Article on Brame/Popova book

12 views
Skip to first unread message

David Kathman

unread,
Jan 26, 2003, 10:51:17 PM1/26/03
to
I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
"Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.
The author, unfortunately, takes them seriously.
There's a picture of them holding the book at the
below URL.

http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?
id=882

ŒFingerprints¹ shed light on Shakespeare works
Thursday, January 23, 2003


Find someone¹s fingerprints at the scene of a crime and you
know they were there. Fingerprints are unique, no two alike.
Michael Brame and Galina Popova have found fingerprints all
over Shakespeare¹s plays and sonnets, but they aren¹t
Shakespeare¹s.

Of course, since Brame and Popova are linguists, the
fingerprints in question are in the language, not physically on
the page. But the language isn¹t the only place they¹ve found
evidence. They make their case in a recently published book,
Shakespeare¹s Fingerprints.

"I read Shakespeare¹s sonnets as an undergraduate and fell
in love with them," said Brame, who has taught in the UW
Linguistics Department for 32 years. "But one day in Powell¹s
bookstore I found a collection of Elizabethan poetry, and one
of the sonnets sounded like Shakespeare but wasn¹t written
by Shakespeare. So I thought, ŒI¹m going to look into this.¹ "

That was 10 years ago. Brame has spent much of his time
since then comparing works by Shakespeare to those by the
author of the sonnet in question ‹ Edward de Vere, 17th Earl
of Oxford. His conclusion: "Whoever wrote Edward de Vere¹s
poetry also wrote Shakespeare¹s plays and poems."

Brame wrote up his ideas and showed the manuscript to
fellow linguist Popova, a lecturer in the Slavic Languages and
Literature Department. Initially skeptical, she was won over
by his arguments and began contributing to the evidence.
The book was the result of their collaboration.

Brame and Popova aren¹t the first to finger de Vere as the
true Shakespeare, nor are they the first to use linguistic
evidence to do it. What they have done that¹s new, they say,
is to develop a theory of linguistic fingerprinting that is more
rigorous than past methodology.

"Other scholars have typically just taken two snippets from
the writings and said, ŒLook how similar these are,¹" Popova
said.

Brame and Popova judged passages they compared based
on what they call the four Cs: congruence, convergence,
cumulation and cascade. The more of these elements are
present, the more likely the author of the two passages
being compared is the same. Their definition of each of the
four Cs is:

Congruence: The two passages are similar in one or
more linguistic categories, such as syntactical, lexical,
semantic, rhyme, rhetorical figures.
Convergence: There are four or five different
congruence types within one snippet of literature
being compared.
Cumulation: This refers to the cumulative effect of
converging congruences. It isn¹t just one set of
converging congruences, but two, three, four, five or
more.
Cascade: You look at two works, you find one
passage with converging congruences and another.
Then you look at the second, with another kind of
congruence and it takes you back to another passage
from the first author.

Using the four Cs, Brame and Popova say, they were
convinced that the works of William Shakespeare and those
of Edward de Vere were written by the same person. One
reason they¹re sure their linguistic evidence is on the right
track and that de Vere was the genuine author has to do with
evidence from de Vere¹s life.

"We looked at the life of Edward de Vere and compared that
with what happens in the plays and sonnets and there¹s an
absolutely amazing congruence of the life with what¹s
written," Brame said.

For example, in several places in the sonnets, the writer
mentions that he is lame. According to Brame, de Vere writes
in his correspondence that he is lame. Then there¹s Hamlet.

"The Polonius character in Hamlet has been recognized by a
number of orthodox scholars as modeled after William Cecil,
Lord Burghley, the Lord High Treasurer to the crown," Brame
said. "If that¹s true, then we should look at Ophelia,
Polonius¹ daughter and Hamlet¹s lover. Ophelia should be
modeled after the daughter of William Cecil, Ann Cecil. Ann
Cecil was married to Edward de Vere. So that means that
Hamlet really was modeled after Edward de Vere."

Romeo and Juliet is similarly related to de Vere¹s life.
According to Brame, de Vere had a mistress named Ann
Vavasor who bore him a child. The two were briefly jailed for
their transgression.

"The aftermath of that was that the relatives of Ann Vavasor
challenged Edward de Vere to a duel and there were fights on
the streets of London," Brame said. "Some of Edward de
Vere¹s retainers were killed and some of Vavasor¹s relatives
were killed. All this is a mirror of what happens in Romeo and
Juliet."

But if Edward de Vere really did write the wonderful plays and
sonnets we now attribute to Shakespeare, why would he not
take credit for them? Brame and Popova believe it¹s because
he was more interested in advancing the language than
advancing himself.

"English at that time was considered a barbaric language,"
Brame said. "But the Tudor regime wanted to reach the
masses, because this was a period when mercantilism takes
off. So Tudor officials wanted to elevate English to a higher
status."

Since de Vere was a part of the Tudor court, he took up the
cause and borrowed the names of some real people from his
time ‹ including Shakespeare ‹ to use as pseudonyms,
Brame and Popova say, thus giving the impression that a
whole group of talented writers were plying their trade in
English.

"The man behind the mask wrote under a variety of
pseudonyms," Brame said, "which is good news for those who
love good literature, because there¹s a lot of beautiful,
wonderful work that¹s nearly been lost because it doesn¹t
appear under this famous man¹s name."

Of course, de Vere¹s reasons for the deception weren¹t
entirely unselfish. "If he had written something like Hamlet
under his own name, it would have been very easy to trace
the personalities behind the characters," Popova pointed out.
"Polonius, for example, doesn¹t come out looking good."

And as every married man knows, it¹s not a good idea to
alienate your father-in-law, especially if he holds the purse
strings of your country.

­Nancy Wick

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 26, 2003, 11:43:10 PM1/26/03
to
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
"Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.
The author, unfortunately, takes them seriously.
There's a picture of them holding the book at the
below URL.

http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?
id=882

"The Polonius character in Hamlet has been recognized by a


number of orthodox scholars as modeled after William Cecil,
Lord Burghley, the Lord High Treasurer to the crown," Brame

said. "If thatąs true, then we should look at Ophelia,
Poloniusą daughter and Hamletąs lover. Ophelia should be


modeled after the daughter of William Cecil, Ann Cecil. Ann
Cecil was married to Edward de Vere. So that means that
Hamlet really was modeled after Edward de Vere."

----------------------------------------------------------
In SHAKSPER (1994), David Kathman stated outright:
<<I agree with Martin Mueller that the case for identifying
Polonius/Corambis as a satire of Lord Burleigh is
"persuasive, if not completely compelling".>>
--------------------------------------------------------


So that means that Hamlet really
was modeled after Edward de Vere.

Art Neuendorffer


David Kathman

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 1:05:32 AM1/27/03
to
In article <4UGdnfBf5qO...@comcast.com>, "Art Neuendorffer"
<aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:

>"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
>"Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
>University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.
>The author, unfortunately, takes them seriously.
>There's a picture of them holding the book at the
>below URL.
>
>http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?
>id=882
>
>"The Polonius character in Hamlet has been recognized by a
>number of orthodox scholars as modeled after William Cecil,
>Lord Burghley, the Lord High Treasurer to the crown," Brame

>said. "If that¹s true, then we should look at Ophelia,

>Polonius¹ daughter and Hamlet¹s lover. Ophelia should be


>modeled after the daughter of William Cecil, Ann Cecil. Ann
>Cecil was married to Edward de Vere. So that means that
>Hamlet really was modeled after Edward de Vere."
>----------------------------------------------------------
> In SHAKSPER (1994), David Kathman stated outright:
> <<I agree with Martin Mueller that the case for identifying
> Polonius/Corambis as a satire of Lord Burleigh is
> "persuasive, if not completely compelling".>>
>--------------------------------------------------------
> So that means that Hamlet really
> was modeled after Edward de Vere.
>
>Art Neuendorffer

Art, you slay me. Keep the hilarity coming!

Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com

Tom Veal

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 12:54:36 PM1/27/03
to
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<b12aeg$g9k$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>...

> I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
> "Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
> University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.
> The author, unfortunately, takes them seriously.
> There's a picture of them holding the book at the
> below URL.
>
> http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek story small.asp
> ?
> id=882
>
I suppose that a university house organ must treat respectfully
anything, however peculiar, produced by a tenured professor. It's
interesting that the article downplays the extent of Oxenford's
alleged oeuvre: "borrowed the names of some real people". Perhaps the
reporter feared that listing those people, including Spenser, Sidney,
Marlowe, Holinshed, Gascoigne, Peele and a host of lesser lights,
might set off giggles among her readers. Not to mention the
revelations that Oxenford published a translation of seven books of
the Aeneid at age 8, had an affair with Queen Elizabeth and wrote the
Sonnets in order to prod his son into committing incest.

In Richard Kennedy mode, let me prophesy: Because Brame and Popova
have academic credentials, Oxfordians will embrace them warmly. They
will be invited to speak at conferences and will be cited as
persuasive evidence that Stratfordian orthodoxy is in retreat. That
their ideas are so preposterous as to be self-refuting will never be
mentioned in Oxfordian discourse.

I hope that I am wrong.

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 2:17:47 PM1/27/03
to
> > "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
> > "Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
> > University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.
> > The author, unfortunately, takes them seriously.
> > There's a picture of them holding the book at the
> > below URL.
> >
> >
http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?
> > id=882
> >
> > "The Polonius character in Hamlet has been recognized by a
> > number of orthodox scholars as modeled after William Cecil,
> > Lord Burghley, the Lord High Treasurer to the crown," Brame
> > said. "If thatšs true, then we should look at Ophelia,
> > Poloniusš daughter and Hamletšs lover. Ophelia should be

> > modeled after the daughter of William Cecil, Ann Cecil. Ann
> > Cecil was married to Edward de Vere. So that means that
> > Hamlet really was modeled after Edward de Vere."
> > ----------------------------------------------------------

> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > In SHAKSPER (1994), David Kathman stated outright:
> > <<I agree with Martin Mueller that the case for identifying
> > Polonius/Corambis as a satire of Lord Burleigh is
> > "persuasive, if not completely compelling".>>
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > So that means that Hamlet really
> > was modeled after Edward de Vere.

David Webb wrote:

> Of course, Art -- why didn't we all see it before? Edward de Vere
> was the sole person in the entire realm who knew Burghley and might
> wish to burlesque him.

Edward de Vere was the sole son-in-law in the entire realm
who could get away with a burlesque on the Burghleys.

David Webb wrote:

> By the way, Art -- Mr. Streitz reasons that, because Gertrude is the
> Queen (and must therefore perforce be Elizabeth) and Hamlet (whom you
> have shown is Oxford) is the Queen's son in the play, it follows that
> Oxford must have been the son of Queen Elizabeth in reality (to the
> extent that that term has any meaning in discussing Mr. Streitz's
> delusions).

Didn't you know, Dave? Oxford had a mother & a step-father:
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<I have discovered that Margery was married to [Charles] Tyrrell
by 1566, Oxford was on friendly terms with Tyrrell, as revealed by
Tyrrell's will. Oxford had given him a BLACK HORSE, and in his will
Tyrrell granted him the return of his horse.>> -- Alan Nelson
--------------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 4, Scene 2

Page His name, my lord, is Tyrrel.

[Re-enter Page, with TYRREL]

Is thy name Tyrrel?

TYRREL James Tyrrel, and your most obedient subject.

KING RICHARD III Why, there thou hast it: two deep enemies,
Foes to my rest and my sweet sleep's disturbers
Are they that I would have thee deal upon:
Tyrrel, I mean those bastards in the Tower.

KING RICHARD III Hark, come hither, Tyrrel
Go, by this token: rise, and lend thine ear: [Whispers]

KING RICHARD III Shall we hear from thee, Tyrrel, ere we sleep?

Act 4, Scene 3

KING RICHARD III Kind Tyrrel, am I happy in thy news?

KING RICHARD III And buried, gentle Tyrrel?

KING RICHARD III Come to me, Tyrrel, soon at after supper,
And thou shalt tell the process of their death.
Meantime, but think how I may do thee good,
And be inheritor of thy desire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
/---------------------------------------------\
| |
William Blount (BLACK ASS!) Constance Blount --- Charles
[Lord Mountjoy] Elizabeth TRUSSELL | Tyrrell
| | |
| John deVere --- Margery--Charles
Tyrrell
| | |
Katherine Blount --- Maurice BERKELEY | |
| | |
| Edward de Vere <->(BLACK HORSE!)
Widow Russell --- Henry BERKELEY
|
|
T.RUSSELL (---- overseer of Shakespeare's will)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 3:03:15 PM1/27/03
to
>"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
>"Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
>University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.
>The author, unfortunately, takes them seriously.
>There's a picture of them holding the book at the
>below URL.

http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?
id=882

>"The Polonius character in Hamlet has been recognized by a
>number of orthodox scholars as modeled after William Cecil,
>Lord Burghley, the Lord High Treasurer to the crown," Brame

>said. "If thatšs true, then we should look at Ophelia,
>Poloniusš daughter and Hamletšs lover. Ophelia should be


>modeled after the daughter of William Cecil, Ann Cecil. Ann
>Cecil was married to Edward de Vere. So that means that
>Hamlet really was modeled after Edward de Vere."
>----------------------------------------------------------

Art Neuendorffer wrote:

> In SHAKSPER (1994), David Kathman stated outright:

> <<I agree with Martin Mueller that the case for identifying
> Polonius/Corambis as a satire of Lord Burleigh is
> "persuasive, if not completely compelling".>>
>--------------------------------------------------------
> So that means that Hamlet really
> was modeled after Edward de Vere.

"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Art, you slay me.

As Hamlet might say: "One down, six to go."

> Keep the hilarity coming!
----------------------------------------------------------
February 29, 468 Death of Pope St. Hilarius
February 29, 922 Death of Oswald, Archbishop of York
February 29, 1172 Death of Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd
February 29, 1288 It was made legal in Scotland for
women to propose marriage to men
February 29, 1504 Columbus uses a lunar eclipse to frighten
hostile Jamaican Indians
February 29, 1604 Death of Archbishop John Whitgift
-----------------------------------------------------------
John WHIT-GIFT [73rd. ARCH.(bishop) of C.(anterbury)]
----------------------------------------------------------
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 1,5

Ghost Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate Beast,
WITH WIT(C.HCRA)ft of his WIT, with traitorous GIFTS,
O wicked WIT & GIFTS, that have the power
----------------------------------------------------------
"Leaves living art, but page, to serve his WITT"
----------------------------------------------------------
1530 WHITgift born to prosperous merchant.

1550 Oxford born.

1559 Elizabeth crowned

1561 Elizabeth visits Hedingham.

1561 Francis Bacon born.

1562 Oxford becomes 17th Earl & ward of Cecil.
1562 Immature Romeus & Juliet published.

1566 Oxford befriends Gabriel Harvey at Camb. Univ.

1567 WHITgift Master of Trinity College, Camb. Univ.
1567 Oxford admitted to Gray's Inn.
1567 Oxford initiated with Brincknell incident.

1570 Oxford corresponds with John Dee.

1571 Oxford marries Anne Cecil Burghley.

1572 Francis Walsingham & Marlowe in France during
St. Bartholomew Day Massacre.

1573-5 Francis Bacon at WHITgift's Trinity College.

1575-6 Oxford visits Paris & Italy.

1577 WHITgift Bishop of WORCESTER.

1578 Gabriel Harvey says Oxford's "countenence SHAKES SPEARES."

1579 Katherine Hamlett drowns in the Avon.
1579 Lyly becomes Oxford's secretary.
1579 Shoemaker's son William Shaxper drowns in the Avon.

1580 Munday becomes Oxford's secretary.

1581 Oxford reconciles with wife.

1582 WHITgift signs license for Shakspere/Hathaway marriage.

1583 OXFORD's Men play Stratford-upon-Avon.
1583 WHITgift Archbishop of Canterbury.

1584 Oxford takes charge of the WORCESTER's MEN
[William Byrd, Will Kemp, Christopher Beeston].

1585 Gabriel Harvey accuses Nashe of insulting the townspeople.

1586 Thomas Nashe, Cambridge B.A.
1586 Oxford under salary of 1000 pounds/year.
1586 Sidney fails to don Quixote.

1587 Marlowe, Cambridge B.A.

1588 Spanish Armada defeat.

1589 WHITgift in charge of censoring/approving plays.

1590 WHITgift has Lyly, Nashe & Munday attack Marprelate tracts.

1591 Nashe spars with Gabriel Harvey.

1592 WHITgift hosts private plays at Croydon during plague year.
1592 Robert Greene dies in poverty in Shoemaker's home.

1593 Shoemaker's son Marlowe killed during eclipse.
1593 WHITgift signs license for Venus & Adonis publication.

1594 Marlowe's Edward II gets published somehow?

1595 Derby marries Elizabeth Vere.

1596 WHITgift founds Hospital & School in cROYDON. (Matthew?)

1597 1000th anniversary of Christianity in England.

1598 Meres names Oxford best in comedy.

1599 Globe built.

1601 Essex revolt squashed.
1601 Nashe dies in poverty.

1602 Oxford's Men & Worcester's Men merge & play Boar's Head

1603 Elizabeth I dies.
1603 WHITgift secures the acceptance of James I
[- immediately releases Southampton and restores Rutland].

1604 WHITgift dies on February 29th.
1604 Rosicrucian tomb of Rosenkreutz discovered.
1604 Hamlet published
1604 Oxford dies on the Feastday of John the Baptist.
1604 Kepler's Nova.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer


lyra

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 5:56:49 PM1/27/03
to
David Kathman wrote in message news:<b12aeg$g9k$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>...

> I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
> "Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
> University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.
> The author, unfortunately, takes them seriously.
> There's a picture of them holding the book at the
> below URL.
>

> Fingerprints shed light on Shakespeare works

> Thursday, January 23, 2003
>
>
>
> Find someone s fingerprints at the scene of a crime and you
> know they were there. Fingerprints are unique, no two alike.
> Michael Brame and Galina Popova have found fingerprints all
> over Shakespeare s plays and sonnets, but they aren t
> Shakespeare s.

<snip rest of article>


thanks for this! and the link...

I also like this page...

http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?varchNewsCategory=varMystery&id=889

lyra

Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 6:20:15 PM1/27/03
to
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<4UGdnfBf5qO...@comcast.com>...

> "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
> "Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
> University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.
> The author, unfortunately, takes them seriously.
> There's a picture of them holding the book at the
> below URL.
>
> http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?
> id=882
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> In SHAKSPER (1994), David Kathman stated outright:
> <<I agree with Martin Mueller that the case for identifying
> Polonius/Corambis as a satire of Lord Burleigh is
> "persuasive, if not completely compelling".>>
> --------------------------------------------------------

> So that means that Hamlet really
> was modeled after Edward de Vere.

Hamlet was modeled after De Vere and Polonius was
modeled after Burghley but the only one qualified
to do all this "modeling" was Burghley's nephew and
Oxford's cousin the Renaissance genius Francis Bacon,
the only Elizabeth so "immensely learned" that he
could write Hamlet as a Menippean satire.

Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 6:31:49 PM1/27/03
to
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<LdSdnVfIme6...@comcast.com>...

>
> Edward de Vere was the sole son-in-law in the entire realm
> who could get away with a burlesque on the Burghleys.
>
Hamlet isn't a "burlesque." It's the greatest, most difficult
Menippean satire ever written. The first qualification for
an author of Menippea is that he or she be "immensely learned."
Nelson's archive of Oxford's own manuscript proves that Oxford
was definitely not "immensely learned." Not even "learned."

Paul Crowley

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 6:42:02 PM1/27/03
to
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:c87247a2.03012...@posting.google.com...

> "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<b12aeg$g9k$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
> > "Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
> > University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.
> > The author, unfortunately, takes them seriously.
> > There's a picture of them holding the book at the
> > below URL.

> I suppose that a university house organ must treat respectfully


> anything, however peculiar, produced by a tenured professor. It's
> interesting that the article downplays the extent of Oxenford's
> alleged oeuvre: "borrowed the names of some real people". Perhaps the
> reporter feared that listing those people, including Spenser, Sidney,
> Marlowe, Holinshed, Gascoigne, Peele and a host of lesser lights,
> might set off giggles among her readers. Not to mention the
> revelations that Oxenford published a translation of seven books of
> the Aeneid at age 8, had an affair with Queen Elizabeth and wrote the
> Sonnets in order to prod his son into committing incest.

Hey, Tom and Dave . . . why do you waste
your time attacking anti-Strat nut-cases
who do NOT participate in this newsgroup?

Can't you think of anyone closer to hand,
who puts forward semi-crazy theories, who
is constantly trying to provoke you into
discussions on the issues, and whom you
can be almost certain will post replies to
your polite, logical, evidence-based
arguments? Doesn't any name come
to mind . . . ?

Yours E Ver . . .

Paul.


John W. Kennedy

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 7:28:41 PM1/27/03
to
David Kathman wrote:
> I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
> "Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
> University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.
> The author, unfortunately, takes them seriously.

...

> "English at that time was considered a barbaric language,"

(What this implies about Malcolm III Canmore and Scots Gaelic is too
horrible to contemplate, but never mind....)

> Brame said. "But the Tudor regime wanted to reach the
> masses, because this was a period when mercantilism takes
> off. So Tudor officials wanted to elevate English to a higher
> status."

What on Earth was he smoking when he said that? I mean, seriously, does
it make any kind of sense at all? Note that I haven't yet gotten so far
as to ask, "Is it true?"; we first have to determine whether it is
capable of possessing truth value.

Is Brame aware that, four hundred years ago, "the masses" generally had
little disposable income, and advertising agencies hadn't yet been
invented (not to mention the mass media necessary as a foundation)?

--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"

Bob Grumman

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 7:41:17 PM1/27/03
to

> to do all this "modeling" was Burghley's nephew and
> Oxford's cousin the Renaissance genius Francis Bacon,
> the only Elizabeth so "immensely learned" that he
> could write Hamlet as a Menippean satire.

You're forgetting Chaucer, Elizabeth. (For newcomers who are not aware that
Chaucer was an Elizabethan, you should know that Troilus and Cressida could
only have been written by him, which proves he was still alive 200 years
after his faked death; he hid his identity by using Shakspere, Bacon and
others as fronts for fear of being burned as a witch if it were known how
long he lived.)

--Bob G.


Bob Grumman

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 7:42:38 PM1/27/03
to
> Hey, Tom and Dave . . . why do you waste
> your time attacking anti-Strat nut-cases
> who do NOT participate in this newsgroup?
>
> Can't you think of anyone closer to hand,
> who puts forward semi-crazy theories, who
> is constantly trying to provoke you into
> discussions on the issues, and whom you
> can be almost certain will post replies to
> your polite, logical, evidence-based
> arguments? Doesn't any name come
> to mind . . . ?
>
> Yours E Ver . . .
>
> Paul.

Why bother answering the arguments of a wack who dismisses them as
non-arguments?

--Bob G.


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 8:25:59 PM1/27/03
to
> > "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
> > "Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
> > University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.
> > The author, unfortunately, takes them seriously.
> > There's a picture of them holding the book at the
> > below URL.


http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?
id=882

> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote :


> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > In SHAKSPER (1994), David Kathman stated outright:
> > <<I agree with Martin Mueller that the case for identifying
> > Polonius/Corambis as a satire of Lord Burleigh is
> > "persuasive, if not completely compelling".>>
> > --------------------------------------------------------
>
> > So that means that Hamlet really
> > was modeled after Edward de Vere.

"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:

> Hamlet was modeled after De Vere and Polonius was
> modeled after Burghley but the only one qualified
> to do all this "modeling" was Burghley's nephew and
> Oxford's cousin the Renaissance genius Francis Bacon,
> the only Elizabeth so "immensely learned" that he
> could write Hamlet as a Menippean satire.

Surely there weir other learned Elizabeths.

Mrs. Chuck Berrymen: Jumped from a bridge
over the Menippean River; reputedly
waved at passersby on way down.

Art


David Kathman

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 8:57:39 PM1/27/03
to
In article <b14jn...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Bob Grumman"
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

When Crowley first started posting here, I actually
responded to him with some of the longest posts
I've ever written for this newsgroup, covering
every point he would bring up. I eventually
realized that I was wasting my time, as many
others have discovered after me.

Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com

Tom Veal

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 10:36:06 PM1/27/03
to
"Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message news:<tujZ9.5823$V6....@news.indigo.ie>...

> Hey, Tom and Dave . . . why do you waste
> your time attacking anti-Strat nut-cases
> who do NOT participate in this newsgroup?
>
Since these particular nut-cases are university faculty members, one
of whom has a respectable reputation in his field, they seem to me to
be of interest to those who pay attention to the Shakespeare
authorship "question".

I note, too, that the Shakespeare Fellowship Web site is happy to
present Brame and Popova as impressive new advocates of Oxfordianism,
though it's possible that reading their book will dampen that
enthusiasm.

David Kathman

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 11:09:53 PM1/27/03
to
In article <c87247a2.0301...@posting.google.com>,
Tom...@ix.netcom.com (Tom Veal) wrote:

Maybe among some Oxfordians, but probably not among those
in the Shakespeare Fellowship. The Fellowship is the wack-job
splinter group which broke off from the Shakespeare-Oxford
Society over a variety of issues, but mainly the Prince Tudor
"theory" -- those in the Fellowship (including Roger Stritmatter
and, I believe, Dan Wright) are sympathetic to the Prince
Tudor idea and think it deserves to be investigated more,
while those remaining in the SOS think it's idiocy
which makes Oxfordians look bad. Believe it or not, there
are some Oxfordians with standards, such as they are.
Dan Wright's Edward de Vere Studies Conference, at which
Brame and Popova are speaking (and where I'm sure they'll
be warmly welcomed) is another element of the crazy wack-job
branch of Oxfordians. Diana Price and Pat Dooley are
among the saner branch, though readers of this newsgroup
will recognize from that description that such things are
very much relative.

This same schism -- between those supporting the Tudor Rose
idea and those opposing it, and more broadly between those
willing to swallow shit spewed by anybody who says Oxford
wrote Shakespeare, vs. those who make at least rudimentary
attempts at dismissing the absolute craziest stuff -- was
the same thing that tore apart the Oxfordian movement in
the 1950s, after the publication of the Ogburns' *This Star
of England*. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com

Paul Crowley

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 9:45:18 AM1/28/03
to
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:b14o5p$mel$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...

> In article <b14jn...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Bob Grumman"
> <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> >> Hey, Tom and Dave . . . why do you waste
> >> your time attacking anti-Strat nut-cases
> >> who do NOT participate in this newsgroup?
> >>
> >> Can't you think of anyone closer to hand,
> >> who puts forward semi-crazy theories, who
> >> is constantly trying to provoke you into
> >> discussions on the issues, and whom you
> >> can be almost certain will post replies to
> >> your polite, logical, evidence-based
> >> arguments? Doesn't any name come
> >> to mind . . . ?
> >>
> >> Yours E Ver . . .
> >

> >Why bother answering the arguments of a wack who dismisses them as
> >non-arguments?

You miss the point, Bob. (Do you E VER
get one?)

> When Crowley first started posting here, I actually
> responded to him with some of the longest posts
> I've ever written for this newsgroup, covering
> every point he would bring up. I eventually
> realized that I was wasting my time, as many
> others have discovered after me.

You miss the point, Dave. (So what else
is new? Do you E VER get one?)

You go to great lengths to MAKE FUN of
these freaks -- but they are not on HLAS;
so they don't respond, and we miss all
the amusement of the exchanges and the
repartee -- and what else is HLAS for?

You (and Terry Ross, et al) take care to
attack ONLY near-certified loons (even if
-- or especially if -- tenured professors of
linguistics).and those who are not likely to
respond.

Yet here I am, endlessly offering myself
as the object of your endless 'wit'.
Please try to MAKE FUN of me. I put
forward the craziest of theories (from
your point of view). You should find it
child's play.

What can possibly be your problem?


Paul.


Paul Crowley

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 9:45:27 AM1/28/03
to
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:Z8kZ9.412330$FT6.81...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

> > Brame said. "But the Tudor regime wanted to reach the
> > masses, because this was a period when mercantilism takes
> > off. So Tudor officials wanted to elevate English to a higher
> > status."
>
> What on Earth was he smoking when he said that? I mean, seriously, does
> it make any kind of sense at all?

It sounds to me more like a reporter's 'paraphrase'
-- where s/he hasn't a clue as to what the author
was trying to say. But I could be quite wrong. If
anyone around here has the book, please quote
the authors' text.


Paul.


David L. Webb

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 10:01:25 AM1/28/03
to

Given what I've seen of the Fellowship's online offerings, I fear
that many Fellowship members will not be nearly discriminating enough
to permit their enthusiasm to be dampened perceptibly by reading the
book, no matter how farcical it proves to be. Standards for the online
newsletter are risibly lax. For instance, the Winter 2002 newsletter
features an amusing article by "Dr." Faker that contains the following
remarkable sentence:

"This is why there isn't much difference betweem murderers
and traders [sic], but there is a great deal of difference
between drivers [sic?]."

One presumes that in the first clause Faker means "traitors," and that
this is just another instance of his hapless misuse of words whose
meanings he does not know (like his priceless "armature" instead of
"amateur," "hiereatical" when he means "heretical," and many others),
but one marvels that the newsletter's editor appears to be nearly as
lax or as illiterate as Faker himself. (What Faker means by the second
clause is anyone's guess.)

There is also a hilarious piece (part 2 of an article about the
Ashbourne portrait), in which by the second sentence the author has
already groundlessly accused art specialists of intellectual
dishonesty:

"Art experts who have examined the painting including Wivell in
1847, Spielman in 1910, and the art experts the Folger Shakespeare
Library has consulted since 1931, when they purchased the portrait,
have not expressed what they must have seen, that the costume is
that of a nobleman from the 1570s."

How the author proposes to substantiate the claim that the experts
consulted "must have seen" exactly what the author hallucinates is far
from clear.

David L. Webb

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 10:22:01 AM1/28/03
to
In article <b14vta$71c$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, "David Kathman"
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

I never expected to find much common ground with the SOS or to
commend its prudence, but in this instance....

Out of curiosity, in view of Fellowship members' apparent credulity
and sympathy for the Prince Tudor theory, do you know whether there are
any of them gullible enough to embrace Mr. Streitz's "Super DT theory"?
Or does even the Shakespeare Fellowship have some standards, nugatory
though they may be? From Tom Veal's description, the Brame/Popva book
appears to share some salient features with Mr. Streitz's farcically
incompetent ouevre, so one wonders whether an enthusiastic Fellowship
reception of the former might presage renewed interest in the latter.

> Believe it or not, there
> are some Oxfordians with standards, such as they are.

It's pretty hard to believe, but after seeing Mr. Streitz's book, I
no longer doubt it -- it reminds one that the lunatic fringe extends
much farther out than one normally supposes.

> Dan Wright's Edward de Vere Studies Conference, at which
> Brame and Popova are speaking (and where I'm sure they'll
> be warmly welcomed) is another element of the crazy wack-job
> branch of Oxfordians. Diana Price and Pat Dooley are
> among the saner branch, though readers of this newsgroup
> will recognize from that description that such things are
> very much relative.
>
> This same schism -- between those supporting the Tudor Rose
> idea and those opposing it, and more broadly between those
> willing to swallow shit spewed by anybody who says Oxford
> wrote Shakespeare, vs. those who make at least rudimentary
> attempts at dismissing the absolute craziest stuff -- was
> the same thing that tore apart the Oxfordian movement in
> the 1950s, after the publication of the Ogburns' *This Star
> of England*. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Well, _This Star of England_ is roughly an order of magnitude less
sane even than the hilarious tome of Ogburn _fils_; if the Brame and
Popova book is similar, then I hope that Tom Veal will have time to
summarize a few of the more hilarious bits and perhaps even post some
excerpts.

Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 4:02:47 PM1/28/03
to
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message news:<b14jk...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
I appreciate that when you get panicked you resort to this rambling
pseudo-satirical defense, Grumman, but Troilus and Cressida was not
a Menippean satire so there's no comparison.

Tom Veal

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 6:12:18 PM1/28/03
to
"Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message news:<OJwZ9.5930$V6....@news.indigo.ie>...

> You go to great lengths to MAKE FUN of
> these freaks -- but they are not on HLAS;
> so they don't respond, and we miss all
> the amusement of the exchanges and the
> repartee -- and what else is HLAS for?
>
> You (and Terry Ross, et al) take care to
> attack ONLY near-certified loons (even if
> -- or especially if -- tenured professors of
> linguistics).and those who are not likely to
> respond.
>
> Yet here I am, endlessly offering myself
> as the object of your endless 'wit'.
> Please try to MAKE FUN of me. I put
> forward the craziest of theories (from
> your point of view). You should find it
> child's play.
>
> What can possibly be your problem?

Your posts draw quite a few responses, and many of those responding
devote considerable time and trouble to discussing your somewhat
eccentric theories about, e. g., anachronism in stage plays and the
history of clocks. Only a would-be troll would expect or want more.

Bob Grumman

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 5:29:20 PM1/28/03
to
> > You're forgetting Chaucer, Elizabeth. (For newcomers who are not aware
that
> > Chaucer was an Elizabethan, you should know that Troilus and Cressida
could
> > only have been written by him, which proves he was still alive 200 years
> > after his faked death; he hid his identity by using Shakspere, Bacon and
> > others as fronts for fear of being burned as a witch if it were known
how
> > long he lived.)
> >
> I appreciate that when you get panicked you resort to this rambling
> pseudo-satirical defense, Grumman, but Troilus and Cressida was not
> a Menippean satire so there's no comparison.

Actually, it was. Anything is a Menippean satire if Hamlet was. But, if
you were able to read, you would see I said that the writing of Troilus and
Cressida as a play proved Chaucer was still alive when that play was
written. My point, of course, that Chaucer could easily have written the
"Menippean satire," Hamlet. Not only was he bright enough to begin with,
but he would have had over two centuries to acquire any extra knowledge and
wisdom needed. In fact, ONLY someone who had lived over two centuries could
have had the knowledge and wisdom to have written ANY of the Shakespeare
ouevre, which lets Bacon out--unless, of course, Chaucer was he.

--Bob G.

Bob Grumman

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 6:41:53 PM1/28/03
to
"Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message news:<OJwZ9.5930$V6....@news.indigo.ie>...
> "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:b14o5p$mel$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > In article <b14jn...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Bob Grumman"
> > <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> Hey, Tom and Dave . . . why do you waste
> > >> your time attacking anti-Strat nut-cases
> > >> who do NOT participate in this newsgroup?
> > >>
> > >> Can't you think of anyone closer to hand,
> > >> who puts forward semi-crazy theories, who
> > >> is constantly trying to provoke you into
> > >> discussions on the issues, and whom you
> > >> can be almost certain will post replies to
> > >> your polite, logical, evidence-based
> > >> arguments? Doesn't any name come
> > >> to mind . . . ?
> > >>
> > >> Yours E Ver . . .
> > >
> > >Why bother answering the arguments of a wack who dismisses them as
> > >non-arguments?
>
> You miss the point, Bob. (Do you E VER
> get one?)

Okay, you want to know why we don't argue with Art. I didn't realize
that, although I did not the use of "E VER" and thought of Art. My
problem was that I didn't understand why you would bring Art into
this. And your description above fits you, as well as Art. We don't
bother with Art (too much, though all of us have refuted him
thoroughly at least a few times) because he can't argue, only go off
on insane tangents--except in the rare cases that he tells us
Shakespeare was illiterate, etc. Also, he has not yet published a
book. All books published by wacks should be addressed, even if the
wack lacks the courage to respond.

> > When Crowley first started posting here, I actually
> > responded to him with some of the longest posts
> > I've ever written for this newsgroup, covering
> > every point he would bring up. I eventually
> > realized that I was wasting my time, as many
> > others have discovered after me.
>
> You miss the point, Dave. (So what else
> is new? Do you E VER get one?)
>
> You go to great lengths to MAKE FUN of
> these freaks -- but they are not on HLAS;
> so they don't respond, and we miss all
> the amusement of the exchanges and the
> repartee -- and what else is HLAS for?

So you are really making up your absurd positions for the fun of
watching us
get tangled up trying to make enough sense of them to refute them?

> You (and Terry Ross, et al) take care to
> attack ONLY near-certified loons (even if
> -- or especially if -- tenured professors of
> linguistics).and those who are not likely to
> respond.
>
> Yet here I am, endlessly offering myself
> as the object of your endless 'wit'.
> Please try to MAKE FUN of me. I put
> forward the craziest of theories (from
> your point of view). You should find it
> child's play.
>
> What can possibly be your problem?
>
>
> Paul.

Now I'm confused. You ARE talking about yourself. As for our
problem, we've told you: basically, it reduces to your being too
insane to be worth arguing with. Though I, for one, try to from time
to time.

--Bob G.

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 6:56:55 PM1/28/03
to
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> ...Troilus and Cressida was not
> a Menippean satire so there's no comparison.

Apart from the minor detail that it's actually the only work by
Shakespeare that _might_ sanely be regarded as one....

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 28, 2003, 7:52:42 PM1/28/03
to
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

> We don't bother with Art
> (too much, though all of us have refuted him thoroughly
> at least a few times) because he can't argue,
> only go off on insane tangents-

-----------------------------------------
I walk on, once again, down these corridors, through these halls, these
galleries, in this structure of another century, this enormous, luxurious,
baroque, lugubrious hotel where corridors succeed endless corridors silent
deserted corridors overloaded with a dim, cold ornamentation of woodwork,
stucco, moldings, marble, black mirrors, dark paintings, columns, heavy
hangings, sculptured doorframes, series of doorways, galleries, transverse
corridors that open in turn on empty salons, rooms overloaded with an
ornamentation from another century, silent halls where the sound of
advancing footsteps is absorbed by carpets so thick and heavy that nothing
can be heard, as if the ear of the man walking on once again, down these
corridors, through these halls, these galleries, in this structure of
another century, this enormous, luxurious, baroque, lugubrious hotel where
corridors succeed endless corridors silent deserted corridors overloaded
with a dim, cold ornamentation of woodwork, stucco, moldings, marble, black
mirrors, dark paintings, columns, heavy hangings, sculptured doorframes,
series of doorways, galleries, transverse corridors that open in turn on
empty salons, rooms overloaded with an ornamentation from another century,
silent halls where the sound of advancing footsteps is absorbed by carpets
so thick and heavy that nothing can be heard - always walls, always
corridors, always doors and on the other side, still more walls.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

> --except in the rare cases that he tells us Shakespeare was illiterate,
etc.

Shakspere & his family were illiterate, etc.

"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

> Also, he has not yet published a book.
> All books published by wacks should be addressed,

Even pop-up books?

"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

> even if the wack lacks the courage to respond.

Translation:
The Goon Squad lacks the courage to respond to my posts.

Art Neuendorffer


Greg Reynolds

unread,
Jan 29, 2003, 4:08:56 AM1/29/03
to
> The Goon Squad lacks the courage to respond to my posts.
>
> Art Neuendorffer

High Noon
St. Crispins Day


Art
vs
The Goon Squad


part 1:
"The Courage to Respond"


Be there

Paul Crowley

unread,
Jan 29, 2003, 6:29:12 AM1/29/03
to
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:c87247a2.03012...@posting.google.com...

You make my point. You (and the rest) are
happy to discuss matters where there is no
connection to the authorship (or where you
fail to see one). But you avoid taking on
sensible, hard-headed Oxfordians on that
issue. You lose the arguments, all too often
and too painfully. So you stick to safe, idle,
joking comments about freaks like Streitz
and Brame.


Paul.


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 29, 2003, 8:04:25 AM1/29/03
to
> > The Goon Squad lacks the courage to respond to my posts.
> >
> > Art Neuendorffer
>
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:

>
> High Noon
> St. Crispins Day
>
>
> Art
> vs
> The Goon Squad
>
>
> part 1:
> "The Courage to Respond"
>
>
> Be there

------------------------------
DO NOT FORSAKE ME, OH MY DELL-IN',
ON THIS, OUR DEBATING DAY,
DO NOT FORSAKE ME, OH MY DELL-IN',

WAIT............, WAIT ALONG!

I DON'T KNOW WHAT DEBATE AWAITS ME,
I ONLY KNOW I MUST BE BRAVE,
AND I MUST FACE A STRAT WHO HATES ME,
OR LIE A COWARD, A *CRAVEN* COWARD,
OR LIE A COWARD IN MY GRAVE,

HE MADE A VOW WHILE IN STATE'S PRISON,
VOWED IT WOULD BE MY LIFE OR HIS'N [sic],
DO NOT FORSAKE ME, OH MY DELL-IN',
THOUGH YOUR DISK'S TRASHIN',
DON'T THINK OF CRASHIN'
NOW THAT I NEED YOU ON MY SIDE!
------------------------------
Art

Tom Veal

unread,
Jan 29, 2003, 12:31:39 PM1/29/03
to
"Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message news:<VZOZ9.6129$V6....@news.indigo.ie>...

> You make my point. You (and the rest) are
> happy to discuss matters where there is no
> connection to the authorship (or where you
> fail to see one). But you avoid taking on
> sensible, hard-headed Oxfordians on that
> issue. You lose the arguments, all too often
> and too painfully. So you stick to safe, idle,
> joking comments about freaks like Streitz
> and Brame.

<realizing that one should not feed the trolls but succumbing to
temptation> Can you list three or four lines of argument that you have
initiated in the past, say, two months that did not draw any
Stratfordian response? I don't mean, "no Stratfordian response that
you found satisfactory", since such a thing is evidently impossible,
just no response taking issue with your point of view.

Paul Crowley

unread,
Jan 30, 2003, 1:22:32 PM1/30/03
to
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:c87247a2.03012...@posting.google.com...

> "Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message news:<VZOZ9.6129$V6....@news.indigo.ie>...

> > You make my point. You (and the rest) are
> > happy to discuss matters where there is no
> > connection to the authorship (or where you
> > fail to see one). But you avoid taking on
> > sensible, hard-headed Oxfordians on that
> > issue. You lose the arguments, all too often
> > and too painfully. So you stick to safe, idle,
> > joking comments about freaks like Streitz
> > and Brame.
>
> <realizing that one should not feed the trolls but succumbing to
> temptation> Can you list three or four lines of argument that you have
> initiated in the past, say, two months that did not draw any
> Stratfordian response?

I could, but I am not going to bother. It would
be tedious and pointless. My complaints
about Stratfordian non-response are so
constant as to almost have become a whine.

This thread is just the latest example. Here I am
complaining about the 'Dave Kathman/Terry
Ross' strategy of avoiding serious debate, while
dragging up anti-Stratfordian nut-cases as a
pretence at a substitute. It is pretty obvious why
they do this -- they can't cope with the core
issues and any time they attempt to confront
them, they lose.

The most conspicuous example over the last
year or so of the Stratfordian debate-avoidance-
strategy has been the near-universal silence
on my sonnet interpretations. Strats must
necessarily believe that (a) they are insane,
(b) they have next to nothing to do with the
words, and (c) standard Stratfordian
interpretations are far better and closer to
the text. If any of that was true, then it would be
very easy to show. But there is not a peep from
Strats -- not even from those who fancy
themselves as knowledgeable in poetry -- or I
should say -- especially not from those.


Paul.


Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Jan 30, 2003, 7:24:56 PM1/30/03
to
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<bNEZ9.434128$FT6.85...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...

> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > ...Troilus and Cressida was not
> > a Menippean satire so there's no comparison.
>
> Apart from the minor detail that it's actually the only work by
> Shakespeare that _might_ sanely be regarded as one....

In context, Grumman was referring--I think--to Chaucer's
Troilus and Criseyde which is not a Menippean satire but
Grumman said that "Chaucer came forward to write Troilus and
Cressida . . ." which, if he meant the Shakespeare play,
is definitely a Menippean satire although I dispute that
it is the only Menippean satire in the First Folio.

Hamlet may not be a pure example of the impure form of
Menippea but it satisfies many of the criteria of
Menippea when read as the Elizabethans read it.
Modern Strats read Hamlet as a romantic melodrama, not
as the dark satire as it was written by the Renaissance
genius Francis Bacon.

lyra

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 3:59:39 PM1/31/03
to
Elizabeth Weir wrote in message news:<efbc3534.03013...@posting.google.com>...
> John W. Kennedy wrote in message news:<bNEZ9.434128$FT6.85...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...

It's certainly true that things can be interpreted differently.
I once heard that in Russia Chekhov's plays (which I love)
were usually performed as comedies, which was certainly not the case
in England...far from!
But what did Chekhov intend?

lyra

lyra

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 4:31:51 PM1/31/03
to
David Kathman wrote in message news:<b12aeg$g9k$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>...

> I just found this article on Michael Brame and Galina Popova's
> "Shakespeare's Fingerprints" in the current issue of the
> University of Washington's faculty and staff newspaper.

<with snips>
> http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek story small.asp
> ?id=882
>
> Find someone s fingerprints at the scene of a crime and you
> know they were there. Fingerprints are unique, no two alike.
> Michael Brame and Galina Popova have found fingerprints all
> over Shakespeare s plays and sonnets, but they aren t
> Shakespeare s.
>
> Of course, since Brame and Popova are linguists, the
> fingerprints in question are in the language, not physically on
> the page.

Amazon.com has this to say about the authors...

"Editorial Reviews
Professo Sharon Hargus, University of Washington
This is huge!

Professor Yasukuni Takano, University of Nagasaki, Japan
The arguments are very clear, cohesive and convincing. Made me feel
like reading more.

Professor Jack Hoeksema, University of Groningen, Holland
The arguments are cogent and ought to go a long way towards convincing
the general public.

Book Description
Two university professors report on the results of ten years of
research into the Shakespeare authorship controversy, showing that the
name 'William Shakespeare' was definitely a pseudonym for Edward de
Vere, 17th Earl of Oxfor, and that Oxford wrote under a range of
pseudonyms

About the Author
Michael Brame has taught at the university level in North America,
Europe, Asia, and Africa and has been a professor at the University of
Washington for more than three decades. He is a professor in the Dept.
of Linguistics and a member of the Jackson School of International
Studies, author of several technical books, coauthor of The White
Death, and founding editor of Linguistic Analysis, a leading scholarly
journal with international circulation. His research has focused on
algebraic approaches to natural language syntax and to the application
of linguistic methods to literature. He is a graduate of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he studied linguistics
under Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle.

Galina Popova is a linguist and affiliate professor at the University
of Washington in the Dept. of Slavic Languages and Literature. She
acquired a love for Shakespeare's sonnets in the former Soviet Union
where she studied language and literature at Leningrad State
University. Leaving her native land after a lengthy confrontation with
Soviet authorities, she lived in Italy before coming to the United
States where she earned a Ph. D. She has taught language and
literature for more than a decade at several American universities.

Paperback: 544 pages
Publisher: Adonis Editions; ; (December 17, 2002)
ISBN: 0972038523
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 2,373,988 "

David Kathman

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 7:54:17 PM1/31/03
to
In article <4ec4c9f5.03013...@posting.google.com>,
mountai...@RockAthens.com (lyra) wrote:

Hmmm. Both Sharon Hargus and Jack Hoeksema are pretty
well-known linguists; Hargus is in Brame's department at
the University of Washington, and Hoeksema works in Brame's
field of mathematical linguistics. It's a shame that they got
taken in by this idiocy. Maybe I should e-mail one or
both of them to try to persuade them not to make bigger
fools of themselves.

Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 11:41:56 PM1/31/03
to
David Kathman wrote:
> Hmmm. Both Sharon Hargus and Jack Hoeksema are pretty
> well-known linguists; Hargus is in Brame's department at
> the University of Washington, and Hoeksema works in Brame's
> field of mathematical linguistics. It's a shame that they got
> taken in by this idiocy. Maybe I should e-mail one or
> both of them to try to persuade them not to make bigger
> fools of themselves.

I guess this all makes for a concrete illustration of the
oft-unappreciated distinction between linguists and philologists.

But it's all so damned depressing. Is this a case of malignant
two-cultures-itis? Are we approaching the world of amok academic
specialization that Asimov portrays in "The Dead Past"? (Or, God help
us, is it something more like Kornbluth's "The Little Black Bag"?)

Tom Reedy

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 12:34:18 AM2/1/03
to
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b1f5uq$dqk$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...

I think they're having a big leg-pull, myself, trying to out-do each other
in some kind of contest, maybe to see how idiotic they can write and still
get published.

TR

TR


Greg Reynolds

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 1:06:28 AM2/1/03
to
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:

> David Kathman wrote:
> > Hmmm. Both Sharon Hargus and Jack Hoeksema are pretty
> > well-known linguists; Hargus is in Brame's department at
> > the University of Washington, and Hoeksema works in Brame's
> > field of mathematical linguistics. It's a shame that they got
> > taken in by this idiocy. Maybe I should e-mail one or
> > both of them to try to persuade them not to make bigger
> > fools of themselves.
>
> I guess this all makes for a concrete illustration of the
> oft-unappreciated distinction between linguists and philologists.
>
> But it's all so damned depressing. Is this a case of malignant
> two-cultures-itis? Are we approaching the world of amok academic
> specialization that Asimov portrays in "The Dead Past"? (Or, God help
> us, is it something more like Kornbluth's "The Little Black Bag"?)
>
> --

I think it was just flirting that got out of hand.

http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?Search=popova&Submit=GO&id=882

They had to actually show some result of
the many satisfyingly fulfilling nights they worked
so late together for ten years, so they jumped
on the most robust fiction market out there:
anti-shakespeare cults. And since Oxfordians
require no evidentiary linkage, it is easy work
for cunning linguists all dressed in purple.

I won't read their book, so I'll never know if
they are addressing Traditional Oxfordians,
Reformed Oxfordians, or Oxfordians with
their heads permanently stuck up there.


Greg Reynolds


Richie Miller

unread,
Feb 15, 2003, 6:15:49 AM2/15/03
to
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:57:39 -0600, David Kathman from
dj...@ix.netcom.com hacked up
<b14o5p$mel$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net> stating the following:
Your time was not wasted as far as I was concerned.

Richie
--
r e l P o M I r A C u l o u s
http://www.omencity.com
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/111/relpo_miraculous.html

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages