand that if the other side
cannot produce a similar extant piece, any discussion or consideration
of a host of issues relating to the larger argument are to ignored,
dismissed, or deprecated. If your position is sooo strong,my "friend",
and those little Oxfordians led by minor leaguer Dan Wright are so
bush, how come you're getting creamed everywhere the two sides bump
heads. Why is the Folger even considering a debate on Jan 29, if this
is the complete fantasy you say it is? How come you got so run off the
road in the Harper''s debate in 1999, an issue that sold more copies
than any in its history and led a major columnist, David Ignatious, to
write a fierce column on the hollowness of the mainstream attribution?
Why do we get this in a recent PLMA article (not to mention the
History today piece?) Submitted by that peewee leaguer himself, Dan
Wright:
From an article by Professor M. Thomas Inge of Randolph-Macon College
in the May 2001 issue of PMLA, the flagship journal of the English
language and literature discipline, entitled "Collaboration and the
Concepts of Authorship."
Professor Inge opens his article with the declaration, "Despite
efforts among recent critical theorists to remove, banish, or even
kill the author, the author remains at the center of general critical
attention." Among many important tasks in this short article,
Professor Inge assails the Romantic era's puffery of authors that led
such later, influential, Traditionalist professors of Shakespeare as
T.W. Baldwin(author of Shakespeare's Small Latine and Lesse Greek) to
declare that despite the absence of any evidence to support the
assumption that Shakespeare of Stratford ever, even for a day,
darkened the door of a school, he needn't have attended school at all
because his acquisition of the classical literary tradition, mythology
(Shakespeare uses the names of over 400 characters from Greek and
Roman literature in his works), contemporary historiography and
foreign languages (French, Italian, Greek and Latin) didn't require
that he study them. Instead, Professor Baldwin argues (and his view is
still, amazingly, the majority view in academia) that Shakespeare's
achievement is due to "the world-old miracle of genius," and as such,
he postulates that Shakespeare acquired what he needed to know by mere
"absorption from the air." (Hey Larque, is this a prime example of
all that great documentary evidence you say exists for your
position?_Stop laughing! He really wrote this!-- (For more on Baldwin,
see my article in the October 1998 edition of The Oxfordian: "'He Was
a Scholar and a Ripe and Good One': Oxford's Education, Mirrored in
the Shakespeare Canon.") That Professor Inge exposes this "myth of the
solitary genius" and "the concept of the poet as prophet and possessor
of transcendent knowledge" in the context of the way Shakespeare and
other writers have been understood and taught is significant.
***More notably, though, in Professor Inge's article, is a phrase that
I am more than a little amazed (though pleased) made it into print
(Professor Inge writes [he states this in reference to
seventeenth-century publications in English of the Illiad and the
Odyssey]): "This was a century after Shakespeare was writing his
plays, and of course we are still not certain who wrote all the plays
attributed to that name."*** It's a brief declaration, and it may not
be much to celebrate, but I'll wager that even five years ago, we
couldn't have expected to see an acknowledgment like this appear in a
journal as prestigious, influential and entrenched in academic
orthodoxy as PMLA.
Too bad, isn't it. Why do you guys constantly have to play catch up,
whining to various publications that somehow your "case" wasn't stated
properly. It HAS been stated. That's the problem_, despite your
blowhard assertions.
Like any profession or any walk of life, there are better
practitioners, critics, interpreters, etc. than others. Ogburn was one
person. But many have followed and as in any endeavor there are
wonderful perspectives, arguments, and points of view as there are
woeful, shallow ones. It is the same with traditional critics and
historians. I just finished "Ungentle Shakespeare " by Katherine
Duncan Jones and it is one of the most God awful pieces of historical
and biographical analysis I have ever seen. Are all mainstream
scholars to be indicted for the failure of this one person?
You claim to know Oxfordians, as Reedy, Kathman, Ross, and others have
claimed to know them. I don't think you have a clue. And I have bad
news. Five years until the paradigns are condidered equal. I used to
think ten. I've shortened my prediction. Why? I can see the movement
of history.
As I said, this is Reedy Redux. Why does this crap, like the hydra's
head, keep resurfacing with a new face?
Goodbye. See you in Samara (metaphorically). We have an appointment
there. Look up the story if you don't know it. Then you'll get the
reference.
Ken Kaplan
John W. Kennedy
> Interesting to note that many of the speakers are not Oxfordians
> (including the most highly qualified speakers, and the real De Vere
> experts, May and Nelson) and that the award for De Vere related
> scholarship is having to be given to an ardent Stratfordian, due - no
> doubt - to the complete lack of any real scholarship (even about De
> Vere) by Oxfordians. The De Vere conference, in any case, seems to be
> evidence only of the minor success of Daniel Wright (the only
> Oxfordian to have such a position, as far as I am aware) and will be
> attended by no more than 180 individuals. It is hardly evidence that
> Oxfordianism has obtained any academic respectability, and is
> certainly not evidence of the popularity of Oxfordianism (would you
> bet that more than 1% of the Western World was Oxfordian? would you
> bet that more than 1% of the Western World had heard of
> Oxfordianism?). Oxfordians are not really doing any better today than
> the Baconians were a century ago, and Baconianism - as Oxfordians tend
> to heartily agree - is pretty much a spent force in the 21st Century.
To be fair, I was certainly vaguely aware of Baconianism as a
child/pre-teen ca. 1960.
Of course, if everyone in the world believed in Baconianism, or
Oxfordianism, or any of the others, it would still be bullshit.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays"
-- Charles Williams
Tom Reedy
Hear hear! Well put.
TR
Bob Grumman
I don't like making a post that anyone might read through expecting
something of slight interest only to find me simply agreeing or
disagreeing with someone else's post, but since Baker has been
clogging up HLAS with just such posts, let me add my "Hear, hear" to
Tom's. It WAS a great summary, Thomas.
--Bob G.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Andrew Ness
"Ken Kaplan" <kenka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:75f2d918.02010...@posting.google.com
<snip>
Personally, I have no problem with the issue being debated (and I suspect
anyone who really did have a problem with that would not read this group at
all.) As yet, however, I've seen nothing that suggests to me either that
Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare (although the evidence he did doesn't
strike as as 100% conclusive) or that Oxford did (in fact, I've yet to see
_anything_ that would even point in that direction)
Ken mentions the fact of WS' name on the plays as sole evidence. (As KQKnave
continues to post, there is more, but let's leave that for now) The fact
that name is there tells us either that it was indeed the name of the author
OR that the author wished to be identified with someone else; an actor.
Obviously there must be some evidence in support of Oxford, even if it
proves insubstantial, for this many people to be so utterly convinced, and
I'll just have to go and find it elsewhere. At the moment though, I'm
scratching my head at how anyone can claim _certainty_ that it was Oxford,
rather than just a general inclination in that direction. There seems to be
an attitude (on all sides for that matter) of needing to be absolutely sure,
and then finding 'proofs' to back up that view. The logical way of doing
this would be the other way around. Examine all the evidence with an
unbiased mind (this is difficult, everyone has pet theories and there's a
lot of politics here as well) and draw the most rational conclusion. I
admit, I'm more critical of arguments against Shakespeare as the author, and
I'm sure much rubbish has been written on the subject by proponents of all
sides.
As I see it (and as interesting as Bob Grumman's far more detailed post on a
similar theme was, it was highly partisan - hopefully this is a bit more
balanced):
The plays were written, and performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Men (later
the King's Men)
Various editions were published anonymously.
The FF was published under the name of William Shake-Spear.
There was an actor of that name (spelling not being standardised at the
time) in the company which performed the plays. He was probably a man of the
same name from Stratford. (Nothing is known of his schooling. As an actor,
he must, I would have thought, have been literate. If he came from Stratford
and could read, he most likely learned at the Stratford Grammar school. Very
little is known of the syllaus there.) The writer, I suggest, would have
known of this man. If he chose the name as a pseudonym, there must have been
an intention to confuse the name of the writer with the actor. No-one at the
time, that we know of, seemed to suspect that they were not one and the
same. If there was a cover-up, it was masterfully done. This would involve
the expenditure of a great deal of time and effort and the complicity of the
actor, indeed the whole company as well as many others. All of them must
have kept silent, their stories remaining untold to this day.
The suggestion that, following this masterful trick, the perpetrators
decided to leave 'clues' in the text/memorial/whatever just doesn't ring
true. This was a highly professional cover-up, not an elaborate game.
Could it have happened? That seems to be the core question. The answer:
there is nothing in it which is impossible, but it does seem highly
unlikely. What seems even more unlikely is that it, if done, it should ever
surface at all.
Clearly, if you have direct evidence that someone else was responsible for
writing one of the plays then there is a problem. As far as I know, there is
no such evidence.
(Elizabeth Weir claims there is a manuscript in Bacon's hand which strongly
implicates him. He probably even had the brains to come up with this
Machievellian plot, but why would he bother? Plus, from what little I know
of him, I'd imagine he'd want the world to know if he'd written such popular
plays, he never kept any of his other accomplishments quiet did he?)
NSY
Crows Dog
Andrew Ness wrote: >The FF was published under the name of William
Shake-Spear.
Actually, the title first appears in the First Folio as "MR. WILLIAM
SHAKESPEARES COMEDIES, HISTORIES, & TRAGEDIES." (That's on the page with the
Droeshout engraving.) No apostrophe.
Then, a few pages later, the title is given as "The Workes of William
Shaespeare, containing all hic Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies: Truely set
forth, according to their first ORIGINAL." Again, no apostrophe.
The apostrophe in the name appears in some of the quarto editions.
Also, Andrew said: >Obviously there must be some evidence in support of
Oxford, even if it proves insubstantial, for this many people to be so utterly
convinced, and
I'll just have to go and find it elsewhere.
Andrew, if you do find any evidence for Oxford, please let us know. I've never
seen anything that qualifies as actual evidence.
Andrew Ness
"Crows Dog" <crow...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020111110822...@mb-bh.aol.com...
> Nice post from Andrew Ness. However, I'd like to point out one small
error.
> >The FF was published under the name of William Shake-Spear.
Oops! Allow me to reciprocate: ' is an apostrophe - is a hyphen.
NSY
Thomas Larque
>> academically respectable, the existence of Oxfordian academic
>> Shakespeareans is a major point. From all that I know, there is only
>> one - Professor Daniel Wright - who is in the lowest ranks of academia
>> as far as anybody except the Oxfordians are concerned. Why are there
>> so few Oxfordian academic Shakespeareans? Because you have to have an
>> amateurish understanding of Renaissance History, Literature and
>> Theatre to believe any of Ogburn's tome or any other Oxfordian
>> material. Anybody with an academic background in Shakespeare (or in
>> any aspect of Renaissance History, Theatre or Literature) should be
>> able to see through Oxfordianism immediately.
>
>For starters, this is a "sophisticated" retooling of Reedy's Holocaust
>denier argument that surfaced here many years ago.
It is nothing of the kind. If any Oxfordian wanted to get a
qualification in Shakespeare and feared that the University
authorities would frown on his Oxfordianism, he need only do what
Professor Wright evidently did and write about Shakespeare without
mentioning Oxford at all. There are many relevant topics that could
be explored in great detail by a person of Oxfordian sympathies
without requiring mention of their Oxfordianism (or any adoption of
Stratfordianism). Wright seems to have chosen the religious
background of the author of the works, but the vast majority of
academic work on Shakespeare does not require the author to take a
stand for any authorship position (including Stratfordianism). In all
the academic work that I have done on Shakespeare, I have not
mentioned Shakespeare's Stratfordian origins once.
Since we are trying to get John Baker to give an honest account of his
academic background, here's a brief description of my own. I am
currently a (mature) Undergraduate student at the University of Kent,
studying English Literature. This is the second time that I have
started an Undergraduate degree, but severe and repeated health
problems prevented me from completing my first at the University of
Lancaster during the 1990s, where I was studying an Independent
Studies Programme that I devised myself, titled "Four Centuries of
Shakespeare and the Renaissance Drama". My Independent Studies course
included taught modules in Shakespeare as Literature, Elizabethan
History and Elizabethan Theatre, and Independent studies based around
subsequent theatrical adaptations of Shakespeare's "King Lear" (new
works like Bond's "Lear", Kurosawa's "Ran" and Elaine Feinstein's
"Lear's Daughters"), the ways in which the Victorians performed
Shakespeare, the use of boy actors in Renaissance theatres, the
concept of "Fate" in Renaissance Tragedies, and the faithfulness of
the reconstructed Globe Theatre's reconstruction of Renaissance
performances (I started detailed work on about half of these topics,
but was unable to complete them due to illness, I carried out
preliminary research on all the topics). At no point did anybody ask
me who I thought wrote Shakespeare's plays, and at no point would
anybody have cared if I thought it was somebody else. They might have
cared if I started writing the sort of rubbish that Oxfordians
consider scholarship (this picture looks funny, therefore the author
did not exist; this word contains the first three letters of somebody
other than the supposed author's name, therefore anybody writing this
word must be the other person) in which case I would probably have
failed the course, but if I had been Oxfordian I could have avoided
such arguments completely and stood just as good a chance of passing
as I did as a Stratfordian.
Although I was only required to write 10,000 words on each topic I
could - with very little difficulty - have transformed the same
(authorship neutral) topics into MA or Ph.D proposals for later use.
Assuming that you are correct to claim that intense prejudice means
that Oxfordians cannot get higher degrees while admitting to
Oxfordianism (something that Stritmatter's dissertation seems to
disprove), there is no reason why Oxfordians who want to pursue the
study of Shakespeare at Postgraduate level should not do so, in the
same way that I was doing my Independent Studies degree, without
making an issue of their authorship views. The fact that only one
Oxfordian seems ever to have passed this hurdle is good evidence that
Oxfordians are incapable of genuine academic study of Shakespearean or
Renaissance related topics. If Oxfordians were capable of normal
academic thought in these subjects then they should stand just as good
a chance at getting a Shakespearean Ph.D as I do (and I hope to go on
to a Shakespeare related Ph.D eventually). I am unlikely to mention
Shakespeare's Stratfordian origins in any Dissertation that I produce.
At most I might refer to Shakespeare of Stratford's Biography in
passing, but in all of the topics that I am currently considering this
would be completely unnecessary.
> I suppose it never
>occured to you that perhaps one reason why there are so few Oxfordian
>academics and Phd's is the enormous resistance of the establishment to
>following this line of inquiry. Let's not start with "Oxford wrote the
>plays", let's start with "there seems to be some indications of a
>relationship between Edward Devere and the Shakespeare canon from
>many angles. Perhaps it merits investigation on its own terms".
Which it doesn't. Except for such things as "Shakespeare wrote about
Italy. Oxford was one of the thousands of Elizabethan Englishmen who
went there" and "One, certainly apocryphal, story about Oxford
involves a bed-trick. Shakespeare wrote some of the many plays (not
mentioning many other fictional works in different genres) that
include bedtricks", there is nothing worth the notice of a
Shakespearean scholar connecting the Earl of Oxford to Shakespeare's
works at all.
>But
>forget it. How many professed or interested Oxfordians in the past
>have been let up the ranks, or encouraged with the vast resources the
>Shakespeare establishment has?
I may be wrong, but I know of only one Oxfordian who ever took a Ph.D
in a Shakespeare related subject, and he is now a Professor working at
an American University, teaching Shakespeare. Glancing through the
list of speakers at the Oxfordian Conference and the various Oxfordian
publications that I have access to, I see no evidence that any other
Oxfordian ever got such a qualification. Rather obviously unqualified
people cannot become Professors and cannot be given research money by
University departments (assuming that this is what you mean by "the
vast resources" of "the Shakespeare establishment" - you do realise
that no such formal and unified body exists, don't you?).
>The climate is better now, but I had a friend whose father was denied
>tenure from Temple soley because he was an Oxfordian in the seventies.
Are you sure it wasn't on the basis of his quality of work? To become
an Oxfordian one has to believe a lot of pseudo-historical,
pseudo-scholarly garbage (which is all that Oxfordianism consists of).
It should be perfectly obvious that anybody with such low standards
should not achieve academic recognition or professional advancement if
they let similarly flawed beliefs spill over into their work.
>Recently, a young woman who expressed the position that she did not
>accept the traditional attribution was denied an interview for a job
>because of that belief. Lot's of room there in those academic circles
>for dissent, isn't there?
Would you like to give the evidence that she "was denied an interview
for a job because of that belief"? There isn't any? What a surprise.
I know that Oxfordians must feel perfectly justified in screaming
"Prejudice!" every time they fail, but I wonder whether it ever
occurred to this young woman that her application was rejected because
she was not the right candidate for the post. I have had job
rejections and have even occasionally not been interviewed. I could
scream "Prejudice against Disabled People!", but I don't. Lots of
people fail to get jobs.
>> I am quite happy to judge Oxfordians on the content of what they
>> express - which is universally mindless junk - and the character of
>> their souls - since they are invariably twisted fantasists. Their
>> lack of credentials just proves that other people see them this way as
>> well. An Oxfordian attempting scholarship is like Dr. Johnson's dog
>> walking on his hind legs - one is not surprised by how well he does
>> it, merely by the fact that he tries it at all (and in the Oxfordian
>> case, invariably fails).
>
>Secondly, this tired piece of bull shit you are throwing out is simply
>_not true_. As I told Reedy two years ago, there are many, many
>bright, even brilliant intellects in society, today or in history,
>who are either troubled by the traditional attribution, or find merit
>in the Oxfordian point of view.
... but not one respected Renaissance Scholar. Not one respected
Shakespearean. Some Oxfordians might be able to function in other
fields where their phantasmagorical instincts do not kick in, but they
are completely incapable of sensible academic thought within their
supposed area of interest. If you applied Anti-Stratfordian thinking
to all areas of life, you would end up being a John Baker - convinced
that the Americans never landed on the moon.
>So this harping on "mindless junk" is just_your_ opinion. The fact
>that the ascademic establishment is stonewalling the whole piece has
>to do with many factors. Richmond Crinkley talked about it at great
>length in his essay years ago in Shakespeare Quarterly. Its
>interesting that you are such a keeper of the old flame. "Bizarre form
>of mutant racism"-I think that was his phrase. You articulate it well.
Would you like to put forward any one example you have of an Oxfordian
argument that would be accepted as academically credible? I am sure
Terry Ross, Dave Kathman and others would have great fun proving it to
be the usual conspiracy theory, pseduo-history, nonsense. I have been
reading Anti-Stratfordian arguments for over a decade and I have yet
to see one which uses the normal standards of academic argument to
make a real point.
The difference being that "Shakespeare in Love" was *supposed* to be a
fantasy fiction. Did you miss that bit? Oxfordianism, on the other
hand, pretends to be an academic argument, but uses all of the
techniques of fantasy fiction. Some Oxfordians might be a bit more
sensible than Anti-Stratfordians like Streitz, Baker and Zenner - who
quite openly invent fictions about their heros bedding a wide variety
of aristocrats and producing hordes of bastard children, on the basis
of exactly no evidence whatsoever - but Oxfordianism cannot exist
without fictional suppositions of this kind.
>> >I find the core Stratfordian
>> >conception of the author as I have seen it most expressed appalling
>> >and unbelievably limited.
>>
>> A real person. Revolting, isn't it? You had much better stick to
>> your fantasy figure. You do realise that the real Earl of Oxford was
>> nothing like the Oxfordian fantasy of him, don't you?
>
>No its not about a "real" person. Its about no one being home. I
>consider you a fairly smart person, but your response to Diana Price's
>core assertion was nothing short of pathetic. You had to dig and
>scrape the bottom of the barrel in desperation to try and counter her.
She claimed that Shakespeare was the only writer in his period not to
manage categories on her list. I pointed out that the writer of what
is apparently the single most successful printed work in the
Renaissance period (reprinted more often than any other non-religious
text as far as I can see) also fails her test (which she designed
expressly to exclude Shakespeare). Is the writer of the most
successful printed work in the Renaissance period "scrap[ing] the
bottom of the barrel"? I think not.
I also pointed out that there were no records proving that Marlowe was
a writer in his lifetime. Price being silent, Dooley responded by
citing his own interpretation of a single record which was discovered
in the 1970s. Dooley's argument rested on the assumption that the
word "scholar" meant "poet" in this document, which is extremely
questionable (Price and Dooley reject out of hand any Shakespearean
document that is even vaguely ambiguous to their minds). Even if we
accept Dooley's claim, then we see that the only "Contemporaneous
Personal Literary Evidence" for Marlowe was a single ephemeral
document which survived and was found by pure chance in the 1970s.
Does this prove that Shakespeare's authorship was a fraud? Rather
obviously not.
>Your argument violated all common sense based only on a highly
>technical point that indeed you could find scraps of evidence that
>indicated in the most minute fashion that she was wrong. Terrific
>stuff. You must have studied for decades at the Terry Ross school of
>debate.
And yet you preach a faith in which a shifted comma or an odd looking
picture lead to all sorts of fantastical assumptions. Do you not
realise that Oxfordians debating skills are based on fraud at the most
basic level?
>> >So much for your "authority".
>>
>> We are not discussing *my* "authority" here, but the authority of
>> Stratfordianism, which has all of the documentary record on its side
>> (there are no records that even suggest that Oxford wrote Shakespeare,
>> except when interpreted by fantasists using Creation Science-type
>> thinking), which is supported by everybody who has any authority in
>> the study of Shakespeare or the Renaissance (Daniel Wright, the only
>> exception, seems to have no authority at all), and which accepts
>> gritty historical realities rather than appealing to the Fairy Tale
>> Romantic version of History. If you prefer playing with your "Edward
>> De Vere, Literary Superhero" doll to thinking about real people, go
>> ahead. Just don't expect anybody to give you, or your views, any
>> respect.
>
>Mark Alexander calls this like it is. Have *one* major document(folio)
>on your side, take the high ground, and demand that if the other side
>cannot produce a similar extant piece, any discussion or consideration
>of a host of issues relating to the larger argument are to ignored,
>dismissed, or deprecated.
The idea that the Folio is the only piece of Stratfordian documentary
evidence is vastly amusing. See KQKnave's postings for just a small
list of the other pieces of evidence that link Shakespeare of
Stratford, actor and playwright, to the plays.
>If your position is sooo strong,my "friend",
>and those little Oxfordians led by minor leaguer Dan Wright are so
>bush, how come you're getting creamed everywhere the two sides bump
>heads.
Funny. Having read this Newsgroup for something like 5 years, I have
seen Oxfordians and other Anti-Stratfordians "creamed" every time they
raise their heads. Roger Stritmatter's Dissertation, for example, is
falling to pieces before your eyes. Do you think Roger and his
supporters are winning this debate? Where are Roger or his
supporters, for that matter? The fact that you add a delusion about
Oxfordian victories to the many other delusions required to be an
Oxfordian is highly amusing, but hardly evidence that Oxfordians are
winning the day.
>Why is the Folger even considering a debate on Jan 29, if this
>is the complete fantasy you say it is?
Why do real Biologists sometimes respond to Creation Science? Why are
there occasional debates about the existence of UFO's? Sometimes
people are provoked into responding to meaningless non-academic
fantasies, normally just in case uninformed bystanders are won over by
such claims.
> How come you got so run off the
>road in the Harper''s debate in 1999, an issue that sold more copies
>than any in its history and led a major columnist, David Ignatious, to
>write a fierce column on the hollowness of the mainstream attribution?
Do you really not know that Baconians were making these sort of claims
in the late 1800s? Where is Baconianism now?
>Why do we get this in a recent PLMA article (not to mention the
>History today piece?)
Your Oxfordian propaganda network probably didn't circulate the fact
that the author of the History Today piece claimed, in response to a
huge number of letters to History Today (including mine), that he had
not intended to preach Oxfordianism, but was simply writing one of a
series of articles about popular history by amateurs in areas which
were not usually examined by professionals.
>Submitted by that peewee leaguer himself, Dan
>Wright:
>
>From an article by Professor M. Thomas Inge of Randolph-Macon College
>in the May 2001 issue of PMLA, the flagship journal of the English
>language and literature discipline, entitled "Collaboration and the
>Concepts of Authorship."
>
>Professor Inge opens his article with the declaration, "Despite
>efforts among recent critical theorists to remove, banish, or even
>kill the author, the author remains at the center of general critical
>attention."
This seems to be a response to Foucault and his ilk (who claim that
the concept of "author" is dead). What has it to do with the
Authorship debate?
> Among many important tasks in this short article,
>Professor Inge assails the Romantic era's puffery of authors that led
>such later, influential, Traditionalist professors of Shakespeare as
>T.W. Baldwin(author of Shakespeare's Small Latine and Lesse Greek) to
>declare that despite the absence of any evidence to support the
>assumption that Shakespeare of Stratford ever, even for a day,
>darkened the door of a school, he needn't have attended school at all
>because his acquisition of the classical literary tradition, mythology
>(Shakespeare uses the names of over 400 characters from Greek and
>Roman literature in his works), contemporary historiography and
>foreign languages (French, Italian, Greek and Latin) didn't require
>that he study them.
I don't own Baldwin, but from what I remember of his book this seems
to be a blatant lie. Baldwin sought to prove, through detailed
examination of Elizabethan Grammar Schools, that Shakespeare could
have attained the level of classical erudition required by his texts
through a standard Grammar School education. Baldwin's main argument,
as I remember, was that Shakespeare *did* attend just such a school.
So if Dan Wright needs to pretend that Baldwin's book suggests that
Shakespeare did not need to attend school at all, then he seems rather
obviously incapable of answering the real argument of Baldwin's book.
So much for Oxfordian scholarship, once again.
> Instead, Professor Baldwin argues (and his view is
>still, amazingly, the majority view in academia) that Shakespeare's
>achievement is due to "the world-old miracle of genius," and as such,
>he postulates that Shakespeare acquired what he needed to know by mere
>"absorption from the air."
Anybody who trusts Oxfordian citations of sources needs their heads
examined. I would be willing to bet that Baldwin suggested that
Shakespeare's genius helped him to make use of and extend his Grammar
School Education (in the way that Ben Jonson, for example, did as
well) and the "absorption from the air" reference must also belong to
a particular (probably rhetorical) point, and not describe
Shakespeare's education as a whole. I have only glanced through
Baldwin, but from what I saw this description of Baldwin's thinking is
obviously and deliberately dishonest. Do you think Wright was lying
to you? Would you be surprised?
> (Hey Larque, is this a prime example of
>all that great documentary evidence you say exists for your
>position?_Stop laughing! He really wrote this!-- (For more on Baldwin,
>see my article in the October 1998 edition of The Oxfordian: "'He Was
>a Scholar and a Ripe and Good One': Oxford's Education, Mirrored in
>the Shakespeare Canon.") That Professor Inge exposes this "myth of the
>solitary genius" and "the concept of the poet as prophet and possessor
>of transcendent knowledge" in the context of the way Shakespeare and
>other writers have been understood and taught is significant.
>
>***More notably, though, in Professor Inge's article, is a phrase that
>I am more than a little amazed (though pleased) made it into print
>(Professor Inge writes [he states this in reference to
>seventeenth-century publications in English of the Illiad and the
>Odyssey]): "This was a century after Shakespeare was writing his
>plays, and of course we are still not certain who wrote all the plays
>attributed to that name."
Oh, dear. Here we go again. Does this mean that Professor Inge is an
Anti-Stratfordian sympathiser? My guess is that it does not.
Apparently Inge thinks that we are certain about who wrote *some* or
more likely *most* of the plays "attributed to [Shakespeare]", but
says that we are not certain about others (not certain who wrote "all"
the plays). This is almost certainly not a reference to Bacon, Oxford
and the other fraudulent claimants to the Shakespearean throne (whose
supporters usually claim that they wrote *all* of the works, not just
some of them), but more likely a reference to the theory that a number
of other hands might be present within some of the plays (such as the
Henry VI plays, and Titus Andronicus) or even a reference to the
Shakespeare Apocrypha. I could be wrong about this, but I see nothing
specifically Anti-Stratfordian about Inge's words.
>*** It's a brief declaration, and it may not
>be much to celebrate, but I'll wager that even five years ago, we
>couldn't have expected to see an acknowledgment like this appear in a
>journal as prestigious, influential and entrenched in academic
>orthodoxy as PMLA.
>
>Too bad, isn't it. Why do you guys constantly have to play catch up,
>whining to various publications that somehow your "case" wasn't stated
>properly. It HAS been stated. That's the problem_, despite your
>blowhard assertions.
Far from playing "catch up", Stratfordianism dominates all references
to Shakespeare in every media. Oxfordians are fantastically grateful
to anybody who will give their crank theory column inches, and seem to
convince themselves that a few pages in some magazine or other, once
every six months, is equivalent to real academic respectability. It
is rather obvious that it is not.
>Like any profession or any walk of life, there are better
>practitioners, critics, interpreters, etc. than others. Ogburn was one
>person. But many have followed and as in any endeavor there are
>wonderful perspectives, arguments, and points of view as there are
>woeful, shallow ones.
How strange that despite reading every major Oxfordian and
Anti-Stratfordian text that I can lay my hands on, I have yet to come
across any of these "wonderful perspectives, arguments, and points of
view" and have instead merely stumbled over the inheritors of the
pseudo-historical mantle worn by the Ogburn family (whose relationship
with historical documents could at best be described as "creative").
> It is the same with traditional critics and
>historians. I just finished "Ungentle Shakespeare " by Katherine
>Duncan Jones and it is one of the most God awful pieces of historical
>and biographical analysis I have ever seen. Are all mainstream
>scholars to be indicted for the failure of this one person?
The only people who seem to believe that any Oxfordians are capable of
genuine scholarship seem to be other Oxfordians.
>You claim to know Oxfordians, as Reedy, Kathman, Ross, and others have
>claimed to know them. I don't think you have a clue. And I have bad
>news. Five years until the paradigns are condidered equal. I used to
>think ten. I've shortened my prediction. Why? I can see the movement
>of history.
I have been on this Newsgroup for five years, during which time there
has been precisely *no* shift in the Oxfordian favour. I suppose
there is a good chance that I will still be here, at least
occasionally, in another five. Sadly I will probably have forgotten
your prediction by then. If anybody remembers it, then I am sure they
will have great fun laughing in your face. I have seen Baconian
articles claiming that Anti-Stratfordianism was just about to equal or
defeat Stratfordianism in public awareness. Those were written in the
late 1800s. Do you see any sign that they were right? If you must
make predictions about the success of Oxfordianism, you would be wise
to suggest that it will occur just after your own death, that way you
won't be disappointed.
>As I said, this is Reedy Redux. Why does this crap, like the hydra's
>head, keep resurfacing with a new face?
Descriptions of Oxfordianism as a crank theory with no academic
respectability will keep resurfacing until Oxfordianism dies out.
Why? Because Oxfordianism is a crank theory with no academic
respectability.
John W. Kennedy
academic credentials and employment, which is simply that primary
anti-Stratfordians are insane. And this is likely to spill out into
other areas -- viz., Faker's equally deluded beliefs about mathematics,
recent history, and (as seems increasingly likely) his own biography.
Such academics as do support anti-Stratfordianism are generally not only
off their own areas of expertise, but only secondary anti-Stratfordians,
who are frequently victims of their innocent presumption that the
primary anti-Stratfordians are not lying. Academics tend to be very
vulnerable in this area, because it so basic a principle in academic
life "that the truth shall be told at all times."
David Kathman
<thomas...@lineone.net> wrote:
Dan Wright told me that he was not an Oxfordian when he wrote
his dissertation (c.1990), but that he gradually became one
over the next several years. Only after he got tenure did he
"come out" as an Oxfordian, and once he did so, he became a
very aggressive proselytizer for the Oxfordian cause. He bragged
to me that everyone in his department at Concordia was an
Oxfordian; of course, this just means that they all expressed
Oxfordian sympathies to his face, and the fact that he is the
department chair undoubtedly has something to do with that.
I just feel sorry for the 18-year-old kids who get in his clutches,
because at that age kids are still quite impressionable and
tend to believe what their professors tell them. If those
poor kids are being fed the kind of pseudohistorical bullshit
that fill Wright's published writings (at least those I've seen),
they're being done a real disservice.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Neuendorffer
> Dan Wright told me that he was not an Oxfordian when he wrote
> his dissertation (c.1990), but that he gradually became one
> over the next several years. Only after he got tenure did he
> "come out" as an Oxfordian, and once he did so, he became a
> very aggressive proselytizer for the Oxfordian cause. He bragged
> to me that everyone in his department at Concordia was an
> Oxfordian; of course, this just means that they all expressed
> Oxfordian sympathies to his face, and the fact that he is the
> department chair undoubtedly has something to do with that.
Ergo. . . when everyone in the department of another University
expresses Stratfordian sympathies it simply implies that
their department chair is an open Stratfordian.
> I feel sorry for the 18-year-old kids who get in his clutches,
> because at that age kids are still quite impressionable and
> tend to believe what their professors tell them.
-----------------------------------------------------
Moll Flanders - Daniel Defoe
Thus I, that was once in the devil's clutches, was held fast
there as with a charm, and had no power to go without the
circle, till I was ENGULFED in labyrinths of trouble too
great to get out at all. . . my course of life for
forty years had been a horrid complication of wickedness,
whoredom, adultery, incest, lying, theft; and, in a word,
everything but murder and treason had been my practice
from the age of 18, or thereabouts, to three-score;
and now I was ENGULFED in the misery of punishment,
-------------------------------------------------------
Clutch , n. [OE. cloche, cloke, claw, Scot. clook, cleuck, also OE.
cleche claw, clechen, cleken, to seize; cf. AS. gel[ae]ccan (where ge-
is a prefix) to seize.] 1. A gripe or clinching with, or as with, the
fingers or claws; seizure; grasp.
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 5, Scene 1
But age, with his stealing steps,
Hath claw'd me in his clutch,
And hath shipped me intil the land,
As if I had never been such.
2. (Zo["o]l.) The nest complement of eggs of a bird.
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Crows Dog
I do know the difference between an apostrophe and a hyphen. Or, at least I do
most days.
Andress Ness wrote:
.>"Crows Dog" <crow...@aol.com> wrote in message
DerColin
>>Why is the Folger even considering a debate on Jan 29, if this
>>is the complete fantasy you say it is?
>
>Why do real Biologists sometimes respond to Creation Science? Why are
>there occasional debates about the existence of UFO's? Sometimes
>people are provoked into responding to meaningless non-academic
>fantasies, normally just in case uninformed bystanders are won over by
>such claims.
>
I think the comparison with "creation science" is apt. The question is --
which side of the Shakespeare authorship debate parallels "creation science"?
Consider the time before Mendel. What did Darwinians have? ' Change occurs, we
know not how.' A risible lack of evidence, the Creationists might say. The
Creationists had certainty on their side: the text: the Bible: the known.
If a Darwinian might observe change in a member of a species, a Creationist
could (reasonably!) observe that it was in the realm of normal variation. If
the Creationist were to ask, how does this change happen? The Darwinian could
truthfully only reply: I don't know. Darwin himself became unsure about his
conclusions, when no mechanism showed up in his lifetime (Mendel's work being
not known.) But the Darwinian could still argue that their theory made more
sense of the data (from geology, etc) than the standard theory, even though
they did not have the smoking gun to prove it.
To me, the Stratfordian position is more akin to Creation Science and the
"anti-Stratfordian" alike to Darwinism. A thread common to all
Stratford-skeptical considerations, is that an author and his work have a real
connection. (No, I'm not saying a work is autobiographical!) And what the
anti-Strats have in common is an assessment that the man from Stratford simply
cannot be married to the works. So they entertain the question: who, then?
Strats are understandably irritated: what a stupid question! Like the
Creationists, they have the evidence on their side (known info, name on works,
monument, etc). (And I really do think that the Creationists were not wrong in
their skepticism, prior to Mendel's work being known, and had every right to be
dismissive of Darwinism.) But the anti-Strats respond -- there has to be
something wrong with that evidence, because the man it points to simply cannot
match with the author of the works. To which the Strats throw up their hands
and say, but it must, because he IS the author of the works.
Will anti-Stratfordianism be ever proven right? I don't know. It still makes
more sense to me, but I understand the impatience for "evidence" on the part of
Strats.
>> How come you got so run off the
>>road in the Harper''s debate in 1999, an issue that sold more copies
>>than any in its history and led a major columnist, David Ignatious, to
>>write a fierce column on the hollowness of the mainstream attribution?
>
>Do you really not know that Baconians were making these sort of claims
>in the late 1800s? Where is Baconianism now?
>
Still here, hi.
Colin
<snippers>
John W. Kennedy
> Consider the time before Mendel.
DeVries, actually. Mendel's work was buried for a generation.
> To me, the Stratfordian position is more akin to Creation Science and the
> "anti-Stratfordian" alike to Darwinism. A thread common to all
> Stratford-skeptical considerations, is that an author and his work have a real
> connection. (No, I'm not saying a work is autobiographical!) And what the
> anti-Strats have in common is an assessment that the man from Stratford simply
> cannot be married to the works.
Except that all of this is based on one of several errors.
I.
A. Shakespeare knows more than I do about X, therefore
Shakespeare must have been an expert about X.
B. Shakespeare taught me all I know about X, therefore
Shakespeare must have been an expert about X.
To those who actually know the various subjects (Latin, law, music,
Elizabethan court protocol), it is painfully obvious that Shakespeare
had, in fact, a middle-class upbringing and a grammar-school education.
II. A bourgeois cannot be a great writer.
To anyone who has studied the history of literature, this is risible.
III. I am not a great writer, so Shakespeare must have had
opportunities denied to me.
'nuff said.
IV.
A. Shakespeare is politically conservative, and lived
in a time of monarchy; therefore he must have been
an aristocrat.
The middle class always tends to be conservative, except when it feels
its own prerogatives are being taken away, because it generally has the
most to lose in upheaval.
B. Shakespeare is politically liberal, therefore he
must have been college-educated.
Pure phantasy on both counts.
V. Shakespeare of Stratford was an unlettered rustic.
An outright lie.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers"
Coming to the Sci-Fi Channel in the USA, January 19, 2002
Bob Grumman
(1) The Origin of Species produced a Great Deal of Evidence.
I'm pretty sure there was a fair amount of other evidence, but
I'm not going to research it just now.
(2) It didn't take Evolution 150 years to convince almost everyone
in biology that it was correct beyond reasonable doubt.
(3) the ORIGINALS of the records the Stratford case are based on
are still extant, and are much more detailed than the Bible,
and depend on no supernatural causes
ETC.
Richard Nathan
I believe that Andrew Ness posted (although I cannot find his original
post on Google Groups) that he felt that there must be SOME evidence
for Oxford, simply because there are so many Oxfordians.
Here is the URL for the transcript of the PBS show on the authorship
problem. It is clearly slanted toward Oxford. However, I challenge
anyone to find any actual EVIDENCE for the claim that Oxford wrote any
of Shakespeare's work.
Please, show me some evidence.
There's no actual evidence at all in this transcript, nor is there any
actual evidence for Oxford's authorship anywhere.
Richard Nathan
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/tapes/shakespearescript.html
Here is the URL for transcript of the old PBS show on the "authorship
question."
It is obviously heavily weighted toward Oxford, but there is no actual
evidence for Oxford. None whatsoever.
I challenge anyone to find any actual evidence for Oxford in this
transcript.
Neuendorffer
>
> > Dan Wright told me that he was not an Oxfordian when he wrote
> > his dissertation (c.1990), but that he gradually became one
> > over the next several years. Only after he got tenure did he
> > "come out" as an Oxfordian, and once he did so, he became a
> > very aggressive proselytizer for the Oxfordian cause. He bragged
> > to me that everyone in his department at Concordia was an
> > Oxfordian; of course, this just means that they all expressed
> > Oxfordian sympathies to his face, and the fact that he is the
> > department chair undoubtedly has something to do with that.
Neuendorffer wrote:
> Ergo. . . when everyone in the department of another University
> expresses Stratfordian sympathies it simply implies that
> their department chair is an open Stratfordian.
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<It was allso agreenable in our sinegear clutchless, touring the
no placelike no timelike absolent, mixing up pettyvaughan popu-
lose with the magnumoore genstries, lloydhaired mersscenary
blookers with boydskinned pigttetails and goochlipped gwendo-
lenes with duffyeyed dolores; like so many unprobables in their
poor suit of the improssable.>> -- FW 609
Art Neuendorffer
Thomas Larque
><lots snipped>
>
>>>Why is the Folger even considering a debate on Jan 29, if this
>>>is the complete fantasy you say it is?
>>
>>Why do real Biologists sometimes respond to Creation Science? Why are
>>there occasional debates about the existence of UFO's? Sometimes
>>people are provoked into responding to meaningless non-academic
>>fantasies, normally just in case uninformed bystanders are won over by
>>such claims.
>>
>I think the comparison with "creation science" is apt. The question is --
>which side of the Shakespeare authorship debate parallels "creation science"?
Fine. The best people to ask about this are probably Sceptic
Societies, who are well used to dealing with Creation Science,
Holocaust Denial, and claims for Psychic Phenomena, Ghosts, UFOs,
Aliens making Crop Circles, and so on, and so on.
I belong to a Sceptic mailing list put out by CSICOP (the Committee
for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal). This
mailing list sends out links to articles countering all of the above
crank theories and fringe belief systems, including - occasionally -
Anti-Stratfordianism, which - as far as CSICOP is concerned - is
exactly identical to all the other crank theories and fringe belief
systems that they investigate and counter. Would you like to give us
an example of a Sceptic Society anywhere in the world that regards
Stratfordianism as something that one ought to be sceptical about?
Unless you and your Anti-Stratfordian buddies rush out and set up such
a society specially, I don't think that you will find one.
Anti-Stratfordians who tell themselves that they are Sceptics are
kidding themselves.
>Consider the time before Mendel. What did Darwinians have? ' Change occurs, we
>know not how.' A risible lack of evidence, the Creationists might say. The
>Creationists had certainty on their side: the text: the Bible: the known.
The rather obvious difference is that the Bible is a largely fictional
text. It does contain occasional folk memories of history in its
later stages, but its account of the creation of the world is a
complete fiction written by people who were not present at the time,
did not witness the creation of the world, and were not capable of the
science involved in making sensible judgements about how the world
began.
The "text[s]" that Stratfordians have, on the other hand, are the
testimony of witnesses. Written statements by people who were alive
at the same time as William Shakespeare, watched his plays, read his
books, spoke to him and his friends, and were deeply involved in the
production of his plays. Historical documents of this kind are
accepted by all sensible scholars in the absence of *overwhelming*
evidence (from other documents) that such documents are false. This
is how the study of History works. In the case of the authorship of
Shakespeare, there is *no* documentary evidence that Shakespeare did
not write his works, and *no* documentary evidence that anybody else
wrote his plays. Anti-Stratfordians of all colours have to descend,
therefore, to fiction (of the Creation Science kind) to try to invent
or warp historical documents to prove their case, which has no basis
in fact whatsoever.
David L. Webb
Kaplan <kenka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thomas Larque <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:<derm3u001dootchql...@4ax.com>...
> > >Apparently you missed the post in which I listed the positions of all
> > >the other speakers with Doctorates or Ph.Ds.
[...]
> As I remember some pertinent lessons from real life, Ph.D's or any
> other "qualifications", especially from insulated academic
> institutions, by themselves are rather meaningless. It is the content
> of what one expresses,
That's *exactly* the respect in which Oxfordians let themselves in
for such trenchant criticism.
> and the character of their soul that matters.
> Who gives a damn about "credentials"?
Dr. Stritmatter, for one; for example, see
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=anthropology+maginot+group:humanities.
lit.authors.*+author:Rstrit24&hl=en&selm=19990213145520.19560.00001204%4
0ng123.aol.com&rnum=1>:
"And what are your credentials as a scholar, Bob?
I hold a masters degree in Anthropology, awarded with honors,
from the New School for Social Research. The reason I haven't
bothered to try to respond to all of your numberous silly comments
in this forum is that I am completing a PhD dissertation on Edward
de Vere's Geneva Bible and Shakespeare's Knowledge and Use of the
Bible. I'm also working on a book project based on that
dissertation. I've also authored a dozen short scholarly articles,
some of them published in *Notes and Queries,* some in less
established scholarly forums (as you know, since you subscribe)
such as the *Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter* and *the Oxfordian*.
I haven't heard you rebutting any of my contributions to those
publications. No, you come here and brag in public about what a
great scholar you are and how all the Oxfordians are afraid of
you. Such a man!"
and
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=impressive+group:humanities.lit.autho
rs.*+author:Rstrit24&hl=en&selm=19990213160806.19560.00001256%40ng123.ao
l.com&rnum=2>:
">-
>Tad Davis Senior Systems Analyst
>dav...@isc.upenn.edu Information Systems and Computing
>voice 215-898-7864 Administrative Information Technologies
>fax 215-898-0386 University of Pennsylvania
></PRE></HTML>
This is certainly impressive."
for example.
> One other thing. From recent discussions here, and in the past, it is
> clear to me that for many across the divide of this NG, the conception
> of who the author was in terms of his art and creation is vastly
> different. Whatever you may think of Oxfordianism, in my experience it
> presents a _far_ more elegant, philosophical, multilayered, and
> multifaceted portrait of Shakespeare than most of what I have seen
> from Stratfordian critics and texts.
Any perceived attributes such as elegance, philosophical depth,
multilayered richness, multifaceted complexity, etc. (leaving aside for
the moment the fact that such perceptions are hopelessly subjective)
are irrelevant if the Oxfordian scenarios are ahistorical. As Feynman
writes about elegant physical theories, it doesn't matter how elegant a
theory is -- if it disagrees with experiment and observation, it is
simpy wrong.
If you find Oxfordian fantasies more aesthetically appealing or more
philosophically satisfying than history, and if you wish to embrace
such scenarios as one would emrbace a religious belief, then I don't
think that you'll find many "Stratfordians" objecting; however richly
your appealing fictions may enhance your reading of the plays and
poetry, it is when you and others confuse those fictions with *history*
that those who know their literary history may well raise objections.
> I find the core Stratfordian
> conception of the author as I have seen it most expressed appalling
> and unbelievably limited. So much for your "authority".
"Authority" in matters of history does not reside in your personal
perception of the aesthetic superiority of a fantasy scenario over the
quotidian messiness of the historical record; were it so, I for one
would certainly wish to refashion large swaths of the tangled and often
hideous fabric of twentieth-century history, and I fancy that I could
do so in a way that would be far more elegant, philosophical,
multilayered, and multifaceted than actual history.
David Webb
John W. Kennedy
>
> Sorry, I left out the URL:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/tapes/shakespearescript.html
>
> Here is the URL for transcript of the old PBS show on the "authorship
> question."
>
> It is obviously heavily weighted toward Oxford,
...to the extent, indeed, of containing at least one outright lie.
> but there is no actual
> evidence for Oxford. None whatsoever.
Yup. Oxfordians are so fuzzy-minded that even when they make up lies,
they can't produce one that's adequate.
> I challenge anyone to find any actual evidence for Oxford in this
> transcript.
--
John W. Kennedy
> Is this not based on a further error:
> - A person with some known training in X (say, law)
> disagrees with Shakespeare about some element of X,
> whereas Shakespeare is not known to have any training in X;
> therefore Shakespeare is wrong about this element of X;
> therefore Shakespeare must have had less training in X
> than the person who disagrees with Shakespeare,
>
> as this syllogism could be valid only if
> - Any person with some known training in X
> must be presumed to be an expert in X
> ?
But this is moot, because the actual experts agree. Shakespeare's
writings concerning law, for example, are no more expert than are "Star
Trek"'s lines concerning the physical sciences (which the educated refer
to as "technobabble", or even "treknobabble". (And, frankly, it doesn't
take much in the way of expertise to notice it.)
> And for that matter, once we realize this, we come to the conclusion that
> Shakespeare may very well have had a "yeoman's" knowledge of X, rather
> than that he had practically no knowledge at all.
Why assume he had a mere yeoman's knowledge? He was, after all, a
gentleman.
David L. Webb
<jbmi...@world.std.com> wrote:
> Thomas Larque <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> > On 12 Jan 2002 16:09:13 GMT, derc...@aol.com (DerColin) wrote:
> >
> > ><lots snipped>
> > >I think the comparison with "creation science" is apt. The question is --
> > >which side of the Shakespeare authorship debate parallels "creation
> science"?
> > Fine. The best people to ask about this are probably Sceptic
> > Societies, who are well used to dealing with Creation Science,
> > Holocaust Denial, and claims for Psychic Phenomena, Ghosts, UFOs,
> > Aliens making Crop Circles, and so on, and so on.
> >
> > I belong to a Sceptic mailing list put out by CSICOP (the Committee
> > for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal). This
> > mailing list sends out links to articles countering all of the above
> > crank theories and fringe belief systems, including - occasionally -
> > Anti-Stratfordianism, which - as far as CSICOP is concerned - is
> > exactly identical to all the other crank theories and fringe belief
> > systems that they investigate and counter. Would you like to give us
> > an example of a Sceptic Society anywhere in the world that regards
> > Stratfordianism as something that one ought to be sceptical about?
> > Unless you and your Anti-Stratfordian buddies rush out and set up such
> > a society specially, I don't think that you will find one.
> Wasn't CSICOP dedicated, at one point about ten years ago at least, to
> demolishing string theory in physics, too?
I have not read every single newsletter from CSICOP, so I could be
wrong, but I am not aware of anything that would lead me to conclude
that CSICOP was "dedicated, at one point about ten years ago at least,
to demolishing string theory in physics"; do you have a citation for
this suggestion?
I am, of course, aware of plenty of physicists who have at various
times viewed string theory and its variants with varying degrees of
skepticism; however, none of them was "dedicated...to demolishing
string theory," since all of them realized that useful experimental
tests of those theories lay far beyond the reach of accelerator
technology for the foreseeable future.
David Webb
Bob Grumman
>
> I hold a masters degree in Anthropology, awarded with honors,
> from the New School for Social Research. The reason I haven't
> bothered to try to respond to all of your numberous silly comments
> in this forum is that I am completing a PhD dissertation on Edward
> de Vere's Geneva Bible and Shakespeare's Knowledge and Use of the
> Bible. I'm also working on a book project based on that
> dissertation. I've also authored a dozen short scholarly articles,
> some of them published in *Notes and Queries,* some in less
> established scholarly forums (as you know, since you subscribe)
> such as the *Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter* and *the Oxfordian*.
> I haven't heard you rebutting any of my contributions to those
> publications. No, you come here and brag in public about what a
> great scholar you are and how all the Oxfordians are afraid of
> you. Such a man!"
Thanks for the memories, David! (The above was from almost exactly
three years ago when Roger posted dozens of messages during one day
and left. He did not respond to the detailed rebuttal I made to
the above and to the rest of his moronic post. I fear I think he
was afraid of me--but not all Oxfordians are.)
--Bob G.
Ken Kaplan
Biography", then catch up on the Stratfordian response over many
months on this NG and direct debate with her and her husband before
you make assumptions.
Again, my bottom line is there appears to be a substantial body of
evidence demonstrating a realtionship of some kind between Edward
Devere and the author of Shakespeare. As one Oxfordian put it, it
seems whoever wrote Shakespeare must have had some kind of
acquaintance with the Earl of Oxford, one that looks significant.
Sonnet 125, as demonstrated by Stritmatter's chapter on it, shows that
kind of connection highly. Why is the "fictitious' person depicted
virtually the only person hundreds of years later to truly vie for the
title of Shakespeare, and as extant documents appear to show, be in
the cerimonial position as Lord Great Chamberlain to do as the sonnet
suggests, "Bear the canopy?" There are dozens of such examples so
let's start there. But this type of inquiry has been blocked for over
70 years by the mainstream.
Obviously its taken seriously enough. The PLMA quote I wrote suggests
it, as did Gail Kern Pastor's statement that the Strats were losing
the public battle, as does the fact of an overflow soldout crowd to a
debate sponsored by the Folger. Sneer all you want, the Folger would
never do this if there weren't problems.
And one last thing. Many of the Strats here have devoted enormous
time, energy and resources to dealing with Oxfordians. Why Dave
Kathman and Tery Ross have devoted a significant portion of their
careers in dealing with Oxfordians. One does not invest that kind of
effort into something one perceives to be meaningless. Sorry.
Ken Kaplan
"Andrew Ness" <ne...@liverpoolfc.net> wrote in message news:<a1mmm0$c33$4...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Ken Kaplan
here with people he has butted heads with for years is often very
different from his stance when he is more dispassionate. I am his
friend, and have talked with him far more than you have, and I don't
believe that is his true opinion. He has expressed as much to me
directly.
However, I was expressing _my_ opinion, and that's what I think. You
see , my formative period in college was the Vietnam War, and what
went on in the ranks
by and large of the "qualified academics" was largely shit. It took a
much more grass roots, outside academe activism and "amateur" research
to bring truth to light.
Ken Kaplan
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message news:<130120021011006141%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
KQKnave
kenka...@yahoo.com (Ken Kaplan) writes:
>As one Oxfordian put it, it
>seems whoever wrote Shakespeare must have had some kind of
>acquaintance with the Earl of Oxford, one that looks significant.
>Sonnet 125, as demonstrated by Stritmatter's chapter on it, shows that
>kind of connection highly.
Oh brother, not this one again....
See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
David L. Webb
Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
Yes, he had a history of appearing for a day or two, spewing
vitriolic insults and accusations right and left, generally at the
wrong people -- he had a hard time distinguishing Terry Ross from Tom
Reedy, and Richard Nathan he unaccountably called Allan -- then
abruptly disappearing without responding to the careful, detailed, and
often very reasonable rejoinders to and rebuttals of his claims,
accusations, insults, etc.
> I fear I think he
> was afraid of me--but not all Oxfordians are.)
Dr. Stritmatter really had it in for you, Bob! Between him and
"Dr." Faker, your credentials seem to come under relentless assault.
But don't you find this spectacle rather curious? On the one hand
one finds Mr. Streitz grousing just this week that "Stratfordians"
don't keep up with all the schismatic sub-cults and subcultures of
Oxfordia; on the other hand, one recalls Dr. Stritmatter accusing you
with surly ill-humor of the very thing Mr. Streitz laments that
"Stratfordians" fail to do: joining Oxfordian organizations. Dr.
Stritmatter wrote:
"There are in point of fact numerous new Oxfordian discoveries.
What many of these are, it is true, is known only to the
Oxfordians, those Ph'D [sic] and those, like the tin man, without
-- and of course to certain overzealous persons such as Mr.
Grumman who actually took out a membership in the SOS just so
he could serve as a "conduit" to this little group who took it
upon themselves to moniter [sic] cyberspace with their verbal
batons, of which you are an outstanding exemplar. Boy are you
guys starting to look like a goofy bunch of Looney [sic -- there's
a great Oxfreudian slip!] birds, the history of whom will one day
be written about with great good mirth by intellectual historians
of any merit...."
See
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=moniter+Grumman+group:humanities.lit.
authors.*&hl=en&selm=8gpsi7%24qed%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=2>
to revisit the post in its entirety.
I find it rather odd that Oxfordians grouse that they get no respect
and that people don't read their stuff, while they simultaneously react
with such truculence when someone who is not yet actually a born-again
convert joins the S.O.S., perhaps out of a spirit of open inquiry. It
seems even stranger that a forum like Phaeton vets would-be subscribers
with such diligence. I recall noting at the time that from Dr.
Stritmatter's post one would infer that the curious and open-minded
would seem to be unwelcome in groups like the S.O.S. and Phaeton; such
groups appear to be the exclusive province of the True Believer. The
logic of this stance strikes me as very odd indeed: Dr. Stritmatter
made it sound as though one would be unwelcome to join if one were
actuated by mere curiosity and the spirit of inquiry, and that one
might first have to affirm (by means of a loyalty oath or something)
that one *already* embraced the very theory that the S.O.S. is
presumably trying to *convince* people is the correct one!
Of course, Oxfordians are perhaps prudent to be circumspect about
close scrutiny, a scrutiny that Oxfordian "scholarship" has not
withstood; perhaps that circumstance accounts for their wariness.
David Webb
Ken Kaplan
Let's see. I roomed with a teenager and his father for two years. In
eleventh grade he studied Julius Caesar. I'm sure the way he studied
it was pretty standard for about 95% of all tthe kids in the country.
He _hated it_. He ended up _hating_ Shakespeare. He probably will
never go near Shakespeare again in his life.
Now, one of Dan's horrible, corrupting young graduates got a high
school in his clutches. Oh the horror. He proposed a discussion on
authorship with the idea that if a significant number of students
signerd up, they could have a class on it. And do you know what
terrible thing happened next? They agreed!! But wait, it gets worse,
much worse. They stipulated he had to get 60 students to sign. He
gulped and asked for thirty. No dice. 60 or no class.
So he did it. Turn away if you can't stand gore. 127 signed up for the
class. Now, avert your eyes for the really, really gruesome part. Oh
its so bad.
They asked what plays of Shakespeare could they read.
In the SUMMER, when there was *no school.*
They asked what could they read on the authorship issue. He _included_
YOUR web site. They asked for critical works on Shakespeare.
Why, gasp, they were asked to think for themselves and make
up their own minds.
What a horrible thing to do and you know what else?
They probably will LOVE Shakespeare for the rest of their lives.
You sound like a stupid fundamentalist preacher afraid that the Devil
will corrupt his children by going to a dance. I thought you were
supposed to have some intelligence.
Ken Kaplan
Thomas Larque
wrote:
>You misinterpret me. Read Diana Price's "Shakespeare's Unorthodox
>Biography", then catch up on the Stratfordian response over many
>months on this NG and direct debate with her and her husband before
>you make assumptions.
>
>Again, my bottom line is there appears to be a substantial body of
>evidence demonstrating a realtionship of some kind between Edward
>Devere and the author of Shakespeare. As one Oxfordian put it, it
>seems whoever wrote Shakespeare must have had some kind of
>acquaintance with the Earl of Oxford, one that looks significant.
>Sonnet 125, as demonstrated by Stritmatter's chapter on it, shows that
>kind of connection highly. Why is the "fictitious' person depicted
>virtually the only person hundreds of years later to truly vie for the
>title of Shakespeare, and as extant documents appear to show, be in
>the cerimonial position as Lord Great Chamberlain to do as the sonnet
>suggests, "Bear the canopy?" There are dozens of such examples so
>let's start there. But this type of inquiry has been blocked for over
>70 years by the mainstream.
Would you like to produce the evidence that Oxford "[bore] the
canopy"? I seem to remember that, apart from in fruitful Oxfordian
imaginations, there is none.
>Obviously its taken seriously enough. The PLMA quote I wrote suggests
>it
That quote seems to suggest nothing of the kind. I will try to find
the actual article in a library before making any absolute
pronouncements, but looking at Daniel Wright's speel on the essay I
would suggest that a) It is unlikely that Inge mentions Baldwin,
Wright claims that he rejects romanticised views of authorship *like*
that of Baldwin and then lies about Baldwin's views in a clearly
Anti-Stratfordian way. The lies are certainly Wright's so the
comments about Baldwin probably are as well and b) the essay
apparently does not support Anti-Stratfordian suggestions that
Shakespeare's plays were written by Oxford (or Bacon, or whoever)
rather than by Shakespeare, instead Inge suggests that we do not know
who wrote *all* of the plays, since his essay is on Collaboration this
is probably a reference to the theory that some of the plays show
evidence of such a Collaboration (Henry VI, Titus Andronicus etc.).
If this is also true then Wright is lying on two counts and the essay
has nothing to do with Anti-Stratfordianism at all and is certainly
not evidence of the academic respectability of Anti-Stratfordianism or
its appearance in mainstream magazines.
I take it that you have never read this essay, Ken, but have just
taken Daniel Wright's implied suggestions as fact. Is that right?
You really have to learn that you can't trust anything that an
Oxfordian writes unless you have read the source book or article
yourself.
>, as did Gail Kern Pastor's statement that the Strats were losing
>the public battle, as does the fact of an overflow soldout crowd to a
>debate sponsored by the Folger. Sneer all you want, the Folger would
>never do this if there weren't problems.
>
>And one last thing. Many of the Strats here have devoted enormous
>time, energy and resources to dealing with Oxfordians. Why Dave
>Kathman and Tery Ross have devoted a significant portion of their
>careers in dealing with Oxfordians. One does not invest that kind of
>effort into something one perceives to be meaningless. Sorry.
Scholars actually tend to distribute their time according to what they
think is *interesting*. Dismissing Oxfordianism is an amusing game
and a useful thought exercise, and it forces you to learn about real
Renaissance History, Theatre and Literature in order to make your
arguments. I doubt any of the Stratfordians on this newsgroup argues
against Anti-Stratfordians because they think that Anti-Stratfordians
pose any serious threat of becoming academically respectable or
winning the debate. They do it because they don't like lunatic ideas,
dishonesty, and stupidity, and it gives them some satisfaction to
counter these with common sense.
I'm sorry, Ken, but you're just a sad bunch of fanatics with no
understanding of the Renaissance, and that is what Oxfordianism will
always remain. Note that the two best qualified Oxfordians (Wright
and Stritmatter) can't even tell the difference between Mary Queen of
Scots and Mary Tudor (Stritmatter wrote it, Wright didn't correct it).
How much does that say about their "knowledge" of the Renaissance era?
John W. Kennedy
Gee. Ignorant teenagers are fascinated by paranoid conspiracy
theories. Who'da thunk it?
Ken Kaplan
Strat position Kaplan's Oxfordian position
(Kathman-Kennedy-others?)
(Most) Kids hate Shakespeare Kid's introduced this way _love_
Never see, read or appreciate Shakespeare, form lifelong
author ever. association, think critically
Is there something wrong with this picture? Is your political
correctness so skewed you'd scacrifice a life for your egoistic, quasi
religious satisfaction?
I guess the answer is a resounding yes. How unbelievably pathetic.
"We had to destroy the city in order to save it"
Glad to see the kind of rationality that rules in Stratfordia land,
HLAS style.
Ken Kaplan
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3C43021F...@attglobal.net>...
John W. Kennedy
>
> Let's see. We'll put this in visual perspective. Bottom Line.
>
> Strat position Kaplan's Oxfordian position
> (Kathman-Kennedy-others?)
>
> (Most) Kids hate Shakespeare Kid's introduced this way _love_
> Never see, read or appreciate Shakespeare, form lifelong
> author ever. association, think critically
>
> Is there something wrong with this picture? Is your political
> correctness so skewed you'd scacrifice a life for your egoistic, quasi
> religious satisfaction?
> I guess the answer is a resounding yes. How unbelievably pathetic.
"Political correctness"?
Yes. If it be "political correctness" to favor the truth above a lie,
then I'm politically correct. If it be "political correctness" to
reject the notion that kids aren't educated until lunatics have cut open
their braincases and pissed in 'em, then I'm politically correct. If it
be "political correctness" to believe that Shakespeare can stand on his
own without the assistance of a three-ring circus of hallucinatory
drivel, then I'm politically correct, politically correct and proud of
it, ready to stand at the bridge and defy everything you and every other
quack, crank, or humbug stand for, until mankind has grown some sense.
Pray, how much do you pay the words to mean what you want 'em to?
Because whatever it is, you're not getting your money's worth.
Child molester.
Sabyha
introduced to them as Oxford's works?
Are you then saying, young people hate the works when it is introduced as
Shakespeare's works?
I would have to say, the second part is a load of bunkum for *most* students.
In the United States most Shakespearian theatre company's have education
*outreach* programs that are enormously popular. The first one that comes to
mind is "Shakespeare and Company". I worked in it's Educational Program and
that program reaches 45,000 young people a year.
The Fall Festival of Shakespeare is enormous and so popular it is televised in
the Berkshires. In the Berkshires, Shakespeare rules!
Here, in Australia, my theatre-in-education company, Power of Will, has a huge
following. We are a Stratfordian company and proudly so. The majority of my
patrons are aged between 10-17 years and guess what: THEY LOVE SHAKESPEARE. We
have had a case when schools have traveled four hours by bus just to come and
see one of my student productions. If that is not loving Shakespeare, I don't
know what is.
Jodie
Jodie - Australia
http://members.aol.com/powtied/power1.html
Power of Will
Neuendorffer
<<Skeptic: one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or
disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions>>
<<Science attempts to root out error, not perpetuate it
by disallowing challenges to beliefs, as religions do.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> On 12 Jan 2002 16:09:13 GMT, derc...@aol.com (DerColin) wrote:
> >I think the comparison with "creation science" is apt. The question is --
> >which side of the Shakespeare authorship debate parallels "creation science"?
Thomas Larque <thomas...@lineone.net> wrote:
> Fine. The best people to ask about this are probably Sceptic
> Societies, who are well used to dealing with Creation Science,
> Holocaust Denial, and claims for Psychic Phenomena, Ghosts, UFOs,
> Aliens making Crop Circles, and so on, and so on.
>
> I belong to a Sceptic mailing list put out by CSICOP (the Committee
> for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal). This
> mailing list sends out links to articles countering all of the above
> crank theories and fringe belief systems, including - occasionally -
> Anti-Stratfordianism, which - as far as CSICOP is concerned - is
> exactly identical to all the other crank theories and fringe belief
> systems that they investigate and counter.
<<CSICOP encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and
fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and
disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to
the scientific community and the public.>>
1) The search engine at http://www.csicop.org/
produced *nothing* involving Anti-Stratfordianism.
2) There is no mention of Bacon, Vere or Marlowe in
The Skeptic's Dictionary: http://skepdic.com/
Perhaps you are referring the local Skeptical Eye (1992 vol.6#4)
newsletter of the National Capital Area Skeptics which discusses the
failed search for Francis Bacon's manuscripts in Bruton Parish,
Williamsburg (as cited by Martin Gardiner).
Can you give any other specific references besides this?
> Would you like to give us
> an example of a Sceptic Society anywhere in the world that regards
> Stratfordianism as something that one ought to be sceptical about?
Stratfordism & Anti-Stratfordianism have little to do with
"paranormal and fringe-science claims."
The S.O.S. is a Skeptic Society that regards Stratfordianism
as something that one ought to be skeptical about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptic Sagan on anti-Stratfordianism???
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://skepdic.com/refuge/sagan.html
<<The Demon-Haunted World is a collection of twenty-five
essays, several written with Sagan's wife, Ann Druyan. The
essays range in scope from eloquent paeans to science to
impassioned denunciations of bigotry, from humorous
accounts of a variety of pseudoscientific endeavors to
serious attempts to understand the nature of alien abduction
delusions. With intelligence and wit, and the rational
calmness that is his trademark, Sagan takes on a wide
variety of topics, among them: alien abductions, astrology,
Atlantis, the Bell Curve, channeling, crop circles, demons,
electromagnetism, ESP, the face on Mars, fairies, faith
healing, magic, miracles, prayer, religion, Roswell, satanic
rituals, therapy, and, of course, one of his favorite topics,
UFOs and extraterrestrials. Only Velikovsky gets ignored
this time around. Through each of his essays he extols the
virtues of skepticism, empirical evidence and control
studies, while uncovering a multitude of errors and
weaknesses in the positions of occultists, paranormalists,
supernaturalists and pseudoscientists. And he does so with
extreme grace, gentility and civility.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
EMPIRICAL evidence => based on EXPERIENCE
-----------------------------------------------------------
Empirical, a. 1. Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment
or EXPERIENCE; depending upon the observation
of phenomena; versed in experiments.
"In philosophical language, the term empirical means simply what belongs
to or is the product of EXPERIENCE or observation." --Sir W. Hamilton.
"The village carpenter . . . lays out his work by empirical rules learnt
in his apprenticeship." --H. Spencer.
2. Depending upon EXPERIENCE or observation alone, without due regard to
science and theory; -- said especially of medical practice, remedies,
etc.; wanting in science and deep insight; as, empiric skill, remedies.
---------------------------------------------------
Anti-Stratfordian evidence is based upon EXPERIENCE (e.g., people who
are the head of a demostrably illiterate family do not write Great
Literature).
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Richard Nathan
KEN KAPLAN wrote:
(snip)
> Again, my bottom line is there appears to be a substantial body of
> evidence demonstrating a realtionship of some kind between Edward
> Devere and the author of Shakespeare.
If you feel there is such a substantial body of evidence, I should you
explain to us exactly what it is. Most of what we've seen on this
newsgroup is the fact that Polonius may have been based, at least in
part, on Oxford's father-in-law. What we get beyond that is
misinformation (e.g., the claim that Oxford's mother is known to have
re-married with undue haste) and trivia (e.g., Oxford was captured by
pirates and Hamlet was captured by pirates). I would not call this a
substantial body of evidence. Indeed, I have seen a number of posts
from Oxfordians who deny that the canon is an autobiographical
portrait of the author.
>As one Oxfordian put it,
What one Oxfordian says does not qualify as evidence, unless you have
actual evidence to back it up.
> it seems whoever wrote Shakespeare must have had some kind of acquaintance with the Earl of Oxford, one that looks significant.
I would love to see some real evidence to back this up. Oxfordians
have claimed so loudly and so frequently that the canon has
significant echos of Oxford's life, that people think there must be
something too this claim. Give us some evidence. The fact that
Oxfordians keep making this claim does not make it true.
> Sonnet 125, as demonstrated by Stritmatter's chapter on it, shows that
> kind of connection highly. Why is the "fictitious' person depicted
> virtually the only person hundreds of years later to truly vie for the
> title of Shakespeare,
I do not understand what claim you are making here. Are you denying
the existance of people who claim that Marlowe or Bacon wrote the
plays (to name only two of the many so-called contenders)? Or are you
claiming that the arguments for Marlowe, Bacon and the others are so
inferior to the claims for Oxford that they don't count?
And why are you claiming the person depicted in Sonnet 125 must be
fictitious?
>and as extant documents appear to show, be in
> the cerimonial position as Lord Great Chamberlain to do as the sonnet
> suggests, "Bear the canopy?"
If there is evidence Oxford did on some occasion bear the canopy, it
has yet to be presented in this newsgroup.
> There are dozens of such examples so
> let's start there.
No, there are not dozens of examples. The speaker of the sonnet
clearly says that he does not have proud titles to boast of, and that
he has been forced to make his living by embarrassing public means.
He certainly seems to be of a social rank inferior to that that of the
fair young man.
> But this type of inquiry has been blocked for over
> 70 years by the mainstream.
> Obviously its taken seriously enough.
Those last two sentences seem to contradict each other.
>The PLMA quote I wrote suggests
> it, as did Gail Kern Pastor's statement that the Strats were losing
> the public battle, as does the fact of an overflow soldout crowd to a
> debate sponsored by the Folger. Sneer all you want, the Folger would
> never do this if there weren't problems.
>
The fact the Oxfordians express a belief, and are given a formum to
express that belief, is no evidence the belief is true. If expression
of a belief were evidence of the truth of that belief, the
Stratfordians are smothering the Oxfordians.
> And one last thing. Many of the Strats here have devoted enormous
> time, energy and resources to dealing with Oxfordians. Why Dave
> Kathman and Tery Ross have devoted a significant portion of their
> careers in dealing with Oxfordians. One does not invest that kind of
> effort into something one perceives to be meaningless. Sorry.
>
Because the Oxfordians are spreading misinformation, and gullable
people believe them. E.g., your claim that "there appears to be a
substantial body of evidence demonstrating a realtionship of some kind
between Edward Devere and the author of Shakespeare." As long as you
keep making statements like that, those of us who know it is not true
must respond.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3C44C9F4...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.compost) wrote:
CSICOP is mostly interested in anti-scientific delusions or claims
of paranormal occurrences that are embraced by a significant number of
people -- e.g., Creation "Science," Velikovskian planetary "science,"
alien abduction, spoon-bending, etc. By contrast, anti-Stratfordian
delusions are mostly *ab*normal (not paranormal), numerically
insignificant, and unconnected with science.
> Perhaps you are referring the local Skeptical Eye (1992 vol.6#4)
> newsletter of the National Capital Area Skeptics which discusses the
> failed search for Francis Bacon's manuscripts in Bruton Parish,
> Williamsburg (as cited by Martin Gardiner [sic]).
The man's name is Martin *Gardner*, Art. HoweVER, in view of your
fondness for anagrams and other wordplay, one may well doubt that your
misspelling was unintentional. In fact, your VERsion of the name,
"Martin Gardiner," is a perfect anagram of
I, Art N., mad ringer.
Of course, the OED defines "ringer" as "An outsider or intruder; an
imposter, spec. one who attaches himself to a political or other group
to which he does not belong." I *knew* you were trolling, Art! It's
also an anagram of "I, Art N., marring Ed," and I agree that you are
making a laughingstock of Oxfordians -- of course, that's an activity
rather like bringing coals to Newcastle, but you do it with such
panache that it's still amusing.
> Can you give any other specific references besides this?
> > Would you like to give us
> > an example of a Sceptic Society anywhere in the world that regards
> > Stratfordianism as something that one ought to be sceptical about?
> Stratfordism & Anti-Stratfordianism have little to do with
> "paranormal and fringe-science claims."
No, but as noted above, anti-Stratfordianism has a great deal to do
with *abnormal* (not paranormal) psychology and with fringe-history
claims.
[...]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Skeptic Sagan on anti-Stratfordianism???
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, Martin Gardner is a prominent skeptic and CSICOP
founding fellow who has light-heartedly ridiculed anti-Stratfordians,
especially ciphermongers like yourself. From <>:
"When the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims
of the Paranormal (CSICOP), publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer,
was established in 1976, Martin Gardner was one of its original
founding fellows, and he has remained a member of its Executive
Council and Editorial Board ever since. When offered the
opportunity fifteen years ago to write a regular column for SI,
he quickly agreed. He dedicated The New Age anthology to CSICOP's
founder and chairman: "To Paul Kurtz, a friend whose vision,
courage, and integrity started it all." Although Martin Gardner
seldom travels to CSICOP meetings, he remains, through his
personal contacts, insights, published writings, and voluminous
correspondence, a profound influence on CSICOP, modern
skepticism, and intellectual discourse broadly."
[...]
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> Martin Gardner is a prominent skeptic and CSICOP founding
> fellow who has light-heartedly ridiculed anti-Stratfordians,
> especially ciphermongers like yourself.:
>
> "When the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims
> of the Paranormal (CSICOP), publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer,
> was established in 1976, Martin Gardner was one of its original
> founding fellows, and he has remained a member of its Executive
> Council and Editorial Board ever since. When offered the
> opportunity fifteen years ago to write a regular column for SI,
> he quickly agreed. He dedicated The New Age anthology to CSICOP's
> founder and chairman: "To Paul Kurtz, a friend whose vision,
> courage, and integrity started it all." Although Martin Gardner
> seldom travels to CSICOP meetings, he remains, through his
> personal contacts, insights, published writings, and voluminous
> correspondence, a profound influence on CSICOP, modern
> skepticism, and intellectual discourse broadly."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not surprising that a Masonic conspirator/frontman like Gardner
should be so deeply involved in both Stratfordianism and the Committee
for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).
The Catholic Church has effectively used the gullibility of the public
(vis-a-vis Saints, relics & their miracles) for centuries. Far better to
redirect that pool of gullibility towards issues that are more central
to Freemasonry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner => G(u)ardians => [A]ssassins of [A]lamut
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Even in modern times, scholars of popular fiction are familiar with
the notorious Order of the Assassins of Alamut, a medieval islamic sect,
ruled by the legendary Old Man of the Mountain. The name "Assassins"
derives from the word "Assass," meaning "Guardians" or "Protectors", for
the Assassins were in reality the Islamic Soldier-Monks in charge of the
protection of the Holy Land. "Assasseen in Arabic signifies 'guardians',
and some commentators have considered this to be the true origin of the
word: 'guardians of the secrets'." - Arkon Daraul, Secret Societies.
The Assassins were the keepers of much occult knowledge, inherited from
Israel, Babylon, Egypt, and other far more ancient sources. They knew
the secrets of the gnostic and of the kabbala. Their role in the history
of alchemy is well documented. The longer-than-normal lifespan of their
leader, Hasan ben Saba, the Old Man of the Mountain, is one clue;
another is their motto,
the alchemical saying: Nothing is true...>>
http://www.coolfrenchcomics.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Art N.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3C45B4D9...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.compost) wrote:
> "David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> > Martin Gardner is a prominent skeptic and CSICOP founding
> > fellow who has light-heartedly ridiculed anti-Stratfordians,
> > especially ciphermongers like yourself.:
> >
> > "When the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims
> > of the Paranormal (CSICOP), publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer,
> > was established in 1976, Martin Gardner was one of its original
> > founding fellows, and he has remained a member of its Executive
> > Council and Editorial Board ever since. When offered the
> > opportunity fifteen years ago to write a regular column for SI,
> > he quickly agreed. He dedicated The New Age anthology to CSICOP's
> > founder and chairman: "To Paul Kurtz, a friend whose vision,
> > courage, and integrity started it all." Although Martin Gardner
> > seldom travels to CSICOP meetings, he remains, through his
> > personal contacts, insights, published writings, and voluminous
> > correspondence, a profound influence on CSICOP, modern
> > skepticism, and intellectual discourse broadly."
> It is not surprising that a Masonic conspirator/frontman
Have you any *evidence* that Martin Gardner is a "Masonic
conspirator/frontman," Art? Of course not. You're just making things
up, as usual.
> like Gardner
> should be so deeply involved in both Stratfordianism
"...deeply involved in...Stratfordianism"??! Martin Gardner has
barely deigned even to remark upon anti-Stratfordian delusions, apart
from a short essay on the subject and one or two followup comments.
Gardner has published voluminously on *many* subjects, among them
popular delusions, and has devoted *far* more space to many others.
Anti-Stratfordianism is barely even a blip on Gardner's radar screen;
how does that make him "...deeply involved in...Stratfordianism," Art?
Because you have so hallucinated? That's what I thought.
> and the Committee
> for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).
> The Catholic Church has effectively used the gullibility of the public
> (vis-a-vis Saints, relics & their miracles) for centuries. Far better to
> redirect that pool of gullibility towards issues that are more central
> to Freemasonry.
"Gullibility" is antithetical to the Enlightenment-era thought of
Freemasonry that you pretend to admire, Art.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gardner => G(u)ardians => [A]ssassins of [A]lamut
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> <<Even in modern times, scholars of popular fiction are familiar with
> the notorious Order of the Assassins of Alamut, a medieval islamic sect,
> ruled by the legendary Old Man of the Mountain. The name "Assassins"
> derives from the word "Assass," meaning "Guardians" or "Protectors", for
> the Assassins were in reality the Islamic Soldier-Monks in charge of the
> protection of the Holy Land. "Assasseen in Arabic signifies 'guardians',
> and some commentators have considered this to be the true origin of the
> word: 'guardians of the secrets'." - Arkon Daraul, Secret Societies.
>
> The Assassins were the keepers of much occult knowledge, inherited from
> Israel, Babylon, Egypt, and other far more ancient sources. They knew
> the secrets of the gnostic and of the kabbala. Their role in the history
> of alchemy is well documented. The longer-than-normal lifespan of their
> leader, Hasan ben Saba, the Old Man of the Mountain, is one clue;
> another is their motto,
>
> the alchemical saying: Nothing is true...>>
Shouldn't that be "nothing is truer than truth," Art?
David Webb
Thomas Larque
sorry if this is a repeat.
>1) The search engine at http://www.csicop.org/
> produced *nothing* involving Anti-Stratfordianism.
>
>2) There is no mention of Bacon, Vere or Marlowe in
> The Skeptic's Dictionary: http://skepdic.com/
>
> Perhaps you are referring the local Skeptical Eye (1992 vol.6#4)
>newsletter of the National Capital Area Skeptics which discusses the
>failed search for Francis Bacon's manuscripts in Bruton Parish,
>Williamsburg (as cited by Martin Gardiner).
>
> Can you give any other specific references besides this?
You missed http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00295.html with
Mark Anderson's article about the De Vere Conference. I checked with
the person who mails out the CSICOP mailings and he says that although
he doesn't know much about the subject he believes that Shakespeare
wrote Shakespeare. He clearly didn't post the article, therefore, to
support the Anti-Stratfordian cause.
>> Would you like to give us
>> an example of a Sceptic Society anywhere in the world that regards
>> Stratfordianism as something that one ought to be sceptical about?
>
> Stratfordism & Anti-Stratfordianism have little to do with
> "paranormal and fringe-science claims."
>
> The S.O.S. is a Skeptic Society that regards Stratfordianism
> as something that one ought to be skeptical about.
The "SOS" is a poorly disguised cry for help and more of a religious
society than a sceptical one. Note that many of its members believe
in such things as a Masonic Conspiracy carried out over many centuries
and other nutty Fringe beliefs which no sensible person believes in.
>-----------------------------------------------------------
> EMPIRICAL evidence => based on EXPERIENCE
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Empirical, a. 1. Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment
> or EXPERIENCE; depending upon the observation
> of phenomena; versed in experiments.
>
>"In philosophical language, the term empirical means simply what
belongs
>to or is the product of EXPERIENCE or observation." --Sir W.
Hamilton.
>
>"The village carpenter . . . lays out his work by empirical rules
learnt
>in his apprenticeship." --H. Spencer.
>
>2. Depending upon EXPERIENCE or observation alone, without due regard
to
>science and theory; -- said especially of medical practice, remedies,
>etc.; wanting in science and deep insight; as, empiric skill,
remedies.
>---------------------------------------------------
>Anti-Stratfordian evidence is based upon EXPERIENCE (e.g., people who
>are the head of a demostrably illiterate family do not write Great
>Literature).
>---------------------------------------------------
>Art Neuendorffer
Well, you are lying to say that Shakespeare's family was "demonstrably
illiterate". They were not. Susanna could sign her name and could
therefore probably both read and write, and Judith could quite
probably read - and they were both females, at a time when females
were not being educated at the same level as males in their immediate
family. We will never know what Hamnet, the really significant member
of the family, would have been able to manage because of his early
death, but there is evidence that male Stratfordian children of the
same social level were often highly literate. In addition, as David
Webb has pointed out, people with illiterate families *have* become
highly literate themselves and written great literature.
Of course since your claim is demonstrably not provable, it is not
"EMPIRICAL evidence". No Anti-Stratfordian evidence is, since no
documentary evidence for Anti-Stratfordianism exists. Empirical
evidence in History is documentary evidence. There is plenty of
documentary evidence that Shakespeare wrote his own plays and none
that Oxford, Bacon or anybody else did.
Oxfordianism is a cult for fantasists, as your own posts suggest, and
has nothing to do with Scepticism.
Elizabeth Weir
>
>snip
>
> Again, my bottom line is there appears to be a substantial body of
> evidence demonstrating a realtionship of some kind between Edward
> Devere and the author of Shakespeare.
Bacon and Oxford were both wards of Burghley.
Bacon knew Oxford very well.
> As one Oxfordian put it, it
> seems whoever wrote Shakespeare must have had some kind of
> acquaintance with the Earl of Oxford, one that looks significant.
Bacon was probably a kid hanging out the window
of Burghley's house when Oxford put his rapier
through Thomas Brincknell, the cook.
> Sonnet 125, as demonstrated by Stritmatter's chapter on it, shows that
> kind of connection highly.
Allusions in Sonnets can constitute a "pattern
of evidence" that can be weighed against another
authorship candidates "pattern of evidence" but
Stritmatter's paper on one sonnet is not a
"pattern." This category of evidence is weak
in any event and can be no more than supporting
evidence for more conclusive empirical evidence.
Oxfordians need to start asking themselves the
question "How would this piece of evidence fare in
a scientific or legal trial?"
Evidence has to be something not necessarily
tangible--it can be an observed action--but it
has to be something that can be observed.
The Latin word "evidentia" has "vide," "to see," as
it's root.
Evidence is something you can see or that a reliable
witness has seen.
> Why is the "fictitious' person depicted
> virtually the only person hundreds of years later to truly vie for the
> title of Shakespeare, and as extant documents appear to show, be in
> the cerimonial position as Lord Great Chamberlain to do as the sonnet
> suggests, "Bear the canopy?"
Oxford is "vying" on the strength of material plagerized
from dead Baconians by Looney and the Ogburns.
And Sonnet 125 isn't about "bearing the canopy."
Sonnet 125 says that external pomp is meaningless
compared to the things that can be laid down for
eternity. It doesn't say that the poet himself
engaged in pomp and circumstance.
He says "Were it aught to me," that is, "Were I obligated
to bear the canopy."
I hope Stritmatter got that part right.
For what it's worth, the sonnet fits Bacon's
circumstances.
Bacon was a commoner who had been made a
courtier by Elizabeth. He was always watching the
pomp and circumstance and but could not participate
in it until he was made Lord Keeper in 1616.
He also wrote several times that he knew that his
fame would not come in his lifetime but centuries
in the future.
> There are dozens of such examples so
> let's start there. But this type of inquiry has been blocked for over
> 70 years by the mainstream.
The Oxfordians have gotten a free ride from the
beginning. They got a jumpstart by raiding the
material of 19th c. Baconian barristers
and Strats were never threatened by the
Oxfordians as they were by the Baconians.
Until now.
Oxfordians will no doubt take it away from the Strats
because the Strat case is so completely unbelievable
on its face but when they do they will have nothing.
Oxfordians have no evidence of authorship. Just
because the plays are literary doesn't mean that
"literary evidence" will prove authorship.
The authorship dispute is "not" literary. It requires
the kind of evidence gathering and evidence
categorization and evidence trials as in science and
"scientific" law.
>snip
> > Clearly, if you have direct evidence that someone else was responsible for
> > writing one of the plays then there is a problem. As far as I know, there is
> > no such evidence.
> > (Elizabeth Weir claims there is a manuscript in Bacon's hand which strongly
> > implicates him.
Implicate? There was no conpiracy. There was
an emergency.
And Bacon does have hard evidence of authorship.
Here's a page of Bacon's 114-folio page manuscript in
the British Museum in Bacon's own handwriting
containing notes for the plays.
<http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/promus2.gif>
The translation of Bacon's Elizabethan Secretary Hand is
printed below his notes. The pages in the notebook
are dated no later that 1595.
Here's a draft page of Henry IV authenticated
to be in Bacon's handwriting:
<http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/4/4.3/ms1627.jpg>
<http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/h4ms.jpg>
> > He probably even had the brains to come up with this
> > Machievellian plot, but why would he bother?
What "plot?" Bacon wasn't a Machievellian. His
uncle Lord Burghley and his evil little cousin
Robert Cecil were adherents of Machiavelli.
If the Cecils had not been on Philip II's payroll
plotting to get the Spanish Infanta on the throne
of England [Britannica] the actor Shakespear would
not have had to be recruited to save Essex from
execution in 1598.
The Cecils made *two* tries on Essex' life, the
first in 1598, the second in 1601 with Essex'
"fatal impatience" as Bacon so brilliantly put it,
making it impossible for Bacon to save Essex
the second time.
Bacon and Essex had to scramble to get a name
on the so-called seditious plays in 1597-98 to keep
the Cecils from prosecuting Essex for "Richard II"
but there was never any "plot" or "conspiracy."
You may recall that all the plays up to 1598
were "By Anonymous" and that Shakespeare's
name is first put on the Q3 of the offensive play,
"Richard II," followed immediately by his name on
"Richard II" and "Henry IV," the other two
"seditious plays." Not a coincidence.
Bacon was not a student of Machiavelli. Bacon said
in effect that Machiavelli should be read so
subjects would know what the Princes were up to.
