Mr. Streitz's book
David L. Webb
to a thread nearly every post of which has been a side-splitter so far,
I indicated my intention of posting more detailed information about Mr.
Streitz's recent book. I am very busy at present preparing for next
academic term, so I will not be able to do justice to the rich comic
potential afforded by this fount of fun -- indeed, it would require
several very lengthy posts even to begin to do justice to the content
of only the first chapter, on the Ashbourne Portrait, which Stephanie
Caruana has assured us -- with considerable justice, alas for Mr.
Streitz -- is the strongest part of the book. I will try to return
later to the content and the "argument" of this chapter, and perhaps to
the later and funnier chapters as well, but for now I will confine
myself chiefly to noting some of the stylistic infelicities and a few
selected blunders from the initial chapter that leave one helpless with
laughter. My initial focus on style rather than substance does the
reader no real disservice, as the book exhibits little of the former
but none of the latter.
Mr. Streitz displays touching solicitude for those less accomplished
than he in paleography and other technical aspects of Elizabethan
scholarship, and he leaves no stone unturned in his endeavor to make
the book accessible to a wide readership. Thus a helpful footnote on
page 6 reads in part:
"Hints in reading Elizabethan English: "I's" and "J's"
are interchangeable. "Iohn" would be "John." The Roman
numeral "viij" would be "viii." In addition, "y" can be
an "i" as in "Wyfe" or "yt." This book changes the
Elizabethan "f" as an "s" to the modern "s.""
Mr. Streitz opines elsewhere that the Folger Library identified Hugh
Hamersley as the sitter for the Ashboure Portrait rather haphazardly:
"[Hamersley's] most outstanding qualification as subject for this
portrait was that he was born in 1565, a year after the man from
Stratford-upon-Avon. The Folger Shakespeare Library needed
someone to be the sitter for the portrait other than Edward de Vere.
The case for Oxford's authorship of the Shakespeare works was
growing, and the portrait in the Hamlet-like pose added another bit
of circumstantial evidence."
Exactly what constitutes a "Hamlet-like pose" in Mr. Streitz's view is
not disclosed. (Mr. Streitz's locution reminds me forcibly of one of
the less successful propaganda initiatives of the Reagan era. The
administration released to the press an aerial reconnaissance photo
taken over a Latin American nation said to be a serious threat to U.S.
interests in the region; as I recall, a squat, featureless, cinder
block or brick building was ominously labelled "Soviet-style troop
compound"; what features made it possible to classify the utterly
unremarkable structure as "Soviet-style" were never disclosed. One
wondered whether perhaps the outhouses were Bulgarian-style.)
Mr. Streitz notes that Hamersley was born in 1565, and that the
sitter is 47 years of age:
"In 1979, the Folger Shakespeare Library 'restored' the Ashbourne
Portrait. After this restoration, the library claimed that the
date on the painting was 1612. The Folger's revised date then
fit the birth date of Hamersley (47 + 1565 = 1612)."
[Note how Mr. Streitz again displays the aforementioned solicitude for
readers not endowed with his intellectual quickness by means of the
helpful arithmetic gloss.]
Mr. Streitz goes on to suggest tentatively that the Folger deliberately
altered the date on the portrait during the restoration:
"A comparison of the dates on the painting before and after the
cleaning does not make a strong case that the 1611 date was an
alteration; rather, the new date appears to be the addition of
a vague tail to the last '1' of 1611 to turn it into 1612."
As the reader will already have gathered, the first chapter is a
rambling, repetitive, bumbling broadside aimed at the Folger and at
_The Shakespeare Quarterly_; these institutions get accused of
intellectual dishonesty, editorial malfeasance, suppression of
information, etc. over and over, in a farcical fulmination couched in a
formal structure perhaps best described as theme without variations.
Readers of Stephanie Caruana's admonitory post in the "Inevitable
Oxfordian logic" thread will already be aware of Mr. Streitz's blissful
ignorance of the perils of the use of spellchecking software by the
illiterate. Perhaps the funniest instance of this particular species of
blunder is found on page 35, where Mr. Streitz offers his heartfelt
commendation to the members of Dr. Stritmatter's thesis committee,
among them University of Massachusetts Comparative Literature faculty
member Elizabeth Petroff:
"Dr. Stritmatter's dissertation committee, William Moebius,
James Freeman, Edwin Gentler [sic -- it should be Gentzler],
Elizabeth Petrify [sic!], and Daniel Wright, should be
congratulated and commended...."
I am not making this up. One can confirm Mr. Streitz's punctilious
thoroughness by consulting the Index, where one finds entries for both
"Petrify, Elizabeth" and "Gentler, Edwin."
There are numerous instances of such gaffes throughout the book, but
for now I will record only one more amusing one that I can recall
offhand from the first chapter; that there are several bonus instances
of stylistic slapstick in the same extract is merely symptomatic of the
sheer density of blunders:
"The English Literature departments of the elite institutions of
Harvard University and Yale University have been those who have
been [sic!] craven in their responsibilities to simply [sic] honesty
and truth. This is despite the fact that their professors are
instituted [sic!] from the competitive pressures of the job market
by the practice of tenure, which is suppose [sic] to give their
academics intellectual freedom to explore what they will."
Evidently Mr. Streitz has been he who has been misled by software whose
command of the tongue is nearly as deficient as his, and he has been
instituted from awareness of the simply perils of accepting his
spellchecker's officious suggestions by ignorance or carelessness or
both. (I should probably refrain from conjecturing what word Mr.
Streitz intended in place of "instituted," as there is no accounting
for genius or for the other extreme, but I presume that he must have
meant "insulated.")
On page 23, Mr. Streitz devotes a lengthy footnote -- almost a third
of the page -- to his doubt about the "wrongheaded idea that planes fly
based on the Bernoulli principle..." as an instance of what he views as
widespread reluctance to embrace "paradigm shifts."
For those accustomed to wincing at Mr. Streitz's prose in this
newsgroup, the quality of the writing will come as no real surprise;
although the density of howlers is somewhat lower than in Mr. Streitz's
newsgroup posts, errors and infelicities abound, presumably because
grammar checking software is at present less reliable than
spellchecking software. Thus on page 25, one finds:
"For a man to write over thirty plays, major poems, and numerous
sonnets, there is no personal record of any writings whatsoever."
Some of the factual errors are absolutely mind-boggling. Perhaps
the single short passage that left me most slack-jawed with amazement
is the following, from page 32:
"In this literary debate, Bloom chooses to say the poet 'indeed
was William Shakespeare' while not adding a single fact to support
such a statement. In fact, 'his sugared [sic] sonnets [sic] among
his private friends [sic]' was a statement [sic] a literary figure
of the time, Francis Meres, applied to the writings of the Earl of
Oxford!"
The penultimate paragraph of the book's first chapter concludes
tantalizingly with the ominous question:
"What does it mean when it is said that Thomas Seymour 'woke
the fifteen year old Elizabeth each morning?'" A hard look,
a skeptical eye, and a strong stomach are required to understand
the nasty, brutal world of the Elizabethans."
Finally, for those who just can't bear the suspense, I will disclose
at least part of the punchline. At the end of the book, Mr. Streitz
provides a list of Queen Elizabeth's probable progeny: besides Oxford,
they include Henry Wriothesley, Robert Devereux, Mary Sidney, Robert
Cecil, and Elizabeth Leighton.
I regret that I don't have time now for a more detailed critique of
the "arguments" Mr. Streitz adduces in support of his contentions
concerning the Ashbourne Portrait, but perhaps the above sampling,
meager though it may be, may afford at least some indication of what is
in store for the readers of Mr. Streitz's risible contribution to the
annals of humor, if not of history.
David Webb
paul streitz
>
Thanks for the comments David. Spotlesss proofing by an
anal-compulsive like yourself is always welcome.
BUT, WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Many words you have written, but you have not-so-cleverly written
around the main idea of the book. Edward (aka de Vere) Tudor-Seymour
is the son of Elizabeth and Thomas Seymour.
Or are you a slow reader, and just didn't get that far.
This seems to be a review in the vein of Dawson's review of Ogburn in
the SQ, concentrate on the footnotes and other issues, but not address
the main one.
paul streitz
David L. Webb
streitz <oxins...@aol.com> wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<100320021343245076%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> >
>
> Thanks for the comments David. Spotlesss proofing by an
> anal-compulsive like yourself is always welcome.
>
> BUT, WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Where indeed? I already noted: "My initial focus on style rather
than substance does the reader no real disservice, as the book exhibits
little of the former but none of the latter."
> Many words you have written,
No, I've mostly quoted the book, which speaks for itself.
> but you have not-so-cleverly written
> around the main idea of the book.
There's an idea in the book?
> Edward (aka de Vere) Tudor-Seymour
> is the son of Elizabeth and Thomas Seymour.
>
> Or are you a slow reader, and just didn't get that far.
I did read the book rather slowly, as uncontrollable laughter took
possession of me every few sentences. However, I've indicated my
intention of returning to the book's substance (to the very limited
extent that such a locution makes sense) later.
> This seems to be a review in the vein of Dawson's review of Ogburn in
> the SQ, concentrate on the footnotes and other issues, but not address
> the main one.
You presented no credible evidence that Oxford was Shakespeare,
other than the fact that various cranks on the lunatic fringe have
believed that he was. The *one* pertinent piece of "evidence" you
presented in the chapter I reviewed in my post was *wrong*. You wrote:
"In this literary debate, Bloom chooses to say the poet 'indeed
was William Shakespeare' while not adding a single fact to support
such a statement. In fact, 'his sugared [sic] sonnets [sic] among
his private friends [sic]' was a statement [sic] a literary figure
of the time, Francis Meres, applied to the writings of the Earl of
Oxford!"
This claim is blatantly false, and it will probably be greeted by gales
of laughter from anyone possessing even a nodding acquaintance with the
material. The quotation from Meres runs as follows:
"As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras: so
the sweet wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous & honytongued
Shakespeare, witnes his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred
Sonnets among his private frinds, &c."
There is no mention of the Earl of Oxford in connection with
Shakespeare's "sugred Sonnets." I have no earthly idea where you got
the absurd notion that Meres's mention of Shakespeare was "...a
statement [sic] a literary figure of the time, Francis Meres, applied
to the writings of the Earl of Oxford!"; probably the same place you
got the idea that AIDS is "a hoax." Moreover, elsewhere Meres mentions
*both* Oxford and Shakespeare in a single paragraph, a pretty good
indication that he did not think that Oxford was Shakespeare.
If you wish to *assume* blithely that Oxford was Shakespeare *at the
outset* without offering any evidence, and if you wish to infer from a
dramatic canon possessing no discernible link to the Earl that Oxford
was in fact the Queen's son, then by all means go ahead. However, I
think that even you would agree that in the absence of convincing
evidence that Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare, trying to mine the
plays for choice biographical tidbits concerning the Earl of Oxford is
a fool's errand.
David Webb
paul streitz
Your ability to generate hot air in Dartmouth must be the cause of
such a warm winter.
paul streitz
David L. Webb
streitz <oxins...@aol.com> wrote:
I perceive that you have *no answer* to my demonstration in the post
to which you're responding that the *only* credible evidence you
offered in the first chapter of your book for Oxford's identification
with Shakespeare -- the quotation from Meres -- is farcically wrong.
You could best avoid making a complete ass of yourself by actually
checking sources for a change. I have no idea where on earth you got
the ridiculous idea that Meres's "sugared Sonnets" remark was applied
to Oxford, but it's perfectly plain why sane Oxfordians (and even a
great many who are not) want nothing whatever to do with your book.
David Webb
Elizabeth Weir
> snip of excessive cruelty
> For those accustomed to wincing at Mr. Streitz's prose in this
> newsgroup, the quality of the writing will come as no real surprise;
> although the density of howlers is somewhat lower than in Mr. Streitz's
> newsgroup posts, errors and infelicities abound, presumably because
> grammar checking software is at present less reliable than
> spellchecking software. Thus on page 25, one finds:
>
> "For a man to write over thirty plays, major poems, and numerous
> sonnets, there is no personal record of any writings whatsoever."
I appreciate your skill as a grammarian and critic Webb, although
it could be done with less blistering criticism but I shall now
have to ask you to provide proof that Streitz' statement above is
false.
Shakespeare, in fact, left no personal record of any writings.
Maybe your error in reasoning is caused by the fact that
you took Price-Dooley's definition of evidence at face value.
As I have demonstrated to Dooley the terms
"personal" and "impersonal" are worse than meaningless
when applied to evidence.
So what evidence were you thinking of when you typed that?
> Some of the factual errors are absolutely mind-boggling. Perhaps
> the single short passage that left me most slack-jawed with amazement
> is the following, from page 32:
>
> "In this literary debate, Bloom chooses to say the poet 'indeed
> was William Shakespeare' while not adding a single fact to support
> such a statement. In fact, 'his sugared [sic] sonnets [sic] among
> his private friends [sic]' was a statement [sic] a literary figure
> of the time, Francis Meres, applied to the writings of the Earl of
> Oxford!"
>
> The penultimate paragraph of the book's first chapter concludes
> tantalizingly with the ominous question:
>
> "What does it mean when it is said that Thomas Seymour 'woke
> the fifteen year old Elizabeth each morning?'" A hard look,
> a skeptical eye, and a strong stomach are required to understand
> the nasty, brutal world of the Elizabethans."
>
> Finally, for those who just can't bear the suspense, I will disclose
> at least part of the punchline. At the end of the book, Mr. Streitz
> provides a list of Queen Elizabeth's probable progeny: besides Oxford,
> they include Henry Wriothesley, Robert Devereux, Mary Sidney, Robert
> Cecil, and Elizabeth Leighton.
I am relieved that Bacon is not on Streitz' list.
The fact that Bacon is not proves that Streitz has no concern
for evidence or he would have put Bacon, who has strong
circumstantial evidence, at the top of the list.
You didn't ask the question "What conceivably has royal bastardy
got to do with Shakespeare authorship?" which points out how
little you care for evidence.
The answer is that it has nothing to do with the
Authorship Dispute. There are bastardy themes all through
the works but it *proves nothing.*
We can't post on royal bastardy
but only with the disclaimer that lit crit has an inferior
standard of evidence than the Authorship Dispute which requires
a scientific standard of evidence.
I haven't seen any evidence that Elizabeth gave birth to any of
the individuals Streitz lists and I've never heard of Elizabeth
Leighton.
The second best evidence is for Essex although
it's much weaker than Bacon's. Devereaux kept Essex off his
family geneaology and only recorded Essex' birth four years
after he was born when Elizabeth, coincidently, made him an
earl and granted him a huge estate. Devereaux ignored Essex
and favored his second son. We can't know if Lettice Knollys
wasn't fooling around and that's why Devereaux rejected Essex.
Oxfordians never consider alternative explanations.
Strats like to imagine that Elizabeth was having sex with
Essex but there's no more evidence for that than there is
for Shakespeare seducing Wriothesly with homoerotic sonnets.
Strats have had to make Shakespeare into a pedophile predator
to explain the first seventeen sonnets.
And you're criticizing Streitz.
> I regret that I don't have time now for a more detailed critique of
> the "arguments" Mr. Streitz adduces in support of his contentions
> concerning the Ashbourne Portrait, but perhaps the above sampling,
> meager though it may be, may afford at least some indication of what is
> in store for the readers of Mr. Streitz's risible contribution to the
> annals of humor, if not of history.
>
> David Webb
We look forward to it. Could you be less vicious?
Crows Dog
truth" was the motto on Oxford's family coat of arms. It may have been
Streitz.
I'll have to check google.
David L Webb wrote to Paul Streitz:
John W. Kennedy
> Mr. Streitz displays touching solicitude for those less accomplished
> than he in paleography and other technical aspects of Elizabethan
> scholarship, and he leaves no stone unturned in his endeavor to make
> the book accessible to a wide readership. Thus a helpful footnote on
> page 6 reads in part:
>
> "Hints in reading Elizabethan English: "I's" and "J's"
> are interchangeable. "Iohn" would be "John." The Roman
> numeral "viij" would be "viii." In addition, "y" can be
> an "i" as in "Wyfe" or "yt." This book changes the
> Elizabethan "f" as an "s" to the modern "s.""
Just to make it clear, does he _really_ not distinguish between long "s"
and "f"?
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
Peter Groves
news:3C8D3EC9...@attglobal.net...
"Where the bee fucks, there fuck I ..."
Peter G.
Richard Nathan
I meant to write "not without right," - rather than "not without
truth."
I checked Google, and I couldn't find an instance of an Oxfordian
claiming that either "not without right" or "not without truth" was
the Oxford family motto.
But I'm absolutely certain that at sometime I saw an Oxfordian
claiming Jonson was making fun of Oxford (rather than Shakespeare)
with the "not without mustard" motto.
Mabye it was on an Oxfordian website.
crow...@aol.com (Crows Dog) wrote in message news:<20020311171139...@mb-fg.aol.com>...
David L. Webb
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> "David L. Webb" wrote:
> > Mr. Streitz displays touching solicitude for those less accomplished
> > than he in paleography and other technical aspects of Elizabethan
> > scholarship, and he leaves no stone unturned in his endeavor to make
> > the book accessible to a wide readership. Thus a helpful footnote on
> > page 6 reads in part:
> >
> > "Hints in reading Elizabethan English: "I's" and "J's"
> > are interchangeable. "Iohn" would be "John." The Roman
> > numeral "viij" would be "viii." In addition, "y" can be
> > an "i" as in "Wyfe" or "yt." This book changes the
> > Elizabethan "f" as an "s" to the modern "s.""
> Just to make it clear, does he _really_ not distinguish between long "s"
> and "f"?
He really does not. Mr. Streitz appears blissfully ignorant of such
distinctions, and of much else as well. He alludes to his "f-as-s"
confusion again in a rather garbled account in chapter 2 of Elizabeth's
education. I quote from page 60:
"At this time, there were two methods of penmanship: there was
the older script, based on German and medieval English, which
still had the German "f" for "s" and is difficult if not
impossible to decipher by a modern reader. [By "a modern
reader," Mr. Streitz evidently means himself.] This was being
replaced by the Italian script being taught to Elizabeth. This
change in handwriting was thus an external manifestation of the
new humanism and the new teachings in the universities and in
the reform churches."
So much for Mr. Streitz's formidable expertise in paleography.
Since it's nearby in the book, I can't resist quoting another brief
passage, in a sidebar on page 57, in which Mr. Streitz exhibits his
touching solicitude for readers slower on the uptake than he. Mr.
Streitz has just informed the reader that John Dee's code name was 007:
"There is a fondness in England for naming series of numbers.
The telephone number 777-4422 would be said as 'triple-seven,
double four, double two.' Hence, 007 is 'double oh seven;' not
'zero-zero-seven, or 'oh, oh, seven.'"
Some of these sidebars are so entertaining that mirth gets the
better of me as I merely recall them. I'm getting *way* ahead of the
unfolding chronology, but there is a most entertaining sidebar on page
173:
"'A rose by any other name'
The following attempts to list Oxford's pen names. Some of
these names are obvious pseudonyms, others are Latin phrases, and
finally there are living people. Many of these living people had
literary histories that are highly suspect. Many produced only one
or two works that orthodox scholars say 'influenced' Shakespeare,
and then the authors disappeared from history. One such case is
John Lyly, the longtime secretary for the Earl of Oxford. Lyly is
credited with several works, including the earliest novel _Euphues_.
Strangely, although he lived another ten years after leaving Oxford's
service (perhaps for being a spy for William Cecil), John Lyly never
wrote another literary work.
A True English Man
Arthur Brooke -- _Romeus and Juliette_
Arthur Golding -- Ovid's _Metamorphoses_
The Auchthour
Christopher Marlowe
Clement Robinson -- _Handful of Pleasant Delights_
Dan Bartholomew of Bathe
Dan Bartholomew His Name I Hide
Deepe Disire
Deere Familyar Friend
Dewe Desert
Geffrey Gates
George Gascoigne
George Pettie -- _Pettie's Palace of Pleasure_
The Greene Knight
[Since, as we shall see below, Oxford was also Robert Greene, why not?]
Ignoto
John Dowland (Music) Oxford author of the song 'Green Sleeves'?
John Lyly -- _Campaspe_, _Sapho and Phao_, etc.
John Pykering -- _Horestes_
John Studely
Martin Mar-prelate -- Political Tracts
Master Edouardo Donati
Master F. I.
Meritum petere, grave
Nemiesis
The Oke
Philomene
The Reporter
Robert Greene (Ver?)
[I am not making this up.]
Sylvanus Mercuire
Thomas Kyd -- _The Spanish Tragedy_, _Arden of Feversham_
William Adlington -- _The Golden Asse_
William North -- _Lives of the Ancient Greeks and Romans_ [sic]
[Here, of course, Mr. Streitz appears to be confusing *William* North
with Sir *Thomas* North. Nor does Mr. Streitz appear to be aware that
North's _The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romanes_ on which
Shakespeare drew so heavily was itself a translation of Plutarch.]
William Shakespeare"
Mr. Streitz appears to have subsumed in his "Super D.T. Theory" the
"Super Oxford Theory" that, according to Richard Kennedy's recent
embittered rant, Nina Green has been pushing on Phaeton. I cannot
imagine why Mr. Streitz does not also include Chaucer, Mallory, Milton,
J.S. Bach, Cervantes, Griboyedov, Tolstoy, and Joyce, but perhaps new
discoveries will be incorporated into the book's second edition -- if
more than a few dozen copies of the first edition are ever sold.
I don't know why the following passage comes to mind unbidden, but I
cannot resist quoting another brief extract, this one beginning on page
246:
"Various implausible scenarios are manufactured to explain how the
man from Stratford-upon-Avon crossed the wide gulf to have detailed
knowledge of aristocratic society, such as falconry, tennis,
jousting, fencing, and coursing. (You win points for a vocabulary
merit badge if you know the meaning of the last word, or you were
born in aristocratic circles that most do not inhabit.)"
I suspect that most participants in this newsgroup -- except, sadly,
Mr. Streitz himself -- would by this criterion find themselves the
proud possessors of hitherto unsuspected blue blood.
But I'm getting way ahead of myself. As I said in my initial post
in the thread, it would take several lengthy posts even to do justice
to the fun in the first chapter; to correct even the most glaring
errors in that chapter would take roughly an order of magnitude more
space and time -- yet the book just gets funnier and funnier the
farther one reads! It's really a marvel! I will try at some point to
furnish at least a sample of some of the comedy in the later chapters,
but now I *really* must get to work and resist the temptation to
continue.
David Webb
David L. Webb
Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<100320021343245076%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
>
> > snip of excessive cruelty
Are you kidding?! Have you read the book? I was, if anything,
being charitable. For one thing, I concentrated on style rather than
content.
> > For those accustomed to wincing at Mr. Streitz's prose in this
> > newsgroup, the quality of the writing will come as no real surprise;
> > although the density of howlers is somewhat lower than in Mr. Streitz's
> > newsgroup posts, errors and infelicities abound, presumably because
> > grammar checking software is at present less reliable than
> > spellchecking software. Thus on page 25, one finds:
> >
> > "For a man to write over thirty plays, major poems, and numerous
> > sonnets, there is no personal record of any writings whatsoever."
> I appreciate your skill as a grammarian and critic Webb, although
> it could be done with less blistering criticism but I shall now
> have to ask you to provide proof that Streitz' statement above is
> false.
Can you not read the parapgraph I wrote? Nowhere in what you quoted
above is there even an *intimation*, let alone a claim, that I am
addressing the factual accuracy of Mr. Streitz's statement. (There are
plenty of factually false statements in the book as well; I already
noted the howler concerning the Meres quotation, for instance.) The
sentence quoted is merely a rather typical example of the sort of prose
that makes the reader cringe regularly.
> Shakespeare, in fact, left no personal record of any writings.
I am not sure what you mean by "personal record" -- "personal"
sounds like one of Price's arbitrary criteria apparently specifically
engineered to exclude Shakespeare -- but "personal records" by any
reasonable understanding of the phrase are meager or absent for most
middle-class playwrights of the period.
> Maybe your error in reasoning
"Error in reasoning"?! What "reasoning"? I'm merely exhibiting a
typical instance of Mr. Streitz's many grotesque grammatical lapses.
True, they're not as funny as "Elizabeth Petrify," but they contribute
to the overall humorous tenor of the book. There is no "reasoning"
involved at all in the above, so even you ought to be able to figure it
out, perhaps after rereading it a few times.
> is caused by the fact that
> you took Price-Dooley's definition of evidence at face value.
I haven't taken *anything* written by Dooley or Price at "face
value."
> As I have demonstrated to Dooley the terms
> "personal" and "impersonal" are worse than meaningless
> when applied to evidence.
>
> So what evidence were you thinking of when you typed that?
Evidence?! What are you talking about? "Typed" what?! I am merely
reproducing one of many Streitzian sentences apt to make the reader
wince.
> > Some of the factual errors are absolutely mind-boggling. Perhaps
> > the single short passage that left me most slack-jawed with amazement
> > is the following, from page 32:
> >
> > "In this literary debate, Bloom chooses to say the poet 'indeed
> > was William Shakespeare' while not adding a single fact to support
> > such a statement. In fact, 'his sugared [sic] sonnets [sic] among
> > his private friends [sic]' was a statement [sic] a literary figure
> > of the time, Francis Meres, applied to the writings of the Earl of
> > Oxford!"
Since you are probably as unaware as Streitz that this is in fact a
farcical factual blunder, I will point it out explicitly for your
benefit.
> > The penultimate paragraph of the book's first chapter concludes
> > tantalizingly with the ominous question:
> >
> > "What does it mean when it is said that Thomas Seymour 'woke
> > the fifteen year old Elizabeth each morning?'" A hard look,
> > a skeptical eye, and a strong stomach are required to understand
> > the nasty, brutal world of the Elizabethans."
> >
> > Finally, for those who just can't bear the suspense, I will disclose
> > at least part of the punchline. At the end of the book, Mr. Streitz
> > provides a list of Queen Elizabeth's probable progeny: besides Oxford,
> > they include Henry Wriothesley, Robert Devereux, Mary Sidney, Robert
> > Cecil, and Elizabeth Leighton.
> I am relieved that Bacon is not on Streitz' list.
>
> The fact that Bacon is not proves that Streitz has no concern
> for evidence or he would have put Bacon, who has strong
> circumstantial evidence, at the top of the list.
>
> You didn't ask the question "What conceivably has royal bastardy
> got to do with Shakespeare authorship?" which points out how
> little you care for evidence.
What conceivably has royal bastardy got to do with Shakespeare
authorship? There -- are you happy?
Perhaps it has escaped your notice that thus far I am dealing
exclusively (except for revealing a little of the punchline) with the
*first chapter* of the book, into which royal bastardy and its
ramifications, if any, do not enter.
> The answer is that it has nothing to do with the
> Authorship Dispute.
Well, fancy that! I never said that it did. Are you having
difficulty following this discussion?
> There are bastardy themes all through
> the works but it *proves nothing.*
I never said that it did. Are you having difficulty following this
discussion?
> We can't post on royal bastardy
> but only with the disclaimer that lit crit has an inferior
> standard of evidence than the Authorship Dispute which requires
> a scientific standard of evidence.
>
> I haven't seen any evidence that Elizabeth gave birth to any of
> the individuals Streitz lists
I'm relieved to hear it -- I haven't either.
> and I've never heard of Elizabeth
> Leighton.
>
> The second best evidence is for Essex although
> it's much weaker than Bacon's. Devereaux [sic] kept Essex off his
> family geneaology and only recorded Essex' birth four years
> after he was born when Elizabeth, coincidently [sic], made him an
> earl and granted him a huge estate. Devereaux [sic] ignored Essex
> and favored his second son. We can't know if Lettice Knollys
> wasn't fooling around and that's why Devereaux [sic] rejected Essex.
>
> Oxfordians never consider alternative explanations.
Well, if your explanations or Mr. Streitz's are the "alternatives,"
perhaps that failure is one of the Oxfordian movements unsuspected
strengths.
> Strats like to imagine that Elizabeth was having sex with
> Essex
Who does? I certainly don't.
> but there's no more evidence for that than there is
> for Shakespeare seducing Wriothesly with homoerotic sonnets.
>
> Strats have had to make Shakespeare into a pedophile predator
> to explain the first seventeen sonnets.
I don't know of *anyone* who makes Shakespeare into a "pedophile
predator" -- except perhaps Oxfordians, if the allegations of Oxford's
behavior are true (which is far from clear).
> And you're criticizing Streitz.
I'm mostly letting his words speak for themselves.
> > I regret that I don't have time now for a more detailed critique of
> > the "arguments" Mr. Streitz adduces in support of his contentions
> > concerning the Ashbourne Portrait, but perhaps the above sampling,
> > meager though it may be, may afford at least some indication of what is
> > in store for the readers of Mr. Streitz's risible contribution to the
> > annals of humor, if not of history.
> >
> > David Webb
> We look forward to it. Could you be less vicious?
Vicious?! I already told you -- if anything, I am being charitable.
David Webb
Tom Reedy
news:3C8D3EC9...@attglobal.net...
It seems so from what David posted. That's the point at which I blew coffee
all over the screen.
TR
Richard Kennedy
would translate as "Not without right." The Oxford motto was
"Vero nihil Verius," something like nothing truer than truth.
Elizabeth Weir
> In article <efbc3534.02031...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
> Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> > news:<100320021343245076%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> >
> > > snip of excessive cruelty
>
> Are you kidding?! Have you read the book? I was, if anything,
> being charitable. For one thing, I concentrated on style rather than
> content.
>
> > > For those accustomed to wincing at Mr. Streitz's prose in this
> > > newsgroup, the quality of the writing will come as no real surprise;
> > > although the density of howlers is somewhat lower than in Mr. Streitz's
> > > newsgroup posts, errors and infelicities abound, presumably because
> > > grammar checking software is at present less reliable than
> > > spellchecking software. Thus on page 25, one finds:
> > >
> > > "For a man to write over thirty plays, major poems, and numerous
> > > sonnets, there is no personal record of any writings whatsoever."
>
> > I appreciate your skill as a grammarian and critic Webb, although
> > it could be done with less blistering criticism but I shall now
> > have to ask you to provide proof that Streitz' statement above is
> > false.
>
> Can you not read the parapgraph I wrote?
No, I actually missed the grammatical construction you were bitching
about.
I am making the admission that I couldn't see Streitz' grammatical
error and consequently misconstrued everything that followed.
> > > Some of the factual errors are absolutely mind-boggling. Perhaps
> > > the single short passage that left me most slack-jawed with amazement
> > > is the following, from page 32:
> > >
> > > "In this literary debate, Bloom chooses to say the poet 'indeed
> > > was William Shakespeare' while not adding a single fact to support
> > > such a statement. In fact, 'his sugared [sic] sonnets [sic] among
> > > his private friends [sic]' was a statement [sic] a literary figure
> > > of the time, Francis Meres, applied to the writings of the Earl of
> > > Oxford!"
>
> Since you are probably as unaware as Streitz that this is in fact a
> farcical factual blunder, I will point it out explicitly for your
> benefit.
Which blunder? Bloom's or Streitz'? The only "evidence" that William
Shakespeare the actor wrote the V & A is the name printed on the title
page. Printed title pages stand as prima facie evidence of authorship
*until the evidence is challenged.*
> > > The penultimate paragraph of the book's first chapter concludes
> > > tantalizingly with the ominous question:
> > >
> > > "What does it mean when it is said that Thomas Seymour 'woke
> > > the fifteen year old Elizabeth each morning?'" A hard look,
> > > a skeptical eye, and a strong stomach are required to understand
> > > the nasty, brutal world of the Elizabethans."
> > >
> > > Finally, for those who just can't bear the suspense, I will disclose
> > > at least part of the punchline. At the end of the book, Mr. Streitz
> > > provides a list of Queen Elizabeth's probable progeny: besides Oxford,
> > > they include Henry Wriothesley, Robert Devereux, Mary Sidney, Robert
> > > Cecil, and Elizabeth Leighton.
>
> > I am relieved that Bacon is not on Streitz' list.
> >
> > The fact that Bacon is not proves that Streitz has no concern
> > for evidence or he would have put Bacon, who has strong
> > circumstantial evidence, at the top of the list.
> >
> > You didn't ask the question "What conceivably has royal bastardy
> > got to do with Shakespeare authorship?" which points out how
> > little you care for evidence.
>
> What conceivably has royal bastardy got to do with Shakespeare
> authorship? There -- are you happy?
Too late. You were prompted.
> Perhaps it has escaped your notice that thus far I am dealing
> exclusively (except for revealing a little of the punchline) with the
> *first chapter* of the book, into which royal bastardy and its
> ramifications, if any, do not enter.
>
> > The answer is that it has nothing to do with the
> > Authorship Dispute.
>
> Well, fancy that! I never said that it did. Are you having
> difficulty following this discussion?
What. Is there an outline? I can't make a remark?
> > There are bastardy themes all through
> > the works but it *proves nothing.*
>
> I never said that it did. Are you having difficulty following this
> discussion?
>
> > We can't post on royal bastardy
> > but only with the disclaimer that lit crit has an inferior
> > standard of evidence than the Authorship Dispute which requires
> > a scientific standard of evidence.
> >
> > I haven't seen any evidence that Elizabeth gave birth to any of
> > the individuals Streitz lists
>
> I'm relieved to hear it -- I haven't either.
>
> > and I've never heard of Elizabeth
> > Leighton.
> >
> > The second best evidence is for Essex although
> > it's much weaker than Bacon's. Devereaux [sic] kept Essex off his
> > family geneaology and only recorded Essex' birth four years
> > after he was born when Elizabeth, coincidently [sic], made him an
> > earl and granted him a huge estate. Devereaux [sic] ignored Essex
> > and favored his second son. We can't know if Lettice Knollys
> > wasn't fooling around and that's why Devereaux [sic] rejected Essex.
"Devereaux" is an alternative spelling of Devereux. "Devereaux" is
the way it's spelled in the transcript of the Essex trial. Ralegh is
an accepted alternate spelling of Raleigh. Burghley of Burghleigh.
And what's wrong with "coincidently?"
> > Oxfordians never consider alternative explanations.
>
> Well, if your explanations or Mr. Streitz's are the "alternatives,"
> perhaps that failure is one of the Oxfordian movements unsuspected
> strengths.
I wasn't putting the Essex theory forward. I was only reciting it.
> > Strats like to imagine that Elizabeth was having sex with
> > Essex
>
> Who does? I certainly don't.
The last Strat scholar that I recall reading that supports the theory
is Cobbin. "Shakespeare" in the Phoenix and the Turtle [accepted by
Strat scholars to be about Essex and Elizabeth] states otherwise.
> > but there's no more evidence for that than there is
> > for Shakespeare seducing Wriothesly with homoerotic sonnets.
> >
> > Strats have had to make Shakespeare into a pedophile predator
> > to explain the first seventeen sonnets.
>
> I don't know of *anyone* who makes Shakespeare into a "pedophile
> predator" -- except perhaps Oxfordians, if the allegations of Oxford's
> behavior are true (which is far from clear).
Are you that out of the Strat loop? There are not only dissertations
but books on Shakespeare's seduction of Wriothesley.
> > And you're criticizing Streitz.
>
> I'm mostly letting his words speak for themselves.
>
> > > I regret that I don't have time now for a more detailed critique of
> > > the "arguments" Mr. Streitz adduces in support of his contentions
> > > concerning the Ashbourne Portrait, but perhaps the above sampling,
> > > meager though it may be, may afford at least some indication of what is
> > > in store for the readers of Mr. Streitz's risible contribution to the
> > > annals of humor, if not of history.
> > >
> > > David Webb
>
> > We look forward to it. Could you be less vicious?
>
> Vicious?! I already told you -- if anything, I am being charitable.
A charitable critic doesn't crow.
Alisa Beaton
<snip>
> ...The Oxford motto was "Vero nihil Verius," something like
> nothing truer than truth.
The family motto is <Nihil Vero Verius>. But a contemplation of the
lineage, focusing especially on the lateral heir who lives today,
leads one to suggest instead:
Nihil Stulto Stultius
paul streitz
>
Where's the beef?
While your comments are amusing, as with most Stratfordian 'reviews'
you dance around and avoid the main issue. You fail to tell the
readers of your posts, that the Ashbourne Portrait is the subject of
the first chapter and that the book shows side by side comparisons of
the Edward de Vere, the Ashbourne Portrait and Hugh Hamersley. The
known Hamersley portrait, from London, is somehow never reproduced by
the Folger.
Where's the beef? Is the Ashbourne Portrait of Oxford, or not?
paul streitz
David Kathman
oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
>"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
>news:<110320022147168686%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
>>
>
>Where's the beef?
>
>While your comments are amusing, as with most Stratfordian 'reviews'
>you dance around and avoid the main issue. You fail to tell the
>readers of your posts, that the Ashbourne Portrait is the subject of
>the first chapter and that the book shows side by side comparisons of
>the Edward de Vere, the Ashbourne Portrait and Hugh Hamersley. The
>known Hamersley portrait, from London, is somehow never reproduced by
>the Folger.
What on earth are you talking about? There's a full-page
reproduction of the other Hamersley portrait on page 67 of
William L. Pressly's article about the Ashbourne portrait
in *Shakespeare Quarterly* 44 (1993). Have you not seen
this article?
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
paul streitz
Read the book Dave. Perhaps Webb will lend you his copy.
"Pressly's article never gives a side-by-side comparison of the faces
in the Ashbourne and Hamersley portrait. Instead, the Hamersley
portrait in his article is a full-length, full-page illustration in
which the face of Sir Hamersley is about three-quarters the size of a
dime. The printing is so dark that the facial characteristics are not
distinguishable. The only thing that one can see is a nose and two
eyes peering out of a massive dark beard. This is another of Pressly's
sleight-of-hand techniques where he is revealing information but not
enough information to constitute full and complete disclosure. It is
impossible for a reader of Pressly's article to make an accurate
comparison of the faces. One can only imagine that, if the faces were
very similar and supported his claim, he would display large,
side-by-side illustrations of the respective faces."
If you want a comparison of the Hamersley face to the Asbourne, see my
book. A direct comparison of the faces, is something you also failed
to show in your website.
paul streitz
Hermione Winterstale
<snip>
> > ...The known Hamersley portrait, from London, is somehow never
> > reproduced by the Folger.
> > David Kathman:
> > What on earth are you talking about? There's a full-page
> > reproduction of the other Hamersley portrait on page 67 of
> > William L. Pressly's article about the Ashbourne portrait
> > in *Shakespeare Quarterly* 44 (1993). Have you not seen
> > this article?
> Paul Streitz:
> "Pressly's article never gives a side-by-side comparison of the faces
> in the Ashbourne and Hamersley portrait. Instead, the Hamersley
> portrait in his article is a full-length, full-page illustration in
> which the face of Sir Hamersley is about three-quarters the size of a
> dime. The printing is so dark that the facial characteristics are not
> distinguishable. The only thing that one can see is a nose and two
> eyes peering out of a massive dark beard. This is another of Pressly's
> sleight-of-hand techniques where he is revealing information but not
> enough information to constitute full and complete disclosure. It is
> impossible for a reader of Pressly's article to make an accurate
> comparison of the faces. One can only imagine that, if the faces were
> very similar and supported his claim, he would display large,
> side-by-side illustrations of the respective faces."
>
> If you want a comparison of the Hamersley face to the Asbourne, see my
> book. A direct comparison of the faces, is something you also failed
> to show in your website.
Your desire to sell your book is certainly understandable, but the
London portrait of Hamersley can be viewed quite readily at:
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/sirhugh1.htm
It certainly looks, to my untrained eye, to be the same man as the one
portrayed in the Folger's Ashbourne painting.
paul streitz
I have no doubt that all Stratfordians will see it that way. Remember
the motto "there is no evidence." Others seem to disagree.
Further, there are two portraits of Hamersley. The first time the
portrait was shown at the Folger it was not the one in the
Haberdasher's guild. The Folger was being deliberately deceptive in
publishing a full length portait of Hamersley, muddy inks, and the
face smaller than a dime. As I said above, if there were strong facial
characteristics, the Folger would have printed side by side
comparisons of the faces. That would have been the stronger argument,
but it did not make that.
paul streitz
My book shows a close-up of the faces.
Hermione Winterstale
> > > book.
> > Your desire to sell your book is certainly understandable, but the
> > London portrait of Hamersley can be viewed quite readily at:
> >
> > http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/sirhugh1.htm
> >
> > It certainly looks, to my untrained eye, to be the same man as the one
> > portrayed in the Folger's Ashbourne painting.
> the motto "there is no evidence." Others seem to disagree.
> Further, there are two portraits of Hamersley. The first time the
> portrait was shown at the Folger it was not the one in the
> Haberdasher's guild. The Folger was being deliberately deceptive in
> publishing a full length portait of Hamersley, muddy inks, and the
> face smaller than a dime. As I said above, if there were strong facial
> characteristics, the Folger would have printed side by side
> comparisons of the faces. That would have been the stronger argument,
Take another look, Paul
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/sirhugh1.htm
I see no reason to accuse the Folger of deception. The two
portraits certainly appear, as I noted previously, to be
of the same man. Why do you persist, for no good reason, in
insisting that the Ashbourne portrait is a likeness of Edward
de Vere? Surely one cannot possibly take seriously the opinion of
Barbara Burris,an amateur "art historian", who has declared, as if
somehow qualified to make such a judgment, that it is.
David L. Webb
streitz <oxins...@aol.com> wrote:
> "David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:<a6m6n2$g60$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > In article <5daf239d.02031...@posting.google.com>,
> > oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> >
> > >"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:<110320022147168686%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> > >>
> > >
> > >Where's the beef?
> > >
> > >While your comments are amusing, as with most Stratfordian 'reviews'
> > >you dance around and avoid the main issue. You fail to tell the
> > >readers of your posts, that the Ashbourne Portrait is the subject of
> > >the first chapter
On the contrary, I stated very clearly that the first chapter of Mr.
Streitz's book dealt with the Ashbourne Portrait. I quote from my
first post:
"I will not be able to do justice to the rich comic potential
afforded by this fount of fun -- indeed, it would require
several very lengthy posts even to begin to do justice to the
content of only *THE FIRST CHAPTER, ON THE ASHBOURNE PORTRAIT*,
[emphasis added] which Stephanie Caruana has assured us --
with considerable justice, alas for Mr. Streitz -- is the
strongest part of the book."
Evidently Mr. Streitz has been no more successful in parsing my
pedestrian, contemporary prose than he was in parsing Meres's Early
Modern English -- if indeed he bothered to read either one.
> > >and that the book shows side by side comparisons of
> > >the Edward de Vere, the Ashbourne Portrait and Hugh Hamersley. The
> > >known Hamersley portrait, from London, is somehow never reproduced by
> > >the Folger.
> > What on earth are you talking about? There's a full-page
> > reproduction of the other Hamersley portrait on page 67 of
> > William L. Pressly's article about the Ashbourne portrait
> > in *Shakespeare Quarterly* 44 (1993). Have you not seen
> > this article?
> >
> > Dave Kathman
> > dj...@ix.netcom.com
> Read the book Dave. Perhaps Webb will lend you his copy.
>
> "Pressly's article never gives a side-by-side comparison of the faces
> in the Ashbourne and Hamersley portrait. Instead, the Hamersley
> portrait in his article is a full-length, full-page illustration
If the Pressly article includes a full-page reproduction of the
Hamersley portrait as Mr. Streitz apparently concedes here, then Mr.
Streitz's statement above, "The known Hamersley portrait, from London,
is somehow never reproduced by the Folger," is manifestly inaccurate.
However, this is by no means the first time Mr. Streitz has
contradicted himself.
> in
> which the face of Sir Hamersley is about three-quarters the size of a
> dime. The printing is so dark that the facial characteristics are not
> distinguishable. The only thing that one can see is a nose and two
> eyes peering out of a massive dark beard. This is another of Pressly's
> sleight-of-hand techniques where he is revealing information but not
> enough information to constitute full and complete disclosure. It is
> impossible for a reader of Pressly's article to make an accurate
> comparison of the faces. One can only imagine that, if the faces were
> very similar and supported his claim, he would display large,
> side-by-side illustrations of the respective faces."
I was actually going to include this extract in my first post on Mr.
Streitz's hilarious book, but other, funnier passages took precedence;
however, now that Mr. Streitz has obligingly posted it himself, I'll
add a few comments.
First, Mr. Streitz's claim that the article does not furnish enough
information to constitute "full and complete disclosure" is amusing
enough in itself, but one can appreciate the humor more fully in the
context of Mr. Streitz's contributions to this newsgroup. Of course,
anyone curious enough to see the portrait can readily view excellent
reproductions of it, and Pressly's decision to reproduce the whole
canvas seems quite reasonable -- indeed, if he had *not* done so, some
anti-Stratfordian would almost certainly grouse that Pressly was
suppressing or concealing something or other by reproducing only a
portion of the painting.
One is forcibly reminded of Mr. Streitz's earlier complaint about
Dave Kathman's list of references to William Shakespeare. Mr. Streitz
wrote:
"Ok, Kathman, I go to your website, and this is what I find.
Perhaps I am missing something [understatement of the year!],
but the earliest date you give is 1582. Where is the birth
record, where is the records of his children? It seems to me
that you have deliberately avoided references to Shakspere, and
his family, that points to the fact that the spellings in
Stratford, where presumably, the clerks, etc., knew
the man and the pronunciation of his name [sic!].
The database on your website is either faulty or deliberately
deceitful, and the subsequent analysis sheer nonsense."
However one elects to complete his penultimate incoherent sentence
fragment, it is clear that the hapless Mr. Streitz has been unable to
locate the record he seeks. I quote from a followup to Mr. Streitz's
post,
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=David.L.Webb-ya0230800019029913101
90001%40newshost.dartmouth.edu>:
"I suggest that you READ THE WEB PAGE before grousing; here is
the entry:
[from the Kathman-Ross web page,
<http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/name2.html>]
'1600 (1564) (Baptisms, Stratford Parish Register; April 26)
"Gulielmus filius Johannes Shakspere"
(handwritten; probably Richard Byfield) (EKC II, 1;
facs. SS, 21))'
Go back and check it yourself -- it's the first item on the
list dated 1600.
The explanation of the dates is clearly spelled out as well, prior
to the entries in the list:
'A Note on Dates
In some cases all we have is a transcription of a document known
to have been written earlier; in such cases the reference is
LISTED UNDER THE YEAR WHEN THE EXTANT DOCUMENT WAS WRITTEN
[emphasis added] (as near as we can tell) with the year of
the original added in parentheses. For example, all the
Stratford Parish Register entries we have from before 1600
are transcriptions from the now-lost original, made in 1600
(probably by the vicar, Richard Byfield) because of a decree
that all paper records be transcribed onto more permanent
parchment. Since it is the spelling of the name 'Shakespeare'
in particular documents that is at issue here, and since
we have no way of knowing whether the transcription follows
the original entries in spelling, I have treated the pre-1600
Parish Register entries as documents from 1600. Similarly,
several of the printed literary references were printed several
years after they were actually written; these are listed under
the year they actually appeared in print, with the probable
date of writing added in parentheses.'"
The present case is strikingly similar -- Mr. Streitz seems to assume
that his readers are *completely helpless*: not only are they unable to
judge the likeness based upon the reproduction in the Pressly article
(whose subject, incidentally, certainly looks to me at least as much
like the sitter for the Ashbourne portrait as subject of the portrait
of Oxford that Mr. Streitz reproduces in his book, as I explain briefly
below), but moreover his readers are incapable of seeking out photos of
the portrait themselves. Likewise, in the case recalled above, Mr.
Streitz seems to assume that all readers of the Kathman/Ross web site
are as dismally incompetent as he, and hence cannot find the pertinent
record -- therefore Kathman is "deceitful."
Perhaps the explanation is that Mr. Streitz unconsciously judges his
readers' competence by his own, and therefore assumes that no reader
could possibly compare the Ashbourne Portrait with the Hamersley
portrait (or locate another photo of the latter, for that matter)
without assistance. Perhaps this accounts for Mr. Streitz's bizarre
belief that Pressly's article is somehow deceptive, as well as for his
solicitude in explaining his more abstruse paleographic points clearly.
From page 6:
"Hints in reading Elizabethan English: "I's" and "J's"
are interchangeable."
Evidently fearing that the revelation he has just vouchsafed his
readers may be too abstract and difficult to follow, Mr. Streitz
continues:
'Iohn' would be 'John.'"
Not certain that he has yet clarified this technical point
sufficiently, Mr. Streitz goes further:
"The Roman numeral 'viij' would be 'viii.'"
Fearing that this recondite point may still have eluded his readers,
Mr. Streitz remarks on page 95:
"Note: 'i'='j' in these Roman numerals, so xvij is 27."
One marvels that Mr. Streitz did not pursue this explanation further
and gloss "27" in a footnote as "twenty-seven."
> If you want a comparison of the Hamersley face to the Asbourne, see my
> book. A direct comparison of the faces, is something you also failed
> to show in your website.
Actually, Mr. Streitz's reproduction of the face in the Hamersley
portrait just makes his contention, if anything, even *less*
persuasive, as now even the rare reader who is too indolent or
incompetent to check other sources can compare the three visages --
Oxford, the Ashbourne sitter, and Hamersley -- and draw his or her own
conclusions.
Mr. Streitz calls to mind Hermann, the narrator of Nabokov's
_Otchayan'ye_, who is struck by what he regards as his own uncanny
physical resemblance to a tramp he meets by chance. He exchanges
clothes with the tramp, then murders him, instructing his wife to
collect his [Hermann's] life insurance money and meet him in France.
However, the plan falls flat, as the "resemblance" is apparent only to
Hermann and the tramp's body is not mistaken for his by anybody;
indeed, the police marvel that Hermann could ever have imagined that a
plot based upon such a vague resemblance could possibly have succeeded.
Finally, Mr. Streitz seems eager to learn whether I think that the
Ashbourne sitter more closely resembles Oxford or Hamersley. While I
would not say that the resemblance itself is completely conclusive, in
my view, the Ashbourne subject looks *much* more like Hamersley than
like the depiction of Oxford in the Paris Portrait that Mr. Streitz
furnishes for comparison. First, Oxford has a much rounder face than
either the Ashbourne subject or Hamersley. The Ashbourne subject's and
Hamersley's eyes are more deeply set than Oxford's, and both the ridge
above the eyes and the brows themselves are more prominent than
Oxford's. Hamersley's nose more closely resembles the nose of the
Ashbourne subject as well. More to the point, the fact that the coat
of arms is that of Hamersley rather than that of Oxford's second wife,
and that the date is right for Hamersley, seems to me to establish
Hamersley as the subject pretty conclusively.
In short, Mr. Streitz's identification of the Ashbourne sitter as
Oxford seems to rest upon the thoroughly discredited article of Charles
Wisner Barrell, aided only by Mr. Streitz's very subjective impression
of a physical resemblance, an impression that it is not widely shared
even among Oxfordians, most of the saner of whom concede that the
Barrell article was a mare's nest. I may append a few further remarks
later, but there is nothing in the first chapter of Mr. Streitz's book
-- other than his paranoid innuendos and accusations of intellectual
dishonesty, editorial malfeasance, etc. -- that even remotely suggests
that the Ashbourne is a portrait of the Earl of Oxford.
David Webb
David L. Webb
Winterstale <winte...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I agree completely. In fact, if Mr. Streitz is so confident of his
identification of the sitter, perhaps he should simply post jpgs of all
three portraits at his web site and let h.l.a.s. readers decide for
themselves rather than taking our word for it.
Mr. Streitz also hints darkly in his book that the date 1611 has
been fraudulently altered to 1612 by the Folger in order that the date
match the birth date of Hamersley. However, how on earth could the
date 1611, combined with the putative age of 47, possibly have
*anything whatever* to do with Oxford? Even if the date *were* 1611,
how would that strengthen the identification of the sitter with Oxford?
Mr. Streitz's paranoid pronouncements make no sense whatever.
If Dr. Stritmatter's thesis is the closest thing to a "smoking gun"
in the authorship dispute, as Mr. Streitz confidently assures us in his
seventh chapter, then Mr. Streitz's book is the closest thing in the
authorship dispute to an exploding cigar.
David Webb
David Kathman
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> Finally, Mr. Streitz seems eager to learn whether I think that the
>Ashbourne sitter more closely resembles Oxford or Hamersley. While I
>would not say that the resemblance itself is completely conclusive, in
>my view, the Ashbourne subject looks *much* more like Hamersley than
>like the depiction of Oxford in the Paris Portrait that Mr. Streitz
>furnishes for comparison. First, Oxford has a much rounder face than
>either the Ashbourne subject or Hamersley. The Ashbourne subject's and
>Hamersley's eyes are more deeply set than Oxford's, and both the ridge
>above the eyes and the brows themselves are more prominent than
>Oxford's. Hamersley's nose more closely resembles the nose of the
>Ashbourne subject as well. More to the point, the fact that the coat
>of arms is that of Hamersley rather than that of Oxford's second wife,
>and that the date is right for Hamersley, seems to me to establish
>Hamersley as the subject pretty conclusively.
It's also worth noting that the portrait of Hamersley was painted
in 1629, about 17 years after the Ashbourne portrait, so we would
expect some difference in appearance due to the aging process.
For what it's worth, I agree with David Webb's assessment above --
the 1629 portrait of Hamersley looks much more like the Ashbourne
than do either of the two known authentic portraits of Oxford.
I'm mystified as to why so many Oxfordians seem so obsessed with the
Ashbourne portrait, and why so many of them keep insisting that
it's Oxford even in the face of all the evidence. But then there's
a lot about the psychology of fringe groups that I don't understand.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Kennedy
...But then there's a lot about the psychology of fringe groups
that I don't understand.
Kennedy writes:
There's much more that you don't understand, Kathman, and
it doesn't seem you can learn it. The lesson is simple: don't
call names. A perceptive reader takes the quick conclusion,
and it's probably right, that your position is weak and needs
bucking up by ad hominem attacks. This is elementary, it's
in all the psychology texts and debating manuals, chapter one,
page one, and if you want to show us that you have confidence
and character, and wear long pants, forget the insults and do
business like a grown-up.
bookburn
"Richard Kennedy" <stai...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3C8FA004...@teleport.com...
What's this, the pot calling the kettle black? Your ex cathedra
"lesson" is instructive, but beating Kathman about the head and
shoulders with "long pants"as if he were an enfant terrible for
an alleged at hominem is surely infra dig. Must be you're
defensive about the psychology of your group.
--
bookburn
". . . the wag (joker) is wild."
Sir Walter Raleigh, "To His Son"
paul streitz
Hamersley matches the face in the Ashbourne, fine.
paul streitz
Bob Grumman
> been fraudulently altered to 1612 by the Folger in order that the date
> match the birth date of Hamersley. However, how on earth could the
> date 1611, combined with the putative age of 47, possibly have
> *anything whatever* to do with Oxford? Even if the date *were* 1611,
> how would that strengthen the identification of the sitter with Oxford?
> Mr. Streitz's paranoid pronouncements make no sense whatever.
Gotta step in here to show how good I am at thinking
anti-Stratfordianly. If the date were 1611, it would mean
the sitter was born in 1564, which means that the Ashbourne
sitter told the painter he was Shakespeare, and the painter
or someone else who knew or found out when Shakespeare was
born put down the sitter's age as 47. All this requires is
that the painter and the other person, if there was another
person, knew neither Oxford as Oxford, nor Shakespeare.
I could be wrong. Perhaps "47" was just a clever clue to
The Truth. ("Hey, Henry, Ed wasn't 47 in 1611." "Heheh,"
I know that--but that rube people are saying wrote his plays
just because of some slight resemblance between his uncouth
name and Ed's pseudonym was!")
--Bob G.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
David L. Webb
> If it is your opinion that the face shown in the known portrait of
> Hamersley matches the face in the Ashbourne, fine.
If you're talking to me, it's not just my opinion -- it's a very
widespread view, and one that even many of the saner Oxfordians do not
gainsay.
As for the identification of the Ashbourne Portrait, there are
independent reasons for thinking that it depicts Hamersley. The date
is consistent, and the coat of arms seems to be very strong evidence
for the identification. That the Ashbourne subject resembles Hamersley
is merely another corroborative observation.
By contrast, you have presented no real argument -- other than your
subjective impression of a resemblance that others don't see -- that
the Ashbourne subject is Oxford. Indeed, some of your "arguments" make
so little sense that the most charitable explanation is that you have
not even thought them through.
For example, how could the date 1611, even if it *were* 1611,
possibly have anything to do with Oxford?
Second, you suggest that, because your offer to purchase the
Ashbourne Portrait for $55,000 was refused, the Folger must be aware
that the sitter is Oxford and that Oxford is Shakespeare. Your
"reasoning," if one may use the word so loosely, was the following:
(1) if the subject is Hamersley, then the portrait has little value;
(2) if the subject is Oxford but Oxford is not Shakespeare, then the
portrait has only a modest value;
(3) if the subject is Oxford and Oxford is Shakespeare, then the value
of the canvas is incalculable.
However, there are at least two problems with the inference that the
Folger must know (3) to be the case. First, it is by no means clear
that $55,000 exceeds the market value of the painting even if the
sitter is Hamersley -- you have *one* data point, and no information at
all about the portrait's value on the open market. Second, the Folger
staff may be actuated by curatorial motives other than pecuniary
considerations. Third, and most important, why on earth would the
Folger wish to undertake a deception that would lead the public to
*undervalue* the Folger's assets?! Assets are not worth much unless
their value is appreciated and acknowledged. Are you suggesting that
the Folger could not afford to pay the insurance premiums if the truth
were known, or something? But the Folger *was* able to pay for
insurance back when the portrait was supposedly Shakespeare. You very
clearly have not thought this through at all.
Finally, I have no earthly idea why you hallucinate that the sitter
has adopted a "Hamlet-like" pose, whatever that it supposed to mean.
David Webb
paul streitz
> In article <5daf239d.02031...@posting.google.com>, paul
> streitz <oxins...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > If it is your opinion that the face shown in the known portrait of
> > Hamersley matches the face in the Ashbourne, fine.
>
> If you're talking to me, it's not just my opinion -- it's a very
> widespread view, and one that even many of the saner Oxfordians do not
> gainsay.
The close-ups of the three portraits are put side by side on the same
page of my book, the viewer can determine the match. I expect every
committed Stratfordian to see a close match between Hamersley and the
Ashbourne. After all there is no evidence.
> As for the identification of the Ashbourne Portrait, there are
> independent reasons for thinking that it depicts Hamersley. The date
> is consistent,
What date? The 1611 or the 1612? You fail to mention a few things
that were brought out in my book, that is the date of 1611 which is
consistent with the Stratford man was noted at the turn of the century
to be inconsistent with the colors in the rest of the painting and
that the forehead and crown of head had been raised to match the
Droeshout engraving. The 1612, consistent with Hamersley emerges after
the Folger 'restoration." My, my, what a coincidence.
You fail to mention, Spielman's comment on the portrait,
"We thus have the presentment of a handsome, courtly gentleman, well
formed and of good bearing, and apparently of high breeding,
thoughtful, and contemplative; so sincere in expression and
presentation that the picture cannot be regarded in any sense a
theatrical portrait. It resembles rather one of the gentlemen who
accompanied Queen Elizabeth in her progress to Hunsdon House according
to the tradition ..." (Was Shakspere in this portrait?/?)
and the coat of arms seems to be very strong evidence
> for the identification.
Huh? With which person?
That the Ashbourne subject resembles Hamersley is merely another
corroborative observation.
Yes, they are both men. They both have two eyes, one mouth and a nose.
That does it.
>
> By contrast, you have presented no real argument -- other than your
> subjective impression of a resemblance that others don't see -- that
> the Ashbourne subject is Oxford. Indeed, some of your "arguments" make
> so little sense that the most charitable explanation is that you have
> not even thought them through.
>
> For example, how could the date 1611, even if it *were* 1611,
> possibly have anything to do with Oxford?
As noted, it does not. The 1611 has everything to do with Shakspere.
> Second, you suggest that, because your offer to purchase the
> Ashbourne Portrait for $55,000 was refused, the Folger must be aware
> that the sitter is Oxford and that Oxford is Shakespeare. Your
> "reasoning," if one may use the word so loosely, was the following:
>
> (1) if the subject is Hamersley, then the portrait has little value;
> (2) if the subject is Oxford but Oxford is not Shakespeare, then the
> portrait has only a modest value;
> (3) if the subject is Oxford and Oxford is Shakespeare, then the value
> of the canvas is incalculable.
>
> However, there are at least two problems with the inference that the
> Folger must know (3) to be the case.
Or as I state, be playing it safe. At least not willing to dispose of
Hamersley. Why you think people don't lie?
First, it is by no means clear
> that $55,000 exceeds the market value of the painting even if the
> sitter is Hamersley -- you have *one* data point, and no information at
> all about the portrait's value on the open market. Second, the Folger
> staff may be actuated by curatorial motives other than pecuniary
> considerations.
Third, and most important, why on earth would the
> Folger wish to undertake a deception that would lead the public to
> *undervalue* the Folger's assets?!
Your failure to note another key point of the chapter. Perhaps,
reading comprehension or deliberate misreading is the problem. As I
state, saying that the Ashbourne Portrait is a portrait of Oxford
gives Oxfordians a powerful graphic image. In contrast, the graphic
images of Shakspere are a grab bag of portraits, from Chandos to
Droeshout, to the Statue that look nothing like each other. (Unless
your Strat, then they all look alike, or look like whatever they need
to look like.)
Assets are not worth much unless
> their value is appreciated and acknowledged. Are you suggesting that
> the Folger could not afford to pay the insurance premiums if the truth
> were known, or something? But the Folger *was* able to pay for
> insurance back when the portrait was supposedly Shakespeare. You very
> clearly have not thought this through at all.
>
> Finally, I have no earthly idea why you hallucinate that the sitter
> has adopted a "Hamlet-like" pose, whatever that it supposed to mean.
(re-read the grave-digger scene. Your ability to form analogies is
rather limited I know, but you are superb on the detail of the
detail.)
>
> David Webb
Your failure to communicate key pieces of the arguments of this
chapter is stunning. Perhaps a failure of reading comprehension on
your part. For example, as I bring out in the chapter, why does the
Folger keep (according to it) a portrait of an ex-mayor of London,
having nothing to do with Shakespeare in the Founders Room? Why do
they keep its attribution as Shakespeare in the catalog, why not
gracefully dispose of it? As I point out, the motive has to be
financial. Disposing of this asset would be the greatest single
financial mistake that it could make.
It seems to me, that either you both deliberately misunderstand the
thread of my argument, or are extremely dull or both. Or maybe your
Stratfordian disposition sees what it wants to see. Or whatever. In
any case, to continue to respond to these misrepresentations would
involve a great deal of time and energy on my part. I have to re-state
what the book says, as opposed to what you say, untangle your
arguments, state what the book says, and explain why your point
doesn't hold water. To what point, convince any Strat on HLAS that
there is a point of 'evidence' against the Strat man and for Oxford?
Not a chance. They know there is no evidence in that direction.
Never, in five years of being involved with this, have I ever heard an
Oxfordian say there is "no evidence" for the Stratford man. (Maybe
someone has somewhere that I am unaware.) There is a certainly a
prima facie case for the Stratford man, and evidence pointing in his
direction. The question has always been for Oxfordians if this
evidence is credible, if it is sufficient and if it outweighs that
which can be mustered for Oxford. On those grounds, their decision is
for Oxford.
However, over the past years, as the Stratfordians have lost the media
campaign, the line has changed from "Shakespeare is Shakespeare" to
there is "no evidence for Oxford." From a positive to a defensive
strategy. So what is the point of me saying anything? None. There is
no evidence.
If you want to do a chapter by chapter review of the book. Be my
guest. But continuing to respond to your distortions is pointless.
paul streitz
David Kathman
>Your failure to communicate key pieces of the arguments of this
>chapter is stunning.
No, that's not what's stunning, Streitz.
>Perhaps a failure of reading comprehension on
>your part. For example, as I bring out in the chapter, why does the
>Folger keep (according to it) a portrait of an ex-mayor of London,
>having nothing to do with Shakespeare in the Founders Room?
Um, why should the Folger want to dispose of this painting,
regardless of who the sitter is? Are you under the bizarre
impression that the Folger's collection only includes items
*directly* related to Shakespeare, and that they dispose of
any items not having such a direct relation? The Folger's
collection includes items relating to all aspects of early
modern history and literature, especially (but not restricted to)
the history and literature of England. A portrait of a
Lord Mayor of London from the early 17th century is certainly
relevant for that collection. Apparently, you assume that
your own godlike veneration of Shakespeare, and complete
lack of interest in anything or anyone *not* Shakespeare,
are universal conditions which apply to everyone.
>Why do
>they keep its attribution as Shakespeare in the catalog, why not
>gracefully dispose of it?
Dispose of what -- the attribution or the painting? The fact
that this painting was long thought to be a possible portrait
of Shakespeare, and that it was altered at some point to make
it look more like the Droeshout engraving, makes it an interesting
artifact in the long history of Shakespeare iconography, even
though it eventually turned out to be a portrait of Hugh
Hamersley. I would suggest that you read Schoenbaum's
*Shakespeare's Lives* for some relevant background, but I
doubt that a book so full of nasty facts will be able to
hold your attention.
>As I point out, the motive has to be
>financial. Disposing of this asset would be the greatest single
>financial mistake that it could make.
I'm laughing too hard to think of a witty rejoinder!
>It seems to me, that either you both deliberately misunderstand the
>thread of my argument, or are extremely dull or both.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Your near-complete
lack of self-awareness is the only thing which keeps me from
feeling deeply sorry for you.
>Or maybe your
>Stratfordian disposition sees what it wants to see. Or whatever. In
>any case, to continue to respond to these misrepresentations would
>involve a great deal of time and energy on my part. I have to re-state
>what the book says, as opposed to what you say, untangle your
>arguments, state what the book says, and explain why your point
>doesn't hold water. To what point, convince any Strat on HLAS that
>there is a point of 'evidence' against the Strat man and for Oxford?
>Not a chance. They know there is no evidence in that direction.
Um, yes. Because there isn't, at least not as "evidence" is
normally defined.
>Never, in five years of being involved with this, have I ever heard an
>Oxfordian say there is "no evidence" for the Stratford man.
Maybe that's because there's a lot of evidence for the Stratford man.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Bob Grumman
> >Oxfordian say there is "no evidence" for the Stratford man.
>
> Maybe that's because there's a lot of evidence for the Stratford man.
Actually, they've said it on numerous occasions. Elizabeth Weir was
saying it only a month or two ago. I kept bringing up the names
on the title-pages, and she finally started saying that the
Stratfordians had more evidence than the Oxfordians. She never
admitted her error.
Of course, careful anti-Stratfordians generally speak of "proof,"
to avoid having to admit how much evidence our side has.
By the way, Paul, when are you going to explain what the Ashbourne
portrait's having Shakespeare's age has to do with Oxford.
paul streitz
> Um, yes. Because there isn't, at least not as "evidence" is
> normally defined.
>
anything, and it all depends on what the meaning of is is.
> >Never, in five years of being involved with this, have I ever heard an
> >Oxfordian say there is "no evidence" for the Stratford man.
>
> Maybe thcmd=submitpost
David L. Webb
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<140320021745448696%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> > In article <5daf239d.02031...@posting.google.com>, paul
> > streitz <oxins...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If it is your opinion that the face shown in the known portrait of
> > > Hamersley matches the face in the Ashbourne, fine.
> >
> > If you're talking to me, it's not just my opinion -- it's a very
> > widespread view, and one that even many of the saner Oxfordians do not
> > gainsay.
> The close-ups of the three portraits are put side by side on the same
> page of my book, the viewer can determine the match. I expect every
> committed Stratfordian to see a close match between Hamersley and the
> Ashbourne.
Well, I'm certainly not a "committed Stratfordian," but rather a
skeptic, so your sweeping generalization doesn't include me in any
case.
> After all there is no evidence.
Certainly there is none to my knowledge.
> > As for the identification of the Ashbourne Portrait, there are
> > independent reasons for thinking that it depicts Hamersley. The date
> > is consistent,
> What date? The 1611 or the 1612? You fail to mention a few things
> that were brought out in my book, that is the date of 1611 which is
> consistent with the Stratford man was noted at the turn of the century
> to be inconsistent with the colors in the rest of the painting and
> that the forehead and crown of head had been raised to match the
> Droeshout engraving. The 1612, consistent with Hamersley emerges after
> the Folger 'restoration." My, my, what a coincidence.
Even if you insist that the date 1612 is a fraudulent alteration
perpetrated by the Folger, your argument is not strengthened, because
NEITHER OF THE DATES 1611 OR 1612 HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OXFORD, who
died in 1604.
> You fail to mention, Spielman's comment on the portrait,
>
> "We thus have the presentment of a handsome, courtly gentleman, well
> formed and of good bearing, and apparently of high breeding,
> thoughtful, and contemplative; so sincere in expression and
> presentation that the picture cannot be regarded in any sense a
> theatrical portrait. It resembles rather one of the gentlemen who
> accompanied Queen Elizabeth in her progress to Hunsdon House according
> to the tradition ..." (Was Shakspere in this portrait?/?)
Why should I? It isn't evidence of anything.
> > and the coat of arms seems to be very strong evidence
> > for the identification.
> Huh? With which person?
With Hamersley, of course -- the coat of arms turned out to be his,
not that of the Trentham family. Are you actually anaware of this?
> > That the Ashbourne subject resembles Hamersley is merely another
> > corroborative observation.
> Yes, they are both men. They both have two eyes, one mouth and a nose.
> That does it.
You're not very observant...but everyone already knew that. As I
said before, why not just jpg images of all three at your web site and
let h.l.a.s. participants judge for themselves?
> > By contrast, you have presented no real argument -- other than your
> > subjective impression of a resemblance that others don't see -- that
> > the Ashbourne subject is Oxford. Indeed, some of your "arguments" make
> > so little sense that the most charitable explanation is that you have
> > not even thought them through.
> >
> > For example, how could the date 1611, even if it *were* 1611,
> > possibly have anything to do with Oxford?
> As noted, it does not. The 1611 has everything to do with Shakspere.
Then you're utterly unable to explain the pertinence of *either*
date, one of which was plainly on the painting *before* the restorative
work. Score a point for Hamersley.
> > Second, you suggest that, because your offer to purchase the
> > Ashbourne Portrait for $55,000 was refused, the Folger must be aware
> > that the sitter is Oxford and that Oxford is Shakespeare. Your
> > "reasoning," if one may use the word so loosely, was the following:
> >
> > (1) if the subject is Hamersley, then the portrait has little value;
> > (2) if the subject is Oxford but Oxford is not Shakespeare, then the
> > portrait has only a modest value;
> > (3) if the subject is Oxford and Oxford is Shakespeare, then the value
> > of the canvas is incalculable.
> >
> > However, there are at least two problems with the inference that the
> > Folger must know (3) to be the case.
> Or as I state, be playing it safe. At least not willing to dispose of
> Hamersley. Why you think [sic] people don't lie?
I certainly don't think that; I've read enough anti-Stratfordian
bilge to have been disabuse of that notion even had I been trusting
initially.
> > First, it is by no means clear
> > that $55,000 exceeds the market value of the painting even if the
> > sitter is Hamersley -- you have *one* data point, and no information at
> > all about the portrait's value on the open market.
I see that this possibility had not even occurred to you, and you
haven't thought through your "argument" at all.
> > Second, the Folger
> > staff may be actuated by curatorial motives other than pecuniary
> > considerations.
I see that this possibility had not even occurred to you, and you
haven't thought through your "argument" at all.
> > Third, and most important, why on earth would the
> > Folger wish to undertake a deception that would lead the public to
> > *undervalue* the Folger's assets?!
> Your failure to note another key point of the chapter.
> Perhaps,
> reading comprehension or deliberate misreading is the problem. As I
> state, saying that the Ashbourne Portrait is a portrait of Oxford
> gives Oxfordians a powerful graphic image.
How does it help the Folger to deny a handful of fringe cranks a
"powerful graphic image"? Those same cranks ALREADY HAVE "powerful
graphic image[s]" of Oxford, including the Paris portrait in your book.
Besides, do you *really* think that the truly demented would believe
the Folger in any case? The truly demented will insist upon having
their "powerful graphic image" no matter what, regardless of the
contrary evidence, as you're demonstrating so obligingly.
Let's review the situation. Concealing the information that Oxford
is the sitter and claiming that it was Hamersley instead would, by your
"argument," leave the Folger in possession of a painting of scant
value, while revealing the momentous truth to the world would leave
them in possession of an asset of staggering, incalculable value; why
on earth whould any sane person do the former when he or she could do
the latter? As I already pointed out (but you snipped), assets are no
good to anyone unless their true value is recognized and appreciated.
What on earth could conceivably be the Folger's motive for shooting
themselves in the foot in such in incomprehensible way? For someone
who claims to have an MBA, your grasp of financial incentive seems
exceedingly tenuous.
The only reasonable financial motive I can think of offhand for such
a deception, a motive that might conceivably induce the Folger or any
other institution deliberately to underrate its *own financial assets*,
would be the desire to avoid paying taxes or to avoid paying insurance
premiums. But the painting must *already* have been of incalculable
value *before* Barrell's farcical article, back when it was believed to
have been a portrait of Shakespeare, and the Folger was presumably
paying insurance premiums on it back then, so that motive certainly
seems inapplicable in this instance.
In other words, when the painting was thought to be a portrait of
Shakespeare, it would have been worth a staggering sum; according to
you, by identifying the portrait's subject as Hamersley, the Folger
dealt its *own financial assets* a crushing blow by drastically
reducing the portrait's value in view of the diminished interest in its
subject -- yet the Folger could very easily *restore* its own lost
fortune merely by announcing publicly that the sitter was Oxford, and
that Oxford was Shakespeare. If the Folger is indeed actuated by
pecuniary motives, as you surmise, why on earth didn't it simply
disclose the truth and bask in its restored incalculable wealth?
Nothing you've said makes the slightest bit of sense from the viewpoint
of financial incentive.
> In contrast, the graphic
> images of Shakspere are a grab bag of portraits, from Chandos to
> Droeshout, to the Statue that look nothing like each other [sic].
"...the statue that looks nothing like each other"? Is this
supposed to be an English sentence?
> (Unless
> your Strat [sic],
Whose what?
> then they all look alike, or look like whatever they need
> to look like.)
> > Assets are not worth much unless
> > their value is appreciated and acknowledged. Are you suggesting that
> > the Folger could not afford to pay the insurance premiums if the truth
> > were known, or something? But the Folger *was* able to pay for
> > insurance back when the portrait was supposedly Shakespeare. You very
> > clearly have not thought this through at all.
I see that you have no answer to this, just as you had no answer to
my other two points. You really haven't thought through this financial
incentive argument AT ALL, have you?!
> > Finally, I have no earthly idea why you hallucinate that the sitter
> > has adopted a "Hamlet-like" pose, whatever that it supposed to mean.
> (re-read the grave-digger scene. Your ability to form analogies is
> rather limited I know, but you are superb on the detail of the
> detail.)
I'm quite aware of the scene at the grave prepared for Ophelia;
however, the subject of the Ashbourne portrait is not depicted in any
open grave littered with skeletal remains. If you're referring to the
mere presence of the skull, then I regret to inform you that a skull as
a _memento mori_ is a commonplace of period portraiture, and was indeed
a Medieval commonplace long before that. No doubt you'll inform us
next that, in Ingmar Bergman's film of Mozart's _Die Zauberflote_, the
priest whom Tamino confronts as he enters Sarastro's realm must be in a
"Hamlet-like pose" because of the human skull resting on his desk! Why
don't you look up _memento mori_ in a good dictionary, view some of the
vast treasury of European art besides the Ashbourne portrait, and come
back to this point? Without intending to offend, I can assure you that
your apparent belief that a pose is "Hamlet-like" because of the mere
presence of a skull in the foreground is surely one of the most
imbecilic suggestions that you have made yet, and it would alone
suffice to make your book a laughingstock, even without howlers like
"Elizabeth Petrify" and all the rest.
> Your failure to communicate key pieces of the arguments of this
> chapter is stunning. Perhaps a failure of reading comprehension on
> your part. For example, as I bring out in the chapter, why does the
> Folger keep (according to it) a portrait of an ex-mayor of London,
> having nothing to do with Shakespeare in the Founders Room? Why do
> they keep its attribution as Shakespeare in the catalog, why not
> gracefully dispose of it?
Are you *really* under the impression that the Folger *only*
collects material that pertains to Shakespeare?!
> As I point out, the motive has to be
> financial.
And as I pointed out above, the financial incentive would induce the
Folger to do *exactly the opposite* of what you accuse them of doing!
You clearly have not thought through the financial incentive argument
AT ALL, and as I already noted, you did not answer a single one of the
three points I raised above. I can't believe that you are *really*
this stupid, appearances to the contrary, so I am assuming that you
simply have not thought this through at all.
> Disposing of this asset would be the greatest single
> financial mistake that it could make.
Not disclosing the true value of its own assets would be a financial
mistake of even greater magnitude. If the Folger really wanted to sell
the portrait, there are probably enough very rich idiots who actually
believe that the subject is both Oxford and Shakespeare to offer a
staggering sum for it.
> It seems to me, that either you both deliberately misunderstand the
> thread of my argument, or are extremely dull or both.
No, I've shown above who is dull. You haven't even considered the
obvious implications of your *own* financial incentive "argument."
> Or maybe your
> Stratfordian disposition sees what it wants to see. Or whatever. In
> any case, to continue to respond to these misrepresentations would
> involve a great deal of time and energy on my part. I have to re-state
> what the book says, as opposed to what you say, untangle your
> arguments, state what the book says, and explain why your point
> doesn't hold water.
But you haven't done *any* of the above! You haven't even answered
the three points I raised.
> To what point, convince any Strat on HLAS that
> there is a point of 'evidence' against the Strat man and for Oxford? [sic]
> Not a chance. They know there is no evidence in that direction.
Well, I haven't seen any yet, and I'm not even a "Strat."
> Never, in five years of being involved with this, have I ever heard an
> Oxfordian say there is "no evidence" for the Stratford man.
Never, in far longer than that, have I ever heard a proponent of
alien abduction and abuse say that there is no evidence for alien
abduction.
> (Maybe
> someone has somewhere that I am unaware.) There is a certainly a
> prima facie case for the Stratford man, and evidence pointing in his
> direction.
That's correct. There is nothing of the kind for Oxford. These
circumstances explain why the works are attributed to William
Shakespeare rather than to the Earl of Oxford.
> The question has always been for Oxfordians if this
> evidence is credible, if it is sufficient and if it outweighs that
> which can be mustered for Oxford [sic].
Huh?
> On those grounds, their decision is
> for Oxford.
>
> However, over the past years, as the Stratfordians have lost the media
> campaign, the line has changed from "Shakespeare is Shakespeare" to
> there is "no evidence for Oxford."
If there is no reason to doubt the usual attribution and no evidence
for Oxford, there is certainly no reason to deny that "Shakespeare is
Shakespeare."
> From a positive to a defensive
> strategy. So what is the point of me saying anything? None. There is
> no evidence.
>
> If you want to do a chapter by chapter review of the book. Be my
> guest. But continuing to respond to your distortions is pointless.
It is indeed pointless for you, as you evidently have no answers!
David Webb
David L. Webb
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <5daf239d.02031...@posting.google.com>,
> oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> >Your failure to communicate key pieces of the arguments of this
> >chapter is stunning.
> No, that's not what's stunning, Streitz.
> >Perhaps a failure of reading comprehension on
> >your part. For example, as I bring out in the chapter, why does the
> >Folger keep (according to it) a portrait of an ex-mayor of London,
> >having nothing to do with Shakespeare in the Founders Room?
> Um, why should the Folger want to dispose of this painting,
> regardless of who the sitter is? Are you under the bizarre
> impression that the Folger's collection only includes items
> *directly* related to Shakespeare, and that they dispose of
> any items not having such a direct relation? The Folger's
> collection includes items relating to all aspects of early
> modern history and literature, especially (but not restricted to)
> the history and literature of England. A portrait of a
> Lord Mayor of London from the early 17th century is certainly
> relevant for that collection. Apparently, you assume that
> your own godlike veneration of Shakespeare, and complete
> lack of interest in anything or anyone *not* Shakespeare,
> are universal conditions which apply to everyone.
Actually, I suspect that pure dementia, not "godlike veneration of
Shakespeare," is the explanation in Mr. Streitz's case. Mr. Streitz's
putative "godlike veneration of Shakespeare" was insufficently godlike
to induce him to read more than about half Shakespeare's plays --
indeed, he asserted that only one of Shakespeare's plays is set in a
foreign country other than Italy, so he can scarcely have even read
both _Hamlet_ and _MacBeth_! (Perhaps he thinks that "Banquo" sounds
Italian.)
> >Why do
> >they keep its attribution as Shakespeare in the catalog, why not
> >gracefully dispose of it?
> Dispose of what -- the attribution or the painting? The fact
> that this painting was long thought to be a possible portrait
> of Shakespeare, and that it was altered at some point to make
> it look more like the Droeshout engraving, makes it an interesting
> artifact in the long history of Shakespeare iconography, even
> though it eventually turned out to be a portrait of Hugh
> Hamersley. I would suggest that you read Schoenbaum's
> *Shakespeare's Lives* for some relevant background, but I
> doubt that a book so full of nasty facts will be able to
> hold your attention.
If Shakespeare's plays couldn't hold his attention, what hope is
there that Schoenbaum could?
> >As I point out, the motive has to be
> >financial. Disposing of this asset would be the greatest single
> >financial mistake that it could make.
> I'm laughing too hard to think of a witty rejoinder!
> >It seems to me, that either you both deliberately misunderstand the
> >thread of my argument, or are extremely dull or both.
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Your near-complete
> lack of self-awareness is the only thing which keeps me from
> feeling deeply sorry for you.
> >Or maybe your
> >Stratfordian disposition sees what it wants to see. Or whatever. In
> >any case, to continue to respond to these misrepresentations would
> >involve a great deal of time and energy on my part. I have to re-state
> >what the book says, as opposed to what you say, untangle your
> >arguments, state what the book says, and explain why your point
> >doesn't hold water. To what point, convince any Strat on HLAS that
> >there is a point of 'evidence' against the Strat man and for Oxford?
> >Not a chance. They know there is no evidence in that direction.
> Um, yes. Because there isn't, at least not as "evidence" is
> normally defined.
> >Never, in five years of being involved with this, have I ever heard an
> >Oxfordian say there is "no evidence" for the Stratford man.
> Maybe that's because there's a lot of evidence for the Stratford man.
Well put.
David Webb
Hermione Winterstale
> Paul Streitz wrote:
> "We thus have the presentment of a handsome, courtly gentleman, well
> formed and of good bearing, and apparently of high breeding,
> thoughtful, and contemplative; so sincere in expression and
> presentation that the picture cannot be regarded in any sense a
> theatrical portrait. It resembles rather one of the gentlemen who
> accompanied Queen Elizabeth in her progress to Hunsdon House according
> to the tradition ..."
"One of the gentlemen who accompanied Queen Elizabeth in her progress
to Hundson House, according to the tradition..." was
THE MAYOR OF LONDON
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce
the Lord Mayor Hamersley
paul streitz
>>>Even if you insist that the date 1612 is a fraudulent alteration
perpetrated by the Folger, your argument is not strengthened, because
NEITHER OF THE DATES 1611 OR 1612 HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OXFORD, who
died in 1604.
How stupid can you be???? Are you as thick as a plank, or what?
The painting has the inscription "Aatis Svae. 47" in the upper left
hand corner. This is the date added to the portrait in bright gold
letters.
This date of 47 corresponds to a reasonable age for the sitter. 1611
minus 47 gives us 1664.
To correspond with the known date of Hamersley's birth, the date is
changed to 1612, which corresponds with 1665.
That is the reason for the change from 1611 to 1612. To get the
portrait away from Shakspere and pointed toward Hamersley. What has
Oxford got to do with this change? How can you be so stupid as to ask?
The date, of course, had nothing to do with Oxford. It was painted in
1611, it wasn't painted in 1612, etc. Oxford wasn't 47 in 1612, 1611,
etc.
Is your mind such a muddle? Is it clear now. You have so fixated
yourself on typos that you can't see a chain of logic to save
yourself.
Daahhhh. Can you be more clueless? Look, you must be deliberately, or
genetically stupid. Replying to each of your stupid claims is
nonsense.
Arguing with a moron is wasting my time.
paul streitz
Peter Groves
news:5daf239d.02031...@posting.google.com...
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:<150320020942080327%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
>
> >>>Even if you insist that the date 1612 is a fraudulent alteration
> perpetrated by the Folger, your argument is not strengthened, because
> NEITHER OF THE DATES 1611 OR 1612 HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OXFORD, who
> died in 1604.
>
> How stupid can you be???? Are you as thick as a plank, or what?
>
> The painting has the inscription "Aatis Svae. 47"
And what language would that be? Or is it perhaps "Aet[at]is"? Of course,
you wouldn't have a clue -- it might as well be in Klingon.
>in the upper left
> hand corner. This is the date
"date"?
> added to the portrait in bright gold
> letters.
>
> This date
"date"?
> of 47 corresponds to a reasonable age for the sitter. 1611
> minus 47 gives us 1664.
Not on this planet.
>
> To correspond with the known date of Hamersley's birth, the date is
> changed to 1612, which corresponds with 1665.
Not on this planet.
[...]
>
> Arguing with a moron is wasting my time.
>
> paul streitz
True: you need to aim a bit lower.
Peter G.
David Kathman
This has got to be Streitz's funniest post yet! I literally have
tears streaming down my face from laughter! I just read it through
a second time, and I'm laughing all over again! Seldom in my
life have I laughed as heartily or often as I have at Streitz's
posts here over the past few weeks. For a while I thought this
newsgroup was becoming tedious, but Streitz's posts (and David
Webb's very entertaining responses to them) have restored my
faith in the comedy potential of this newsgroup.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Reedy
Yes, Streitz is precocious in that he seems to have contracted senile
dementia years, if not decades, before Richard Kennedy did.
TR
paul streitz
Webb seems intent on misrepresenting, misunderstanding or not
understand what is in my book, and then posting it on here.
The book makes an explicit argument about the Ashbourne portrait as
follows:
>>>Other modifications noted by Spielmann include the bright gold of
the thumb ring and emblem of the book which did not match the subdued
colors of the remainder of the portrait. The gold inscription in the
upper left corner of the portrait stated "Aetatis suae 47 Anno 1611."
This links the portrait with the man from Stratford-upon-Avon who was
born in 1564 and would have been forty-seven years old in 1611. Dr.
Spielmann further noted that the sitter for the portrait looks much
like one of the gentlemen in the wedding procession portrait of Queen
Elizabeth. In this portrait, Elizabeth is on a cart covered by a
canopy and surrounded by courtiers:
"We thus have the presentment of a handsome, courtly gentleman, well
formed and of good bearing, and apparently of high breeding,
thoughtful, and contemplative; so sincere in expression and
presentation that the picture cannot be regarded in any sense a
theatrical portrait. It resembles rather one of the gentlemen who
accompanied Queen Elizabeth in her progress to Hunsdon House according
to the tradition."
>>>>After the publication of the Scientific American article, the
Folger Shakespeare Library reversed its position: The organization
that had been content to label the portrait as the man from Stratford
for over a decade had now declared the painting picta non grata. After
several years of searching for another plausible identity for the
sitter of the painting, the Folger Shakespeare Library found Sir Hugh
Hamersley, mayor of London for a period in the 1600s. His most
outstanding qualification as subject for this portrait was that he was
born in 1565, a year after the man from Stratford-upon-Avon.
>>>>In 1979, the Folger Shakespeare Library "restored" the Ashbourne
Portrait. After this restoration, the library claimed that the true
date on the painting was 1612. The Folger's revised date then fit the
birth date of Hamersley (47 + 1565 = 1612). A comparison of the dates
on the painting before and after the cleaning does not make a strong
case that the 1611 date was an alteration; rather, the new date
appears to be the addition of a vague tail to the last "1" of 1611 to
turn it into 1612.>>>>>
This is followed by graphics of the 1611 date prior to the restoration
and graphics of the 1612 date after the restoration, as well as full
face portraits of Oxford, the Ashbourne, and Hamersley.
I see no reason to continue to respond to Webb, who is either
deliberately, or through lack of comprehension, misrepresenting the
arguments. Nor, do I see any reason to put on this site, bit by bit,
the entire book, in order to respond to Webb's misrepresentations. For
those interested, I recommend obtaining the book and gazing on the
portraits.
paul streitz
Hermione Winterstale
> The book makes an explicit argument about the Ashbourne portrait as
> follows:
"The book makes an explicit argument"? Are you now disclaiming authorship?
> ...Dr.Spielmann further noted that the sitter for the portrait looks much
> like one of the gentlemen in the wedding procession portrait of Queen
> Elizabeth. In this portrait, Elizabeth is on a cart covered by a
> canopy and surrounded by courtiers:
> "We thus have the presentment of a handsome, courtly gentleman, well
> formed and of good bearing, and apparently of high breeding,
> thoughtful, and contemplative; so sincere in expression and
> presentation that the picture cannot be regarded in any sense a
> theatrical portrait. It resembles rather one of the gentlemen who
> accompanied Queen Elizabeth in her progress to Hunsdon House according
> to the tradition."
A gentleman such as the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Hugh Hamersley?
> <in its search for the subject of the painting>
> the Folger Shakespeare Library found Sir Hugh
> Hamersley, mayor of London for a period in the 1600s. His most
> outstanding qualification as subject for this portrait was that he was
> born in 1565, a year after the man from Stratford-upon-Avon.
Is it your belief, then, that the Folger Library based its determination
that the subject of the Ashbourne painting was Sir Hugh Hamersley,
Lord Mayor of London, on the fact that he was born in 1565? Not because
of the fact that the painting revealed upon restoration the coat of arms
of Sir Hugh Hamersley? That the subject looked like the man depicted
in the London painting of Sir Hugh Hamersley? That Hugh Hamersley
was a member of the queen's procession to Hunsdon House?
<snip>
> ...Nor, do I see any reason to put on this site, bit by bit,
> the entire book, in order to respond to Webb's misrepresentations.
> For those interested, I recommend obtaining the book and gazing on the
> portraits.
There is no need to go to extreme measures. The London portrait of
Hamersley can be viewed quite readily at:
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/sirhugh1.htm
And the Ashbourne portrait can be viewed at:
David L. Webb
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<150320020942080327%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
>
> >>>Even if you insist that the date 1612 is a fraudulent alteration
> perpetrated by the Folger, your argument is not strengthened, because
> NEITHER OF THE DATES 1611 OR 1612 HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OXFORD, who
> died in 1604.
>
> How stupid can you be????
I don't know; you tell me.
> Are you as thick as a plank, or what?
>
> The painting has the inscription "Aatis Svae. 47 [sic]" in the upper left
> hand corner.
Actually, it reads "AETATIS SVAE. 47." Do you have any idea what
that means? Do you even know what language it is?
> This is the date added to the portrait in bright gold
> letters.
"*Added* to the portrait"? Surely you're not intimating that the
inscription was *added during the restoration*?! The inscription was
present before the Folger undertook the restoration.
> This date
????
> of 47 corresponds to a reasonable age for the sitter. 1611
> minus 47 gives us 1664.
1611-47=1664? Better check your arithmetic.
> To correspond with the known date of Hamersley's birth, the date is
> changed to 1612, which corresponds with 1665.
Right, modulo a repetition of your arithmetic blunder. [Hint: If B
is a positive integer, then A-B is smaller than A]. But WITH OR
WITHOUT the "alteration" you allege, the date in question has NOTHING
WHATEVER TO DO WITH OXFORD, who was already dead. Hint: The
inscription was on the painting BEFORE the alteration, REGARDLESS of
whether it was supposed to read 1611 or 1612; therefore Oxford is NOT
the sitter, unless for some bizarre reason of your own you hallucinate
that the artist carefully lettered an inscription having nothing
whatever to do with the portrait's subject.
Do you *really* not understand this simple point? Or are you just
playing the fool for laughs? Do you have any notion what an ass you're
making of yourself?
> That is the reason for the change from 1611 to 1612. To get the
> portrait away from Shakspere and pointed toward Hamersley.
In neither case could it have had the slightest connection with
Oxford. Therefore Oxford is NOT the sitter, unless for some bizarre
reason of your own you hallucinate that the artist carefully lettered
an inscription having nothing whatever to do with the portrait's
subject. Do you have any notion what an ass you're making of yourself?
> What has
> Oxford got to do with this change?
Nothing. Oxford has nothing to do with *either date* -- neither the
"original" (according to your paranoid insinuation) date of 1611 nor
the "altered" (according to your paranoid insinuation) date of 1612
links the portrait to Oxford. Do you finally begin to understand why
WHETHER OR NOT THE PAINTING was altered, the sitter cannot have been
Oxford?
> How can you be so stupid as to ask?
Well, because you were so stupid as to bring it up.
> The date, of course, had nothing to do with Oxford. It was painted in
> 1611, it wasn't painted in 1612, etc. Oxford wasn't 47 in 1612, 1611,
> etc.
That's correct. Therefore, REGARDLESS of whether or not the Folger
fraudulently altered the date, the portrait's subject is NOT Oxford.
Oxford is NOT the sitter, unless for some bizarre reason of your own
you hallucinate that the artist carefully lettered an inscription
having nothing whatever to do with the portrait's subject.
> Is your mind such a muddle?
There's a rather amusing irony in all this.
> Is it clear now. You have so fixated
> yourself on typos that you can't see a chain of logic to save
> yourself.
What "chain of logic"? The one that identifies the sitter as
Oxford, heedless of the fact that the inscription, whichever of the
dates one accepts, rules Oxford out pretty conclusively?
> Daahhhh. Can you be more clueless?
Do you have any notion what an ass you're making of yourself?
> Look, you must be deliberately, or
> genetically stupid.
Do you have any notion what an ass you're making of yourself?
> Replying to each of your stupid claims is
> nonsense.
You're at least partly right -- so far, your replies have indeed
been nonsense.
> Arguing with a moron is wasting my time.
In that case you should at all costs avoid indecision and the
self-debate that inevitably accompanies it.
David Webb
Richard Kennedy
It's not at all surprising that the Folger and its following troop of
bad actors should want to assign the Ashbourne portrait to the
good Mayor Hamersley. It's not the original mistaken identity
of the subject that is ghastly to them, for that's easily enough to
be excused, even forgiven. The great trouble is that they claimed
it to be Shakespeare, and now it looks like Oxford was the man
in the inky dress touching that skull. There's the big trouble.
Very embarrassing, because they liked the attitude so well that
they claimed it was the great poet. And now that they've been
proven wrong (and even culprits), they must say that the portrait
was >anybody< but Oxford. Interesting how history caught up
with them, the greedy work of those long dead now coming to
light. And I need not slander the Folger, Webb does it for us.
"..regardless of whether or not the Folger fraudulently altered the
date...." Etc. Regardless, you understand. It makes no difference
that the Folger is crooked in the case, not to Webb, nor to any of
the Strats I would suppose. Business as usual.
David L. Webb
> To the readers of this thread:
>
> Webb seems intent on misrepresenting,
Misrepresenting?! I have mostly quoted your own words.
> misunderstanding or not
> understand what is in my book, and then posting it on here.
>
> The book makes an explicit argument about the Ashbourne portrait as
> follows:
>
> >>>Other modifications noted by Spielmann include the bright gold of
> the thumb ring and emblem of the book which did not match the subdued
> colors of the remainder of the portrait.
Colors on old canvases are often much more vivid after curatorial
restorations and repairs, but perhaps this fact is news to you.
> The gold inscription in the
> upper left corner of the portrait stated "Aetatis suae 47 Anno 1611."
> This links the portrait with the man from Stratford-upon-Avon who was
> born in 1564 and would have been forty-seven years old in 1611. Dr.
> Spielmann further noted that the sitter for the portrait looks much
> like one of the gentlemen in the wedding procession portrait of Queen
> Elizabeth. In this portrait, Elizabeth is on a cart covered by a
> canopy and surrounded by courtiers:
>
> "We thus have the presentment of a handsome, courtly gentleman, well
> formed and of good bearing, and apparently of high breeding,
> thoughtful, and contemplative; so sincere in expression and
> presentation that the picture cannot be regarded in any sense a
> theatrical portrait. It resembles rather one of the gentlemen who
> accompanied Queen Elizabeth in her progress to Hunsdon House according
> to the tradition."
Hermione has pointed out that one such person, according to the
tradition, was the Mayor of London. Have you answered her post yet?
> >>>>After the publication of the Scientific American article, the
> Folger Shakespeare Library reversed its position: The organization
> that had been content to label the portrait as the man from Stratford
> for over a decade had now declared the painting picta non grata. After
> several years of searching for another plausible identity for the
> sitter of the painting,
Pure, paranoid speculation.
> the Folger Shakespeare Library found Sir Hugh
> Hamersley, mayor of London for a period in the 1600s. His most
> outstanding qualification as subject for this portrait was that he was
> born in 1565, a year after the man from Stratford-upon-Avon.
Actually, the fact that his coat of arms appears is a strong point
in his favor as well. But perhaps you surmise, for your own bizarre
reasons, that the artist carefully lettered in an inscription having no
discernible connection with the subject of the portrait, and then,
pleased with his handiwork, painted in the coat of arms of a man having
no connection with the portrait's subject either!
Do you have any notion what an ass you're making of yourself?
> >>>>In 1979, the Folger Shakespeare Library "restored" the Ashbourne
> Portrait. After this restoration, the library claimed that the true
> date on the painting was 1612. The Folger's revised date then fit the
> birth date of Hamersley (47 + 1565 = 1612). A comparison of the dates
> on the painting before and after the cleaning does not make a strong
> case that the 1611 date was an alteration; rather, the new date
> appears to be the addition of a vague tail to the last "1" of 1611 to
> turn it into 1612.>>>>>
>
> This is followed by graphics of the 1611 date prior to the restoration
> and graphics of the 1612 date after the restoration, as well as full
> face portraits of Oxford, the Ashbourne, and Hamersley.
>
> I see no reason to continue to respond to Webb,
I'm not surprised -- your "argument" has expired. It's time for a
graceful withdrawal.
> who is either
> deliberately, or through lack of comprehension, misrepresenting the
> arguments. Nor, do I see any reason to put on this site, bit by bit,
> the entire book, in order to respond to Webb's misrepresentations.
Actually, I've posted more of the book than you have thus far.
> For
> those interested, I recommend obtaining the book and gazing on the
> portraits.
I second that recommendation, although I urge would-be puchasers to
buy the book second-hand rather than to support the Oxford Institute.
When I have finished reviewing the book, I'll be happy to pass around
my copy to those interested in seeing for themselves what is almost
surely the most remarkable and most unintentionally funny volume that I
have ever seen.
David Webb
David L. Webb
<stai...@teleport.com> wrote:
> It's not at all surprising that the Folger and its following troop of
> bad actors should want to assign the Ashbourne portrait to the
> good Mayor Hamersley. It's not the original mistaken identity
> of the subject that is ghastly to them, for that's easily enough to
> be excused, even forgiven. The great trouble is that they claimed
> it to be Shakespeare, and now it looks like Oxford was the man
> in the inky dress touching that skull. There's the big trouble.
>
> Very embarrassing, because they liked the attitude so well that
> they claimed it was the great poet. And now that they've been
> proven wrong (and even culprits), they must say that the portrait
> was >anybody< but Oxford.
Both the coat of arms and the date in ths inscription identify the
subject pretty conclusively as Hamersley, even without the other
portrait of Hamersley for comparison; however, *whoever* the sitter may
have been, it certainly cannot have been Oxford, since *neither* of the
two dates nor the coat of arms has *anything whatever* to do with him.
> Interesting how history caught up
> with them, the greedy work of those long dead now coming to
> light. And I need not slander the Folger, Webb does it for us.
No, of course I do not "slander" the Folger Library -- that the
Folger fraudulently altered the portrait during restoration is Mr.
Streitz's bizarre intimation. Your reading comprehension evidently
hasn't improved any during your absence, which is rather sad. (Nor has
your memory, which is sadder still.)
> "..regardless of whether or not the Folger fraudulently altered the
> date...." Etc. Regardless, you understand. It makes no difference
For the purposes of Mr. Streitz's argument (insofar as it can be
called an argument), it makes no difference whatever whether the Folger
altered the portrait -- the "original" (according to Mr. Streitz) date
of 1611 is just as unrelated to Oxford -- who was dead by that time --
as is the "altered" date of 1612.
> that the Folger is crooked in the case,
I see no reason whatever to suppose that the Folger is "crooked";
such groundless scenarios are strictly the province of the paranoid.
> not to Webb, nor to any of
> the Strats I would suppose.
I can't speak for "the Strats," but I would be very surprised if any
sane person took Mr. Streitz's paranoid accusations at all seriously.
> Business as usual.
For the sane, yes.
David Webb
johncoot
himalayan East Indian Elephant with the smalll ears of Ceylon.
The Big Rock Candy Mountain in the foreground shows Lord Handley-Crux
playing withhis compass and sextant at 15 degrees west longitude from
greenwich menatime.
The Trunk shaped similiar to a Victorian Island, points auspiciously
to the inverted Lords,whom have had their Squire Reeds hands and Head
removed, post modern pose of Duglas.
Henry Thomas Alken has drawn a mirrored pose of the Fox and the Hound
circumventing juxtapositions, one archaic form,preceding Anticosta.
The Nansen Cross transforms this eloquent piece ,Master Piece of
Illusions.
Whereby Grey and Blue Pastels ,intermingle.,with a vermillion sky.
The meaning of the horizons purpled hue,dawn breakin slightly askew,
Traversing the Wister Trace,Willy Boy, like a pied piper of Hamlet,
leads his happy herd of rats aloft,delighted in their escapade.
The sheer terror of the Fox,upon realization, that his spanish
prisoner has been set loose ,turned against a Fiddler run amok.Faces
aghast, the ripped dress,proboscus expossed tittilating forbidden
exposures to southern climes in Jamaican wilderness.
The Post Office Clarke forks over a copy of the Montreal Chronicle,
confirming the terror.A ship of state has wrecked upon the Barrier
Reef.Baracudaed,by none other than Frobisher himslef.
The Grand Coulee, Lord of Serfia,has penetrated the inner sanctum of
Daedulus Tomb,and stolen the blue prints to Pharoahs coffin.
Like Moths to the flame ,distressed emissaries sparkle in glowing
ambers, fornicating the inclusion of recipes for Ravioli and Perogis
in the Ladies Home Journal.
How a lowly Pandalus Cogienta had deciphered eye showiwng telemitry.
For a coup de etat, pace 'de resistance, the ambassador of folly
demurs,
The Judas Horse leaps lunging skyward to avoid the snare, only to be
snatched from her perch ,by a foraging Raptor, fond of sea anemones.
the rods merge, forkward, leftarly flowingtowards the green azure
ford, where trevassing columns of raspberry pires, sir T's signature
Nim South confirms a rods worth of length chained horizontally from
the X marking a spot legend has it exists only in topographical lore.
Combining predetermined modes operandi, the courts rule in fervor of
the Kangaroo sport.
Jocular prose of well heeled misanthrophy cocludes erroneus finality.
based on an addition of 300 years, and 12 days, the writ is ratifeid
solemnly if not seeriptitously under the auspecies of International
Fisheries ,1884 expires, quickly,but not beofe the resolution to
reorganize post civil war reconstructions is obfuscated.
Thus the civil code is exonerated by privy prevariance, duly noted.
Sweden bespokes lighting the mast ablaze in salutory conglomerations,
advising haphazard parlence for continued employment of wooden nickle
.
Thus Hamlet safely disposed of York, alternater characterizations
sucesfully expunged, evinced of percodial protocol,the rouge moulin
pareys literal thrusts, inaccordance with statutory canon of
elizabethan nomenclature.
Having located the map, and deciphered the elementary codes of
science, terminology and other distortions employed in secondary
communications,the prior manifest is destroyed.Or thougfht to be, thus
safely removing any evidence of fowl play.
But Lord Gadwell is left as a Trojan Horse to monitor counter cultural
investigation and report on the advances of the courtesan,in
relationship to faux em passance.
If the nihilist should sucede in infiltrating the council, and
divulging the dereliction of certain elements regarding cartoon
characterization of vanquished Valiants, the entire protocol becomes
moot.
Thus primary considerations are precluded, and allegiances foresworn,
the host continues to ballistre their ramparts.
Now for the Coup de Gras, of san Blas.
Where in the wolf changes his skin to that of a lamb.
Prior to LeTate Pierre Monte Serratonis ascension to the heraldry,
written consent for publication had to be acquired in accordance with
Writ of habeous corpus.If there was no body there could be no crime.
By manipulating the genetic findings the oputcome of the trial;
rendering first strike obsolete,is gauranteed.
Damming the mailroom ,no great fiat, learend scholars evince ,will
obstruct the determined etymology of further encroachment on Scottish
Flyfishin' o the Thames.
Block 55 suggests a new, more immediate course of action necessitated
from prior experience, but sustained by coda, had been overturned.
5th Amendment gaurantors precluded the inclusion of testimony, and
efforts to confiscate script were defeated under the Magna Carta.
The result was a spanish civil war during the occasioning of time
wraps, unde the testimonial longitudes previously prescribed by law
under the Ghent accord.
Moving fisheries from entomolgist dominion, to that hydrographic
mainstay of naval pursuit sufficed only temporal pleasures for the
magistraes.
the inclusion of previously discarded 30 degree starboard lkisp to
light spectra pacifications delineated fresh evidence the Mid Summer
Nights Folly might in fact be held in the closed court of March.
King Geroge the III ,anxious to vindicate his Crest Fallen standard,
went along with the ruse.Thus McGillvray were tron asunder
McGloughlins patent design blrred in a Wrightful expence of disdaiuns.
Oh Jesus Fucking sweet Bloody Christ,they've the whole Bloody
Doughnoyt.
Drtead proceded to amplify, showing a good face.
But tribal tricksters twice burned thrice shy, exploiyted the game for
sports sake.Take it to them now Johnnie ,cries the banshees,
Side tracjectoring, manifestations of scholarly disrepute, condemned
the open book claws,as a tyrannical sore on the forte, of Flamingo
dancing. What was a swan lkake without a swan?
Had they conceded,and looked morrorward they might have forescene
their own particuliar part,but conciets come before the
fall.Pretending mute displeasure, the amused horror stricken audinces
presume to retire delicately, cell phones run amok!
Help Help Help cals the wolf!her tattered rags shrewly desire cover.
Pursuin the naked jyst, a flock of homin pigeons descends malicously,
an ill considered plight.Patton rales gloriously,
Rommel you son of a Bitch!I read your book/!laughing maniacally!
woohoo woody wood pecker comes on the scene, delighted to announce
with cohorts porky pig and co.
da de da de da de da de da da dats all folks!
There's no way they found the body!screams witch Valhildas, It's a
lie!
thus producing the glove of the fox, ring finger removed, and shining
orb dangling precariously from a tinseled thred, the observant
parasite coyly produces the evidence.
Oh MY God!Scream the plenipotentiary in utter hoor and disgust!
mwhahahaha!chortles the fiend of extraordinary feats .
and languidly thrust the pearls before swines, rampaging munifecence ,
devouring the precious trophies shadowy ingestions.
the seeds are sewn for destruction and the dawgs of war unleashed,.
sic em fido cries the Squire Reed!
Fido of the Firth Faithfulk and true silently stealthily conspires to
evacuate the tunnel, shh ing resident culprits into anonymity,slinks
snakily forward to the frye.
The veil torn asunder in arrears, the host fled boward, flight
prescient of a previous debacle of notorious calamity.But awaiting
thier escape retraet, post hatse,we find a dead end.
the open book was terminated, spoiled beyond terms, and in the rush to
reach a high ground, little consideration was taken as to post
ettiquette in a FUTURE SCYCLE OF MELAFARIOUS NOMINIUM.
Fuck oh dear!Terror stricken investors call the Ing banks, London
Branch, require a withdrawal, but wekend laws prohibiting such rash
occurence foreclosed their fate.All to be done now is to sit back and
watchthe anguish, silently in retrospect, considering the assasins
failure to achieve the desired gaols, one might consider a
retalliatory pose.
But civility and superiuor strategy prevails.It is better to stew
potatoes,. than frie them whjen making Roastr Beefies.
The adresses contingency plan ,script or no, the hurrican continues to
pummel the Islands.Faltering, then collapsing implosions as test of
will come down to the wire, a do or dire circumstance. navigation are
at a premium with no captains to man the ports.
Anarchy and chaos enssued, needless to sy,some destructyion was
inevitable,but considering the astronomical omnifesence of the
treauries confiscated,by proxy,and the immmeasureable wealth of
declassified treatise, on French Reniasence, it is amazing even the
skin of the objects were left in tact.
Certain conciets were tarnished in the waylays.albeit necessary
losses.
a millenial hoax , had content itslef of failsafe departures, never
considering seriously a roadblock would be encountered, on the way out
of Honduras of all places.
Their most germanic majesties, suspect beyond reproaches ,clothed in
Allied fervor, and confirmed of Oriental contempts.???
Round eye you no work town agan ,mocks ho chi min,>you dirty rat.
emasculating the scion of notoriety, adolphus nutless the 6, was no
easy task, a lot of strategic planning went innto elevating the shmoo
of brentwurth uverstraffen to such guise.
The Operation ,"Ebon Ungulatus.palacias."
The Black Snakes of Orinoco."Operation Anacondas post script!
Canaima was hesitant to divulge the means by wich his antipathy was
achieved,
suffice to say a saopey substance was admonished excrutiating
visibilty for several moments.Once the suds were out of their eyes we
were of course long gone.
They had come expecting to witness a slaughter and in deference to
their desires we obliged, how they became the feast of this tertiary
tartary formulae is another story, not one rweadily available s
I could tell you,but then I'd have to kill you,.
lol chuckle chuckle,chuckle,
Each precise punctuation and mispelled consideraztion, carefulkly
demnoted.
M'Clintock walked away from Ste. Francis bar an grill vindicated if
not world weary from the sojourns, His saga can be garnered from the
anals of Icelandic precursories, the laying of pipe at BalMoraol,
Castle DunneKirk,
Thus was opening shot of the third world war begun.
Having the precise coordinates of 10 previous battles, particuliar to
thetargets, consideration was given to the exact nature of the
conflict.deduction of timing had been postponed due to lack of
Intestinal Fortitude to the chagrin of the manifestors.and the paws
were jest the werks needed to employ a counter stop.
Pulling the plug on the Trust left little for error and chance was
only fates way of leveling a kew that led downward.
The results have yet to be determined, as the turmoil is in full boil
as we speak.
Will these dead ghosts of legendary dominion arise from the graves to
reek havoc ,and foil the p[lot to unmask Tyrannasaurous Rex..
We know they will.But are we wide awake and watching your every move?
YES!
so hit me with your best shot, fire away!
The arrows and slings were immediate, marked ncturnally upon a
descripted journal, each trajectory considered in demarkation to the
exact target.Alcoa Aluminum were the first up in arms!Consider the
water rights of Statutory ?Writ, demanded Liabled suitors from
netherland to Valhalla and onto Atlantis itself.
Enron Collapsed inthe midst of the turmoil, imploding like a house of
cards, the desperate lunge to obfuscate the wister trace erroneously
determined to sucede.Glorious trumpets of illumination blinding
dilligent confessors.
We had no intentions of leaving our observations to scholarship.The
leeast likely candidate for approval,and only outranked in contempt by
themedias of this day.That left a grass roots contingency of freedom
figters and truth seekers to uncover and broadcast the results.
The sheer magnitude of sentimenst concerning disclosure of shady
entrepenuerial conducts was relevant to a fault.
This hysterical milieu of fomentation could get ugly without proper
super vcisions.
Our Sage, Robert Service of the RCMP solved the dilemma.
By combining Ira Levin with Mario Puzo we Got Scarlettis Baby!
the hallmark of our adventure into fears domain!
The escapades began on the Ides of March!
The date not inclusive, we simply noted a halfway benchmark in our
tour de france, and continue manifesting the carnivals portrait as
circumstance allows.
Friend Foes malcontents, close your ears.
I have not come to praise Cesar,but to undress him and his entire
troupe publicly for your edifications concerning the nobility of worms
in time of drought!
Thomas Larque
<Monti...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>John W. Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:3C8D3EC9...@attglobal.net...
>> "David L. Webb" wrote:
>> > Mr. Streitz displays touching solicitude for those less accomplished
>> > than he in paleography and other technical aspects of Elizabethan
>> > scholarship, and he leaves no stone unturned in his endeavor to make
>> > the book accessible to a wide readership. Thus a helpful footnote on
>> > page 6 reads in part:
>> >
>> > "Hints in reading Elizabethan English: "I's" and "J's"
>> > are interchangeable. "Iohn" would be "John." The Roman
>> > numeral "viij" would be "viii." In addition, "y" can be
>> > an "i" as in "Wyfe" or "yt." This book changes the
>> > Elizabethan "f" as an "s" to the modern "s.""
>>
>> Just to make it clear, does he _really_ not distinguish between long "s"
>> and "f"?
>>
>>
>> --
>> John W. Kennedy
>> Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
>> http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
>
>"Where the bee fucks, there fuck I ..."
>
>Peter G.
I came across a more extreme one when transcribing Samuel Daniel's
"Complaint of Rosamond" - rather appropriate to the Streitzian subject
matter of this thread, as well.
"Let none for seeming so, thinke Saints of others,
For all are Men, and all have suckt their Mothers."
The initial "s" in "suckt" in the second line was, of course, printed
as a long-"s" of the kind that Streitz mistakes for "f". Perhaps this
couplet was the main inspiration for Streitz's theories about Edward
de Vere's relationship with his mother.
Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk
David L. Webb
<thomas...@lineone.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:51:24 +1100, "Peter Groves"
> <Monti...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >John W. Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:3C8D3EC9...@attglobal.net...
> >> "David L. Webb" wrote:
> >> > Mr. Streitz displays touching solicitude for those less accomplished
> >> > than he in paleography and other technical aspects of Elizabethan
> >> > scholarship, and he leaves no stone unturned in his endeavor to make
> >> > the book accessible to a wide readership. Thus a helpful footnote on
> >> > page 6 reads in part:
> >> >
> >> > "Hints in reading Elizabethan English: "I's" and "J's"
> >> > are interchangeable. "Iohn" would be "John." The Roman
> >> > numeral "viij" would be "viii." In addition, "y" can be
> >> > an "i" as in "Wyfe" or "yt." This book changes the
> >> > Elizabethan "f" as an "s" to the modern "s.""
> >> Just to make it clear, does he _really_ not distinguish between long "s"
> >> and "f"?
[...]
> >"Where the bee fucks, there fuck I ..."
> >
> >Peter G.
> I came across a more extreme one when transcribing Samuel Daniel's
> "Complaint of Rosamond" - rather appropriate to the Streitzian subject
> matter of this thread, as well.
>
> "Let none for seeming so, thinke Saints of others,
> For all are Men, and all have suckt their Mothers."
>
> The initial "s" in "suckt" in the second line was, of course, printed
> as a long-"s" of the kind that Streitz mistakes for "f". Perhaps this
> couplet was the main inspiration for Streitz's theories about Edward
> de Vere's relationship with his mother.
Thanks for a good laugh, Peter and Thomas! I wish that I could
believe Thomas's suggestion -- it would be stronger than the "evidence"
actually adduced in Mr. Streitz's book.
David Webb