From The 9-4 New York Times
seaker
To the Editor:
Re "The Shakespeare Code, and Other Fanciful Ideas From the Traditional
Camp" (Essay, Arts pages, Aug. 30):
The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays and poems
is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the "authorship
controversy" be taught in the classroom are the exact equivalent of
current arguments that "intelligent design" be taught alongside
evolution.
In both cases an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on a serious
assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by passionately held
fantasies whose adherents demand equal time.
The demand seems harmless enough until one reflects on its
implications. Should claims that the Holocaust did not occur also be
made part of the standard curriculum?
Stephen Greenblatt
Cambridge, Mass., Aug. 30, 2005
The writer is a professor of English at Harvard and author of "Will in
the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare."
Chess One
[[cc: The Pope]]
Re "Elliptical Orbits, Gravity and Other Fanciful Ideas From the Traditional
Camp" (Essay, Arts pages, Aug. 30):
The idea that God's authorship of his own book
is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the "authorship
controversy" be taught in the classroom are the exact equivalent of
current arguments that "intelligent design" be taught alongside
evolution.
In both cases an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on a serious
assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by passionately held
fantasies whose adherents demand equal time.
The demand seems harmless enough until one reflects on its
implications. Should claims that the Holocaust did not occur also be
made part of the standard curriculum?
Phil Innes
The Hippocampus
Brattleboro, Vt. Sun. 4 Sept, 2005
The writer is a author of "How come no-one else Noticed Apples falling?"
& "How Planets Prance round the Sun not the Earth."
Publ: Fanciful Press
The editors insist that in publishing these revolutionary works they do not
endorse the Holocaust nor indeed global thermo-nuclear warfare or
'Naugahyde' not in fact any browning of America by associating what is real
with a ghastly substitute.
Chess One
soul. It exemplifies the badness of established, artificial authority. The
pedagogue has almost absolute authority over his pupils: he often beats them
and insensibly he loses the sense of respect due to them as fellow human
beings. He does them harm, but the harm they do him is far greater. He may
easily become the all-knowing tyrant, always right, always virtuous; in any
event he perpetually associates with his inferiors, the king of his company;
and in a surprisingly short time alas this brands him with the mark of Cain.
Have you ever known a schoolmaster fit to associate with grown men? The
Dear knows I never have. They are most horribly warped indeed. Yet curiously
enough this does not seem to apply to tutors; perhaps it is scarcely
possible to play the prima donna to an audience of one. Fathers, on the
other hand..."
-----
Quite recently we have read here attacks upon the persons of grown men -
grown women too - and each is characterised not by any great virtue of
insight as should make us all gasp with admiration and delight, and often as
much as lacking any slight address to the topic at all!
It has instead been characterised by petty personal resentments to the
extent of denying other people entire - actually denying the foundations of
their existence, and consequently the right to express themselves at all -
in a word, a fascistic tendency - and now we read that these firebrands who
have other ideas than usually sound in our own schoolrooms are just like
<shocking emotional words> Holocaust denial, and those other people who
think <who are idiots, no?> the world started in the year 174BCE.
We should take into account that the writers of these fatuously prosaic
approaches to history may indeed have trouble 'believing' anything else
about grown-ups. What else could conceivably cause them to write as they do?
What qualities of mind would resort to this sort of omnium-gatherum
name-calling in a quality national newspaper?
That the 'other people' are inspired by the very devil is assured - they
wish to bring their heretical ideas into the schoolroom [our schoolroom!]
and challenge our own cherished beliefs about what goes on outside it.
"Stratfordian" behavior is resented by the quality of these appreciations -
and to very large degree, Stratfordian beliefs expressed this way are the
largest stimulus to other points of view! To resent these behaviors makes
one an anti-Stratfordian (which is illogical, but nevermind, we are not
dealing with logic) and the paucity of this traditional approach (mud
slinging) cannot be challenged - the very Idea of a challenge is resented -
and challengers are shrilly pre-cast as imbecilic versions of Adolf Eichman.
But 'Stratfordianism' has little claim to make with all manner of
scholarship that can be made for the Author dispute, and is in fact this
current variant is a sub-set, a type that would throw mud, which ironically
is the Anglo Saxon meaning of 'strat.'
When proponents such as Dr. Greenblatt throw their mud at others in such an
excitable but irresponsible fashion, methinks to figure that alien seeds
would find root in it!
Phil Innes
The Hippocampus
Brattleboro Vt
Spam Scone
Chess One spewed:
>
> Quite recently we have read here attacks upon the persons of grown men -
> grown women too - and each is characterised not by any great virtue of
> insight as should make us all gasp with admiration and delight, and often as
> much as lacking any slight address to the topic at all!
>
> It has instead been characterised by petty personal resentments to the
> extent of denying other people entire - actually denying the foundations of
> their existence, and consequently the right to express themselves at all -
> in a word, a fascistic tendency - and now we read that these firebrands who
> have other ideas than usually sound in our own schoolrooms are just like
> <shocking emotional words> Holocaust denial, and those other people who
> think <who are idiots, no?> the world started in the year 174BCE.
Since you are now marching to allow "other ideas" into the classroom,
no doubt you support the demand that science teachers give equal time
to Pastafarianism:
graham
"Spam Scone" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125845861....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One spewed:
>>
>> Quite recently we have read here attacks upon the persons of grown men -
>> grown women too - and each is characterised not by any great virtue of
>> insight as should make us all gasp with admiration and delight, and often
>> as
>> much as lacking any slight address to the topic at all!
>>
>> It has instead been characterised by petty personal resentments to the
>> extent of denying other people entire - actually denying the foundations
>> of
>> their existence, and consequently the right to express themselves at
>> all -
>> in a word, a fascistic tendency - and now we read that these firebrands
>> who
>> have other ideas than usually sound in our own schoolrooms are just like
>> <shocking emotional words> Holocaust denial, and those other people who
>> think <who are idiots, no?> the world started in the year 174BCE.
>
> Since you are now marching to allow "other ideas" into the classroom,
> no doubt you support the demand that science teachers give equal time
> to Pastafarianism:
>
> http://venganza.org/
>
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling'
Theory
The Onion
August 17, 2005
KANSAS CITY, KS - As the debate over the teaching of evolution in
public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum
arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the
Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the
long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it
with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational
force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing
them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education,
applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity which is taught to our children as a law is
founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual
force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force.
Isaac Newton himself said: 'I suspect that my theories may all depend
upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in
vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of
evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal
interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the
"International Journal Of Science" and the adolescent magazine "God's
Word For Teens!", there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by
secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how
Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of
Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other
Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school
curricula to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They
insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from
schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so
they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett
said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories
used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally
consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's
ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum
mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that
gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory
Lunsden. "In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says: 'And if the blind lead the
blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some
gravity making them fall, just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7,
we read: 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly
upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly
upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious
intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law
based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical
physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's
mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general
relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen
Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with
the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the
better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical
observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation
is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists
need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just
secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides
an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the
'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear
force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they
tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But
readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one,
unified force is: His name is Jesus."
gangleri
poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the "authorship
controversy" be taught in the classroom are the exact equivalent of
current arguments that "intelligent design" be taught alongside
evolution.
Comment:
In the one case, there is the fossil record attesting to evolutionary
changes over time - absent the fossil record, evolutionary *theory*
would be on par with the phlogiston *theory* of the 19th century.
A *theory* about non-observed phenomena.
The other case concerns non-observed phenomena.
2. In both cases an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on a
serious assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by passionately held
fantasies whose adherents demand equal time.
Comment:
In the 19th century, there was "overwhelming scholarly consensus, based
on a [supposedly] serious assessment of hard evidence" in favor of the
Laplacian construction of Newtonian Mechanics - empirical proof that
"scholarly consensus" is not necessarily disinterested and rational.
3. The demand seems harmless enough until one reflects on its
implications. Should claims that the Holocaust did not occur also be
made part of the standard curriculum?
Comment:
The *implications* of research along non-orthodox lines proved fatal to
Laplacian Orthodoxy - a fact which advanced the cause of science and
exposed Laplacian scholars as dilettante *scientists*.
Since physics is a *hard* subject compared to Shakespeare studies -
witness Stephan Greenblatt's recent book, 'Will in the World' - there
exist no a priori grounds for supposing that non-orthodox thought and
research in the field of Shakespeare studies must be *harmful* to the
cause of serious scholarship.
lariadc
>In the one case, there is the fossil record attesting to >evolutionary changes over time - absent the fossil record,
>evolutionary *theory* would be on par with the phlogiston
>*theory* of the 19th century.
I can't speak for the 'phlogiston theory', but can't scientists
cause bacteria to evolve in the lab? I thought I'd heard that
it could be done. Plus, recall the example of the moths in
industrial England that 'evolved' from white to black in the
new smoky environment.
C.
Chess One
"gangleri" <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1125848660....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Since physics is a *hard* subject compared to Shakespeare studies -
> witness Stephan Greenblatt's recent book, 'Will in the World' - there
> exist no a priori grounds for supposing that non-orthodox thought and
> research in the field of Shakespeare studies must be *harmful* to the
> cause of serious scholarship.
What is objectionable about Greenblatt's proposition is that he does not
acknowledge his own belief, not what his belief is, but that it is a belief
at all; while comparing 'beliefs' of others [creationism and such stuff] as
the right comparison. That the comparisons are in any case rather obese
intellectually is only a point of psychological interest.
In other words, he is not conscious of his own belief - does not see his
views as an item of belief at all, but all others have beliefs to which the
student should not be exposed!
What this has to do with education is parallel to the modern American
phenomena making its way through all universities in all disciplines, and
now unto high schools. In essence, it does not support that the student
should even hear various beliefs, but that certain beliefs are correct and
others are not. There is no sense that it is the student who should choose
anything or make up their own minds.
And so "education" comes full turn, and rather than e-ducare, draw-out from,
the exact opposite applies of 'cramming-into' with approved texts of
received knowledge - and the only difference between liberals and
conservatives are the texts, not the method.
Its interesting that Orwell wrote about this subject long before Allan Bloom
wrote 'The Closing of the American Mind', in fact it was in 1940 when
fascist issues were unavoidable - and amusingly for us, mentions Hamlet in
the preamble to the subject of realism in his critical review of a Marxist
title. Its quite funny, it contains the phrases:-
"But this will not get one much farther, because it is assumed in any
age there will be /one/ body of belief which is the current approximation to
truth, and that the best literature of the time will be more or less in
harmony with it. Actually no such uniformity has ever existed. In C17th
England, for instance, there was a religious and political cleavage which
distinctly resembled the left-right antagonisms of today. Looking back, most
people would feel that the bourgeois-Puritan viewpoint was a better
approximation to truth than the Catholic-feudal one. But it is certainly not
the case that all or even a majority of the best writers of the time were
Puritans."
And he goes on to speak of Poe and Miller [Miller as a 'Whitman among the
corpses']
"Symptomatically, that is more significant than the mere fact that 5,000
novels are published in England every year, and 4 thousand and nine-hundred
of them are tripe. It is a demonstration of the impossibility of any major
literature until the world has shaken itself into its new shape."
Both extracts from "Inside the Whale."
Cordially, Phil Innes
Spam Scone
gangleri wrote:
> Since physics is a *hard* subject compared to Shakespeare studies -
A First Folio seems pretty hard - should I drop it on you?
> witness Stephan Greenblatt's recent book, 'Will in the World' - there
> exist no a priori grounds for supposing that non-orthodox thought and
> research in the field of Shakespeare studies must be *harmful* to the
> cause of serious scholarship.
It's harmful if people think crackpottery is "serious scholarship."
Fortunately for Shakespeare your nuttery convinces no one.
gangleri
environment" set in and made it easier for predators to pick out the
lighter-colored moths, leaving more and more of the darker-colored
moths to procreate.
As indicated by the routine emergence of new forms of flu viruses,
genetic mutations are a frequent natural occurrence among human and
animal viruses.
It's fair surmise that scientists can induce some such mutations in the
laboratory - it's evolution of sorts, but not of the origin-of-species
variety.
gangleri
I thought he was dead.
Spam Scone
Chess One wrote:
> "gangleri" <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1125848660....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Since physics is a *hard* subject compared to Shakespeare studies -
> > witness Stephan Greenblatt's recent book, 'Will in the World' - there
> > exist no a priori grounds for supposing that non-orthodox thought and
> > research in the field of Shakespeare studies must be *harmful* to the
> > cause of serious scholarship.
>
> What is objectionable about Greenblatt's proposition is that he does not
> acknowledge his own belief, not what his belief is, but that it is a belief
> at all; while comparing 'beliefs' of others [creationism and such stuff] as
> the right comparison. That the comparisons are in any case rather obese
> intellectually is only a point of psychological interest.
>
> In other words, he is not conscious of his own belief - does not see his
> views as an item of belief at all, but all others have beliefs to which the
> student should not be exposed!
The sun rose in the eastern sky this morning in Brattleboro, except for
Innes and others who believe differently. When he heard on the radio
the "belief" that the sun rose this morning in the East, Philth pulled
out a picket sign and started marching in front of the radio station
demanding equal time for people who believe that the sun only rises in
the West. We leave aside for the moment Innes's belief that the sun
only rises when he wakes up.
Is Innes really quoting Orwell's discussion of fiction and politics as
support for faux-science and faux-history?
> And he goes on to speak of Poe and Miller [Miller as a 'Whitman among the
> corpses']
>
> "Symptomatically, that is more significant than the mere fact that 5,000
> novels are published in England every year, and 4 thousand and nine-hundred
> of them are tripe. It is a demonstration of the impossibility of any major
> literature until the world has shaken itself into its new shape."
>
> Both extracts from "Inside the Whale."
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
I am happy to see that Mr. Innes has started to provide citations to
the sources of his "quotations"; it's a pleasant change.
Spam Scone
gangleri wrote:
> Fortunately for Shakespeare?
>
> I thought he was dead.
His reputation lives on.
lariadc
>It's fair surmise that scientists can induce some such
>mutations in the laboratory - it's evolution of sorts, but not
>of the origin-of-species variety.
Here's an article where someone is asking the same exact questions:
<http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99509.htm>
The response gives the example of domestic animals, such as dogs
and cats, and domestic plants, as being examples of new species
'evolved' by humans. I didn't realize new species of bacteria
were being created--couldn't find that elsewhere on the web,
but am not familiar with the literature.
C.
lariadc
BTW, I'm not sure I buy the part about creating the species
out of just atoms, but it seems that once created, it can
evolve into a new species.
C.
gangleri
Deficiency Syndrome - is a newly created "species" is, of course,
incorrect.
The HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is believed to have been
transmitted across species - from monkeys to humans.
More to the point is the second commentator's taking note of
"...the fact that we haven't made evolving life in the laboratory
yet."...
Chess One
This, and messages like it, should find their way into the NY Times, then
there will be no question at all why such established idiocy being foisted
onto yet another generation should be questioned.
Phil Innes
"Spam Scone" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125856789....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Spam Scone
Chess One wrote:
> This idiot level of invention is the general standard of standard Strats.
>
> This, and messages like it, should find their way into the NY Times, then
> there will be no question at all why such established idiocy being foisted
> onto yet another generation should be questioned.
Oh, but it's a "belief" system, so it should be regarded with respect
and promoted in schools and the press. Notice Innes does not tell us
what he believes, but instead merely bashes all belief but his own!
Such is the standard displayed here blah blah blah.... See how easy it
is to make arguments ala Innes?
lariadc
gangleri wrote:
> The first commentator's suggestion that AIDS - Acquired Immune
> Deficiency Syndrome - is a newly created "species" is, of course,
> incorrect.
>
> The HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is believed to have been
> transmitted across species - from monkeys to humans.
AIDS first was seen in humans in the 70's, and he mentions 1959, so he
is likely suggesting that AIDS first appeared in monkeys in 1959.
He didn't say AIDS was created in the laboratory, but implies that it
just appeared. It might have evolved from another virus--he didn't
clarify that.
>
> More to the point is the second commentator's taking note of
>
> "...the fact that we haven't made evolving life in the laboratory
> yet."...
Yes, the two commentators disagree here--am not sure who is right.
But the domesticated animals example still holds.
C.
lariadc
Here is a reference to the 1959 date (scroll down)--it was found in a
human then:
<http://www.avert.org/origins.htm>
C.
gangleri
regulars have registered their support of the substance of Stephen
Greenblatt's message to The New York Times.
Ooops!
Editorial correction:
On scrolling through this thread, I notice that NO Stratfordian hlas
regulars have registered their support of Stephen Greenblatt's message
to The New York Times.
Tom Veal
FWIW, my own view is that the fundamental objection to teaching
anti-Stratfordianism in the schools is that it would be cruel to expose
generally harmless eccentrics like Looney and the Ogburns to
state-sponsored ridicule.
LynnE
of view? What is your opinion about this letter?
Lynne
lariadc
>The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays
>and poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that
>the "authorship controversy" be taught in the classroom are
>the exact equivalent of current arguments that "intelligent
>design" be taught alongside evolution.
>In both cases an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on a
>serious assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by
>passionately held fantasies whose adherents demand equal time.
Which classrooms are demanding equal time? Is this demand occurring in
high school or college?
I don't think teachers can or should be forced to teach authorship
issues because many of them find it very distasteful. Who wants to
teach a class about their favorite author suggesting that the person
really wasn't an author? Also, many students probably want to spend
more time reading the plays, which actually have to be re-read and seen
to be fully appreciated. Plus, it's almost more of a historical issue
than a literary one, but nothing that historians would find
interesting, I think.
So does equal time mean to make it an elective? It sound like
Greenblatt is really complaining because he finds the theories
completely ludicrous.
C.
seaker
agree with parts of "Will in the World," it's one of the best books
about Shakespeare I've read. It is a well reasoned book. As for the
Niederkorn article, if he walks like an Oxfordian, talks like an
Oxfordian, he's an Oxfordian. Without Niederkorn's essay, Mark
Anderson's book would never have been mentioned in the New York Times.
As for Anderson's book, there is more honestly in a pro wrestling
match. You don't have to be a scholar to write a book about
Shakespeare. Playwright, William Gibson's book, "Shakespeare's Game,
clearly explains how the plays "work." He puts many scholarly books on
the subject to shame. As a practical man of the theatre, Gibson knows
what he is talking about. On the other hand, Mark Anderson, trained in
astrophysics, has no sense of the theatre. In a book about a
playwright, one would assume there would be a discussion about the
theatrical world. There is very little in "Shakespeare By Another
Name." In fact, after reading Anderson's book, one might think the
plays were written to be read; not performed. The same can not be said
about "Will in the World." In the end, Anderson's book is the same old
same old. If Greenblatt writes a book about astrophysics, my first
question would be, does he know what he's talking about?
Spam Scone
He also finds it ludicrous that the Times presents "authorship" as a
subject that the scholarly community is debating.
Spam Scone
seaker wrote:
> Well, since you asked, I agree with Greenblatt. In fact, while I don't
> agree with parts of "Will in the World," it's one of the best books
> about Shakespeare I've read. It is a well reasoned book. As for the
> Niederkorn article, if he walks like an Oxfordian, talks like an
> Oxfordian, he's an Oxfordian. Without Niederkorn's essay, Mark
> Anderson's book would never have been mentioned in the New York Times.
That's a bit strong. The Times has reviewed crap before, so Anderson's
book might have appeared there sooner or later.
> As for Anderson's book, there is more honestly in a pro wrestling
> match.
And probably less delusion as well.
You don't have to be a scholar to write a book about
> Shakespeare. Playwright, William Gibson's book, "Shakespeare's Game,
> clearly explains how the plays "work." He puts many scholarly books on
> the subject to shame. As a practical man of the theatre, Gibson knows
> what he is talking about. On the other hand, Mark Anderson, trained in
> astrophysics, has no sense of the theatre. In a book about a
> playwright, one would assume there would be a discussion about the
> theatrical world. There is very little in "Shakespeare By Another
> Name." In fact, after reading Anderson's book, one might think the
> plays were written to be read; not performed.
But this is a failing of almost all "authorship" literature;
Shakespeare's canon is reduced to roman a clef tittle-tattle about
various Royal courts.
LynnE
> Well, since you asked, I agree with Greenblatt. In fact, while I don't
> agree with parts of "Will in the World," it's one of the best books
> about Shakespeare I've read.
I disagree with you, but in any case, this is not what his letter is
about.
>It is a well reasoned book. As for the
> Niederkorn article, if he walks like an Oxfordian, talks like an
> Oxfordian, he's an Oxfordian. Without Niederkorn's essay, Mark
> Anderson's book would never have been mentioned in the New York Times.
> As for Anderson's book, there is more honestly in a pro wrestling
> match.
How do you know? Have you done the research that Mark has done and can
refute it? What in fact is dishonest about Mark's book? Please give
some examples. I see some things that I certainly wouldn't have written
myself, but on the whole I think it's meticulously researched. It's
also meticulously footnoted. Greenblatt's book is not. I've gone to no
end of trouble to try to find out where he sourced something he wrote
in Chapter One and have been unable to do so.
Greenblatt also has far more coulda woulda shoulda sentences than does
Mark and speculates far more in general. It is ironic, imo, that he
says in his letter that "The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship
of his plays and poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the
'authorship controversy' be taught in the classroom are the exact
equivalent of current arguments that 'intelligent design' be taught
alongside evolution..." when his own book is so full of conjecture.
>You don't have to be a scholar to write a book about
> Shakespeare. Playwright, William Gibson's book, "Shakespeare's Game,
> clearly explains how the plays "work." He puts many scholarly books on
> the subject to shame. As a practical man of the theatre, Gibson knows
> what he is talking about.
This is not what Greenblatt's letter is about. Nor have I read Gibson
so I can't comment.
>On the other hand, Mark Anderson, trained in
> astrophysics, has no sense of the theatre. In a book about a
> playwright, one would assume there would be a discussion about the
> theatrical world. There is very little in "Shakespeare By Another
> Name." In fact, after reading Anderson's book, one might think the
> plays were written to be read; not performed.
Many scholars have suggested that Shakespeare's plays were actually
written to be read; moreover, why would Mark write about the theatrical
world? There is already tons on it. It's often used as filler in book
after book about Shakespeare because the material on WS of Stratford is
so sparse.
>The same can not be said
> about "Will in the World." In the end, Anderson's book is the same old
> same old. If Greenblatt writes a book about astrophysics, my first
> question would be, does he know what he's talking about?
You really haven't answered my question. I asked if you agreed with
Greenblatt's letter, and you've gone all around the houses. Do you
agree, for example, with Greenblatt's directly comparing Oxfordians
with creationists and indirectly with Holocaust Deniers? Do you agree
that the schools should not teach Authorship? Remember that William N.
in his original article did not say that Oxford or anyone else was the
author. He was more suggesting that teachers might investigate the
problem with their students.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Spam Scone
LynnE wrote:
>
> How do you know? Have you done the research that Mark has done and can
> refute it? What in fact is dishonest about Mark's book? Please give
> some examples.
'"Shakespeare" by Another Name offers tantalizing proof that it was the
17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere-a courtier, spendthrift, scholar,
traveler, scoundrel, patron, and prolific ghostwriter of state
propaganda-who actually created this timeless body of work.'
Since there is NO proof that Oxford wrote the Shakespeare canon, this
statement from the book description is a lie.
seaker
go as far as calling them Holocaust Deniers. No, I don't think
authorship should be taught in high school or college. If I was
teaching a research methods class in a university, I might use examples
for the endless number of Oxfordian books to show how people misuse
primary material. The notes at the end of Greenblatt's book are
BIOGRAPHICAL which a different from end notes. The notes at the end of
Anderson's book are a mess and difficult to figure out or understand.
They need the hand of a good editor. Moving on to errors in the
Anderson book. On page xxviii he states, "The best place to begin is
with the name itself: Shakes-speare. The hyphen appears in many of the
first publications of the plays and poems." Many? Beginning with
"Venus and Adonis" (1593) and ending with "Two Noble Kinsman" (1634),
the hyphen appears FOUR times: "Phoenix and Turtle" (1601), "Hamlet
Quarto 1" (1603), "King Lear" (1608), and "Sonnets" (1609). When did
four out of 25 become many? On the same page, he talks about Athena
and gives the standard Oxfordian line. No Greek author mentions Athena
shaking her spear at birth.
Yes, Athena is the goddess of the arts, but she IS NOT the goddess of
DRAMA/THEATRE. That was Dionysus. The Greeks did plays in his honor;
they DID NOT do plays in her honor. On the same page, he states, "To
begin with, no original playscripts exists." Correct, but no original
playscripts exist for Marlowe, Jonson, Greene, or any other Elizabethan
playwright. On page xxix, as a good little Oxfordian, Anderson writes
about Shakespeare's will. Funny thing, he doesn't mention that Edward
de Vere did not leave a will. Lynne, are these enough examples for you?
The ball is in your court!
Tom Reedy
news:1125951792.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> seaker wrote:
>> Well, since you asked, I agree with Greenblatt. In fact, while I don't
>> agree with parts of "Will in the World," it's one of the best books
>> about Shakespeare I've read.
>
> I disagree with you, but in any case, this is not what his letter is
> about.
>
>>It is a well reasoned book. As for the
>> Niederkorn article, if he walks like an Oxfordian, talks like an
>> Oxfordian, he's an Oxfordian. Without Niederkorn's essay, Mark
>> Anderson's book would never have been mentioned in the New York Times.
>> As for Anderson's book, there is more honestly in a pro wrestling
>> match.
>
> How do you know? Have you done the research that Mark has done and can
> refute it? What in fact is dishonest about Mark's book? Please give
> some examples. I see some things that I certainly wouldn't have written
> myself, but on the whole I think it's meticulously researched. It's
> also meticulously footnoted.
You could say the same about Diana Price's book, but it's still one of the
most dishonest books about Shakespeare ever written.
> Greenblatt's book is not. I've gone to no
> end of trouble to try to find out where he sourced something he wrote
> in Chapter One and have been unable to do so.
I love a mystery. what is it?
>
> Greenblatt also has far more coulda woulda shoulda sentences than does
> Mark and speculates far more in general. It is ironic, imo, that he
> says in his letter that "The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship
> of his plays and poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the
> 'authorship controversy' be taught in the classroom are the exact
> equivalent of current arguments that 'intelligent design' be taught
> alongside evolution..." when his own book is so full of conjecture.
Reasonable conjecture about what is known is not the same as denying
reality.
His comparison is apt.
> and indirectly with Holocaust Deniers?
Aw, shit, here we go again, and, I suspect, the real crux of your objection.
Except for the perniciousness of holocaust deniers (I wouldn't give them the
dignity of capital letters) the comparison is apt, if overheated. But
Greenblatt makes a tactical mistake by calling in such emotion-laden heavy
artillery when a fly swatter would do. Anti-Stratfordism is not that
serious, except to its practitioners, and certainly not a danger to society
the way holocaust denial is.
> Do you agree
> that the schools should not teach Authorship?
They should not. Students should investigate crackpot theories on their own
time.
> Remember that William N.
> in his original article did not say that Oxford or anyone else was the
> author. He was more suggesting that teachers might investigate the
> problem with their students.
The "problem" has been more than investigated, with no results except for
the credulous.
>
> Best wishes,
And to you.
TR
>
> Lynne
>
LynnE
Where is this, Neil? I can't find it on the book cover and only a bit
of it (the courtier, spendthrift, scholar bit) in the blurb inside.
L.
Tom Reedy
How can you say that, Neil? Lynne herself says the book is "meticulously
researched" and "meticulously footnoted," and that it has less conjecture
than Greenblatt's. Are you doubting Lynne's testimony?
TR
Spam Scone
The "book description" on Amazon. It's usually supplied by the
publisher.
Spam Scone
I had to read your other post in this thread to find the irony in this
one. I must be slipping.
Spam Scone
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > and indirectly with Holocaust Deniers?
>
> Aw, shit, here we go again, and, I suspect, the real crux of your objection.
>
> Except for the perniciousness of holocaust deniers (I wouldn't give them the
> dignity of capital letters) the comparison is apt, if overheated. But
> Greenblatt makes a tactical mistake by calling in such emotion-laden heavy
> artillery when a fly swatter would do. Anti-Stratfordism is not that
> serious, except to its practitioners, and certainly not a danger to society
> the way holocaust denial is.
The problem is that it's hard to find a GOOD crackpot group to compare
to Lynne's coreligionists. They all largely use the same methods of
research and propaganda, but most of the others have an agenda as well.
Holocaust deniers are out because they are antisemites, creationists
are out because it's an attempt to bring religion back to public
schools, health scams like laetrile are out because they are designed
to rip off the terminally ill and dying; antistratfordia may be the
only relatively harmless nutcase group out there.
LynnE
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1125951792.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > seaker wrote:
> >> Well, since you asked, I agree with Greenblatt. In fact, while I don't
> >> agree with parts of "Will in the World," it's one of the best books
> >> about Shakespeare I've read.
> >
> > I disagree with you, but in any case, this is not what his letter is
> > about.
> >
> >>It is a well reasoned book. As for the
> >> Niederkorn article, if he walks like an Oxfordian, talks like an
> >> Oxfordian, he's an Oxfordian. Without Niederkorn's essay, Mark
> >> Anderson's book would never have been mentioned in the New York Times.
> >> As for Anderson's book, there is more honestly in a pro wrestling
> >> match.
> >
> > How do you know? Have you done the research that Mark has done and can
> > refute it? What in fact is dishonest about Mark's book? Please give
> > some examples. I see some things that I certainly wouldn't have written
> > myself, but on the whole I think it's meticulously researched. It's
> > also meticulously footnoted.
>
> You could say the same about Diana Price's book, but it's still one of the
> most dishonest books about Shakespeare ever written.
Hello, TR. You don't look at all like Seaker. Diana Price is certainly
not dishonest. I wonder when you'll get around to saying people are
mistaken if you believe they are, rather than that they are lying.
>
> > Greenblatt's book is not. I've gone to no
> > end of trouble to try to find out where he sourced something he wrote
> > in Chapter One and have been unable to do so.
>
> I love a mystery. what is it?
I don't have the book in front of me, but it was about talented
scholars at Stratford School getting scholarships to university. Do you
have a source for it? I'd love to find one.
>
> >
> > Greenblatt also has far more coulda woulda shoulda sentences than does
> > Mark and speculates far more in general. It is ironic, imo, that he
> > says in his letter that "The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship
> > of his plays and poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the
> > 'authorship controversy' be taught in the classroom are the exact
> > equivalent of current arguments that 'intelligent design' be taught
> > alongside evolution..." when his own book is so full of conjecture.
>
> Reasonable conjecture about what is known is not the same as denying
> reality.
My feeling is that there's been a lot of denial of reality, but
certainly not always on the non-Stratfordian side.
Aw, sh*t? Great scholarship, TR. Don't hold back, now. And yes, as a
Jew who lost relatives in the Holocaust, I AM disgusted by that kind of
rhetoric.
>
> Except for the perniciousness of holocaust deniers (I wouldn't give them the
> dignity of capital letters) the comparison is apt, if overheated. But
> Greenblatt makes a tactical mistake by calling in such emotion-laden heavy
> artillery when a fly swatter would do. Anti-Stratfordism is not that
> serious, except to its practitioners, and certainly not a danger to society
> the way holocaust denial is.
>
> > Do you agree
> > that the schools should not teach Authorship?
>
> They should not. Students should investigate crackpot theories on their own
> time.
I agree. No more WS of Stratford as the author of the works.
>
> > Remember that William N.
> > in his original article did not say that Oxford or anyone else was the
> > author. He was more suggesting that teachers might investigate the
> > problem with their students.
>
> The "problem" has been more than investigated, with no results except for
> the credulous.
I guess as with the problem regarding Strachey. Tom, you're such a good
guy. You're always rescuing people by answering for them. First Dave
and now Seaker. He's pretty opinionated. I'll wager he can answer for
himself.
>
> >
> > Best wishes,
>
> And to you.
>
> TR
Thankee.
>
> >
> > Lynne
> >
LynnE
Yes, but as a writer yourself, you know that the book description
supplied by the publisher often has not been written or vetted by the
author, and is manufactured by pr people with their fertile but
sometimes erroneous imaginations. I am sometimes, well, let us say
surprised, by book descriptions of my novels. That is not to say,
however, that Oxford did not create the timeless body of work alluded
to in the description. ;)
L.
gangleri
FWIW, my own view is that the fundamental objection to teaching
anti-Stratfordianism in the schools is that it would be cruel to expose
generally harmless eccentrics like Looney and the Ogburns to
state-sponsored ridicule.
Comment:
All these eccentrics are dead - hence harmless except that their ideas
may be perceived to threaten harm to impressionable minds or scholarly
reputations.
I haven't read Looney or the older Ogburns, but my first encounter with
the Oxfordian theory was through Charlton Ogburn's book in the early
1980s.
Now, some twenty years later, I would distinguish between the material
which he collected and published, on the one hand, and his construction
thereof, on the other hand.
I found the former highly informative.
As for the latter, time will tell whether Ogburn was closer to or
farther from the truth of the matter than Greenblatt.
Mark Steese
news:1125951792.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Greenblatt also has far more coulda woulda shoulda sentences than does
> Mark and speculates far more in general. It is ironic, imo, that he
> says in his letter that "The idea that William Shakespeare's
> authorship of his plays and poems is a matter of conjecture and the
> idea that the 'authorship controversy' be taught in the classroom are
> the exact equivalent of current arguments that 'intelligent design' be
> taught alongside evolution..." when his own book is so full of
> conjecture.
Where's the irony? Greenblatt isn't criticizing the use of conjecture
*per se*; he's criticizing the notion that the authorship of
Shakespeare's plays is a fit subject for conjecture. Conjecture can be
appropriately used in cases where evidence is lacking (e.g., about the
minutiae of Shakespeare's life), but there is abundant evidence that the
Shakespearean canon was written by a man named William Shakespeare. No
guesswork is necessary to determine the true author's name, because
there was never any mystery about it.
At least the Evolution vs. Creation controversy stems from the fact that
there was once a genuine mystery about the development of life on earth.
Alter-Shakespeareanism, on the other hand, stems from nothing more than
19th-Century retrospective Romantic revulsion over the thought that a
tradesman could have also been a great writer, a fact that said
tradesman's contemporaries took in their stride
[snip]
> You really haven't answered my question. I asked if you agreed with
> Greenblatt's letter, and you've gone all around the houses. Do you
> agree, for example, with Greenblatt's directly comparing Oxfordians
> with creationists and indirectly with Holocaust Deniers? Do you agree
> that the schools should not teach Authorship? Remember that William N.
> in his original article did not say that Oxford or anyone else was the
> author. He was more suggesting that teachers might investigate the
> problem with their students.
The "Ancient Astronauts" explanation of ancient structures is a better
comparison than Creationism. like Alter-Shakespeareanism, Ancient
Astronautism is not an attempt to solve a problem but rather the modern
invention of a problem where none had previously existed, and both are
derived from an inability to give people credit for their own
accomplishments. Just as the Alter-Shakespeareans are unable to imagine
that William Shakespeare of Stratford could have been a great writer,
the Ancient Astronauters are unable to imagine that the 'primitive'
inhabitants of Egypt could have built the Great Pyramid.
This willingness on the part of both groups to reject the abundant
historical evidence and create imaginary mysteries might well make an
interesting problem for teachers of human psychology to investigate with
their students.
--
Mark Steese
===========
The first signs of the death of the boom came in the summer,
early, and everything went like snow in the sun.
Out of their office windows. There was miasma,
a weight beyond enduring, the city reeked of failure.
gangleri
Alter-Shakespeareanism, on the other hand, stems from nothing more than
19th-Century retrospective Romantic revulsion over the thought that a
tradesman could have also been a great writer, a fact that said
tradesman's contemporaries took in their stride
Comment:
Alexander Pope's 18th-century verse -
Shakespear, (whom you and ev'ry Play-house bill
Style the divine, the matchless, what you will)
For gain, not glory, wing'd his roving flight,
And grew Immortal in his own despight.
- is condescending towards the tradesman and conveys incredulity that
"you and ev'ry Play-house bill Style [the tradesman] the divine, the
matchless, what you will".
Yet Pope was instrumental in having a monument to William Shakespeare
erected in Westminster Abbey in 1741.
Why?
Two possible explanations come to mind.
1. Pope changed his mind and decided to join the ranks of the
credulous.
2. Pope knew that the tradesman was a *mask* for God-knows-whom.
gangleri
...if we're the only relatively harmless nutcase group, how can we be
compared to those unharmless groups?
Comment:
Because of LAWHKRS.
What?
The Lee Atwater-Willie Horton-Karl Rove Syndrome.
LynnE
Well, of course, since you have read both books, Tom, and have seen for
yourself that I am wrong, you can afford to be ironic.
:)Lynne
>
> TR
seaker
being wrong. A good Oxfordian like you should have a reply at her
finger tips.
John W. Kennedy
It is /possible/ for someone untrained in a discipline to produce
significant scholarship. But it requires a willingness to learn the
basics, at least those directly involved in the question being tackled.
Of course, it also requires the ability and willingness to work like a
scholar. Needless to say, this is where the anti-Strat brigade falls down.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
John W. Kennedy
> Lynne - Yes, Oxfordians are the creationists of the literature. I won't
> go as far as calling them Holocaust Deniers.
Except for Joseph Sobran, who actually is an Oxfordian and a Holocaust
denier.
> Yes, Athena is the goddess of the arts, but she IS NOT the goddess of
> DRAMA/THEATRE. That was Dionysus.
That is because she is the goddess of the Useful Arts -- what we would
today generally file under "crafts" (and, perhaps, "engineering"). (A
frequent problem with the anti-Strats is their gross insensitivity to
language -- cf. Crowley's ridiculous reading of "world".)
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"
John W. Kennedy
Well, there are the saucerites. But I cannot believe that indulgence in
unreason is ever healthy.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
Bianca Steele
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:1125951792.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Greenblatt also has far more coulda woulda shoulda sentences than does
> > Mark and speculates far more in general. It is ironic, imo, that he
> > says in his letter that "The idea that William Shakespeare's
> > authorship of his plays and poems is a matter of conjecture and the
> > idea that the 'authorship controversy' be taught in the classroom are
> > the exact equivalent of current arguments that 'intelligent design' be
> > taught alongside evolution..." when his own book is so full of
> > conjecture.
>
> Where's the irony? Greenblatt isn't criticizing the use of conjecture
> *per se*; he's criticizing the notion that the authorship of
> Shakespeare's plays is a fit subject for conjecture.
No, he is not criticizing scholarship that inappropriately relies on
conjecture. He's making a "professionalism" argument: there is a
scholarly consensus that the academics are perfectly happy with, and a
few of the "alternate authorship" writers are asking for respect they
don't give in return -- as with the "ID" people when they can't
properly use the word "theory" in a sentence, yet claim the right to
judge scientists' and philosophers' use of the same word. "Equal time"
makes no sense in this context. He is saying that there is no doubt,
among those who have studied the subject, that William Shakespeare was
the author.
I do agree that the "Holocaust denial" comparison was uncalled for. It
invokes the idea of a threat that may be backed by political force, in
a situation that should be a purely scholarly one.
>Conjecture can be
> appropriately used in cases where evidence is lacking (e.g., about the
> minutiae of Shakespeare's life), but there is abundant evidence that the
> Shakespearean canon was written by a man named William Shakespeare. No
> guesswork is necessary to determine the true author's name, because
> there was never any mystery about it.
[...]
>
> This willingness on the part of both groups to reject the abundant
> historical evidence and create imaginary mysteries might well make an
> interesting problem for teachers of human psychology to investigate with
> their students.
I had forgotten -- there was a woman in the Netherlands, who teaches
sociology in a business school, who was studying the psychology of
those who argue for and against "alternative Shakespeare authors." So
your prediction turns out to be correct.
----
Bianca Steele
The Historian
LynnE wrote:
> Spam Scone wrote:
> > LynnE wrote:
> > > Spam Scone wrote:
> > > > LynnE wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you know? Have you done the research that Mark has done and can
> > > > > refute it? What in fact is dishonest about Mark's book? Please give
> > > > > some examples.
> > > >
> > > > '"Shakespeare" by Another Name offers tantalizing proof that it was the
> > > > 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere-a courtier, spendthrift, scholar,
> > > > traveler, scoundrel, patron, and prolific ghostwriter of state
> > > > propaganda-who actually created this timeless body of work.'
> > > >
> > > > Since there is NO proof that Oxford wrote the Shakespeare canon, this
> > > > statement from the book description is a lie.
> > >
> > > Where is this, Neil? I can't find it on the book cover and only a bit
> > > of it (the courtier, spendthrift, scholar bit) in the blurb inside.
> > >
> > > L.
> >
> > The "book description" on Amazon. It's usually supplied by the
> > publisher.
>
> Yes, but as a writer yourself, you know that the book description
> supplied by the publisher often has not been written or vetted by the
> author, and is manufactured by pr people with their fertile but
> sometimes erroneous imaginations.
On the contrary, it's my understanding such material, which includes
the author's bio, is prepared by the author, or taken from the author's
writing.
I am sometimes, well, let us say
> surprised, by book descriptions of my novels.
I am sure that if this is not what Mr. Anderson wanted his book
described as, he would object.
LynnE
It would be polite to wait five minutes. I replied as soon as I saw
your post.
It would also be polite to tell me who you are if we're going to
continue the conversation. It's so easy to argue from behind a mask.
L.
LynnE
Really? I must speak to my publishers. I've never been consulted about
pr material for Amazon. In one case, even the name of a character is
incorrect.
>
> I am sometimes, well, let us say
> > surprised, by book descriptions of my novels.
>
> I am sure that if this is not what Mr. Anderson wanted his book
> described as, he would object.
He may not even have seen it. Most authors don't make a habit of going
around checking pr material on websites. If you're going to make a case
for "lying," Neil, for Heaven's sake make it from Mark's work, not from
a PR blurb supplied to Amazon by the publisher.
The Historian
LynnE wrote:
>
> I guess as with the problem regarding Strachey. Tom, you're such a good
> guy. You're always rescuing people by answering for them. First Dave
> and now Seaker. He's pretty opinionated. I'll wager he can answer for
> himself.
Darn Tom, she's on to us. LynnE realizes we are all acting as decoys to
save David Kathman, the one man who stands between her and Universal
Recognition Of Oxford As Author Of The Shakespeare Canon! We need to be
more clever. Could we have one of our Toronto agents slip anti-paranoia
medication in her food?
LynnE
seaker wrote:
> Lynne - Yes, Oxfordians are the creationists of the literature.
Ooh la la. Why don't you come over to the Fellowship, where you'll be
speaking to real Oxfordians, and try your arguments there? It's better
than playing to the peanut gallery over here. You'll get a decent
discussion at least some of the time with points from the other side of
the argument. It's easy to stand over here and declaim. Why not come
over to the "enemy camp," as I do every day, and see how your arguments
stack up?
>I won't
> go as far as calling them Holocaust Deniers.
That's incredibly kind of you.
>No, I don't think
> authorship should be taught in high school or college. If I was
> teaching a research methods class in a university, I might use examples
> for the endless number of Oxfordian books to show how people misuse
> primary material.
Fair enough. I tend to teach both sides of an argument, or at least,
ask students to research both sides of the argument and decide for
themselves. This seems to me the meaning of education.
>The notes at the end of Greenblatt's book are
> BIOGRAPHICAL which a different from end notes.
It's lazy. And impossible to tell where he's getting his material from.
>The notes at the end of
> Anderson's book are a mess and difficult to figure out or understand.
I do not find them in the least difficult. Could you give an example?
> They need the hand of a good editor.
I can't speak for Mark, but my editors at Penguin have been wonderful.
I would be surprised if they employed poor editors for any of their
imprints.
>Moving on to errors in the
> Anderson book. On page xxviii he states, "The best place to begin is
> with the name itself: Shakes-speare. The hyphen appears in many of the
> first publications of the plays and poems." Many? Beginning with
> "Venus and Adonis" (1593) and ending with "Two Noble Kinsman" (1634),
> the hyphen appears FOUR times: "Phoenix and Turtle" (1601), "Hamlet
> Quarto 1" (1603), "King Lear" (1608), and "Sonnets" (1609). When did
> four out of 25 become many?
First of all,"many" is a pretty subjective word.
Second, David Kathman gives the following:
Literary references
Shakespeare: 115
Shake-speare 21
I haven't checked his numbers, but imagine they're reasonably accurate.
>On the same page, he talks about Athena
> and gives the standard Oxfordian line. No Greek author mentions Athena
> shaking her spear at birth.
> Yes, Athena is the goddess of the arts, but she IS NOT the goddess of
> DRAMA/THEATRE.
I'm sorry. All I can find is "divine protrectress of learning and the
arts" and "affiliated with the theatre." I cannot see where he calls
her the Goddess of Drama and Theatre. Perhaps you could point out what
I've missed. In any case, there has been a long discussion of this
topic on the Fellowship boards by both Oxfordians and Traditionalists.
You might like to familiarise yourself with it.
>That was Dionysus. The Greeks did plays in his honor;
> they DID NOT do plays in her honor. On the same page, he states, "To
> begin with, no original playscripts exists." Correct, but no original
> playscripts exist for Marlowe, Jonson, Greene, or any other Elizabethan
> playwright.
Does he say that they did? I can't comment as to whether your list is
correct because I can't remember offhand. But I do note that Mark says
"no manuscripts, no diaries, and no correspondence..." We certainly
can't say that for Jonson, another playwright with a long career.
On page xxix, as a good little Oxfordian, Anderson writes
> about Shakespeare's will. Funny thing, he doesn't mention that Edward
> de Vere did not leave a will. Lynne, are these enough examples for you?
The fact that we don't have Oxford's will has nothing to do with the
peculiarity of WS's.
> The ball is in your court!
Thank you.
First, why are all your examples from the introduction?
Second, again, why don't you come over to the Fellowship and argue your
case? We won't bite you. In fact, my guess is that you won't have to
run the vicious gauntlet I raced through when I first came to hlas. And
maybe you'll learn something. I've learned plenty here.
Regards,
Lynne
President
Shakespeare Fellowship
www.shakespearefellowship.org
www.lynnekositsky.com
The Historian
It's not me, Lynne. And I don't see why identifing the poster is
required.
LynnE
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> seaker wrote:
> > Lynne - Yes, Oxfordians are the creationists of the literature. I won't
> > go as far as calling them Holocaust Deniers.
>
> Except for Joseph Sobran, who actually is an Oxfordian and a Holocaust
> denier.
I will not apologise for Sobran. He's a disgrace, imo; however, I'm
sick of seeing his name dug up every time this vile comparison is made.
The vast majority of Holocaust deniers, if they think at all, think
that WS of Stratford wrote the canon.
>
> > Yes, Athena is the goddess of the arts, but she IS NOT the goddess of
> > DRAMA/THEATRE. That was Dionysus.
>
> That is because she is the goddess of the Useful Arts -- what we would
> today generally file under "crafts" (and, perhaps, "engineering"). (A
> frequent problem with the anti-Strats is their gross insensitivity to
> language -- cf. Crowley's ridiculous reading of "world".)
But I am an Oxfordian, and I called him on it.
Lynne
The Historian
LynnE wrote:
> seaker wrote:
> > Lynne - Yes, Oxfordians are the creationists of the literature.
>
> Ooh la la. Why don't you come over to the Fellowship, where you'll be
> speaking to real Oxfordians, and try your arguments there?
Because "real Oxfordians" don't want an argument, as I discovered
during a visit a few weeks ago. Supposedly one of the new house rules
at the Fellowship is that posters must recognize that there IS a
legitimate debate about authorship in order to post.
LynnE
I didn't think it was you. The poster identifying him/herself is not
required. It's just what I would like if I'm going to continue the
dialogue.
Mousetails
gangleri
It's so easy to argue from behind a mask.
Comment:
Call it *mask*, call it *mortal coil* or whatever - in Shakespeare Myth
it is the *mask* of Ignorance worn by Cosmic Creative Power for "a
certain term" (Ghost of Hamlet's Father in Act I, Sc. v)
In Shakespeare's play, the Gravemaker in Act V, Sc. ii had a curiously
precise answer to Prince Hamlet's question, "How long hast thou been a
grave-maker?"
"Cannot you tell that? every fool can tell that; it was the very day
that young Hamlet was born; he that is mad, and sent into England."
Hamlet:
"Ay, marry; why was he sent into England?"
First Clown:
"'Twill not be seen in him there; there the men are as mad as he."
Really?
Might THAT be why Stratfordian Orthodoxy took hold?
In his original Icelandic incarnation, Hamlet's name was Amlóði -
become Amleticus in Saxo Grammaticus's translation become Hamlet in the
play.
Why Amlóði?
It's an Icelandic word for Ideot - as in Macbeth's spelling thereof.
In the context of myth, the Ideot comes into the world with a spark of
divinity in his "heart" - hence the Grave-maker BEGINS his work the
very day that young Hamlet was born.
Who's the Grave-maker?
The ancients called 'him' Cosmic Creative Power alias Jesus Patibilis
of Gnostic thought -
"Of the content of his revelation, the doctrine concerning "his own
self cast into all things" requires comment. It expresses the other
aspect of this divine figure: in addition to being the source of all
revelatory activity in the history of mankind, he is the
personification of all the Light mixed into matter; that is, he is the
suffering form of Primal Man. This original and profound
interpretation of the figure of Christ was an important article of the
Manichaean creed and is known as the doctrine of the Jesus patibilis,
the "passible Jesus" who hangs from every tree," "is served up bound in
every dish," "every day is born, suffers and dies." He is dispersed in
all creation, but his most genuine realm and embodiment seems to be the
vegetable world, that is, the most passive and the only innocent form
of life. Yet, at the same time with the active aspect of his nature he
is transmundane Nous who, coming from above, liberates this captive
substance and continually until the end of the world collects it, i.e.
himself, out of the physical dispersal." (Hans Jonas, 'The Gnostic
Religion - The message of the alien God and the beginnings of
Christianity', Second Edition, Beacon Press, Boston, 1963, pp. 228-229)
The Historian
If you assure me, as spokesman for Mr. Anderson (the same position you
recently assigned to Mr. Reedy for Dr. Kathman), that the material at
Amazon labeled as a "book description" was not supplied by the
publisher, I believe you for lack of evidence to the contrary.
LynnE
Of course we want an argument. People are arguing hard over there on
both sides. But one can't argue properly if one doesn't recognise
there's a legitimate debate. To recognise that there's a legitimate
debate means that one is open to the possibility of questioning,
learning, and changing. I have learned and changed a lot, both over
there and over here.
LynnE
Thank you, Neil, but I can't assure you that as I haven't spoken to
Mark about it. Neither am I an apologist or a spokesman for him. I am
merely calling it as I see it. It seems a bit silly to use the
description of the book on Amazon to imply that either Mark or
Oxfordians are liars when you can go to the material that's actually IN
THE BOOK and make what might be a reasoned argument.
I am also not in the same position as Mr. Reedy, as Mark Anderson is
not a participant on HLAS, whereas Dr. Kathman most assuredly is and
would be quite able to answer for himself should he wish to.
Anyhow, I'm very tired. Must be the anti-paranoia meds you slipped in
my food. Will probably call it a night.
L.
ben-Jonson
> Anderson's book would never have been mentioned in the New York Times.
What is your basis for making this claim?
> As for Anderson's book, there is more honestly in a pro wrestling
> match.
Excuse me. You write as if you have some basis for this statement.
Please explain what you mean.
You don't have to be a scholar to write a book about
> Shakespeare.
What does this have to do with the previous sentence?
Playwright, William Gibson's book, "Shakespeare's Game,
> clearly explains how the plays "work." He puts many scholarly books on
> the subject to shame.
How nice that you have your favorite book on Shakespeare. But again, I
fail to see the connection to the previous two sentences.
As a practical man of the theatre, Gibson knows
> what he is talking about.
I guess I'll take your word for it.
On the other hand, Mark Anderson, trained in
> astrophysics, has no sense of the theatre.
Your post seems to consist of a series of assertions, none of which is
supported by any reasoning of evidence. Is experience in the theatre a
prerequisite to having an informed opinion about Shakespeare?
In a book about a
> playwright, one would assume there would be a discussion about the
> theatrical world. There is very little in "Shakespeare By Another
> Name."
Many books about Shakespeare do not discuss theatre at all. Singling
out Mr. Anderson's for criticism on this score merely serves to
indicate the narrowness of your range of intellectual response to the
work and also fills in for the absence, to this point in time, of any
serious criticism of the work. You started off by accusing Mr.
Anderson of dishonesty. I'm still waiting for you to deliver, but you
seem to be wandering all over the map now.
In fact, after reading Anderson's book, one might think the
> plays were written to be read; not performed. The same can not be said
> about "Will in the World." In the end, Anderson's book is the same old
> same old. If Greenblatt writes a book about astrophysics, my first
> question would be, does he know what he's talking about?
My first question is, why doesn't Greenblatt know what he is talking
about when he writes a book on a subject in which he is supposedly an
expert. Consider, for example, this stunning example:
The Bishop's Bible [1586], the version Shakespeare knew and used most
often (35).
Now, I am willing to concede that perhaps professor Greenblatt is
wholly ignorant of the scholarship of Shakespeare's knowledge of the
Bible, which conclusively shows that the Genevan, and not the Bishop's
Bible, is the version Shakespeare knew and used most often (Carter
1905, Noble, 1935, Shaheen 1987, 1989, 1991, and 1991). But if so, his
followers ought at least to have a bit more humility before they go
about in public accusing Mr. Anderson of dishonesty.
ben-Jonson
gangleri wrote:
> On scrolling through this thread, I notice that NO Stratfordian hlas
> regulars have registered their support of the substance of Stephen
> Greenblatt's message to The New York Times.
>
> Ooops!
>
> Editorial correction:
>
> On scrolling through this thread, I notice that NO Stratfordian hlas
> regulars have registered their support of Stephen Greenblatt's message
> to The New York Times.
Interesting observation. Can it be that HLAS has become more
enlightened and than Harvard?
ben-Jonson
lariadc wrote:
> >seaker quoted Greenblatt:
> >The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays
> >and poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that
> >the "authorship controversy" be taught in the classroom are
> >the exact equivalent of current arguments that "intelligent
> >design" be taught alongside evolution.
>
> >serious assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by
> >passionately held fantasies whose adherents demand equal time.
>
>
> Which classrooms are demanding equal time? Is this demand occurring in
> high school or college?
>
> I don't think teachers can or should be forced to teach authorship
> issues because many of them find it very distasteful.
You are responding to a suggestion never made. No one is suggesting
that a teacher who finds questions of a fundamental nature, like asking
their students to consider "what's in a name?", should be forced to do
so. Teachers, like everyone else, are free indulge in prejudice,
hypocrisy, tunnel vision, and pedagogical stupidity. The question is
whether those who want to teach authorship as one angle on the
Shakespearean experience will be allowed to do so without a visit from
the Harvard thought police.
Details:
Elizabeth
"Of course, it also requires the ability and willingness to work like a
scholar. Needless to say, this is where the anti-Strat brigade falls
down."
Strats and Oxfordians tend to confuse literary criticism
with the kind of evidence required to resolve the
authorship dispute. Greenblatt et al specialize in
gluing the few facts together with romantic ideology.
Criticism is essentially opinion. It, like theology,
relies on citing the opinions of other authorities.
I'd call it soft science but it's not that rigorous.
The scholars qualified to resolve the authorship
question are the historians. Historians work within
historiography, a scientific self-critiquing methodology
(My hero in scholarship is Sir Moses I Finley, an
awesome historiographer).
For starters historians could eliminate the claimants
that have no real evidence. That would at least lower
the noise level.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
John W. Kennedy
>>On the other hand, Mark Anderson, trained in
>>astrophysics, has no sense of the theatre.
> Your post seems to consist of a series of assertions, none of which is
> supported by any reasoning of evidence. Is experience in the theatre a
> prerequisite to having an informed opinion about Shakespeare?
It certainly helps in avoiding some of the more laughable gaffes
committed by the anti-Strats, who frequently exhibit an delusion to the
effect that real artists don't get their hands dirty with their
materials (i.e., in this case, actors, costumes, sets, etc.).
--
John W. Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
John W. Kennedy
> You are responding to a suggestion never made. No one is suggesting
> that a teacher who finds questions of a fundamental nature, like asking
> their students to consider "what's in a name?", should be forced to do
> so. Teachers, like everyone else, are free indulge in prejudice,
> hypocrisy, tunnel vision, and pedagogical stupidity. The question is
> whether those who want to teach authorship as one angle on the
> Shakespearean experience will be allowed to do so without a visit from
> the Harvard thought police.
No, the question is whether precious time should be shat away in the
teaching of the delusions of paranoid schizophrenics.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface
The Historian
Elizabeth wrote:
>
> For starters historians could eliminate the claimants
> that have no real evidence. That would at least lower
> the noise level.
OK, I eliminate Marlowe, Bacon, Oxford, Derby, Jonson, Greene, Sidney,
Donne, Middleton, Fletcher, Chapman, Beaumont, and Milton on the
grounds of no evidence.
Cordially, Neil Brennen AKA The Historian
gangleri
Sep 5, 6:37 pm show options
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
From: "gangleri" <gunnar.tomas...@verizon.net> - Find messages by this
author
Date: 5 Sep 2005 15:37:37 -0700
Local: Mon, Sep 5 2005 6:37 pm
Subject: Re: From The 9-4 New York Times
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse
Re.
Alter-Shakespeareanism, on the other hand, stems from nothing more than
19th-Century retrospective Romantic revulsion over the thought that a
tradesman could have also been a great writer, a fact that said
tradesman's contemporaries took in their stride
Comment:
Alexander Pope's 18th-century verse -
Shakespear, (whom you and ev'ry Play-house bill
Style the divine, the matchless, what you will)
For gain, not glory, wing'd his roving flight,
And grew Immortal in his own despight.
- is condescending towards the tradesman and conveys incredulity that
"you and ev'ry Play-house bill Style [the tradesman] the divine, the
matchless, what you will".
Yet Pope was instrumental in having a monument to William Shakespeare
erected in Westminster Abbey in 1741.
Why?
Two possible explanations come to mind.
1. Pope changed his mind and decided to join the ranks of the
credulous.
2. Pope knew that the tradesman was a *mask* for God-knows-whom.
gangleri
1. Pope changed his mind and decided to join the ranks of the
credulous.
2. Pope knew that the tradesman was a *mask* for God-knows-whom.
- by David Kathman, Terry Ross, and Tom Veal are welcome.
Tom Veal
tradesman" wrote the works of Shakespeare. His sentiment is cut from
the same cloth as Dr. Johnson's, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote,
except for money." Your "two alternatives" are a false dichotomy.
I suppose that you will now run the verses through your cipher machine
to "prove" that they constitute a coded message about brownswerds and
equilateral triangles and The End. Ho, hum.
lariadc
If Shakespeare scholars think the theories are untrue, they should say
so. They are much better educated in the poetry of Shakespeare and in
English Renaissance history than are most teachers.
>
> Details:
>
> http://www.everreader.com/Barrett2.htm
I do agree about the importance of the 'affective domain' as well as
the 'cognitive domain', and I know teaching is a difficult and
underpaid profession, but it bothers me that he is teaching something
that he doesn't even think is true! It sounds like he is doing it just
to keep the students interested.
It seems to me that there are 100 ways to make Shakespeare interesting
without introducing authorship---you can have students act, read,
memorize, analyze, write poetry, discuss (accepted) biography or
history, discuss or visit the theatre, watch a video, search the web...
there are probably more books and teachers' plans for teaching
Shakespeare than for any other writer.
Not all students will be interested in Shakespeare at that age--they
might have problems reading, or just might learn to like it later.
And the fact that students believe him makes me wonder if he introduced
the Stratfordian arguments. To be fair, he should invite a Stratfordian
scholar to debate with him. It's not enough just to have the students
ask questions. If he just introduced those topics for one day, I don't
suppose it would be too bad, but it sounds like Oxford was a major
focus in his class, and in the analysis of the texts.
C.
hyphen
seaker wrote:
> To the Editor:
>
> Re "The Shakespeare Code, and Other Fanciful Ideas From the Traditional
> Camp" (Essay, Arts pages, Aug. 30):
>
> The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays and poems
> is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the "authorship
> controversy" be taught in the classroom are the exact equivalent of
> current arguments that "intelligent design" be taught alongside
> evolution.
>
> In both cases an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on a serious
> assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by passionately held
> fantasies whose adherents demand equal time.
>
> implications. Should claims that the Holocaust did not occur also be
> made part of the standard curriculum?
>
> Stephen Greenblatt
> Cambridge, Mass., Aug. 30, 2005
> The writer is a professor of English at Harvard and author of "Will in
> the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare."
Paul Crowley
news:1125945190.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Well, since you asked, I agree with Greenblatt. In fact, while I don't
> agree with parts of "Will in the World," it's one of the best books
> about Shakespeare I've read. It is a well reasoned book.
Please give ONE example of this 'good reasoning'.
> In a book about a
> playwright, one would assume there would be a discussion about the
> theatrical world.
Shakespeare was very much more than a playwright.
> There is very little in "Shakespeare By Another
> Name." In fact, after reading Anderson's book, one might think the
> plays were written to be read; not performed.
They were -- to a large extent. Do you really
think that the poet expected us to appreciate
the density of his verse only in the theatre?
Would you abolish all study of the plays and
allow students only to attend performances?
> If Greenblatt writes a book about astrophysics, my first
> question would be, does he know what he's talking about?
He certainly knows next to nothing about
Shakespeare. And now he's getting the
message.
Paul.
hyphen
hyphen
hyphen
reviewed on www.humilitypress.org along with an archive of the kind of
language needed to fend off the category six paradigm supporting
Oxford-as-Shake-speare. This is language that would not pass peer
review in any other Harvard department. The article, of course, is
entitled "Stratford Upon Charles (or) Teaching Creationism at Harvard".
Mark Steese
news:1125959857.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Re.
>
> Alter-Shakespeareanism, on the other hand, stems from nothing more
> than 19th-Century retrospective Romantic revulsion over the thought
> that a tradesman could have also been a great writer, a fact that said
> tradesman's contemporaries took in their stride
>
> Comment:
>
> Alexander Pope's 18th-century verse -
>
> Shakespear, (whom you and ev'ry Play-house bill
> Style the divine, the matchless, what you will)
> For gain, not glory, wing'd his roving flight,
> And grew Immortal in his own despight.
>
> - is condescending towards the tradesman and conveys incredulity that
> "you and ev'ry Play-house bill Style [the tradesman] the divine, the
> matchless, what you will".
It is not "condescending towards the tradesman" and conveys no
incredulity about his having written his own works, as you would know if
you were familiar with its context as part of a verse epistle addressed
to George II in imitation of Horace's Epistle to Augustus.
I might also note that Pope (1688-1744) was hardly a contemporary of
Shakespeare (1564-1616), but of course you knew that.
> Yet Pope was instrumental in having a monument to William Shakespeare
> erected in Westminster Abbey in 1741.
>
> Why?
He admired Shakespeare's work, and unlike the alter-Shakespeareans, he
had no trouble giving credit where it was due.
--
Mark Steese
===========
The first signs of the death of the boom came in the summer,
early, and everything went like snow in the sun.
Out of their office windows. There was miasma,
a weight beyond enduring, the city reeked of failure.
The Historian
LOL! What a load of nuttery! All the old Oxfordian chestnuts are
presented, including the Fellowship nonsense claiming Dickens was an
antiStrat. And the prose manages a curious mixture of pomposity and
paranoia:
"...three generations of
scholars who have compiled a coherent scenario that
demonstrates who wrote what, when, and why - and why
an alternate Warwickshire stand-in has been allowed to
take all the credit. The scholarship supporting Edward
deVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, has reached critical
mass. The priests of Stratford-on-Avon have for some
time now been circling the wagons."
seaker
introduction? " The reasons Mark Anderson gives for rejecting
Shakespeare are filled with errors. He distorts things to suit his
purpose. He repeats the same old same old from Looney, the Ogborns,
Sobran, Whalen, Daniel Wright, Felicia Londre, Diana Price, and Roger
Stritmatter (oops, I mean Bassanio). If the first taste of the stew is
bad, why keep eating? And why bother posting at the Fellowship?
Bassanio (oops, I mean Roger) warns New Posters, that if they post
there they are admitting there is an authorship question. I don't
believe there is an authorship question.
Elizabeth
"I don't believe there is an authorship
question."
There's been an authorship question since
Greene. The English Civil War stifled it
but it came back in the 18th century.
The reason you don't believe there is an
authorship question is that of the 200 or
so contemporary allusions to "Shakespeare"
only 36 or so are brought forth by Strats.
The other 160 or more are suppressed because
they question the authorship of the player
(poet-ape, crow, eccho, clown, shake-bag,
etc).
Mark Cipra
news:1125858560.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> BTW, I'm not sure I buy the part about creating the species
> out of just atoms, but it seems that once created, it can
> evolve into a new species.
>
> C.
>
Just to get a few facts straight. Didn't look at the article referenced,
this is just a reply to this conversation.
We have observed (but not, as far as I know, created) speciation events in
both the lab and in the field. These are events which are perfectly obvious
to scientists, but they would not satisfy a creationist. You don't start
with a turtle and end up with a bird. You end up with two very similar
creatures with sufficiently different genetic codes or which can't or don't
interbreed (the latter is the current working definition of a species, but
you obviously can't apply it to bacteria, etc.)
No one has created life from non-life (i.e., "from atoms") although the path
is becoming clearer.
As far as I know, all domestic dogs still belong to a single species: canis
familiaris. Despite the amazing differences in size and shape, they can all
interbreed, and still even show an interest in it, even when physical
limitations prevent it. To me, the physical inability would seem a good
crtierion to classify Great Danes and chihuahuas in different species, but
they don't. I think the same applies to cats.
Mark Cipra
> >seaker quoted Greenblatt:
> >The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays
> >and poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that
> >the "authorship controversy" be taught in the classroom are
> >the exact equivalent of current arguments that "intelligent
> >design" be taught alongside evolution.
>
> >In both cases an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on a
> >serious assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by
> >passionately held fantasies whose adherents demand equal time.
>
>
> high school or college?
>
> I don't think teachers can or should be forced to teach authorship
> teach a class about their favorite author suggesting that the person
> really wasn't an author? Also, many students probably want to spend
> more time reading the plays, which actually have to be re-read and seen
> to be fully appreciated. Plus, it's almost more of a historical issue
> than a literary one, but nothing that historians would find
> interesting, I think.
>
> So does equal time mean to make it an elective? It sound like
> Greenblatt is really complaining because he finds the theories
> completely ludicrous.
>
> C.
>
I used to argue, half-seriously, that the (US) high school science
curriculum should begin with a thorough introduction to creationism,
biblical csomology, etc. This would, in theory, satisfy the fundamentalist
call for "equal time", although of course, the entire "scientific" case can
be presented in days or weeks at most. Then you spend the next four years
disproving each contention in detail, which would give the student a
thorough grounding in biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc., and have
the added bonus of demonstrating the scientific method and provide a rough
guide to the history of science.
Perhaps the same approach could be used here.
Tom Reedy
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1125963800.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> seaker wrote:
<snip>
>
>>Moving on to errors in the
>> Anderson book. On page xxviii he states, "The best place to begin is
>> with the name itself: Shakes-speare. The hyphen appears in many of the
>> first publications of the plays and poems." Many? Beginning with
>> "Venus and Adonis" (1593) and ending with "Two Noble Kinsman" (1634),
>> the hyphen appears FOUR times: "Phoenix and Turtle" (1601), "Hamlet
>> Quarto 1" (1603), "King Lear" (1608), and "Sonnets" (1609). When did
>> four out of 25 become many?
>
> First of all,"many" is a pretty subjective word.
>
> Second, David Kathman gives the following:
>
> Literary references
> Shakespeare: 115
> Shake-speare 21
>
> I haven't checked his numbers, but imagine they're reasonably accurate.
Surely you know the difference between "first publications of the plays and
poems" and "literary references." Or don't you?
TR
Peter Groves
news:1125959857.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Re.
>
> Alter-Shakespeareanism, on the other hand, stems from nothing more than
> 19th-Century retrospective Romantic revulsion over the thought that a
> tradesman could have also been a great writer, a fact that said
> tradesman's contemporaries took in their stride
>
> Comment:
>
> Alexander Pope's 18th-century verse -
>
> Shakespear, (whom you and ev'ry Play-house bill
> Style the divine, the matchless, what you will)
> For gain, not glory, wing'd his roving flight,
> And grew Immortal in his own despight.
>
> - is condescending towards the tradesman and conveys incredulity that
> "you and ev'ry Play-house bill Style [the tradesman] the divine, the
> matchless, what you will".
>
You're a moron. Where does Pope mention a "tradesman"? And have you read
what Pope wrote about Shakespeare in his Preface?
> Yet Pope was instrumental in having a monument to William Shakespeare
> erected in Westminster Abbey in 1741.
>
> Why?
>
> Two possible explanations come to mind.
>
LynnE
immediately to hand. It was just a taste while I checked Seaker's
add-up, which I haven't yet had time to do. In any case, I said that
the word many is almost entirely subjective. It is so subjective, in
fact, that I had trouble with it on a publishing contract some years
ago. I would not personally define four as "many" in this case, just to
be perfectly clear. But my publisher, now defunct, defined FIVE copies
out of a run of 2000 as "many" and "bulk." The Union decided that the
publisher could do so, as numbers were not more clearly defined within
the contract.
Now, if Mark had said "a preponderance," that would be different.
L.
LynnE
You seem to have difficulty answering the question that is asked. I
asked why all your examples are from the introduction. You didn't
respond directly, but complained in a general way about the book. I now
see that despite everything you've said, you haven't read it. That,
perhaps, would be your more direct response.
In addition, if you know Roger is Bassanio--everybody on the boards
does, of course, it's not a real alias--then you must know me. I don't
carry on conversations with people who know me and yet affect to be
anonymous. It gives them un unfair advantage.
And by the way, if you don't believe there is an authorship question,
it amazes me that all or almost all of your posts to hlas have been an
attempt to refute the non-Stratfordians. In fact, you've begun far more
threads on "authorship" over the past week than I. I think my total,
actually, is nil.
Best wishes,
Lynne
gangleri
comments on the "tradesman" in his 'Imitations of Horace':
Of all the wide variety of contemporary issues and concerns that Pope
satirises in his Imitations of Horace, three may be seen to dominate:
the corrupting influence of the king and court; the decay of poetry,
drama and culture; and the wretched avarice of the acquisitive society
induced by the new capitalism. In the imitation of Epistle II, ii, the
satirist complains of being surrounded by a "jealous, waspish,
wrong-head, rhiming Race;" and in the versification of The Second
Satire of Dr John Donne he excoriates a mass of poetasters,
particularly the scribbler who makes his meal on others' wit:
Sense, past thro' him, no longer is the same,
For food digested takes another name. (33-4)
****
The following morsel of such "sense" was inscribed on the Shakespeare
monument in Westminster Abbey under Pope's personal supervision:
The Cloud cupt Tow'rs,
The Gorgeous Palaces
The Solemn Temples,
The Great Globe itself
Yea all which it Inherit,
Shall Dissolue;
And like the baseless Fnbrick of a Vision
Leave not a wreck behind.
This is non-sense to the sense of the First Folio version:
The Clowd-capt Towres, the gorgeous Pallaces,
The solemne Temples, the great Globe it selfe
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolue
And like this insubstantiall Pageant faded
Leaue not a racke behinde.
****
Re. the following:
I suppose that you will now run the verses through your cipher machine
to "prove" that they constitute a coded message about brownswerds and
equilateral triangles and The End.
Comment:
Not quite - but what do you suppose Pope may have been up to?
Here are three clues.
1. The Cipher Value of the First Folio alternative to non-sense is
83819.
2. In Saga Myth, non-sense yields to sense when the last of Burnt
Niall's killers is decapitated, "and the head spoke ten as it flew off
the body."
In the imagery of myth, the 'head' in question is the business part of
a 'risen' Shake-Speare whereby Two Fives are made One Flesh on a
Virgin's Mons Veneris, as in 5 + 5 = 10, at Myth's End.
3. As in 83819 + 10 = 83829.
So what?
Here is a prophecy of this Myth--ending Miracle inscribed in a copy of
the First Folio:
Heere Shakespeare lyes whome none but Death could Shake
and heere shall ly till judgement all awake;
when the last trumpet doth unclose his eyes
the wittiest poet in the world shall rise.
For David Kathman, this verse is among the "historical facts" which
prove that the "tradesman" did indeed write the works of William
Shakespeare.
And so it is - for mythical "head" needs Stratfordian "prick" to
accomplish its miraculous mission.
P.S. And here is a final clue.
4. The Cipher Value of the prophetic verse is 83829.
Ho, hum?
Indeed!
gangleri
He admired Shakespeare's work, and unlike the alter-Shakespeareans, he
had no trouble giving credit where it was due.
Comment:
Here is an alternative explanation posted just now in response to Tom
Veal's like point:
****
gangleri
Alan Jones
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1125997187.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The problem for anti-Strats is that most of the Strats' 36 or so allusions
are clear and direct, and all of the other 160 refer to Shakespeare only by
alleged but dubious implication. I hope you don't use "contemporary" to mean
tendentiously "in WS of Stratford's lifetime".
Alan Jones
Paul Crowley
> > > Yes, Athena is the goddess of the arts, but she IS NOT the goddess of
> > > DRAMA/THEATRE. That was Dionysus.
> >
> > That is because she is the goddess of the Useful Arts -- what we would
> > today generally file under "crafts" (and, perhaps, "engineering").
She is also the goddess of wisdom, and much
else. See below. Who would have been a good
parallel for the goddess in Elizabethan times?
> > frequent problem with the anti-Strats is their gross insensitivity to
> > language -- cf. Crowley's ridiculous reading of "world".)
Poets are often imprecise in their terminology,
i.e, they often set out to exploit ambiguity.
They don't usually write their poems as
though they were police reports.
> But I am an Oxfordian, and I called him on it.
Being Oxfordian does not stop you being
stupid in many respects.
> But I am an Oxfordian, and I called him on it.
Yeah, yeah. Then you ducked when you got a
reply. You agreed (unlike the dolt, Kennedy),
-- and actually stated -- that 'the world beneath'
could stand in for 'the earth'. The poet did, of
course, want 'the world' to be understood in the
usual way, but he ALSO wanted his readership
to read in 'the world beneath'.
Paul.
Some of the epithets from
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1736/epithets.html
Parthenos
Virgin. Athena prized her virginity above all her virtues and preserved
it with caution. She was powerful, self-complete, not needing of the
male element. She once said that she likes everything about men
except them getting married. Athena's hostility to sexuality signifies
her power and self-sufficiency although it has been said that this is
just a manifestation of the patriarchal system enforcing its values
on the goddess. Just as a virgin repels the attacks of the males,
the city repels the attacks of the enemies.
Agraulos
After one of the daughters of Kekrops, king of Athens. It means "who
dwells in the fields". Signifies the mysterious, dark, tragic aspect of
the goddess, like that of Persephonę.
Pandrosos
The opposite of Agraulos, signifies the light, optimistic aspect of the
goddess, linked with the olive-tree she had planted on the Acropolis.
Nikę (also Apteros Nikę)
Victory. Athena brings victory, that is why she is the goddess of battle,
honored and respected by soldiers and armies. The temple of Athena
Nike stood (and still stands) in the Athenian acropolis. A nice example
of this aspect is the night before the battle of Gaugamela, the final
battle between the armies of the Hellenes and the Persians in the
campaign of Alexander. The Macedonian king was said to have
sacrificed to Athena Nike during the night before the day of that battle.
As we all know, he won. Athena was called Apteros Nikę (Nike without
wings) to distinguish her from the winged Nike who was a distinct
goddess (like the Nike of Samothrace who can be found in the Louvre).
Pallas
Many interpretations for this have been presented. It might mean
virgin. The story of Pallas and Athena as young girls and how
Athena mistakenly killed her with her javelin and then assumed
her name is also recited. The goddess also slew a giant named
Pallas in the Gigantomachy. Finally a connection with pallein
"to shake" has been suggested, as the goddess shakes her spear
Erganę
Means "of works". Athena was associated with the arts, especially
with the female functions performed in the household, i.e. weaving
wool, carpet-making, etc. She is also associated with the works of
men; she invented the bridle, the carriage, the first ship. She is also
the patron goddess of carpenters; the legend says that she was the
one who helped create the Doureios Hippos or Trojan Horse. In this
aspect she was linked with Hephaistos, who also protected the arts,
especially of smiths. Their joint temple in Athens, at the foot of the
Acropolis was the Theseion.
A translation of Homeric Hymn 11, from:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1736/hymns.html
"Of Pallas Athena, protectress of the city I begin to sing;
the dreadful one, who with Ares looks after war-like affairs:
the sacking of cities, the cries of battle and the strife.
She protects the populace, wherever they might venture to or from.
Hail goddess, and may you give us good fortune and happiness. "
A translation of Homeric Hymn 28
"Of Pallas Athena, luminous goddess I begin to sing:
owl-eyed, rich in wisdom, her heart unyielding;
a virgin she is, modest, the protectress of the city, mighty one;
Tritogenę, she was born by Zeus, the all-wise.
From his great head she emerged, bearing weapons,
gold were they, and shining; all the immortals appraised her with respect.
The goddess stood before Zeus, holder of the aegis,
swiftly leaping from his enormous skull.
She brandished the pointy spear in her hand; Olympos shook greatly
as if fearful of the powerful owl-eyed one;
Gaia released a piercing cry; Pontos moved violently,
raising dark, ominous waves, releasing a burst of spray against the land.
The bright son of Hyperion stood his stallions, waiting long for Her;
to undress of the divine armor from her immortal shoulders.
Pallas Athena! Zeus, the all-wise laughed.
So I hail you goddess, daughter of Zeus, the aegis-holder
With this my song ends, but I will always remember to sing to you.
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> seaker wrote:
> > Lynne, you write, "First, why are all your examples from the
> > introduction? " The reasons Mark Anderson gives for rejecting
> > Shakespeare are filled with errors. He distorts things to suit his
> > purpose. He repeats the same old same old from Looney, the Ogborns,
> > Sobran, Whalen, Daniel Wright, Felicia Londre, Diana Price, and Roger
> > Stritmatter (oops, I mean Bassanio). If the first taste of the stew is
> > bad, why keep eating? And why bother posting at the Fellowship?
> > Bassanio (oops, I mean Roger) warns New Posters, that if they post
> > there they are admitting there is an authorship question. I don't
> > believe there is an authorship question.
> You seem to have difficulty answering the question that is asked. I
> asked why all your examples are from the introduction. You didn't
> respond directly, but complained in a general way about the book. I now
> see that despite everything you've said, you haven't read it. That,
> perhaps, would be your more direct response.
>
> In addition, if you know Roger is Bassanio--everybody on the boards
> does, of course, it's not a real alias--then you must know me. I don't
> carry on conversations with people who know me and yet affect to be
> anonymous.
"Seaker" is not anonymous, but rather pseudonymous, a status that I
thought that Oxfordians reVERed. (No, I don't know who "seaker" is.)
> It gives them un unfair advantage.
"Unfair advantage"?! Aren't you prepared to argue your case on the
basis of facts, Lynne? Facts are readily checked, and their validity is
independent of who posts them, whether they are posted under an alias or
not.
But I'm frankly surprised that you don't rise to the challenge of
ascertaining the secret identity of "seaker," Lynne -- I thought that
you anti-Stratfordians *loved* an authorship mystery! First, not that
he or she posts from the ISP "proaxis.com", an obvious anagram of
"Ox m.o. is crap."
Since Art Neuendorffer loves anagrams (or at any rate, those cretinous
crosswords that are as close as he can come to a genuine anagram), since
he often jokes with his ISP name (errors.comedy, comicass.nut, etc.),
and since he himself deftly parodies the Oxfordian _modus operandi_, the
conclusion seems virtually inescapable: "seaker" is Art! :-) That would
also explain why no posts from Art have appeared recently! Finally,
note that "seaker" posts from doc...@proaxis.com. Now "docral" is an
anagram of "Old Ar. C.", and you'll no doubt recall that Art's name is
Ar[thur] C[arl] Neuendorffer. Need I say more? :-)
> And by the way, if you don't believe there is an authorship question,
> it amazes me that all or almost all of your posts to hlas have been an
> attempt to refute the non-Stratfordians.
Scientists who do not believe that there is any legitimate evolution
vs. special creation "controversy" whatever may well spend some of their
time refuting the latter, although it is a thankless task. Scientists
who do not believe that there is any legitimate question concerning the
untenability of Velikovskian planetary "science" have certainly taken
the time to refute it. There are many parallel examples, none of which
need occasion any amazement. By the same token, you need not be amazed
that someone who doesn't believe that there is a Shakespeare authorship
question nonetheless troubles to refute some of your coreligionists'
claptrap, Lynne.
Paul Crowley
news:i3fTe.1051$jE2...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> I used to argue, half-seriously, that the (US) high school science
> curriculum should begin with a thorough introduction to creationism,
> biblical csomology, etc. This would, in theory, satisfy the fundamentalist
> call for "equal time", although of course, the entire "scientific" case can
> be presented in days or weeks at most. Then you spend the next four years
> disproving each contention in detail, which would give the student a
> thorough grounding in biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc., and have
> the added bonus of demonstrating the scientific method and provide a rough
> guide to the history of science.
>
> Perhaps the same approach could be used here.
Great idea! In Evolutionary Theory (versus the
opposition), there is enormous scope for all
manner of interesting case-studies.
But what would you do here? Haven't you
noticed that Strats nearly always (or always?)
lose arguments? And usually do so hopelessly?
Oxfordians would win, hands-down, in every
case-study.
Btw, you probably missed that study on the
Chimp Y-chromosome, that came out last week.
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/wifb-hyc082905.php
> Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research
> Human Y chromosome stays intact while chimp Y loses genes
> The human and the chimpanzee Y chromosomes went their separate ways
> approximately 6 million years ago. But ever since this evolutionary
> parting, these two chromosomes have experienced different fates, new
> research indicates.
>
> While the human Y has maintained its count of roughly 27 genes and gene
> families over the last 6 million years, some of these same genes on the
> chimp Y have mutated and gradually become inactive.
This is a very nice little study with a broad
relevance. Most people know that human
males suffer much more often from genetic
defects (such as haemophilia) resulting from
having only a single copy of a gene on the
Y-chromosome. This is a common mammalian
pattern, and as a result, genes have been
steadily migrating from the Y-chromosome to
normal chromosomes (with two copies)
throughout mammalian evolution. But that
process came to a halt in the human taxon
when it split from chimps.
This is, almost certainly, because human
ancestors had a unique from of evolution,
which prevented the slow percolation of
beneficial genes throughout a widely-
dispersed population. It enabled huge jumps,
but obstructed the slow gradual improvements
seen in other mammals.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
The designation 'Shake-speares Sonnets
(WITH a hyphen) appears on the title page
of the original publication in 1609, and on
EVERY pair of pages thereafter -- throughout
the poems. 'Shake-speares' (WITH a hyphen)
is on the left page and 'Sonnets' is on the
right, as you look at each open pair.
I trust that would count as 'many'.
The nature of this publication is so strange
-- as is everything surrounding the man
and his works -- that you have to be blind,
deaf and dumb (i.e. very, very dumb) to be
able to believe that there is nothing in need
of explanation.
But I suppose we all know that. After all,
it's pretty obvious.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>
> The Historian wrote:
> > LynnE wrote:
> > > seaker wrote:
> > > > Lynne - Yes, Oxfordians are the creationists of the literature.
> > >
> > > Ooh la la. Why don't you come over to the Fellowship, where you'll be
> > > speaking to real Oxfordians, and try your arguments there?
> >
> > Because "real Oxfordians" don't want an argument, as I discovered
> > during a visit a few weeks ago.
The people on the Fellowship site are not
'real Oxfordians'. They are a particular sect,
(of especially shallow quasi-Strats) who have
a number of strange beliefs which they are
reluctant to debate, either among other
Oxfordians, or at large. (They probably don't
even debate them privately, merely lighting
candles, smoking strange substances, and
mysteriously 'communing'.)
> > Supposedly one of the new house rules
> > at the Fellowship is that posters must recognize that there IS a
> > legitimate debate about authorship in order to post.
That would hardly be a 'house rule'. After all,
if you think that they are all quite insane --
not entirely unreasonably -- why would you
waste your time posting in the first place?
> Of course we want an argument.
So why hide in your own protected site?
Face it, Fellowship types are useless wusses,
who get a well-deserved battering whenever
they appear out in the open.
Paul.
Chess One
> seaker wrote:
>> Well, since you asked, I agree with Greenblatt. In fact, while I don't
>> agree with parts of "Will in the World," it's one of the best books
>> about Shakespeare I've read.
<.>
> You really haven't answered my question. I asked if you agreed with
> Greenblatt's letter, and you've gone all around the houses. Do you
> agree, for example, with Greenblatt's directly comparing Oxfordians
> with creationists and indirectly with Holocaust Deniers? Do you agree
> that the schools should not teach Authorship? Remember that William N.
> in his original article did not say that Oxford or anyone else was the
> author. He was more suggesting that teachers might investigate the
> problem with their students.
I remember reading in a Canadian publication some 7 or 8 years ago an
article by an academic on this theme - I'd bought the paperback to read a
Canadian poet, and this was an incidental article to my attention - but he
said that the rage these days in Canada was to follow an American example;
which was to force a specific curriculum onto university students, one and
only one. He said that as a younger 'don', to borrow a phrase, he could
still remember the classical idea of the university where everyone went to
study a subject, and whether you were a neophyte to it, or occupied some
university chair, you all attended the same subject.
These days, he said, the losing argument in Canada was to continue this
ancient tradition of university study - it being replaced by a
proto-military 'reporting system' where the neophyte reported to the don,
and pursued whatever the don prescribed, and that neither neophyte nor don
would necessarily attend the subject.
Therefore, any standard of university study emanating from the USA should be
viewed with this context as heavily established background. That such
battles have now taken place in high-schools is a logical extension to this,
it must be said, rather fascistic tendency to have one truth unexamined by
any comparison, or in an English sense, to allow without inquiry any person
to privately believe whatever they wish as their own sovereign business, but
insist upon a corporate 'view'.
That these extensions of belief-wars so closely ressembling all other
fundamentalist behaviors in method, should now devolve to everything above
the 3-Rs gives the lie to any sense of these affairs having to do with the
education of the student, and is an exercise in exercising raw-power by
those who would control the result of 'education' to their own predeliction.
It is even taken in some quarters as fabulous that I could make any such
remarks - since they would be 'unrealistic' - that is, whatever merit they
possess, there is no hope for their implementation other than by a species
of successful academic power-politics that would promote them - but to
seriously discuss them at their worth would be naive in the extreme.
Power is the grim idol that the world adores, wrote Hazlitt, though our
author's remark [H. VI] on a similar theme spoke of a more certain
shame-faced subtlety; The fox barks not when he would steal the lamb.
Who is the predator here who comes by so silent, or would so silence our
native guard?
Phil Innes
> Best wishes,
>
> Lynne
>