He didn't advocate Machiavelli nor do any
Machiavellian plotting. Bacon spent exactly a decade
trying to keep the rash and impetuous Essex' head
off the chopping block but neither he nor Essex
were involved in plots unlike Bacon's evil relatives.
Plus, from what little I know
> > of him, I'd imagine he'd want the world to know if he'd written such popular
> > plays, he never kept any of his other accomplishments quiet did he?)
> >
> > NSY
Bacon left a massive library
of books and manuscripts when he died. Hundreds of
Bacon's books with marginalia were collected in the 19th
c. but were again scattered. Smedley, one of Bacon's
minor biographers, had an incredible collection of quartos,
some very rare, Bacon's commonplace books, books annotated
by Bacon and Bacon manuscripts. Because of the stigma of
"Baconianism" no museum or library would buy it--Smedley
spent all his income on it and it was his only estate so
it was scattered after his death.
Strats have taken a real toll on Baconian evidence beginning
with the 84-year old Rev. Wilmot who spent 50 years crawling
through the libraries of aristocrats collecting evidence of
Baconian authorship [he found nothing for Shakespeare] and
then was forced to burn his papers to keep his ecclesiastical
living.
Dr. Rawley said that Bacon was a poet and that he was
"witholding the best poems" from publication.
Aubrey got to see Bacon's documents before they
disappeared and wrote in his bio of Bacon
"his Lordship was a fine poet."
Bacon didn't want "New Atlantis" published.
It was just a manuscript he circulated among
his friends but Rawley published it anyway
in the 1640s. Probably a mistake since it was
only an unfinished draft and it's been mischaracterized
as a bad novel.
There's no evidence that the Sonnets
were meant for the public either. The 1609 edition
was a private printing to be circulated among his
"private friends" at Court during the poetry war
with the Rival Poets. Big salvo. End of rivalry.
Shakespeare had no "private friends."
"Private" in that era had the sense
of "privileged." Elizabeth was a "private person"
although today the Queen is a "public figure."
Bacon was not privileged in 1609 but he had
"private friends" at Court.
Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Martin Gardner is a prominent skeptic and CSICOP founding
> > > fellow who has light-heartedly ridiculed anti-Stratfordians,
> > > especially ciphermongers like yourself.:
> > >
> > > "When the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims
> > > of the Paranormal (CSICOP), publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer,
> > > was established in 1976, Martin Gardner was one of its original
> > > founding fellows, and he has remained a member of its Executive
> > > Council and Editorial Board ever since. When offered the
> > > opportunity fifteen years ago to write a regular column for SI,
> > > he quickly agreed. He dedicated The New Age anthology to CSICOP's
> > > founder and chairman: "To Paul Kurtz, a friend whose vision,
> > > courage, and integrity started it all." Although Martin Gardner
> > > seldom travels to CSICOP meetings, he remains, through his
> > > personal contacts, insights, published writings, and voluminous
> > > correspondence, a profound influence on CSICOP, modern
> > > skepticism, and intellectual discourse broadly."
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
> > It is not surprising that a Masonic conspirator/frontman
> > like Gardner should be so deeply involved in both Stratfordianism
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> Have you any *evidence* that Martin Gardner
> is a "Masonic conspirator/frontman," Art?
I have enough *evidence* to convince myself.
> "...deeply involved in...Stratfordianism"??! Martin Gardner has
> barely deigned even to remark upon anti-Stratfordian delusions, apart
> from a short essay on the subject and one or two followup comments.
> Gardner has published voluminously on *many* subjects, among them
> popular delusions, and has devoted *far* more space to many others.
> Anti-Stratfordianism is barely even a blip on Gardner's radar screen;
> how does that make him "...deeply involved in...Stratfordianism," Art?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner usually uses subtle ridicule against his targets (e.g., the
'laugher curve'). He does not use or need to use pejorative terms such
as: CRANK, CRACKPOT, PATHETIC or THOROUGHLY SELF-DELUDED.
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<It is the paucity of facts about Shakespeare that has generated what
Schoenbaum calls the "lunatic rubbish" of the CRANKS. . . considering
the vast welter of writings about Shakespeare CRANK references alone
numbered more th 4,000 items. In _Knotted Doughnuts_ I discuss the
writings of two of the funniest Baconian CRANKS of all time: Ignatius
Donnelly and the MAD Elizabeth Wells Gallup.>> - _Who Was Shakespeare?_
(1992) by Martin Gardner?
<<Ignatius Donnelly, used a system even more farfetched for his 1,000
page CRANK work _The Great Cryptogram_ (1888). This tome and Donnelly's
_Atlantis_ and _Ragnarok_ form the most impressive set of CRACKPOT works
written by an American before 1900. It remained for Mrs. Elizabeth Wells
Gallup (1846-1934), to apply Bacon's cipher to Shakespeare's plays,
producing the best and most hilarious plaintexts in the history of
Baconiana. Like Donnelly, Mrs. Gallup is a splendid specimen of the
intelligent learned, honest and THOROUGHLY SELF-DELUDED CRANK. . . [the
Friedman] book _The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined_ totally demolish
Mrs. Gallup's monumental and PATHETIC lifetime labors. . . Someone ought
to write a book about the SAD life of Mrs. Gallup.>> - _Knotted
Doughnuts_ (1986) by Martin Gardner?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Such strained pejorative terms such as: CRANK, CRACKPOT, PATHETIC or
THOROUGHLY SELF-DELUDED is the mark of a Goon Squad member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
> > and the Committee
> > for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).
> > The Catholic Church has effectively used the gullibility of the public
> > (vis-a-vis Saints, relics & their miracles) for centuries. Far better to
> > redirect that pool of gullibility towards issues that are more central
> > to Freemasonry.
>
> "Gullibility" is antithetical to the Enlightenment-era
> thought of Freemasonry that you pretend to admire, Art.
"Gullibility" is central to the Enlightenment-era
thought of Freemasonry that I admire, Dave.
Gull, v. t. [Prob. fr. gull the bird; but cf. OSw. gylla to deceive, D.
kullen, and E. cullibility.] To deceive; to cheat; to mislead; to trick;
to defraud.
I'm not gulling him for the emperor's service. --Coleridge.
"Ah! well a-day! what evil looks had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, an URL by /tross/ about my neck was hung."
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Gardner => G(u)ardians => [A]ssassins of [A]lamut
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHA, AHA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 1, Scene 1
CLARENCE Yea, Richard, when I know; for I protest
[A]s yet I do not: but, as I can learn,
[H]e hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
[A]nd from the cross-row plucks the letter G.
[A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
[H]is issue disinherited should be;
[A]nd, for my name of George begins with G,
It follows in his thought that I am he.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_AHA! Insight_ - by Martin Gardner
_AHA! Gotcha_ - by Martin Gardner
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <<Even in modern times, scholars of popular fiction are familiar with
> > the notorious Order of the Assassins of Alamut, a medieval islamic sect,
> > ruled by the legendary Old Man of the Mountain. The name "Assassins"
> > derives from the word "Assass," meaning "Guardians" or "Protectors", for
> > the Assassins were in reality the Islamic Soldier-Monks in charge of the
> > protection of the Holy Land. "Assasseen in Arabic signifies 'guardians',
> > and some commentators have considered this to be the true origin of the
> > word: 'guardians of the secrets'." - Arkon Daraul, Secret Societies.
> >
> > The Assassins were the keepers of much occult knowledge, inherited from
> > Israel, Babylon, Egypt, and other far more ancient sources. They knew
> > the secrets of the gnostic and of the kabbala. Their role in the history
> > of alchemy is well documented. The longer-than-normal lifespan of their
> > leader, Hasan ben Saba, the Old Man of the Mountain, is one clue;
> > another is their motto,
> >
> > the alchemical saying: Nothing is true...>>
>
> Shouldn't that be "nothing is truer than truth," Art?
That came later, Dave:
-----------------------------------------------------------
NIL VERO-VERIU(S)
OUR EVER-LIVIN(G)
UNO VERE-VIR(G)IL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> >1) The search engine at http://www.csicop.org/
> > produced *nothing* involving Anti-Stratfordianism.
> >
> >2) There is no mention of Bacon, Vere or Marlowe in
> > The Skeptic's Dictionary: http://skepdic.com/
> >
> > Perhaps you are referring the local Skeptical Eye (1992 vol.6#4)
> >newsletter of the National Capital Area Skeptics which discusses the
> >failed search for Francis Bacon's manuscripts in Bruton Parish,
> >Williamsburg (as cited by Martin Gardiner).
> >
> > Can you give any other specific references besides this?
Thomas Larque wrote:
> You missed http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00295.html with
> Mark Anderson's article about the De Vere Conference. I checked with
> the person who mails out the CSICOP mailings and he says that although
> he doesn't know much about the subject he believes that Shakespeare
> wrote Shakespeare. He clearly didn't post the article, therefore, to
> support the Anti-Stratfordian cause.
The stamp licker? Did he have a Ph.D.?
> >> Would you like to give us
> >> an example of a Sceptic Society anywhere in the world that regards
> >> Stratfordianism as something that one ought to be sceptical about?
> >
> > Stratfordism & Anti-Stratfordianism have little to do with
> > "paranormal and fringe-science claims."
> >
> > The S.O.S. is a Skeptic Society that regards Stratfordianism
> > as something that one ought to be skeptical about.
>
> The "SOS" is a poorly disguised cry for help and more of a religious
> society than a sceptical one. Note that many of its members believe
> in such things as a Masonic Conspiracy carried out over many centuries
Your kidding!
> >---------------------------------------------------
> >Anti-Stratfordian evidence is based upon EXPERIENCE (e.g., people
> > who are the head of a demostrably illiterate family do not
> > write Great Literature).
> >---------------------------------------------------
> Well, you are lying to say that Shakespeare's family was "demonstrably
> illiterate". They were not. Susanna could sign her name and could
> therefore probably both read and write, and Judith could quite
> probably read -
Evidence?
> and they were both females, at a time when females
> were not being educated at the same level as males in their immediate
> family. We will never know what Hamnet, the really significant member
> of the family, would have been able to manage because of his early
> death, but there is evidence that male Stratfordian children of the
> same social level were often highly literate.
That explains all the Stratford books & letters.
> In addition, as David Webb has pointed out,
>people with illiterate families *have* become highly literate
> themselves and written great literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The story of Caedmon, the illiterate cowherd who received the gift of
song from God, is told in Book Four, Chapter 25 of Bede's Ecclesiastical
History of the English People. It was translated into English, probably
during the reign of King Alfred the Great, by an anonymous Mercian
scholar.>> http://www.engl.virginia.edu/OE/OEA/caedmon.html
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saints/caedmon.html
<<St. Caedmon (d. c. 680) is the first known poet of the vernacular in
English. He is thought to have been a Celt, who was already old at the
time he came to Whitby to tend the animals. Too shy to join in the
communal singing after meals, he slipped out to work with the animals.
One night, according to Bede, Cædmon fell asleep and had a vision in
which he learned a hymn; when he awoke, he knew the song and could
recite it perfectly. After his performance, Hilda urged him to become a
monk. Cædmon remained illiterate but retained his ability to versify.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Of course since your claim is demonstrably not provable, it is not
> "EMPIRICAL evidence". No Anti-Stratfordian evidence is, since no
> documentary evidence for Anti-Stratfordianism exists. Empirical
> evidence in History is documentary evidence. There is plenty of
> documentary evidence that Shakespeare wrote his own plays and none
> that Oxford, Bacon or anybody else did.
-----------------------------------------------------------
EMPIRICAL evidence => based on EXPERIENCE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPIRICAL, a. 1. Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment
or EXPERIENCE; depending upon the observation
of phenomena; versed in experiments.
"In philosophical language, the term EMPIRICAL means simply what belongs
to or is the product of EXPERIENCE or observation." --Sir W. Hamilton.
"The village carpenter . . . lays out his work by EMPIRICAL rules learnt
in his apprenticeship." --H. Spencer.
2. Depending upon EXPERIENCE or observation alone, without due regard to
science and theory; -- said especially of medical practice, remedies,
etc.; wanting in science and deep insight; as, empiric skill, remedies.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Stratfordian evidence is based upon EXPERIENCE (e.g.,
people who are the head of a demostrably illiterate family
do not generally write Great Literature).
---------------------------------------------------
Is Shakespeare Dead - Mark Twain
Historians "suppose" he assisted his father in the butchering business;
and that, being only a boy, he didn't have to do full-grown
butchering, but only slaughtered calves. Also, that whenever he
killed a calf he made a high-flown speech over it. This
supposition rests upon the testimony of a man who wasn't there at
the time; a man who got it from a man who could have been there,
but did not say whether he was or not; and neither of them thought
to mention it for decades, and decades, and decades, and two more
decades after Shakespeare's death (until old age and mental decay
had refreshed and vivified their memories). They hadn't two facts
in stock about the long-dead distinguished citizen, but only just
the one: he slaughtered calves and broke into oratory while he was
at it. Curious. They had only one fact, yet the distinguished
citizen had spent twenty-six years in that little town -- just half
his lifetime. However, rightly viewed, it was the most important
fact, indeed almost the only important fact, of Shakespeare's life
in Stratford. Rightly viewed. For EXPERIENCE is an author's most
valuable asset; EXPERIENCE is the thing that puts the muscle and
the breath and the warm blood into the book he writes. Rightly
viewed, calf-butchering accounts for Titus Andronicus, the only
play -- ain't it? -- that the Stratford Shakespeare ever wrote;
and yet it is the only one everybody tries to chouse him out of,
the Baconians included.
Richard H. Dana served two years before the mast, and had every
EXPERIENCE that falls to the lot of the sailor before the mast of
our day. His sailor-talk flows from his pen with the sure touch
and the ease and confidence of a person who has LIVED what he is
talking about, not gathered it from books and random listenings.
Hear him:
Having hove short, cast off the gaskets, and made the bunt of each
sail fast by the jigger, with a man on each yard, at the word the
whole canvas of the ship was loosed, and with the greatest rapidity
possible everything was sheeted home and hoisted up, the anchor
tripped and cat-headed, and the ship under headway.
Again:
The royal yards were all crossed at once, and royals and sky-sails
set, and, as we had the wind free, the booms were run out, and all
were aloft, active as cats, laying out on the yards and booms,
reeving the studding-sail gear; and sail after sail the captain
piled upon her, until she was covered with canvas, her sails
looking like a great white cloud resting upon a black speck.
Once more. A race in the Pacific:
Our antagonist was in her best trim. Being clear of the point, the
breeze became stiff, and the royal-masts bent under our sails, but
we would not take them in until we saw three boys spring into the
rigging of the California; then they were all furled at once, but
with orders to our boys to stay aloft at the top-gallant mast-heads
and loose them again at the word. It was my duty to furl the fore-
royal; and while standing by to loose it again, I had a fine view
of the scene. From where I stood, the two vessels seemed nothing
but spars and sails, while their narrow decks, far below, slanting
over by the force of the wind aloft, appeared hardly capable of
supporting the great fabrics raised upon them. The California was
to windward of us, and had every advantage; yet, while the breeze
was stiff we held our own. As soon as it began to slacken she
ranged a little ahead, and the order was given to loose the royals.
In an instant the gaskets were off and the bunt dropped. "Sheet
home the fore-royal!" -- "Weather sheet's home!" -- "Lee sheet's
home!" -- "Hoist away, sir!" is bawled from aloft. "Overhaul your
clewlines!" shouts the mate. "Aye-aye, sir, all clear!" -- "Taut
leech! belay! Well the lee brace; haul taut to windward!" and the
royals are set.
What would the captain of any sailing-vessel of our time say to
that? He would say, "The man that wrote that didn't learn his
trade out of a book, he has BEEN there!" But would this same
captain be competent to sit in judgment upon Shakespeare's
seamanship -- considering the changes in ships and ship-talk that
have necessarily taken place, unrecorded, unremembered, and lost to
history in the last three hundred years? It is my conviction that
Shakespeare's sailor-talk would be Choctaw to him. For instance --
from The Tempest:
Master. Boatswain!
Boatswain. Here, master; what cheer?
Master. Good, speak to the mariners: fall to't, yarely, or we run
ourselves to ground; bestir, bestir!
(Enter mariners.)
Boatswain. Heigh, my hearts! cheerly, cheerly, my hearts! yare,
yare! Take in the topsail. Tend to the master's whistle . . .
Down with the topmast! yare! lower, lower! Bring her to try wi'
the main course . . . Lay her a-hold, a-hold! Set her two courses.
Off to sea again; lay her off.
That will do, for the present; let us yare a little, now, for a
change.
If a man should write a book and in it make one of his characters
say, "Here, devil, empty the quoins into the standing galley and
the imposing stone into the hell-box; assemble the comps around the
frisket and let them jeff for takes and be quick about it," I
should recognize a mistake or two in the phrasing, and would know
that the writer was only a printer theoretically, not practically.
I have been a quartz miner in the silver regions -- a pretty hard
life; I know all the palaver of that business: I know all about
discovery claims and the subordinate claims; I know all about
lodes, ledges, outcroppings, dips, spurs, angles, shafts, drifts,
inclines, levels, tunnels, air-shafts, "horses," clay casings,
granite casings; quartz mills and their batteries; arastras, and
how to charge them with quicksilver and sulphate of copper; and how
to clean them up, and how to reduce the resulting amalgam in the
retorts, and how to cast the bullion into pigs; and finally I know
how to screen tailings, and also how to hunt for something less
robust to do, and find it. I know the argot of the quartz-mining
and milling industry familiarly; and so whenever Bret Harte
introduces that industry into a story, the first time one of his
miners opens his mouth I recognize from his phrasing that Harte got
the phrasing by listening -- like Shakespeare -- I mean the Stratford
one -- not by EXPERIENCE. No one can talk the quartz dialect
correctly without learning it with pick and shovel and drill and
fuse.
I have been a surface-miner -- gold -- and I know all its mysteries,
and the dialect that belongs with them; and whenever Harte
introduces that industry into a story I know by the phrasing of his
characters that neither he nor they have ever served that trade.
I have been a "pocket" miner -- a sort of gold mining not findable in
any but one little spot in the world, so far as I know. I know
how, with horn and water, to find the trail of a pocket and trace
it step by step and stage by stage up the mountain to its source,
and find the compact little nest of yellow metal reposing in its
secret home under the ground. I know the language of that trade,
that capricious trade, that fascinating buried-treasure trade, and
can catch any writer who tries to use it without having learned it
by the sweat of his brow and the labor of his hands.
I know several other trades and the argot that goes with them; and
whenever a person tries to talk the talk peculiar to any of them
without having learned it at its source I can trap him always
before he gets far on his road.
And so, as I have already remarked, if I were required to
superintend a Bacon-Shakespeare controversy, I would narrow the
matter down to a single question -- the only one, so far as the
previous controversies have informed me, concerning which
illustrious experts of unimpeachable competency have testified:
WAS THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS A LAWYER? -- a lawyer deeply
read and of limitless EXPERIENCE? I would put
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Bob Grumman
> of evidence"
Only if the allusions themselves are evidence, Elizabeth.
Speculations about POSSIBLE allusions are not evidence.
The patterns those speculations fall into are only evidence
of rigidnikry--specifically of the manner in which rigidniks
form their rigidniplexes, or delusional systems.
snip
> > Why is the "fictitious' person depicted
> > virtually the only person hundreds of years later to truly vie for the
> > title of Shakespeare, and as extant documents appear to show, be in
> > the cerimonial position as Lord Great Chamberlain to do as the sonnet
> > suggests, "Bear the canopy?"
> Oxford is "vying" on the strength of material plagerized
> from dead Baconians by Looney and the Ogburns.
>
> And Sonnet 125 isn't about "bearing the canopy."
> Sonnet 125 says that external pomp is meaningless
> compared to the things that can be laid down for
> eternity. It doesn't say that the poet himself
> engaged in pomp and circumstance.
Odd how wacks can get things right when they need to in order
to protect their rigidniplexes.
> He says "Were it aught to me," that is, "Were I obligated
> to bear the canopy."
No, he says it would it have meant nothing to him if he had
bourne the canopy. Nothing about being obligated.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3C46517B...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> > > "David L. Webb" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Martin Gardner is a prominent skeptic and CSICOP founding
> > > > fellow who has light-heartedly ridiculed anti-Stratfordians,
> > > > especially ciphermongers like yourself.:
[...]
> > > It is not surprising that a Masonic conspirator/frontman
> > > like Gardner should be so deeply involved in both Stratfordianism
> > Have you any *evidence* that Martin Gardner
> > is a "Masonic conspirator/frontman," Art?
> I have enough *evidence* to convince myself.
I see -- you have enough "evidence" to convince a lunatic (and only
a lunatic). That's what I thought.
> > "...deeply involved in...Stratfordianism"??! Martin Gardner has
> > barely deigned even to remark upon anti-Stratfordian delusions, apart
> > from a short essay on the subject and one or two followup comments.
> > Gardner has published voluminously on *many* subjects, among them
> > popular delusions, and has devoted *far* more space to many others.
> > Anti-Stratfordianism is barely even a blip on Gardner's radar screen;
> > how does that make him "...deeply involved in...Stratfordianism," Art?
> Gardner usually uses subtle ridicule against his targets (e.g., the
> 'laugher curve'). He does not use or need to use pejorative terms such
> as: CRANK, CRACKPOT, PATHETIC or THOROUGHLY SELF-DELUDED.
WHAT??! Are you getting senile, Art?! You made the *same* idiotic,
false claim before -- evidently you have no more read Gardner than you
have read any of the other authors whose opinions you habitually
misrepresent -- and in response I quoted for you *numerous* instances
in which Gardner uses VERy oVERt (*not* "subtle") ridicule, and in
particular in which he uses words such as "crank," "crackpot," etc.
rather liberally in his essays on popular delusions *other than
anti-Stratfordian deulsions*. See
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gardner+mannered+crank+crackpottery+a
uthor:webb&hl=en&selm=270820000023516354%25David.L.Webb%40Dartmouth.edu&
rnum=1> for the entire post; howeVER, here is an excerpt from the
exchange again, for the mnemonic benefit of the feeble-minded:
==================================================================
Neuendorffer (ph...@errors.comedy):
> I would really be interested to know, Dave, if you can find the
> pejorative words: CRANK, CRACKPOT, PATHETIC or THOROUGHLY SELF-DELUDED
> in any of Martin Gardner's other works. I rather doubt it!
> The mild
> mannered & erudite Mr. Gardner does NOT talk (much less write) in this
> manner.
I responded:
Your doubt just shows that you don't know any more about Martin
Gardner than you do about Shakespeare, Art. It also underscores
that your conclusions are generally based upon mindless grepping
(rather than actually reading) and uninformed conjecture (rather
than reasoning from solid evidence) -- not that anyone familiar
with your track record would eVER have expected anything else.
In fact, Gardner was quite fond of the terms "crank" and
"crackpot," as well as other terms of derision (e.g., "quack,"
"charlatan," "delusion," "fringe," "mad," etc.), and he used
them VERy freely in his writings about pseudoscience and
delusional belief systems; he by no means confined his use of
those terms to his essay on anti-Stratfordian cranks. I can
recall many instances of his use of these terms in essays on
many topics, but I'll confine myself to a few instances that
I can actually quote from the lone volume of Gardner's essays
that I happen to have in my office at the moment. There are
many other instances in Gardner's volumes devoted to
pseudoscience, delusions, and cults, books such as *Fads and
Fallacies in the Name of Science*, *Science: Good, Bad, and
Bogus*, *How Not to Test a Psychic: A Study of the Unusual
Experiments with Renowned Clairvoyant Pavel Stepanek*, *The
New Age: Notes of a Fringe-Watcher*, *On the Wild Side: The
Big Bang, ESP, the Beast 666, Levitation, Rain Making,
Trance-channeling, Seances and Ghosts, and More*, *Urantia:
The Great Cult Mystery*, *Weird Water and Fuzzy Logic: More
Notes of a Fringe Watcher*, etc., but the Dartmouth Library
is closed for a month, and even if the library were open I
would have better thing to do than waste my time hunting up
quotes I recall from books you haven't even read, so I'll
limit myself to a few extracts that I can recall offhand, can
hunt up in the one volume I have at hand, and can quote. In
the citations below, all emphasis in uppercase is mine.
Here's how "the "mild-mannered" (ha!) and erudite Mr. Gardner
refers to a book by the well-known mathematical physicist
Frank Tipler:
"I have yet to see a favorable review of what I consider
the funniest CRANK work by a reputable physicist written in
this century." (From the introduction to a reprinted version
a book review entitled "WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP" that first
appeared in *The New York Review of Books*.)
Later in his review, which pans *The Anthropic Cosmological
Pinciple* by Tipler and astronomer John Barrow, Gardner writes:
"What should one make of this quartet of WAP [Weak Anthropic
Principle], SAP [Strong Anthropic Principle], PAP, and FAP?
In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is
best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic
Principle."
So much for "mild-mannered" Mr. Gardner. Or:
"The fact that top scientists disagree about many things does
not mean that terms like pseudoscience, CRANK, and CHARLATAN
have no place in the history of science."
"As with all CRANK remedies, the placebo effect generated many
testimonials of miraculous electrical healings."
"Delp's opinion of Davis is curiously sympathetic. He says
nothing about the seer's blindfold performances (which leave
little doubt that he was in part a charlatan)....Instead of
seeing Davis as a clever CRANK..."
"Almost every newspaper runs a daily horoscope, and astrology
books, like books about CRANK and sometimes harmful diets, far
outsell books on reputable science."
"If fatty seeds are taken as symbolic of fat-headed
DELUSIONS,... they are germinating as never before throughout
the land."
These (and there are many other pejorative expressions of derision)
are all from a single brief Gardner essay, "Pseudoscience in the
Nineteenth Century." Or:
"In a chapter of my *Mathematical Carnival* I tell of Freud's
strange and passionate friendship with one of the giants of
German CRACKPOTTERY....It took Freud more than ten years to
realize that his dear friend was a CRANK. Fliess's MAD cycle-
theory is still going great guns in the biorhythm movement,...
but I know of no current boosters of his nasal theory. A QUACK
doctor could make a fortune by reviving it." (From "Freud,
Fliess, and Emma's Nose.")
Neuendorffer (ph...@errors.compost) continued in the same paranoid vein:
> This bombast was probably written by Schoenbaum, himself, - or
> else a member of our very own Goon Squad . . .
> say . . . someone particularly fond of the word CRANK:
>
> Bob Grumman? Terry Ross? Dave Webb?
I replied:
"Do you think that Schoenbaum ghost-wrote Gardner's review of
Barrow and Tipler's book on anthropic principles in cosmology,
Art? Or Gardner's essay on nineteenth-century pseudoscience?
I can't speak for Terry Ross or Bob Grumman, but I'm flattered
and absolutely delighted that you evidently think so highly of
my skepticism concerning wild, unsupported speculation and my
expository talents that you would entertain even in jest the
possibility that I had a hand in anything that the enormously
gifted Martin Gardner wrote, Art."
So much for your memory of your past hilarious howlers, Art.
======================================================================
> <<It is the paucity of facts about Shakespeare that has generated what
> Schoenbaum calls the "lunatic rubbish" of the CRANKS. . . considering
> the vast welter of writings about Shakespeare CRANK references alone
> numbered more th 4,000 items. In _Knotted Doughnuts_ I discuss the
> writings of two of the funniest Baconian CRANKS of all time: Ignatius
> Donnelly and the MAD Elizabeth Wells Gallup.>> - _Who Was Shakespeare?_
> (1992) by Martin Gardner?
Don't feel slighted, Art -- Gardner is only discussing *Baconian*
cranks, so neither you nor Baker is eligible for the distinction "two
of the funniest Baconian CRANKS of all time"; Elizabeth Weir is the
only h.l.a.s. candidate to supplant Donnelly or Gallup. HoweVER, I
feel sure that, were Martin Gardner aware of you, Baker, Stephanie, and
others, he would demote the Baconians and turn his attention to more
deserving contenders.
> <<Ignatius Donnelly, used a system even more farfetched for his 1,000
> page CRANK work _The Great Cryptogram_ (1888). This tome and Donnelly's
> _Atlantis_ and _Ragnarok_ form the most impressive set of CRACKPOT works
> written by an American before 1900. It remained for Mrs. Elizabeth Wells
> Gallup (1846-1934), to apply Bacon's cipher to Shakespeare's plays,
> producing the best and most hilarious plaintexts in the history of
> Baconiana. Like Donnelly, Mrs. Gallup is a splendid specimen of the
> intelligent learned, honest and THOROUGHLY SELF-DELUDED CRANK. . . [the
> Friedman] book _The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined_ totally demolish
> Mrs. Gallup's monumental and PATHETIC lifetime labors. . . Someone ought
> to write a book about the SAD life of Mrs. Gallup.>> - _Knotted
> Doughnuts_ (1986) by Martin Gardner?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Such strained pejorative terms such as: CRANK, CRACKPOT, PATHETIC or
> THOROUGHLY SELF-DELUDED is the mark of a Goon Squad member.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
I just quoted for you *numerous* instances of Martin Gardner's
published, oVERt ridicule of delusions having nothing whateVER to do
with Shakespeare authorship, Art, and there are plenty of others; in
fact, as I noted, all my quotations above come from a *single* volume
of essays, and indeed most come from a *SINGLE* essay within that
*single* volume. Had I had on hand more of Gardner's writings on
fringe lunacy, I could certainly have regaled you with *many* more
instances. Gardner did *not* confine his use of words like "crank,"
"crackpot," "mad," etc. to his discussions of anti-Stratfordians,
although such words in that case are certainly well bestowed. That you
can apparently neither read nor even remember anything you've been told
merely makes you look extremely foolish -- particularly when you post
nonsense that is easily refuted by opening a single book.
> > Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
>
> > > and the Committee
> > > for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).
> > > The Catholic Church has effectively used the gullibility of the public
> > > (vis-a-vis Saints, relics & their miracles) for centuries. Far better to
> > > redirect that pool of gullibility towards issues that are more central
> > > to Freemasonry.
> > "Gullibility" is antithetical to the Enlightenment-era
> > thought of Freemasonry that you pretend to admire, Art.
> "Gullibility" is central to the Enlightenment-era
> thought of Freemasonry that I admire, Dave.
>
> Gull, v. t. [Prob. fr. gull the bird; but cf. OSw. gylla to deceive, D.
> kullen, and E. cullibility.] To deceive; to cheat; to mislead; to trick;
> to defraud.
>
> I'm not gulling him for the emperor's service. --Coleridge.
>
> "Ah! well a-day! what evil looks had I from old and young!
> Instead of the cross, an URL by /tross/ about my neck was hung."
This rejoinder is cleVER enough that I won't take you to task for
having repeated it, Art. HoweVER, your command of avian taXOnomy is
about on a par with your knowledge of Shakespeare if you think that
albatrosses have much to do with gulls. Indeed, gulls and albatrosees
don't even belong to the same order. Albatrosses belong to a family
within the order Procellariiformes (other familiar families in the same
order include petrels and shearwaters), while gulls belong the family
Laridae within the order Charadriiformes.
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Gardner => G(u)ardians => [A]ssassins of [A]lamut
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> AHA, AHA
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> King Richard III Act 1, Scene 1
>
> CLARENCE Yea, Richard, when I know; for I protest
>
> [A]s yet I do not: but, as I can learn,
> [H]e hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
> [A]nd from the cross-row plucks the letter G.
>
> [A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
> [H]is issue disinherited should be;
> [A]nd, for my name of George begins with G,
>
> It follows in his thought that I am he.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> _AHA! Insight_ - by Martin Gardner
> _AHA! Gotcha_ - by Martin Gardner
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your point (if any), Art? I wrote "haha," not "aha." The
former is frequently used by many writers, including Jane Austen, who
can scarcely have been a Masonic conspirator, even if one adopted your
idiotic intimation that "aha" is some sort of Masonic "buzz word"
employed by Masonic Shakespeare authorship coVERup conspirators.
> > > <<Even in modern times, scholars of popular fiction are familiar with
> > > the notorious Order of the Assassins of Alamut, a medieval islamic sect,
> > > ruled by the legendary Old Man of the Mountain. The name "Assassins"
> > > derives from the word "Assass," meaning "Guardians" or "Protectors", for
> > > the Assassins were in reality the Islamic Soldier-Monks in charge of the
> > > protection of the Holy Land. "Assasseen in Arabic signifies 'guardians',
> > > and some commentators have considered this to be the true origin of the
> > > word: 'guardians of the secrets'." - Arkon Daraul, Secret Societies.
> > >
> > > The Assassins were the keepers of much occult knowledge, inherited from
> > > Israel, Babylon, Egypt, and other far more ancient sources. They knew
> > > the secrets of the gnostic and of the kabbala. Their role in the history
> > > of alchemy is well documented. The longer-than-normal lifespan of their
> > > leader, Hasan ben Saba, the Old Man of the Mountain, is one clue;
> > > another is their motto,
> > >
> > > the alchemical saying: Nothing is true...>>
> > Shouldn't that be "nothing is truer than truth," Art?
> That came later, Dave:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> NIL VERO-VERIU(S)
> OUR EVER-LIVIN(G)
> UNO VERE-VIR(G)IL
> -----------------------------------------------------------
No, Art; there is no "G" in "Nil vero verius." As usual, you are
incapable of constructing anagrams, so you simply cheat.
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > and the Committee
> > > > for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).
> > > > The Catholic Church has effectively used the gullibility of the public
> > > > (vis-a-vis Saints, relics & their miracles) for centuries. Far better to
> > > > redirect that pool of gullibility towards issues that are more central
> > > > to Freemasonry.
> > "David L. Webb" wrote:
> > > "Gullibility" is antithetical to the Enlightenment-era
> > > thought of Freemasonry that you pretend to admire, Art.
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
> > "Gullibility" is central to the Enlightenment-era
> > thought of Freemasonry that I admire, Dave.
> >
> > Gull, v. t. [Prob. fr. gull the bird; but cf. OSw. gylla to deceive, D.
> > kullen, and E. cullibility.] To deceive; to cheat; to mislead; to trick;
> > to defraud.
> >
> > I'm not gulling him for the emperor's service. --Coleridge.
> >
> > "Ah! well a-day! what evil looks had I from old and young!
> > Instead of the cross, an URL by /tross/ about my neck was hung."
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> This rejoinder is cleVER enough that I won't take you to task for
> having repeated it, Art. HoweVER, your command of avian taXOnomy is
> about on a par with your knowledge of Shakespeare if you think that
> albatrosses have much to do with gulls. Indeed, gulls and albatrosees
> don't even belong to the same order. Albatrosses belong to a family
> within the order Procellariiformes (other familiar families in the same
> order include petrels and shearwaters), while gulls belong the family
> Laridae within the order Charadriiformes.
The URL by /tross/ is definitely of the family Laridae
<<the gulls laughing lime on his natural skunk,
blushing like Pat's pig, beGOB!>> - FW 462
<<Birds of prey, winging from the sea, rising from marsh lands, swooping
from eyries, hover screaming, gannets, connorants, vultures, goshawks,
climbing woodcocks, peregrines, merlin, blackgrouse, sea eagles, gulls,
albatrosses, barnacle geese.
<<A gull. Gulls. Far calls. Coming, far! End here.>> - FW 628
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Gardner => G(u)ardians => [A]ssassins of [A]lamut
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > AHA, AHA
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > King Richard III Act 1, Scene 1
> >
> > CLARENCE Yea, Richard, when I know; for I protest
> >
> > [A]s yet I do not: but, as I can learn,
> > [H]e hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
> > [A]nd from the cross-row plucks the letter G.
> >
> > [A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
> > [H]is issue disinherited should be;
> > [A]nd, for my name of George begins with G,
> >
> > It follows in his thought that I am he.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _AHA! Insight_ - by Martin Gardner
> > _AHA! Gotcha_ - by Martin Gardner
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> What is your point (if any), Art? I wrote "haha," not "aha."
You wrote:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> The former is frequently used by many writers, including Jane Austen,
Jane Austen wrote?:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> who
> can scarcely have been a Masonic conspirator, even if one adopted your
> idiotic intimation that "aha" is some sort of Masonic "buzz word"
> employed by Masonic Shakespeare authorship coVERup conspirators.
<<At this moment they were approaching Ford's,
and he hastily exclaimed, "Ha! this must be the very shop
that every body attends every day of their lives,>> -- Emma
> > > > <<Even in modern times, scholars of popular fiction are familiar with
> > > > the notorious Order of the Assassins of Alamut, a medieval islamic sect,
> > > > ruled by the legendary Old Man of the Mountain. The name "Assassins"
> > > > derives from the word "Assass," meaning "Guardians" or "Protectors", for
> > > > the Assassins were in reality the Islamic Soldier-Monks in charge of the
> > > > protection of the Holy Land. "Assasseen in Arabic signifies 'guardians',
> > > > and some commentators have considered this to be the true origin of the
> > > > word: 'guardians of the secrets'." - Arkon Daraul, Secret Societies.
> > > >
> > > > The Assassins were the keepers of much occult knowledge, inherited from
> > > > Israel, Babylon, Egypt, and other far more ancient sources. They knew
> > > > the secrets of the gnostic and of the kabbala. Their role in the history
> > > > of alchemy is well documented. The longer-than-normal lifespan of their
> > > > leader, Hasan ben Saba, the Old Man of the Mountain, is one clue;
> > > > another is their motto,
> > > >
> > > > the alchemical saying: Nothing is true...>>
>
> > > Shouldn't that be "nothing is truer than truth," Art?
>
> > That came later, Dave:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > NIL VERO-VERIU(S)
> > OUR EVER-LIVIN(G)
> > UNO VERE-VIR(G)IL
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No, Art; there is no "G" in "Nil vero verius." As usual,
> you are incapable of constructing anagrams, so you simply cheat.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 1, Scene 1
CLARENCE Yea, Richard, when I know; for I protest
[A]s yet I do not: but, as I can learn,
[H]e hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
[A]nd from the cross-row plucks the letter G.
[A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
[H]is issue disinherited should be;
[A]nd, for my name of George begins with G,
It follows in his thought that I am he.
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <75f2d918.02011...@posting.google.com>, Ken
Kaplan <kenka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Let's see. We'll put this in visual perspective. Bottom Line.
>
> Strat position Kaplan's Oxfordian position
> (Kathman-Kennedy-others?)
>
> (Most) Kids hate Shakespeare Kid's introduced this way _love_
> Never see, read or appreciate Shakespeare, form lifelong
> author ever. association, think critically
You appear to be arguing that, because Shakespeare plays enjoyed
unprecedented popularity among students who were exposed to the canon
from an Oxfordian perspective, the students in question were well
served. I would suggest by analogy that students who were taught
creation "science" as a scientifically tenable and viable alternative
to Darwinian evolution were being done a disservice *even if* the
enrollment in biology courses increased tenfold as a result. I would
also suggest that students who were taught various absurd revisionist
historical scenarios were being done a disservice *even if* enrollments
in history classes tripled overnight.
As John Kennedy noted, teenagers are often very intrigued by absurd
conspiracy theories. That does not mean that students are well served
by those who would teach such theories merely to liven up subjects such
as history.
> Is there something wrong with this picture? Is your political
> correctness so skewed you'd scacrifice a life for your egoistic, quasi
> religious satisfaction?
"Sacrifice a life"?! What *on earth* are you talking about? I'm
not even sure to whose life this intemperate outburst is supposed to
refer.
> I guess the answer is a resounding yes. How unbelievably pathetic.
Truth, particularly historical truth, can indeed be banal and even
pathetic. That's one reason that many people prefer fantasies to
history.
> "We had to destroy the city in order to save it"
What *on earth* are you talking about?
> Glad to see the kind of rationality that rules in Stratfordia land,
> HLAS style.
This seems to be yet another instance of your misdirected and
ungovernable anger.
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<3C43021F...@attglobal.net>...
> > Ken Kaplan wrote:
> > >
> > > "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<a1o70b$b8i$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>...
[...]
Enjoining students to think for themselves and to make up their own
minds is perfectly reasonable and indeed unexceptionable. However, for
students to derive benefit from the process, they must be presented
with *accurate* information, acquainted with rigorous methodology, and
equipped with critical skills. Yet the farcical inaccuracy of much of
the "information" presented by the "mainstream" Oxfordian sources is
unfortunately quite well known, as is the acquaintance (or rather, the
lack thereof) of prominent Oxfordians with the standards, norms, and
methodology of literary history. I would not encourage mathematics
students to make up their own minds about whether the angle can be
trisected with straightedge and compass without first teaching them
what constitutes a mathematical proof and acquainting them with
standards of mathematical rigor; I would expect colleagues in
literature and history departments to show the same regard for their
own disciplinary methodology.
Of course, anti-Stratfordian scenarios *do* have a legitimate place
in education. They have been successfully used in classes that
acquaint students with common errors in probabilistic and statistical
reasoning, since anti-Stratfordian ciphers, statistical claims, and the
like often furnish exemplary case studies of such errors.
> > > What a horrible thing to do and you know what else?
> > >
> > > They probably will LOVE Shakespeare for the rest of their lives.
> > >
> > > You sound like a stupid fundamentalist preacher afraid that the Devil
> > > will corrupt his children by going to a dance. I thought you were
> > > supposed to have some intelligence.
If you *seriously* doubt Dave Kathman's intelligence and are not
just lashing out from misdirected anger as usual, then I am truly sorry
to see how completely ideology has deprived you of judgment. If you
regard it as "intelligent" to teach a fiction because it proves to be
popular with students and "unintelligent" to object to that practice,
then I am quite astounded by your notion of responsible pedagogy.
Fortunately, Oxfordianism is relatively harmless and there is very
little at stake, but the abdication of critical thinking required for
an informed person to embrace Ogburns's inventions is a bad habit, for
students as much as for anyone else.
David Webb
Thomas Larque
>
> Thomas Larque wrote:
>
> > You missed http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00295.html with
> > Mark Anderson's article about the De Vere Conference. I checked with
> > the person who mails out the CSICOP mailings and he says that although
> > he doesn't know much about the subject he believes that Shakespeare
> > wrote Shakespeare. He clearly didn't post the article, therefore, to
> > support the Anti-Stratfordian cause.
>
> The stamp licker? Did he have a Ph.D.?
He sends out the messages, Art. He also writes them. I don't know
his qualifications, but am willing to bet that he has more real ones
than your friend Baker.
> > >> Would you like to give us
> > >> an example of a Sceptic Society anywhere in the world that regards
> > >> Stratfordianism as something that one ought to be sceptical about?
> > >
> > > Stratfordism & Anti-Stratfordianism have little to do with
> > > "paranormal and fringe-science claims."
> > >
> > > The S.O.S. is a Skeptic Society that regards Stratfordianism
> > > as something that one ought to be skeptical about.
> >
> > The "SOS" is a poorly disguised cry for help and more of a religious
> > society than a sceptical one. Note that many of its members believe
> > in such things as a Masonic Conspiracy carried out over many centuries
>
> Your kidding!
You can hardly claim that *you* are a Sceptic, Art. You believe just
about anything.
> > >---------------------------------------------------
> > >Anti-Stratfordian evidence is based upon EXPERIENCE (e.g., people
> > > who are the head of a demostrably illiterate family do not
> > > write Great Literature).
> > >---------------------------------------------------
>
> > Well, you are lying to say that Shakespeare's family was "demonstrably
> > illiterate". They were not. Susanna could sign her name and could
> > therefore probably both read and write, and Judith could quite
> > probably read -
>
> Evidence?
Look back on Google Groups and you will find plenty of postings by me
including long quotations from Historians expert on the literacy of
Early Modern people, many specialising in women. These experts state
that very little documentary evidence of female literacy survives,
since their papers were not usually kept, but that an ability to sign
your name is considered by these historians as the best available
evidence of likely literacy in most cases. Dave Kathman has posted
evidence that Stratford women often attended the School there (in what
we would call the early grades only) and has shown that of the two
people we know attended the school one could sign her name and the
other apparently could not (like Shakespeare's daughters). If one of
the girls had not been taught to write then the school was rather
obviously teaching her to read. Reading and writing were separate
skills in the Renaissance period and reading was usually taught first
(see HLAS postings passim in large numbers).
Since Anti-Stratfordians have no evidence of the Shakespeare
daughters' illiteracy, the only evidence either way is Susanna's
signature which makes her more educated than the vast majority of
women, and quite possibly the majority of men, in that area at that
time (and indeed in any area at that time). Exactly what one would
expect from the daughter of a prominent citizen.
> > and they were both females, at a time when females
> > were not being educated at the same level as males in their immediate
> > family. We will never know what Hamnet, the really significant member
> > of the family, would have been able to manage because of his early
> > death, but there is evidence that male Stratfordian children of the
> > same social level were often highly literate.
>
> That explains all the Stratford books & letters.
Do you doubt that there were books in Stratford? New Place had a
study from which books and papers were stolen. Mr. Shakespeare
(either William or his father, most likely) owned a book that appeared
on legal records. John Hall wrote books. The son of another alderman
learned Latin and quoted from books. Now would you like to provide
equally ample evidence for the presence of books in your home town in
1600?
[snip ample evidence of Art's inability to read, or do anything but
cut and paste]
Neuendorffer
> You can hardly claim that *you* are a Sceptic, Art.
> You believe just about anything.
I'm willing to consider just about anything
. . . for a while.
Only after deep contemplation for 5 years I am finally
willing to suggest my own version of Oxfordianism.
> > > >---------------------------------------------------
> > > >Anti-Stratfordian evidence is based upon EXPERIENCE (e.g., people
> > > > who are the head of a demostrably illiterate family do not
> > > > write Great Literature).
> > > >---------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > Well, you are lying to say that Shakespeare's family was "demonstrably
> > > illiterate". They were not. Susanna could sign her name and could
> > > therefore probably both read and write, and Judith could quite
> > > probably read -
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> Look back on Google Groups and you will find plenty of postings by me
> including long quotations from Historians expert on the literacy of
> Early Modern people, many specialising in women. These experts state
> that very little documentary evidence of female literacy survives,
> since their papers were not usually kept, but that an ability to sign
> your name is considered by these historians as the best available
> evidence of likely literacy in most cases. Dave Kathman has posted
> evidence that Stratford women often attended the School there (in what
> we would call the early grades only) and has shown that of the two
> people we know attended the school one could sign her name and the
> other apparently could not (like Shakespeare's daughters). If one of
> the girls had not been taught to write then the school was rather
> obviously teaching her to read. Reading and writing were separate
> skills in the Renaissance period and reading was usually taught first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Margery, an illiterate woman, managed to author a book based on her
spiritual life and experiences. This book, while not an extremely
popular or well-known source, managed to survive into the 20th century
through a single manuscript and introduced us to the real Margery Kempe.
A woman who faced much diversity in her life, but who also managed to
break down some of the barriers that existed in medieval society.
Posterity owes much to Margery for leaving a little of herself behind
for us to discover. The Book of Margery Kempe provides us with an
atypical look at the medieval world. Instead of the customary educated
male religious or upper class view, we have an alternate perspective-one
from a unique, middle class, uneducated woman, who achieved piety
despite her married and lay status.>>
http://www.ukans.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/margery.html
http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/margery.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/4594/margery.html
<<Margery Burnham KEMPE(1373-post 1438) was the daughter of John
Burnham, five times mayor of the town of Lynn, a flourishing town of
Norfolk. In 1393, Margery married John KEMPE, a young merchant of the
town, and a member of the same Corpus Christi guild as her father.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_The Second Part of the Return from Parnassus_ (1601)
KEMPE: Few of the university [men] pen plays well, they smell too much
of that writer Ovid, and that writer Metamorphosis, and talk too much
of Proserpina and Jupiter. Why, here's our fellow Shakespeare. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lady Mary WRIOTHESley MONTagu Heneage
And as widow of the Treasurer of the Chamber (Thomas Heneage d.1592)
Southampton's mother paid KEMPE,
Shakespeare & BURBAGE 20 pounds FOR WORK NOT EVEN DONE:
<<1595-3-15: Royal record. An entry in the accounts of the Treasurer of
the Chamber reads: "To William KEMPE, William Shakespeare and Richard
Burbage, servaunts to the Lord Chamberleyne, upon the Councille's
warrant dated at Whitehall XVth Marcij 1594, for two severall comedies
or enterludes shewed by them before her majestie in Christmas tyme laste
part viz St. Stephen's daye and Innocents daye...">>
But it was THE ADMIRAL's men (not the Lord Chamberlain's)
who played for the Queen on Innocent's Day (Dec. 28, 1594).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary [WRIOTHAS]ley MONTagu
ROSWITHA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<A celebrated nun-poetess of the tenth century, whose name has been
given in various forms, ROSWITHA, HROTSWITHA, HROSVITHA, and HROTSUIT;
born probably between 930 and 940, died about 1002.
The interpretation of the name as clamor validus contains no doubt a
reference to the bearer herself; this accounts for her being also called
"the mighty voice" and sometimes even the "Nightingale of Gandersheim".
In all probability she was of aristocratic birth.
This is about all that is known of the external life of the first German
poetess. Hroswitha shares the lot in this respect of all the poets of
olden time: we are far better acquainted with her works than with her
personality. Furthermore, the Latin poems of this unassuming nun have
had a curious history. After centuries of neglect, they were discovered,
as is well known, by the poet laureate Conrad Celtes in the Benedictine
monastery of St. Emmeram at Ratisbon, and were published in 1501 to the
great delight of all lovers of poetry.
But her poetical reputation rests, properly speaking, on her dramatic
works. As regards her motives in adopting this form of literary
expression she herself gives sufficient explanation.
Lamenting the fact that many Christians, carried away by the
beauty of the play, take delight in the comedies of Terence and
thereby learn many impure things, she determines to copy closely
his style, in order to adapt the same methods to the extolling of
triumphant purity in saintly virgins, as he has used to depict the
victory of vice. A blush often mounted to her cheeks when in
obedience to the laws of her chosen form of poetical expressions
she was compelled to portray the detestable madness of unholy
love.
This last remark applies peculiarly to the case of five of her dramas,
the theme of which is sensual love.
The most popular work, judging at least from the numerous
transcripts thereof, is the "Gallicanus". This general of Constantine
the Great, while still a pagan, seeks in marriage the emperor's
daughter, Constantia, who however has long since consecrated herself
as a spouse to the Lord; the suitor becomes converted and suffers
a martyr's death.>> -- The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timeline10.html
<<Europe did have, later in the 10th Century, the remarkable
nun Hrotsvitha, who wrote on Number Theory as one of the
first notable female mathematicians in history, and also wrote plays.
She exemplified the best of monastic education, as she dwelled in the
Benedictine abbey of Gandersheim, in Saxony. "She wrote several plays
and in these she shows a knowledge of the Greek language and of either
Greek or Boethian arithmetic.... Hrotsvitha incidentally speaks of
three perfect numbers besides 6, namely 28, 496, and 8128.">>
[Pythagoreans explained that this was why there were 6 days in the
week (not counting Sabbath) and 28 days in a lunar month]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 = 1^3 + 3^3
496 = 1^3 + 3^3 + 5^3 + 7^3
8148 = 1^3 + 3^3 + 5^3 + 7^3 + 9^3 + 11^3 + 13^3 + 15^3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wcb.vcu.edu/wcb/schools/HAS/hon/jberglun/4/files/Medieval_Europe.htm
Hrotsvitha (932-1002) “A certain amount of light is thrown upon the
barren field of monastic mathematics of this period by the story of the
learned nun Hrotsvitha of the Benedictine abbey of Gandersheim in
Saxony. She wrote several plays and in these she shows a knowledge of
the Greek language and of either Greek or Boethian arithmetic…
Hrotsvitha incidentally speaks of three perfect numbers besides 6,
namely, 28, 496, and 8128.” D. E. Smith, History of Mathematics, p.
189
Gerbert (940-1003) R3 (Rheims, Ravenna, Rome) Pope Sylvester II, an
Ottonian (The only mathematician to make pope.) Studied in Spain, where
he picked up bathing habits and perhaps some Moorish learning, and
Italy. Advocated use of the Hindu-Arabic numeration system. No lasting
effect. But he presided over the Millennium. “On the last day of the
year 999, according to an ancient chronicle, the old basilica of St.
Peter’s at Rome was thronged with a mass of weeping and trembling
worshippers awaiting the end of the world. This was the dreaded eve of
the millennium, the Day of Wrath when the earth would dissolve into
ashes. Many of those present had given away all their possessions to
the poor—lands, homes, and household goods—in order to assure for
themselves forgiveness for their trespasses at the Last Judgment and a
good place in heaven near the footstool of the Almighty. Many poor
sinners … had entered the church in sackcloth and ashes, having already
spent weeks and months doing penance and mortifying the flesh.” Richard
Erdoes, AD 1000: Living on the Brink of Apocalypse
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ihrinfo.ac.uk/ihr/reviews/airlieSt.html
<<The adventures of Adelheid made a great impression on contemporaries.
As the youthful widow of the king of Italy she carried claims to that
kingdom and for this she was imprisoned in 951 by Berengar who sought
the crown for himself. We have an extraordinarily vivid account of her
escape in a poem by the Saxon nun, Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim. Hrotsvitha
tells us how Adelheid dug a tunnel out of prison, went on the run by
night and by day lay low in a field of corn as the enraged Berengar
searched for her. As Professor Nelson pointed out in The Frankish World
Hrotsvitha, who dedicated the poem to Adelheid’s son Otto II, has an
acute sense of the importance of claims to power transmitted by women
and how such claims could open up the fault lines in a royal family.
Hrotsvitha’s epic story of Adelheid’s great escape is not some
free-floating adventure story but a precise reflection of how the court
perceived the history of its members and thus the history of the
Ottonian Reich itself. Hrotsvitha complained that she had no written
sources for her epic but Gandersheim’s links with the court suggest
that her account of Adelheid’s Italian adventures owes much to court
traditions. In fact we know from a very different source that the court,
and presumably Adelheid herself, took care to see that the Italian
escape was known and recalled.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
St. John by Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim
http://www.millersv.edu/~english/homepage/duncan/medfem/hrotsvi1.html
I. The virgin John saw the heavens open
And beheld the Father of all on His resplendent throne,
Surrounded by a row of twice twelve elders
Who glittered with gleaming crowns,
All dressed in robes of gleaming white;
He also saw at the enthroned King's right hand
A book, whose secret no man can learn.
II. This angel here, seeking a worthy man, finds none
Who could solve the seal of the secret book.
III. He consoles John, who is weeping
As he explains that the Lamb can solve the seals.
IV. Behold, the secrets of the book lay open for the slain Lamb
Whose praise Heavens' citizens soon sing; Behold Faith's martyrs,
bearing witness near the altar with clear voices.
They recieve robes glittering with gleaming whiteness.
The angel, arriving from the direction of the rosy sunrise,
Marks the Eternal King's servants on their foreheads.
Afterwardsd John beheld many standing there in white,
Praising the Lamb, and carrying palm leaves in hand.
V. Behold, a woman glitters, surrounded by the splendid sun.
Adorned with a gleaming crown of twice twelve stars
----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3C48CC5E...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> Thomas Larque wrote:
>
> > You can hardly claim that *you* are a Sceptic, Art.
> > You believe just about anything.
> I'm willing to consider just about anything
No kidding!
> . . . for a while.
"A while" evidently means *years*, in your case -- even after the
delusion in question has been decisively refuted.
> Only after deep contemplation for 5 years I am finally
> willing to suggest my own version of Oxfordianism.
Please do, Art -- what *is* your VERsion of Oxfordianism? I'd like
to see a *clearly articulated thesis* accompanied by *supporting
evidence*, rather than crackpot cryptography and farcical nonsense cut
and pasted from lunatic web sites.
[...]
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> > Only after deep contemplation for 5 years am I finally
> > willing to suggest my own version of Oxfordianism.
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> Please do, Art -- what *is* your VERsion of Oxfordianism? I'd like
> to see a *clearly articulated thesis* accompanied by *supporting
> evidence*,
If by *supporting evidence* you mean submission to authority (i.e., the
Stratford Trust & it's hired goons) along with the truth of scripture
(i.e., historical garbage) then I can't help you. I am a scientist and
trust empirical evidence gained from experimentation & experience:
-----------------------------------------------------------
______________
/ \
John ----------- Mary Mar(GER)y Arden
[could write | of Shottery
his 'marke'] | [could write
| her 'marke']
___|___________
/ \ [illiter.]
Mar(GER)y Shakspere ------------ Anne
[BROOK House] | b. 1556
[Shakespeare's Boys] |
[£1,000/year income] |
[Stratford upon Avon] |
[Meres' Top 10 in comedy (1598)] |
[1608 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.] |
|
Hall M.D. -- SUSANna
b. May 26
[could write name]
--------------------------------------------------------
John ----------- Mar(GER)y
|
|
| "Polonius"
______|____ buried daughter
/ \ |
Mary Oxford ------------------ Anne
[BROOKE House] | b. 1556
[Oxford's Boys] |
[£1,000/year income] |
[Stratford the Bowe] |
[Meres' Top 10 in comedy (1598)] |
[1583 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.] |
|
SUSAN ----- Herb. Folio
b. May 26 dedicatee
Jaggard dedicatee
---------------------------------------------------------------------
William Shakespeare of Stratford was nothing more than a parody of
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. This evidence makes likely that
Oxford was, in fact, the designated 'Virgil' of James I.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vergil the Magician
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Legendary form which the historical Vergil assumed in the Middle Ages.
The _Sortes Vergilianae_, divination by the use of Vergil's _Aeneid_,
used as early as the 1st century A.D., seems to be the nucleus of his
reputation for magic.
To this were added certain widespread legends, locally attributed to
him but elsewhere to other prominent figures, and around and through
this disconneted series of anecdotes was built a fictional biography
that made him a great magician and virtually ignored his literary
achievements.>> - New Century Classical Handbook.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 1, Scene 1
CLARENCE [A]s yet I do not: but, as I can learn,
[H]e hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
[A]nd from the cross-row plucks the letter G.
[A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
[H]is issue disinherited should be;
[A]nd, for my name of GEORGE begins with G,
It follows in his thought that I am he.
------------------------------------------------------------------
'GEORGIC' means 'to do with agriculture'
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<In the ninth of Vergil's _Bucolics_/_Eclogues_ the chief figure
(a farmer/"GEORGE") seeks to prevent the loss of his farm. The four
books of the great didactic poem, the _Georgics_ celebrate pastoral
life: Crops and the weather are the subjects of the first book, the
cultivation of the vine and the olive of the second,farm animals of the
third and beekeeping of the fourth.>> - New Century Classical Handbook.
-----------------------------------------------------------
NIL VERO-VERIU(S)
OUR EVER-LIVIN(G)
UNO VERE-VIR(G)IL
"UNO VERE-VIR(G)IL" explains why
Oxford got his £1,000/year income
and why everything got cleaned up & published
during the reign James I
(a.k.a., the new AUGUSTUS of the British Isles).
-----------------------------------------------------------
March 15, 1604 coronation parade:
<<Beyond an arch at Temple Bar, [James] was stopped by a tailpiece,
thrown up at the last moment, in which a rainbow, the sun, moon, and
the Pleidades soared between two 70 foot obelisks, and a human comet,
Electra, hailed him as the new AUGUSTUS of the British Isles.>>
-- p. 304 _Shakespeare, a Life_ by Park Honan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Vergil was paid hansomely by Augustus to write the "Aeneid"
to immortalize Rome but Vergil died before he could finish.
Vergil's friends & heirs: Lucius VARIUS and Plotius Tucca,
revised the "Aeneid" after his death by order of Augustus:
"Vergil had bidden these songs by swift flame be turned into ashes,
Songs which sang of thy fates, Phrygia's leader renowned.
VARIUS and Tucca forbade, and thou, too, greatest of Caesars,
Adding your veto to theirs, Latium's story preserved.
All but twice in the flames unhappy Pergamum perished
Troy on a second pyre narrowly failed of her doom.
He had arranged with VARIUS, before leaving Italy, that if anything
befell him a his friend should burn the "Aeneid "; but VARIUS had
emphatically declared that he would do no such thing. Therefore in his
mortal illness Vergil constantly called for his book-boxes, intending to
burn the poem himself; but when no one brought them to him, he made no
specific request about the matter, but left his writings jointly to the
above mentioned VARIUS and to Tucca, with the stipulation that they
should publish nothing which he himself would not have given to the
world.
However, VARIUS published the "Aeneid" at Augustus' request, making
only a few slight corrections, and even leaving the incomplete lines
just as they were. These last many afterwards tried to finish, but
failed owing to the difficulty that nearly all the half-lines in Vergil
are complete in sense and meaning, the sole exception being "Quem tibi
iam Troia." [Aen 3.340] The grammarian Nisus used to say that he had
heard from older men that VARIUS changed the order of two of the books
and made what was then the second book the third; also that he emended
the beginning of the first book by striking out the lines.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lyra
> In article <3C48CC5E...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
> (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
>
> > I'm willing to consider just about anything
>
> to see a *clearly articulated thesis* accompanied by *supporting
> evidence*, rather than crackpot cryptography
Hi Art and David...
I hope this cryptography isn't crackpot!
<and it isn't intended to annoy Oxfordians>
VERO NIHIL VERIUS
<anagrams>
Our Henri IV lives
Henri IV...our veils?
Veils our Henri IV?
Henri IV...our lives?
O Vive rule in shire
Sir, he...vive our line
Lo...I survive herein
Hive ruler...vision
Sion...V! hive ruler, I
<maybe the Merovingian bee symbol>
<well it's fun to look for the anagrams anyway!>
lyra
<I'd rather Oxford wrote Henry IV than Bacon!>
Stephanie Caruana
"lyra" <beautif...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c1bc07d.02012...@posting.google.com...
Not to worry, Lyra; he did!
David L. Webb
<beautif...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<190120021732122719%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> > In article <3C48CC5E...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
> > (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> >
> > > I'm willing to consider just about anything
> > > . . . for a while.
> > Please do, Art -- what *is* your VERsion of Oxfordianism? I'd like
> > to see a *clearly articulated thesis* accompanied by *supporting
> > evidence*, rather than crackpot cryptography
> <some snips>
>
> Hi Art and David...
> I hope this cryptography isn't crackpot!
>
> <and it isn't intended to annoy Oxfordians>
Then what's the point?
> VERO NIHIL VERIUS
>
> <anagrams>
>
> Our Henri IV lives
> Henri IV...our veils?
> Veils our Henri IV?
> Henri IV...our lives?
>
> O Vive rule in shire
> Sir, he...vive our line
> Lo...I survive herein
>
> Hive ruler...vision
> Sion...V! hive ruler, I
> <maybe the Merovingian bee symbol>
Anything involving the Piory of Sion ought to have Art salivating.
> <well it's fun to look for the anagrams anyway!>
At least these *are* anagrams, unlike Art's "discoveries," which
virtually always rely upon cheating. However, most of the above are
unlikely to pass muster with Art, since their INPNC scores are too low
-- not that Art applies the INPNC to his own "finds" when he cheats at
anagrams.
How about
I, Ver, nourish evil?
David Webb
Neuendorffer
>----------------------------------------------------
> I hope this cryptography isn't crackpot!
>
> <and it isn't intended to annoy Oxfordians>
>
> VERO NIHIL VERIUS
>
> <anagrams>
>
> Our Henri IV lives
> Henri IV...our veils?
> Veils our Henri IV?
> Henri IV...our lives?
>
> O Vive rule in shire
> Sir, he...vive our line
> Lo...I survive herein
>
> Hive ruler...vision
> Sion...V! hive ruler, I
> <maybe the Merovingian bee symbol>
>
> <well it's fun to look for the anagrams anyway!>
>
> lyra
> <I'd rather Oxford wrote Henry IV than Bacon!>
VERO NIHIL VERIUS
VEILS OUR HENRI IV
---------------------------------------------------------
Mysterious Portrait of Henry the Fourth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4260/henryfourth.html
<<This portrait was displayed as the authentic image of Henry IV for
hundreds of years. During the twentieth century, as Art history improved
by leaps and bounds, it became obvious that the picture could not be an
actual portrait, painted during the life of Henry Bolingbrook.
Henry ruled England at the beginning of the 1400's. This picture, based
on style, technique and influences, dates from the Elizabethan era. So
who is the sitter ?
I [Robert Brazil] first learned of this in 1993, at the now legendary
luncheon talk by Derran Charlton on the closing day of the SOS 17th
Annual Convention in Boston. Among other revelations, Derran was
entrancing the audience with a strand of red hair that he was implying
was Oxford's. Then he held up the Henry 4 picture and said : "I present
to you the Earl of Oxford". There were gasps and shudders in the
audience, while some of the more seasoned players grumbled : that's just
the famous portrait of Henry the Fourth.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
VERO NIHIL VERIUS
OUR HENRI IV LIVES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.digiserve.com/peter/henry4.htm
<<When Henry's body was brought from London to Canterbury, it
was taken by ship down the Thames Estuary to Faversham and from
there to Canterbury to be finally laid to rest. There had been
a persistent rumour through the ages that during the carriage
of the body to Faversham there arose such a violent storm that
Henry's body was "ditched" over the side to lighten the load.>>
http://www.digiserve.com/peter/henry4.htm
<<The remains of Henry IV are those of the only English Monarch to be
buried in Canterbury Cathedral. It seems strange these days that this
lone King and his Wife, Joan of Navarre would be interred here rather
than at Westminster Abbey along with the majority of all the other
"Royals". However, it has to be remembered that when Henry died in 1413,
this particular spot, right next to the tomb of St. Thomas à Becket.
In fact, this last resting place of Henry and his Wife was as close
to the tomb as it was possible to get. During the life of Henry IV
he was told by one of the old "soothsayers" that they had in seeming
profusion in those days, that he would die in Jerusalem. Henry felt that
this was an easy thing to guard against and cancelled his ticket to the
Holy Land. As it happened, he was taken seriously ill on a visit to
Westminster Abbey and taken into one of the side chapels.
When he asked where he had been taken he was told,
"Why, The Jerusalem Chapel, Sire". Then he died!>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
POINS But, my lads, my lads, to-morrow morning, by four
o'clock, early at Gadshill! there are pilgrims going
to Canterbury with rich offerings, and traders
riding to London with fat purses: I have vizards
for you all; you have horses for yourselves:
Gadshill lies to-night in Rochester: I have bespoke
supper to-morrow night in Eastcheap: we may do it
as secure as sleep. If you will go, I will stuff
your purses full of crowns; if you will not, tarry
at home and be hanged.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Burghley received a letter complaining of Oxford's compatriots
committing robbery on the same highway in May, 1573 (not NECESSARILY
the 20th but the fourteenth year of the reign of Elizabeth Regina).
The precursor to Shake-speare's _Henry IV_:
_The Famous Victories of Henry the Fift_
has Prince Hal's compatriots committing highway robbery on
"the 20th day of May last in the fourteenth year of the reign
of our sovereign lord King Henry the Fourth" (May 20, 1413).
Born: c.30 May 1366, Bolingbrooke Castle, Lincolnshire
Acceded: 13 Oct 1399, Westminster Abbey, London, England
(Arrest: 13 Oct 1307 of Knight Templars of France.)
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon34.html
<<Henry, ailing from leprosy and epilepsy, watched as Prince Henry
controlled the government for the last two years of his reign.
In 1413, Henry died in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey.>>
Died: 20 Mar 1413, Westminster Abbey, London, England
Interred: Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury, Kent
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lyra
Henri IV of France whose life
1553 to 1610 nicely parallels
the Shakespearean era by a
coincidence (or synchronicity?)
or, the anagram could read
VERO NIHIL VERIUS
V! Our Henri I lives
lyra
<Henri I of France, 1006 to 1060,
and the other King Henry I, of England,
1100-1135>
Neuendorffer
> lyra wrote:
> > I hope this cryptography isn't crackpot!
> > VERO NIHIL VERIUS
> >
> > <anagrams>
> >
> > Our Henri IV lives
> > Henri IV...our veils?
> > Veils our Henri IV?
> > Henri IV...our lives?
> > lyra
> > <I'd rather Oxford wrote Henry IV than Bacon!>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
> VERO NIHIL VERIUS
> VEILS OUR HENRI IV
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Mysterious Portrait of Henry the Fourth
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4260/henryfourth.html
>
> <<This portrait was displayed as the authentic image of Henry IV for
> hundreds of years. During the twentieth century, as Art history improved
> by leaps and bounds, it became obvious that the picture could not be an
> actual portrait, painted during the life of Henry Bolingbrook.
>
> Henry ruled England at the beginning of the 1400's. This picture, based
> on style, technique and influences, dates from the Elizabethan era. So
> who is the sitter ?
>
> I [Robert Brazil] first learned of this in 1993, at the now legendary
> luncheon talk by Derran Charlton on the closing day of the SOS 17th
> Annual Convention in Boston. Among other revelations, Derran was
> entrancing the audience with a strand of red hair that he was implying
> was Oxford's. Then he held up the Henry 4 picture and said : "I present
> to you the Earl of Oxford". There were gasps and shudders in the
> audience, while some of the more seasoned players grumbled :
> that's just the famous portrait of Henry the Fourth.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
King Richard II Act 2, Scene 1
NORTHUMBERLAND Now, afore God, 'tis shame such wrongs are borne
In him, a royal prince, and many moe
Of noble blood in this declining land.
THE KING IS NOT HIMSELF, but basely led
By flatterers; and what they will inform,
Merely in hate, 'gainst any of us all,
That will the king seVEREy prosecute
'Gainst us, OUR LIVES, our children, and our heirs.
Act 3, Scene 2
KING RICHARD II No matter where; of comfort no man speak:
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth,
Let's choose executors and talk of wills:
And yet not so, for what can we bequeath
Save our deposed bodies to the ground?
Our lands, OUR LIVES and all are BOLINGBROKE's,
And nothing can we call our own but death
And that small model of the barren earth
Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.
For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings;
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd;
All murder'd: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be fear'd and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit,
As if this flesh which walls about our life,
Were brass impregnable, and humour'd thus
Comes at the last and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king!
Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood
With solemn reverence: throw away respect,
Tradition, form and ceremonious duty,
For you have but mistook me all this while:
I live with bread like you, feel want,
Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,
How can you say to me, I am a king?
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
>
> VERO NIHIL VERIUS
>
> <anagrams>
>
> Our Henri IV lives
> Henri IV...our veils?
> Veils our Henri IV?
> Henri IV...our lives?
>
> <I'd rather Oxford wrote Henry IV than Bacon!>
VERO NIHIL VERIUS
OUR HENRI IV LIVES
----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part iii Act 3, Scene 3 (Quarto I)
Ox. Then Warwike disanuls great Iohn of Gaunt,
That did subdue the greatest part of Spaine,
And after Iohn of Gaunt wise Henry the fourth,
Whose wisedome was a mirrour to the world.
And after this wise prince Henry the fift,
Who with his prowesse conquered all France,
From these [OUR HENRIES LI]neallie discent.
-----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part iii Act 3, Scene 3
OXFORD Then Warwick disannuls great John of Gaunt,
Which did subdue the greatest part of Spain;
And, after John of Gaunt, Henry the Fourth,
Whose wisdom was a mirror to the wisest;
And, after that wise prince, Henry the Fifth,
Who by his prowess conquered all France:
From the[SE OUR HENRY LI]neally descends.
----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part i Act 1, Scene 3
GLOUCESTER Arrogant Winchester, that haughty prelate,
Whom HENRY, OUR late sovereign, ne'er could brook?
----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part ii Act 1, Scene 1
YORK I never read but England's kings have had
Large sums of gold and dowries with their wives:
And OUR KING HENRY gives away his own,
To match with her that brings no vantages.
Act 5, Scene 1
BUCKINGHAM A messenger from HENRY, OUR dread liege,
To know the reason of these arms in peace;
Or why thou, being a subject as I am,
Against thy oath and true allegiance sworn,
Should raise so great a power without his leave,
Or dare to bring thy force so near the court.
------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part iii Act 1, Scene 4
QUEEN MARGARET But how is it that great Plantagenet
Is crown'd so soon, and broke his solemn oath?
As I bethink me, you should not be king
Till OUR KING HENRY had shook hands with death.
And will you pale your head in HENRY's glory,
And rob his temples of the diadem,
Now in his life, against your holy oath?
O, 'tis a fault too too unpardonable!
Off with the crown, and with the crown his head;
And, whilst we breathe, take time to do him dead.
------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
>----------------------------------------------------
> I hope this cryptography isn't crackpot!
>
>
> <anagrams>
>
> Our Henri IV lives
> Henri IV...our veils?
> Veils our Henri IV?
> Henri IV...our lives?
>
> O Vive rule in shire
> Sir, he...vive our line
> Lo...I survive herein
>
> <I'd rather Oxford wrote Henry IV than Bacon!>
"VERO NIHIL VERIUS" de VERE
OUR HENRIES LIVED:VIVERE
----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part iii Act 3, Scene 3 (Quarto I)
OXFORD Then WARWIKE disanuls great Iohn of Gaunt,
That did subdue the greatest part of Spaine,
And after Iohn of Gaunt wise Henry the fourth,
Whose wisedome was a mirrour to the world.
And after this wise prince Henry the fift,
Who with his prowesse conquered all France,
From these [OUR HENRIES LI]neallie discent.
--------------------------------------------------------
SIR, HE...VIVE OUR LINE
VERO NIHIL VERIUS
O VIVE RULE IN SHIRE
-------------------------------------------------------
_Antiquities of WARWICK-SHIRE_ (1656) Dugdale
Stay, passenger why goest thou by soe fast,
Read, if thou canst whom envious death hath plact
w(th)in this monument Shakspeare with whome
QUICK nature DYED, whose name doth deck the tombe
Far more than cost, sith all that he hath writ
Leaves living art but page to serue his witt.
---------------------------------------------------------------
DYE, v. t. [OE. deyan, dyen, AS. de['a]gian.] To stain; to color; to
give a new and permanent color to, as by the application of dyestuffs.
Cloth to be DYED of DIVERS colors. --Trench.
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUICK nature DYED
-------------------------------------------------------------
QUICK, a. [As. cwic, cwicu, cwucu, cucu, living; akin to OS. quik, D.
kwik, OHG. quec, chec, G. keck bold, lively, Icel. kvikr living, Goth.
qius, Lith. q[=y]vas, Russ. zhivoi, L. vivus living, VIVERE to live]
1. Alive; living; animate; -- opposed to {dead} or {inanimate}.
"Not fully QUYKE, ne fully dead they were." --Chaucer.
The Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the QUICK and the dead
at his appearing and his kingdom. --2 Tim. iv. 1.
"Man is no star, but a QUICK coal Of mortal fire." -- Herbert.
2. Characterized by life or liveliness; "A QUICK wit." --Shak.
3. Speedy; hasty; swift; not slow; as, be QUICK.
"Oft he her his charge of QUICK return Repeated." --Milton.
4. Impatient; passionate; hasty; eager; eager; sharp;
5. Fresh; bracing; sharp; keen.
"The air is QUICK there" -- Shak.
6. Sensitive; perceptive in a high degree; ready; as, a QUICK ear.
"To have an open ear, a QUICK eye." --Shak.
7. Pregnant. --Shak.
-------------------------------------------------------------
VERO NIHIL VERIUS
VEILS OUR HENRI IV
---------------------------------------------------------
Mysterious Portrait of Henry the Fourth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4260/henryfourth.html
<<This portrait was displayed as the authentic image of Henry IV for
hundreds of years. During the twentieth century, as Art history
improved by leaps and bounds, it became obvious that the picture could
not be an actual portrait,painted during the life of Henry Bolingbrook.
Henry ruled England at the beginning of the 1400's. This picture, based
on style, technique and influences, dates from the Elizabethan era. So
who is the sitter ?
I [Robert Brazil] first learned of this in 1993, at the now legendary
luncheon talk by Derran Charlton on the closing day of the SOS 17th
Annual Convention in Boston. Among other revelations, Derran was
entrancing the audience with a strand of red hair that he was implying
was Oxford's. Then he held up the Henry 4 picture and said : "I present
to you the Earl of Oxford". There were gasps and shudders in the
audience, while some of the more seasoned players grumbled :
that's just the famous portrait of Henry the Fourth.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
"VERO NIHIL VERIUS" de VERE
OUR HENRIES LIVED:VIVERE
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vivid, a. [L. vividus, from VIVERE: to live. See {QUICK}] 1. True
to the life; exhibiting the appearance of life or freshness;
animated; spirited; bright; strong; intense; as, vivid colors.
Arts which present, with all the vivid charms of painting, the human
face and human form divine. --Bp. Hobart.
2. Forming brilliant images, or painting in lively colors; lively;
sprightly; as, a vivid imagination.
Syn: Clear; lucid; bright; strong; striking; lively; QUICK;
---------------------------------------------------------
HAMLET Whose grave's this, sirrah?
First Clown Mine, sir.
HAMLET I think it be thine, indeed; for thou LIEst in't.
First Clown You LIE out on't, sir, and therefore it is not
yours: for my part, I do not LIE in't, and yet it is mine.
HAMLET 'Thou dost LIE in't, to be in't and say it is thine:
'tis for the dead, not for the quick; therefore thou LIEst.
First Clown 'Tis a quick LIE, sir; 'tWILL away gain,
---------------------------------------------------------------
The soul is DYED BY ITS THOUGHTS. --Lubbock.
---------------------------------------------------------------
LYE A THOUGHT
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Basse (1622) _On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare,
he DYED in April 1616."
Renowned SPENCER, LYE A THOUGHT more nigh
To learned Chaucer; and rare Beaumont, LIE
A LITTLE neerer Spenser to make roome
For Shakespeare in your threefold fowerfold Tombe.
To lodge all fowre in one bed make a shift
Vntill Doomesdaye, for hardly will a fift
Betwixt this day and that by Fate be slayne
For whom your Curtaines may be drawn againe.
If your precedency in death doth barre
A fourth place in your sacred sepulcher,
Vnder this carued marble of thine owne
Sleepe rare Tragoedian Shakespeare, sleep alone.
Thy vnmolested peace, vnshared Caue,
Possesse as Lord not Tenant of thy Graue,
That vnto us and others it may be
Honor hereafter to be layde by thee.
--------------------------------------------------------
LIE A LITTLE FURTHER
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Jonson (1623) _To the Memory of Shakespeare_
My Shakespeare, rise! I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer or SPENSER, or bid Beaumont LIE
A LITTLE FURTHER, to make thee a room.
----------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 1616 Francis Beaumont Tomb in Westminster Abbey:
<<MORTALITY, behold and FEAR!
What a CHANGE OF FLESH is HERE!
Think how many royal BONES
Sleep within this HEAP OF STONES:>>
------------------------------------------------------------
"What a CHANGE OF FLESH is here!"
EDWARD VERE'S CAIRN <=> Beaumont's HEAP OF STONES?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CAIRN, n. [Date: 15th century: Gael. carn, gen. cairn, a heap: cf. Ir.
& W. carn.] 1. A rounded or conical HEAP OF STONES erected by early
inhabitants of the British Isles, apparently as a sepulchral monument.
----------------------------------------------------------
[EDWARD VERE'S CAIRN]
[CAESAR NEVER DID WR]ong
-------------------------------------------------------
<< Many times he fell into those things [that] could not
escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar,
one speaking to him, "Caesar thou dost me wrong".
He replied,
"CAESAR NEVER DID WR-
ong, but with just cause",
and such like, which were ridiculous.>> -- Ben Jonson
----------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 1616 Francis Beaumont Tomb in Westminster Abbey:
<<MORTALITY, behold and FEAR!
What a CHANGE OF FLESH is HERE!
Think how many royal BONES
Sleep within this HEAP OF STONES:>>
-------------------------------------------------------
ORB, n. [F. ORBE, fr. L. ORBis circle, ORB.] A GLOBE.
-------------------------------------------------------
April 23, 1616 William Shakspere grave in Stratford:
<<Good friend for Iesus sake F(orb)EAR(e)
To digg the dust encloased HE(a)RE:
Blest be ye man yt spares thes STONES
And CURST be he yt moves my BONES.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
Antony and Cleopatra Act 5, Scene 2
CLEOPATRA His legs bestrid the ocean: his rear'd arm
Crested the world: his voice was propertied
As all the tuned spheres, and that to friends;
But when he meant to quail and SHAKE the ORB,
He was as rattling thunder.
-----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
1573, Santa Fé, Argentina, founded by Juan de Garay.
June 11, 1573, Ben Jonson born into working-class London.
June 11, 1582, Buenos Aires, Argentina, founded by Juan de Garay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wriothesley was born in 1573
Arne Saknussem's works were burned by the HANGMAN in 1573.
<<"Because Arne Saknussemm was persecuted for heresy,
and in 1573 his works were publicly burnt at Copenhagen,
by the hands of the common hangman.">> - Jules VERnE (J.C.E.)
1573 Tycho Brahe (Copenhagen)
_De Nova et Nullius Aevi Memoria Prius Visa Stella_
"On the New and Never Previously Seen Star"
http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/People/tycho_brahe.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
De NOVA et Nullius
VERO NIL VERIUS
Wil[L IN OVER]plUS
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN In his trinity of black Wills, the villain shakebags, Iago,
Richard Crookback, Edmund in King Lear , two bear the wicked uncles'
names. Nay, that last play was written or being written while his
brother Edmund lay dying in Southwark.
BEST I hope Edmund is going to catch it. I don't want Richard, my name.
( Laughter .)
QUAKERLYSTER ( A tempo .) But he that filches from me my good name...
STEPHEN ( Stringendo .) He has hidden his own name, a fair name,
William, in the plays, a super here, a clown there, as a painter of old
Italy set his face in a dark corner of his canvas. He has revealed it in
the sonnets where there is Wil[L IN OVER]plUS. Like John O'Gaunt his
name is dear to him, as dear as the coat of arms he toadied for, on a
bend sable a spear or steeled argent, honorificabilitudinitatibus,
dearer than his glory of greatest SHAKESCENE in the country. What's in a
name? That is what we ask ourselves in childhood when we write the name
that we are told is ours. A star, a daystar, a firedrake rose at his
birth. It shone by day in the heavens alone, brighter than Venus in the
night, and by night it shone over delta in Cassiopeia, the recumbent
constellation which is the signature of his initial among the stars. His
eyes watched it, lowlying on the horizon, eastward of the bear, as he
walked by the slumberous summer fields at midnight, returning from
Shottery and from her arms.
------------------------------------------------------
> Ray Eston Smith Jr wrote:
> >
> > Shake the Bags
> >
> > The play Arden of FEVERSHAM, ascribed by some to
> > Marlowe, was based on the actual murder of a distant
> > relative of Shakespeare’s. Two of the actual murderers were
> > named Black Will and George Loosebag, but the author of the
> > play changed “Loosebag” to “Shakebag.”
Dave Kathman wrote:
>
> No, you're mistaken. The name of Black Will's associate
> is "George Shakebag" in the 1587 edition of Holinshed's
> Chronicle, the main source for the play:
>
> "In this meanwhile, Black Will and one George Shakebag,
> his companion, were kept in a store-house of Sir Anthony
> Ager's at Preston by Greene's appointment, and thither
> came Mistress Arden to see him, bringing and sending him
> meat and drink many times."
>
> "There were also Mosby and George Shakebag, and there they
> devised to have him killed in manner as afterwards he was."
-------------------------------------------------------------
So Black WILL/ George SHAKEbag & Ms. Arden have absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with the Stratford man but
Shake-scene is *clearly* W.S.?
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.digiserve.com/peter/henry4.htm
<<When Henry's body was brought from London to Canterbury, it
was taken by ship down the Thames Estuary to Faversham and from
there to Canterbury to be finally laid to rest. There had been
a persistent rumour through the ages that during the carriage
of the body to FAVERSHAM there arose such a violent storm that
http://www.digiserve.com/peter/henry4.htm
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon34.html
[Hamlet 1603 (Quarto 1) 5.1]
Ham. How long will a man lie in the ground before hee rots?
Clowne I faith sir, if hee be not rotten before
He be laide in, as we haue many pocky corses,
He will last you, eight yeares, a tanner
Will last you eight yeares full out, or nine.
Ham. And why a tanner?
Clowne Why his hide is so tanned with his trade,
That it will holde out water, that's a parlous
Deuourer of your dead body, a great soaker.
Looke you, heres a scull hath bin here this dozen yeare,
Let me see, I euer since our last king Hamlet
Slew Fortenbrasse in combat, yong Hamlets father,
Hee that's mad.
Ham. Whose scull was this?
Clowne This, a plague on him, a madde rogues it was,
He powred once a whole flagon of Rhenish of my head,
Why do not you know him? this was one Yorickes scull.
[Hamlet 1604 (Quarto 2) 5.1]
Ham. How long will a man lie i'th earth ere he rot?
Clow. Fayth if a be not rotten before a die, as we haue many poc-
kie corses, that will scarce hold the laying in, a will last you som
eyght yeere, or nine yeere. A Tanner will last you nine yeere.
Ham. Why he more then another?
Clow. Why sir, his hide is so tand with his trade, that a will keepe
out water a great while; & your water is a sore decayer of your whor-
son dead body, heer's a scull now hath lyen you i'th earth 23. yeeres.
----------------------------------------------------------------
1573: Oxford at 23. yeeres
-----------------------------------------------------------
The 1923 Washington Masonic Temple is 333 feet tall.
http://www.cais.com/webweave/masonic.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<George Washington Masonic National Memorial sits on
Shooter’s Hill. . . named for Shooter's Hill near Greenwich.>>
<<On 25 March 1573 Oxford's servant George Brown killed George Sanders,
a London merchant, on Shooter's Hill near Greenwich, and mortally
wounded John Bean. The disclosure of Brown's prior romantic entanglement
with Sanders' wife led to a total of four executions by hanging.
Oxford's half-uncle Arthur Golding quickly published a sanitized account
of what was England's most notorious murder since 1551. Both incidents
earned a place in Holinshed's Chronicle and subsequently on the
London stage, the 1573 murder as A Warning for Fair Women (1599),
the 1551 murder as Arden of FEVERSHAM (1592).>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arden of FEVERSHAM was attacked from behind while playing
backgammon. Marlowe's killers claimed that he had attacked
them from behind while they were playing backGAMMON.
------------------------------------------------------------
G-Ammon => Masonic "G" + Egyptian "Ammon"
-------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 1, Scene 1
CLARENCE Yea, Richard, when I know; for I protest
[A]s yet I do not: but, as I can learn,
[H]e hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
[A]nd from the cross-row plucks the letter G.
[A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
[H]is issue disinherited should be;
[A]nd, for my name of GEORGE begins with {G},
It follows in his thought that {I} am he.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Names of the Principall Actors in all these Playes.
<= 37 =>
WilliamShakespeareRichardBurbadgeJ o hn
HemmingsAugustinePhillipsWilliamKe m pt
ThomasPoopeGEORGEBryanHenryCondell W il
liamSlyeRichardCowlyJohnLowineSamu e ll
CrosseAlexanderCookeSamuelGilburne R ob
ertArminWilliamOstlerNathanFieldJo h nU
nderwoodNicholasTooleyWilliamEccle s to
neJosephTaylorRobertBenfieldRobert G ou
gheRichardRobinsonJohnShanckeJohnR i ce
333 Letters [= 9 x 37 (plays)]
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer