Ashbourne Portrait
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On 20 May 2000, PFStreitz wrote:
<snip>
> The defenders of the man from Stratford-on-Avon responded to the article in
> Scientific American by reidentifying the painting as Sir William Hammersley, a
> man who was mayor of London for a period in the early 1600s. Sir William’s
> most outstanding qualification for this portrait was that he was born in 1565,
> a year after the man from Stratford-on-Avon.
As Dave tells us, the restoration of the painting revealed a couple of
things, the most important of which was that the coat of arms were those
of Sir Hugh Hamersley. (The arms of the Hamersleys were "Gules, three rams
heads couped.")
> Further, Stratfordian supporters
> then argued that the date on the painting was changed from 1612 to 1611, thus
> the age of the sitter of the painting according to them perfectly fits Sir
> William.
Yes. The restoration revealed that the "1" had been changed to a "2."
The painting gives the sitter's age as 47. Sir Hugh turned 47 in 1611.
It's pretty good confirmation.
> Exactly why Sir William would be posing with a skull or why Sir
> Hammersley would have such an elaborate portrait painted considering both the
> costs and the clearly higher level aristocratic trappings of the sitter is not
> very well explained.
The fact that 16th and 17th century Lord Mayors of London were all
extremely rich men would not have escaped anyone who had done any
reasonable amount of reading on the period. And the fact that Hamersley
bought a knighthood is an indication that he enjoyed very aristcratic
trappings.
> Exactly how or why the portrait of a mayor of London came
> to be at the distant location of Asbourne Hall is not very well explained
> either.
Believe it or not, paintings are very portable.
> Neverthelesss, to conform one of the central dogmas of the Elizabethan
> historians, Sir William Hammersly provided at least some alternative to Edward
> de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Thereafter charges and countercharges ensured
> along with legal suits for slander and defamation over the issue of the
> portrait.
> In short, the supporters of the painting as an authentic "Shakespeare" reversed
> their position when the identification of the portrait began to reveal that it
> was not the man from Stratford-on-Avon. Interestingly the call number for the
> portrait is "S1" for Shakespeare and its title is "Ashbourne Portrait of
> Shakespeare." The portrait no longer sits in the public exhibition hall where
> it might raise unwanted questions but sits more safely in the Founders’ Room
> where you may see it if you ask.
The painting is interesting on its own merits, but since it's a painting
of Sir Hugh Hamersley, it hardly warrants a central place at the Folger.
> When facts are discovered that shed doubt on the two great myths of the
> Elizabeth period: the myth of the Virgin Queen and the myth of the Bard from
> Stratford-on-Avon, we find political correctness to rule over preponderance of
> evidence.
No. We find that you somehow failed to report the most salient fact
presented in Dave's essay. (That the coat of arms on the Ashbourne
portrait is actually that of a former Lord Mayor of London.)
Here's what you said about Dave:
> On this issue, Kathman's website operates as it does on other
> issues. It deliberately conceals key data from the reader and then goes
> on to operate as most of Kathman posts where he "knows" something as if
> it is a message from God.
Either you deliberately concealed key data or you are an extremely
incompetent reader.
You went on to say:
> (But then again perhaps he is hearing voices
> mere mortals are not privy to).
Or perhaps he incorrectly expects his readers to be able to comprehend
what they read.
> My favorite along this line is "How We
> Know that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare" when Kathman has never been
> able to prove the existence of any human being who spelled and
> pronounced his name "Shakespeare." I guess it is those voices again.
Although you will never see it, you proved yourself equally incompetent
in the spelling debate.
<snip>
There's another portrait of Sir Hugh on a web site built by one of
his descendents at:
http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/sirhugh1.htm.
I had to considerably brighten the image before I could see it clearly.
The two portraits certainly look like they could be of the same man.
It would be interesting to see the Ashbourne portrait now that it's
been restored.
FWIW, the web site gives an inscription for the painting:
"Sir Hugh Hamersly Kt., Lord Mayor of London, eldest alderman and first
colonel of this city, President of Christ's Hospital, President of the
Artillery Garden, Governor of the Company of Russia Merchants and those of
the Levant, Spain, E.India, France and Virginia. Master of the Worshipful
Company of Haberdashers."
Makes it sound like he was a very important and influential man. He was
certainly dressed like one.
Rob
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
I did a quick search for the Trentham(Staffordshire) arms and found that
they are "Argent, three griffin's heads erased sable, beaked gules."
In other words, the Trentham coat of arms has a silver background. The
griffin heads are black with red beaks and have the appearance of having
been forcibly torn off. (A ragged edge at the neck.)
Looking carefully at the coat of arms on the portrait of Sir Hugh
Hammersley at http://www.gmilne.demon.co.uk/sirhugh1.htm, I see that the
Hamersley coat of arms is Gules, three rams heads couped or.
In other words, the Hamersley coat of arms has a red background. The ram
heads are colored gold and they have the appearance of having been cleanly
cut off.
The Shakespeare-Oxford web site says that in the 1970s, Charles Barrell
arranged for an infra-red study of the Ashbourne portrait which revealed
that "Under the gold painted inscription in the upper left are the
outlines of a coat of arms nearly identical to that used by the Trentham
family."
Apparently, the mere fact that two coats of arms each have three heads is
enough, in the eyes of Oxfordians, to make them "nearly identical."
Another fact from Shakespeare-Oxford web site:
They tell us that "The close-up of the head[from the Ashbourne portrait]
used on our Home Page was redrawn by Society member Stephanie Hughes in an
attempt to restore the original hairline. So all of their visitors have
had the joy of being greeted by Sir Hugh Hammersley, master haberdasher
and Lord Mayor of London. Sir Hugh probably never expected to be
pressed into such a service. How long should he expect to continue?
Rob
PFStreitz
all take them more seriously.
Most enjoyable was your non-explanation of how the painting came to be in the
hands of a relative of Edward de Vere.
>Believe it or not, paintings are very portable.
paul streitz
Tom Reedy
PFStreitz <pfst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000524145128...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
> When your replies reach the level of someone with a triple digit IQ, we
could
> all take them more seriously.
I doubt you're qualified to make that judgment.
TR
rob
Paul Streitz's post failed to turn up on my server. I've taken it off of
DejaNews and edited it a bit. No words were inserted or deleted.
PFStreitz wrote:
> When your replies reach the level of someone with a triple digit IQ,
> we could all take them more seriously.
As generous as that implied offer is, I think I should stick to a level
where there is some reasonable possibility that you, personally, will
learn something.
> Most enjoyable was your non-explanation of how the painting came to be
> in the hands of a relative of Edward de Vere.
> >Believe it or not, paintings are very portable.
The Ashbourne portrait was discovered in the 19th century in the Ashbourne
School. It is only a fantasy of Oxfordians that puts it in the hands of a
relative (no matter how remote) of Edward de Vere.
You first failed to report the most salient fact presented in Dave's
essay. (That the coat of arms on the Ashbourne portrait is actually that
of a former Lord Mayor of London.) When given a second chance to address
that most significant issue, you gave us what? A truly pitiful _ad
hominem_ and a weak criticism of one of my least important remarks.
Rob
Tom Davidson
could
> all take them more seriously.
>
the
> hands of a relative of Edward de Vere.
> >Believe it or not, paintings are very portable.
>
>
Paul: I'd still like to hear your comments on the information provided
on the Kathman/Ross website about how the uncovered coat of arms
was that of the Lord Mayor of London. What are your thoughts on this?
Can you dispute it? If the portrait can be demonstrated to be of the
Lord Mayor, why does it matter that it ended up in the possession of
a relative of deVere?
Tom D.
David Kathman
>
> Xr...@pXcr8.pXcr.com wrote:
>
> > Apparently, the mere fact that two coats of arms each have three heads is
> > enough, in the eyes of Oxfordians, to make them "nearly identical."
>
> be. Are the obscured colors known?
The colors are no longer obscured, since the paint over the coat
of arms was removed in a 1979 restoration (as I said in my brief
article, but Streitz did not reveal in his feeble reply). I don't
know for sure that the shield on the painting is red (as in
the Hamersley blazon), but I assume so, since the SQ article
about the painting says that the coat in the painting matches
the blazon.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
John W. Kennedy
> Apparently, the mere fact that two coats of arms each have three heads is
> enough, in the eyes of Oxfordians, to make them "nearly identical."
To be fair, depending on the resolution of the I-R image, they could
be. Are the obscured colors known?
--
-John W. Kennedy
-jwk...@attglobal.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Ronald Johnsen
PFStreitz wrote:
> When your replies reach the level of someone with a triple digit IQ, we could
> all take them more seriously.
>
> Most enjoyable was your non-explanation of how the painting came to be in the
> hands of a relative of Edward de Vere.
> >Believe it or not, paintings are very portable.
Streitz is just mad because he didn't think of this line first.
>
>
> paul streitz
Ronald Johnsen
Nigel Davies
"PFStreitz" <pfst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000524145128...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
could
> all take them more seriously.
>
the
> hands of a relative of Edward de Vere.
> >Believe it or not, paintings are very portable.
>
>
This is reminiscent of the Bolebec crest that Volker was frothing at the mouth
about for a while then went all quiet on when an Oxfordian of all people showed
that it had bugger all to do with Oxford. The rubbish that's been written about
this painting and its presence in the Oxfordian argument, all driven by
irrational and unsubstantiated conspiracy paranoia, just shows how feeble the
Oxford case is.
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
PFStreitz
the Stratfordian school stood behind this painting as a true likeness of the
Bard from Stratford on Avon for over a century. After having it revealed to
them the pertinent points that would make it seem less than a ghost of a chance
that this painting had anything to do with the man from Stratford, after ten
years of digging they come up with the unlikely candidate of a mayor of London,
who gets appointed a "Sir" as a courtesy title, and then attribute to him.
What laughable nonsense. Then the painting in the same "Stratfordian" hands is
restored to somehow correspond with accord with their "anybody but Oxford
mentality."
But what is never explained is how the Stratfordians could attribute this
painting to the wrong man for so many years.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
of evidence pointing toward de Vere.
As I state in an earlier post, the point is the Stratfordians had it wrong, by
their own admission for nearly a century, then when it seems like the painting
is Oxford, then they pull the mayor of London out of the hat, and restore the
painting so it fits with their new lame excuse.
My thoughts are the new coat of arms which seems to be uncovered during a
restoration is probably a forgery by the Strats in their restoration process.
It is important in indentifying the picture to give it a context, and the
context is that it appeared within the world of de Vere's ancestors. It did not
appear in any context having to do with the man from Stratford on Avon, and it
did not appear in any context with the mayor of London.
Additionally, there is a known portrait of Oxford at twenty-four and the facial
features are identical, with a difference in age of course. These are: high
forhead, thin eyebrows, thin forhead brow, right eye is slightly wall-eyed,
identical noses, identical shape of face. The two portraits are of the same
man at different points in time.
Stratfordianism is some sort of religious faith, wherein, if the evidence leads
to an unwanted conclusion, you simply lie or make things up and then defend
them as if they were the truth.
Stratfordianism is just some sort of cosmic joke, with Kathman etc as the lead
clowns.
I guess they have some passionate need to hang on to something stable, and this
is what it is for them.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
paul streitz
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On 30 May 2000, PFStreitz wrote:
> You fail to mention the most salient fact of this entire discussion. That is,
> the Stratfordian school stood behind this painting as a true likeness of the
> Bard from Stratford on Avon for over a century. After having it revealed to
> them the pertinent points that would make it seem less than a ghost of a chance
> that this painting had anything to do with the man from Stratford, after ten
> years of digging they come up with the unlikely candidate of a mayor of London,
The only digging the Folger appears to have done was to hire a restorer.
> who gets appointed a "Sir" as a courtesy title,
Why do you say that it was a courtesy title and what difference
would that make? Are you some sort of a snob?
> and then attribute to him.
If, when the extra layers of paint were stripped off, the coat of arms
were revealed to be Sir Hugh's, who else should they have attributed it
to?
> What laughable nonsense. Then the painting in the same "Stratfordian" hands is
> restored to somehow correspond with accord with their "anybody but Oxford
> mentality."
I am not amused by your implication that the restorer hired by the Folger
defaced a real picture of Shakespeare. Unless you have proof that he or
she did so, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
> But what is never explained is how the Stratfordians could attribute this
> painting to the wrong man for so many years.
I don't know what percentage of Stratfordians believed the painting really
depicted Shakespeare. I suspect it was fairly small. In any event, until
the painting was restored, how could anybody be truly sure?
<snip>
It is very unethical to accuse(without proof) someone you don't know of
dishonesty simply because their work reveals something you don't like.
Rob
Richie Miller
pfst...@aol.com says...
> Nothing of substance to the discussion at hand worth a reply.
>
> paul streitz
>
and Ross. the Start's were dead wrong, and if Mr.Ross is going to pummel
David Scott for his mistakes, then we should return the favor in equal
measure.
Failing to mention an Italian source = 1 point
The Ashbourne Portrait Fiasco = 100 points
Let the punishment begin!
--
Richie
www.omencity.com
****************************************************
"The truth of the matter is that poetic genius
overleaps both time and space." (Shakespeare Folger
Library on Shakspeare's magical powers)
****************************************************
Richie Miller
>
> It is very unethical to accuse(without proof) someone you don't know of
> dishonesty simply because their work reveals something you don't like.
>
>
> Rob
>
>
line? Man, I give up on you Strats, so above the rest of us, and so single
and simple minded. Rob, you aren't funny in the least and I think your
visits to this web site are now concluded. There are three rules on this
NG: Be funny, be profound, or be quiet.
I guess that means I should go away too!
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On 30 May 2000, PFStreitz wrote:
> The whole issue is the desperate defense of every single circumstantial piece
> of evidence pointing toward de Vere.
>
> As I state in an earlier post, the point is the Stratfordians had it wrong, by
> their own admission for nearly a century, then when it seems like the painting
> is Oxford, then they pull the mayor of London out of the hat, and restore the
> painting so it fits with their new lame excuse.
>
> My thoughts are the new coat of arms which seems to be uncovered during a
> restoration is probably a forgery by the Strats in their restoration process.
That seems to be a slander based only upon your prejudices. Have you even
attempted to examine the painting as it has been restored?
> It is important in indentifying the picture to give it a context, and the
> context is that it appeared within the world of de Vere's ancestors.
Perhaps you believe in time travel or perhaps you meant, instead,
"the world of de Vere's descendents."
The connection to Oxford consists of the fact that in the year 1606 or so,
one of his wife's nieces married a man who apparently owned an estate just
outside of Ashbourne and that some 250 years later, the painting was
discovered in a school in Ashbourne. Needless to say, we don't know when
the painting was put in the Ashbourne school and we don't know who put it
there. So far, we have not been given any reason to believe that the
portrait was ever in Ashbourne Hall.
> It did not
> appear in any context having to do with the man from Stratford on Avon, and it
> did not appear in any context with the mayor of London.
I don't think anyone has looked for a context to do with the Mayor of
London.
> Additionally, there is a known portrait of Oxford at twenty-four and the facial
> features are identical, with a difference in age of course. These are: high
> forhead, thin eyebrows, thin forhead brow, right eye is slightly wall-eyed,
> identical noses, identical shape of face. The two portraits are of the same
> man at different points in time.
I'll concede that the both sets of eyebrows look pretty thin. The
similarities largely end there. The Oxford portait forehead is merely
average in height while the Ashbourne portrait forehead appears high.
The Oxford face is proportionately wider than the Ashbourne portrait face.
Both noses are relatively straight but the Ashbourne nose is more straight
and more pointed. Neither man appears to have been wall-eyed.
I doubt that any non-Oxfordian would say that the two faces are
particularly similar.
> Stratfordianism is some sort of religious faith, wherein, if the evidence leads
> to an unwanted conclusion, you simply lie or make things up and then defend
> them as if they were the truth.
Oxfordianism is some sort of religious faith, wherin, if the evidence
leads to an unwanted conclusion, you blissfully ignore it. When it's
brought to your attention that you've missed something, you can always
call your opponents liars without even considering the possibility that
you've been mistaken.
<snip>
Rob
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Richie Miller wrote:
> In article <20000529205558...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
> pfst...@aol.com says...
> > Nothing of substance to the discussion at hand worth a reply.
> >
> > paul streitz
> >
> Paul has an excellent point here that should not be lost on Mr.'s Kathman
> and Ross.
Are you being facetious?
<snip>
Rob
Peter Zenner
>Oxfordianism is some sort of religious faith, wherin, if the evidence
>leads to an unwanted conclusion, you blissfully ignore it. When it's
>brought to your attention that you've missed something, you can always
>call your opponents liars without even considering the possibility that
>you've been mistaken.
Shouldn't that read "Stratfordianism is", etc., etc.? There are
loads of facts that have had to be twisted or altered -- or quietly
pushed under the carpet. It is the Strats who use the word "liar"
when someone posts something they don't like. Most notably
one 'John W. Kennedy'. I am convinced that the 'W' stands for
'Whitgift' -- he wants everything he doesn't agree with to burn
in hell! Some of his responses consist solely of the word 'liar',
repeated ad nauseum.
Put your own house in order first, Rob.
Peter Zenner
+44 (0) 1246 271726
Visit my web site 'Zenigmas' at
http://www.pzenner.freeserve.co.uk
John W. Kennedy
> My thoughts are the new coat of arms which seems to be uncovered during a
> restoration is probably a forgery by the Strats in their restoration process.
Damn you, you filthy, sniveling little bastard, get the Hell out of
here NOW!
Your behavior has now reached the point of being utterly unacceptable
among civilized beings.
Go to Hell.
Richie Miller
says...
> PFStreitz wrote:
> > My thoughts are the new coat of arms which seems to be uncovered during a
> > restoration is probably a forgery by the Strats in their restoration process.
>
> Damn you, you filthy, sniveling little bastard, get the Hell out of
> here NOW!
Could you be more specific?
>
> Your behavior has now reached the point of being utterly unacceptable
> among civilized beings.
I don't follow. You mean you trust the Folger to tell the truth? You
really think that restoration expert didn't come from THEIR organization?
Not only is the coat of arms probably a forgery, but I have word from an
Oxfordian acquaintance that they discovered De Vere's name in the crest and
quickly took it off with really old gasoline.
>
> Go to Hell.
Paul and I are gonna Gitchu!
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> > PFStreitz wrote:
> > > My thoughts are the new coat of arms which seems to be
> > > uncovered during a restoration is probably a forgery by the
> > > Strats in their restoration process.
> >
> I agree, Paul. What do you think, John?
I hope, and strongly suspect, that you are joking, Richie. I know
Paul Streitz isn't. He seems to think the Folger branch of The Trust
is as insane as the Oxfordian hoaxsters: sure, instead of restoring
the picture and finding a painted-over inscription describing the
sitter as "William Shakespeare, Ye Onlie Begetter of Hamlet, Macbeth,
As You Like It, Etc., aged 47, 1611," they make it look like it is of
someone entirely different. You halfwits who believe in Stratfordian
forgeries have yet to explain why none of the alleged forgeries has
proven beyond doubt to those not taking it for a forgery that the man
from Stratford was the True Author. Why no letter from Ben to Will
congratulating him on his new play, Measure for Measure, or the like?
I know, the Trust hoaxsters are just like the Oxfordian hoaxsters:
schizspirators who want everyone to know that Shakespeare wrote the
plays but at the same time want to conceal that fact (so they can make
big bucks from researchers out to decide the matter one way or the
other--or just because that's the way all hoaxsters work).
Somebody in 1611 paints a portrait of (the dead) Oxford and gives him
Shakespeare's age--to slyly give away the game to those in the know?
Is this what you guys think happened? Oh, better would be to paint
Ed in 1597, but give the picture the date at which Shakespeare would
have been that age. Carry on the schizpiracy: for every insane attempt
to conceal the True Author by pretending he's an illiterate from the
boondocks, give posterity a pieceof major evidence that the True
Author is Oxford like the Ashbourne Portrait. It all makes all kinds of
sense.
--Bob G.
s
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Peter Zenner wrote:
> Rob said:-
> >Oxfordianism is some sort of religious faith, wherin, if the evidence
> >leads to an unwanted conclusion, you blissfully ignore it. When it's
> >brought to your attention that you've missed something, you can always
> >call your opponents liars without even considering the possibility that
> >you've been mistaken.
>
> Shouldn't that read "Stratfordianism is", etc., etc.?
No. It was largely parody and that would completely ruin it.
> There are
> loads of facts that have had to be twisted or altered -- or quietly
> pushed under the carpet.
So you believe. Your facts, however, have been mostly irrelevant
or unverifiable.
> It is the Strats who use the word "liar"
> when someone posts something they don't like. Most notably
> one 'John W. Kennedy'.
John uses the word when I wouldn't. However, as far as I
can remember, he has only used it when a indisputably misleading
statement was made.
> I am convinced that the 'W' stands for
> 'Whitgift' -- he wants everything he doesn't agree with to burn
> in hell! Some of his responses consist solely of the word 'liar',
> repeated ad nauseum.
>
> Put your own house in order first, Rob.
My house is messy but it's not irrational.
<snip>
Rob
Richie Miller
By the way Bob, are you going to submit an entry into the Sonnet Contest?
paul streitz
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
Grumman's post is such a confused mess that I would not know where to
start deciphering what his meaning is.
But, he has one thing wrong at that is the date. The date on the
Ashbourne painting was 1612. This was in a gold color paint that is
completely different than that in the rest of the painting. It is the
same paint that is also dabbed over the ring. This leads one to
believe that it was added later and the date given was to coincide with
the birth of the man from Stratford. Which the Stratfordians then
found not to be really 1612, but 1611 to coincide with the birth of
Hammersly. (It took ten years or so to come up with a likely
alternative candidate for the sitter of the portrait.) No one has ever
given any reason why Hammersley, Lord Mayor of London, might be in a
pose with a skull resting near one hand, nor has anyone given us any
other portraits of Hammersley for comparison, nor has anyone given any
other portraits of any other Mayors of London.
Further, one of the most apparent forgeries in the painting is the
changing of the forehead to make the man appear more bald, and the
coloring of the hair changed to be more black. (Oxford had reddish
brown hair.) None of which is explained by the Hammersly advocates.
The idea that the symbol "absolutely proves' that the painting was the
Lord Mayor is the typical Stratfordian way of arguing (or I should say
putting forth propaganda for the Strat man). This method of argument
is to ignore the overall context of the situation, ignore the man
different pieces of evidence and then concentrate on one small detail,
claiming that this "proves something absolutely." It is a good
propagada technique of taking a small detail, turning it into a big lie
and then repeating it incessantly. But it is hardly scholarship or
truth.
The Strat-Moonies have a case for their man which makes Aliens at
Roswell look like a sure thing. Not that it particularly bothers the
Strat-Moonies like Kathman or Ross. True-believers have a particular
way of filtering data, interpreting and distorting information to
produce their foregone conclusion. The Stratfordians are no exception
to this, and the Ashbourne portrait another example of such distortions.
And not one comment on this thread has addressed the issue of "Why
should anyone believe anything any Stratfordian has to say regarding
the Ashbourne painting, if they MISIDENTIFIED THE PAINTING FOR A
HUNDRED YEARS?" It is sort of Orwellian how the Strats can
continually and rapidly reverse their thinking to conform to the latest
propaganda position. The new truth according to them is "Ooops, not
really the Stratman, but it can't be Oxford, so let's dig up someone
plausible and that will be our new truth."
Enough said by me on this thread. And I should say that I started this
thread for the benefit of those lurkers who might not be aware of this
subject, not to convince the Oxford-Deniers, Stratford-Moonies of
anything, that's hopeless.
paul streitz
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On Wed, 31 May 2000, paul streitz wrote:
> In article <8h2lu9$st9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
>
> Grumman's post is such a confused mess that I would not know where to
> start deciphering what his meaning is.
I'm afraid that confusion will be your epitaph.
> But, he has one thing wrong at that is the date. The date on the
> Ashbourne painting was 1612.
I'm at all not surprised that you misunderstood Bob's post.
> This was in a gold color paint that is
> completely different than that in the rest of the painting. It is the
> same paint that is also dabbed over the ring.
So it is said by some Oxfordians. It may even be true. However, I'd
bet money that the ring never had a boar on it.
> This leads one to
> believe that it was added later and the date given was to coincide with
> the birth of the man from Stratford. Which the Stratfordians then
> found not to be really 1612, but 1611 to coincide with the birth of
> Hammersly.
The restorer(s) tell us that a "1" was changed to a "2." The "161"
part appears to be original.
> (It took ten years or so to come up with a likely
> alternative candidate for the sitter of the portrait.)
More accurately, it seems to have taken a large number of years to decide
to put a restorer to work on the painting. The candidate appeared after
the restoration.
> No one has ever
> given any reason why Hammersley, Lord Mayor of London, might be in a
> pose with a skull resting near one hand, nor has anyone given us any
> other portraits of Hammersley for comparison, nor has anyone given any
> other portraits of any other Mayors of London.
I would not be surprised to hear that the skull was added when the
hairline was changed.
I posted a URL to another Hamersley painting in my first response to you.
I even mentioned that I thought that the face there bore some resemblance
to the Ashbourne portrait. I can only explain your failure to notice the
URL and my remarks by remembering your apparent inability to comprehend
what you read.
> Further, one of the most apparent forgeries in the painting is the
> changing of the forehead to make the man appear more bald, and the
> coloring of the hair changed to be more black. (Oxford had reddish
> brown hair.) None of which is explained by the Hammersly advocates.
Somethings are so obvious, they shouldn't have to explained. The man was
made more bald in order to make the portrait look more like the Droeshout
engraving.
I have no idea how you "know" that the coloring of the hair was changed to
be more black. (I suspect you are making it up as you go.)
> The idea that the symbol "absolutely proves' that the painting was the
> Lord Mayor is the typical Stratfordian way of arguing (or I should say
> putting forth propaganda for the Strat man). This method of argument
> is to ignore the overall context of the situation, ignore the man
> different pieces of evidence and then concentrate on one small detail,
> claiming that this "proves something absolutely." It is a good
> propagada technique of taking a small detail, turning it into a big lie
> and then repeating it incessantly. But it is hardly scholarship or
> truth.
On the contrary, true scholarship always encompasses the details.
If the coat of arms was Hamersley, why should we suspect the painting
was of anyone else but a Hamersley?
> The Strat-Moonies have a case for their man which makes Aliens at
> Roswell look like a sure thing. Not that it particularly bothers the
> Strat-Moonies like Kathman or Ross. True-believers have a particular
> way of filtering data, interpreting and distorting information to
> produce their foregone conclusion. The Stratfordians are no exception
> to this, and the Ashbourne portrait another example of such distortions.
>
> And not one comment on this thread has addressed the issue of "Why
> should anyone believe anything any Stratfordian has to say regarding
> the Ashbourne painting, if they MISIDENTIFIED THE PAINTING FOR A
> HUNDRED YEARS?"
Perhaps your ISP has been randomly dropping posts made to HLAS.
Here's what I wrote on the 30th:
"I don't know what percentage of Stratfordians believed the painting
really depicted Shakespeare. I suspect it was fairly small. In any
event, until the painting was restored, how could anybody be truly
sure?"
> It is sort of Orwellian how the Strats can
> continually and rapidly reverse their thinking to conform to the latest
> propaganda position. The new truth according to them is "Ooops, not
> really the Stratman, but it can't be Oxford, so let's dig up someone
> plausible and that will be our new truth."
>
> Enough said by me on this thread. And I should say that I started this
> thread for the benefit of those lurkers who might not be aware of this
> subject, not to convince the Oxford-Deniers, Stratford-Moonies of
> anything, that's hopeless.
You did indeed start the thread. When you were presented with the fact
that you left out the main fact in Dave's essay, you did your best to
weasel. You've consistently misrepresented the Stratfordian position on
the Ashbourne portrait. You've consistently disparaged (without any
proof) the honesty of Dave and the people at the Folger.
And now you escape into the thicket.
Goodbye. Don't hurry back.
Rob
John W. Kennedy
>
> Rob said:-
> >Oxfordianism is some sort of religious faith, wherin, if the evidence
> >leads to an unwanted conclusion, you blissfully ignore it. When it's
> >brought to your attention that you've missed something, you can always
> >call your opponents liars without even considering the possibility that
> >you've been mistaken.
>
> loads of facts that have had to be twisted or altered -- or quietly
> when someone posts something they don't like.
No, I use the word "liar" when someone says something he knows not to be
true.
Liar.
John W. Kennedy
> > PFStreitz wrote:
> > > My thoughts are the new coat of arms which seems to be uncovered during a
> > > restoration is probably a forgery by the Strats in their restoration process.
> >
> I agree, Paul. What do you think, John?
>
> > here NOW!
>
> Could you be more specific?
Get out. Both of you. I don't know and can no longer bring myself to
care whether the two of you are mentally retarded, tools of Satan, in
the final stages of tertiary syphilis, or just taking the Weekly World
News's road to riches by fleecing suckers, but whatever it is, he, and
now you, have exceeded the bounds of decency.
I'm afraid, though, that if you truly wish to be treated as you deserve,
you'll have to first assist me by attacking me in a dark alley, or by
attempting to abduct a lady in my presence. (I confess that that is a
cheap boast on my part, not only because you're probably too illiterate
to get the reference, but because you're both no better than whinging
little cowards who hide in dark corners to whisper abominable libels
about your betters, and then help each other to masturbate while you
tell yourselves what brave heroes you are.)
Rot in Hell, you cretinous little turds.
John W. Kennedy
strolled over to the keyboard, and wrote:
>
> In article <8h2lu9$st9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
>
> Grumman's post is such a confused mess that I would not know where to
> start deciphering what his meaning is.
It's too late for the insanity defense. Get out!
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> By the way Bob, are you going to submit an entry into the Sonnet
> Contest?
> --
> Richie
I'm gonna wait until I'm sure no one who knows what a sonnet is enters.
I wanna make sure to win.
--Bob G.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> Grumman's post is such a confused mess that I would not know where to
> start deciphering what his meaning is.
Well, I think it's pretty good for someone with a double-digit I.Q.
> But, he has one thing wrong at that is the date. The date on the
> Ashbourne painting was 1612.
No, Paul. I was referring to the original date.
> This was in a gold color paint that is completely
> different than that in the rest of the painting. It is the same
> paint that is also dabbed over the ring. This leads one to believe
> that it was added later and the date given was to coincide with
> the birth of the man from Stratford. Which the Stratfordians then
> found not to be really 1612, but 1611 to coincide with the birth of
> Hammersly. (It took ten years or so to come up with a likely
> alternative candidate for the sitter of the portrait.)
I thought it went the other way--1611 was on the portrait until
restoration found the correct date to be 1612. I admit to not knowing
much at all about this--and to being very confused as to just how
you Oxfordians think the Ashbourne plot worked. (By the way, why
would the Folger forgers know well in advance who the alternative
candidate would be and fix the date to work for whoever they picked?
Why the ten years?)
> No one has ever
> given any reason why Hammersley, Lord Mayor of London, might be in a
> pose with a skull resting near one hand, nor has anyone given us any
> other portraits of Hammersley for comparison, nor has anyone given any
> other portraits of any other Mayors of London.
Aha, I didn't know that. Being a complete naif, I assumed that
portraits of London mayors would have been very common. London is and
was kind of sizable, you know--and the mayors sometimes ate with kings
and queens! And I thought skulls were common props in pictures of the
time.
> Further, one of the most apparent forgeries in the painting is the
> changing of the forehead to make the man appear more bald, and the
> coloring of the hair changed to be more black. (Oxford had reddish
> brown hair.) None of which is explained by the Hammersly advocates.
> The idea that the symbol "absolutely proves' that the painting was the
> Lord Mayor is the typical Stratfordian way of arguing (or I should say
> putting forth propaganda for the Strat man). This method of argument
> is to ignore the overall context of the situation, ignore the man
> different pieces of evidence and then concentrate on one small detail,
> claiming that this "proves something absolutely." It is a good
> propagada technique of taking a small detail, turning it into a big
> lie and then repeating it incessantly. But it is hardly scholarship
> or truth.
>
> The Strat-Moonies have a case for their man which makes Aliens at
> Roswell look like a sure thing. Not that it particularly bothers the
> Strat-Moonies like Kathman or Ross.
And GRUMMAN, Don't forget GRUMMAN!
> True-believers have a particular
> way of filtering data, interpreting and distorting information to
> produce their foregone conclusion. The Stratfordians are no exception
> to this, and the Ashbourne portrait another example of such
> distortions.
>
> And not one comment on this thread has addressed the issue of "Why
> should anyone believe anything any Stratfordian has to say regarding
> the Ashbourne painting, if they MISIDENTIFIED THE PAINTING FOR A
> HUNDRED YEARS?"
Wrong, though the comment may have come after you posted this. Someone
said it was taken as Shakespeare by all Stratfordians but considered
a likeness by some--because of its false labeling. How would you have
set them right, Paul? And why, if the Folger was trying to make people
think the portrait was of Shakespeare, did they let it be examined and
restored?
This doesn't sound confusing to me--if you read it after reading the
post of Richie's it was a response to. Tell me the truth, Richie,
did you find it confusing? I note that Paul made no attempt to answer
my main question--about why The All-Powerful Trust attempts such dumb
forgeries as the Ashbourne Portrait but nothing that would settle who
wrote the plays forever, like the letter I mentioned from Ben to Will.
> > Somebody in 1611 paints a portrait of (the dead) Oxford and gives
> > him Shakespeare's age--to slyly give away the game to those in the
> > know?
I didn't say the painting was done in 1611 but asked if that's what
you thought.
> > Is this what you guys think happened? Oh, better would be to paint
> > Ed in 1597, but give the picture the date at which Shakespeare would
> > have been that age. Carry on the schizpiracy: for every insane
> > attempt to conceal the True Author by pretending he's an
> > illiterate from the boondocks, give posterity a pieceof major
> > evidence that the True Author is Oxford like the Ashbourne
> > Portrait. It all makes all kinds of sense.
> >
--Bob G.
Peter Zenner
>Damn you, you filthy, sniveling little bastard, get the Hell out of
>here NOW!
>Your behavior has now reached the point of being utterly unacceptable
>among civilized beings.
>Go to Hell.
Oooh Paul -- you anti-christ you!
Peter Zenner
>Your facts, however, have been mostly irrelevant
>or unverifiable.
If the discussion is about the authorship of the
Shakespeare works, then every one of my facts
is relevant.
Every one of my facts is verifiable.
If you don't know the facts and you don't know the
verification for those facts, how on earth can you
make such a statement?
Oh yes -- you are a Stratfordian....
David Kathman
paul streitz wrote:
>
> In article <8h2lu9$st9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
>
> Grumman's post is such a confused mess that I would not know where to
> start deciphering what his meaning is.
One could almost say the same thing about your posts.
> But, he has one thing wrong at that is the date. The date on the
> Ashbourne painting was 1612.
Well, that was the original date, as the 1979 restoration showed.
Before the restoration, the 2 had been painted over with a 1, to
make the date look like 1611.
> This was in a gold color paint that is
> completely different than that in the rest of the painting. It is the
> same paint that is also dabbed over the ring.
Where did this information come from? I can't find it in the
articles I have, though it may be somewhere else. I don't know
that any paint was "dabbed over" the ring, but even if it was,
it makes sense that this would have been done at the same time
as the alteration of the date.
> This leads one to
> believe that it was added later and the date given was to coincide with
> the birth of the man from Stratford. Which the Stratfordians then
> found not to be really 1612, but 1611 to coincide with the birth of
> Hammersly. (It took ten years or so to come up with a likely
> alternative candidate for the sitter of the portrait.)
You seem to be rather confused. The original date on the painting
was 1612, which, along with the words "Aetatis suae 47", corresponds
with the age of Sir Hugh Hamersley, who was born in 1565. The date
was later altered to 1611 so that it would correspond to William
Shakespeare, born in 1564. Nobody disputes that the person altering
the painting wanted to make it look like Shakespeare, so why are you
announcing this as though it were some kind of discovery by you?
And it did not take "ten years or so to come up with a likely
alternative candidate for the sitter of the portrait"; the
identification of Hamersley was made soon after the coat of arms
was uncovered during the restoration and identified as his. The
fact that the date on the painting had originally been one
corresponding to Hamersley's date of birth only strengthened
the identification. You keep trying to give the impression
that the Folger arbitrarily decided that the portrait must be
of Hamersley, which is wildly and hilariously inaccurate.
> No one has ever
> given any reason why Hammersley, Lord Mayor of London, might be in a
> pose with a skull resting near one hand,
That was a common pose in portraits. William Pressly's 1992
Shakespeare Quarterly article gives an example: a 1614 portrait of
Sir Thomas Broderick in almost the same pose, with a skull next
to his right hand.
> nor has anyone given us any
> other portraits of Hammersley for comparison,
I don't know if you're being dishonest or just thick. Rob has
given a URL to a portrait of Hamersley. Pressly's article also
presents a portrait of Hamersly now belonging to the Haberdashers'
Company, in which he looks very much like the restored Ashbourne
portrait. This may be the same portrait Rob found; I don't remember
and don't have time to check.
> nor has anyone given any
> other portraits of any other Mayors of London.
There were plenty of other portraits of Lord Mayors. I'm sure
some of these are in the Guildhall, and others are in the libraries
of the individual guilds, as with the Hamersley portrait. In case
you didn't know, the Lord Mayor had to be a member of one of the
twelve major livery companies (guilds) of London.
> Further, one of the most apparent forgeries in the painting is the
> changing of the forehead to make the man appear more bald, and the
> coloring of the hair changed to be more black. (Oxford had reddish
> brown hair.) None of which is explained by the Hammersly advocates.
Huh? Everyone agrees that the hairline in the portrait was altered
to make it look like the Droueshout engraving of Shakespeare. Are
you unaware of this basic fact? Why do you present it as something
only you have noticed? And I don't know where you get this business
about the coloring of the hair being changed. I've seen no reference
to such alterations in all my reading about the painting and its
restoration. Can you cite a source for this allegation?
> The idea that the symbol "absolutely proves' that the painting was the
> Lord Mayor is the typical Stratfordian way of arguing (or I should say
> putting forth propaganda for the Strat man).
I'm not sure what "symbol" you mean, but if you mean the coat of arms,
it's a pretty good piece of evidence, especially in tandem with the
other evidence (the altered date, the existence of other portraits
of Hamersley which look like the original painting).
> This method of argument
> is to ignore the overall context of the situation, ignore the man
> different pieces of evidence and then concentrate on one small detail,
> claiming that this "proves something absolutely." It is a good
> propagada technique of taking a small detail, turning it into a big lie
> and then repeating it incessantly. But it is hardly scholarship or
> truth.
I have absolutely no idea how you can so laughably misrepresent
the facts with a straight face and a clear conscience. As I just
noted above, the coat of arms uncovered in the restoration is that
of Sir Hugh Hamersley. By itself this is pretty good evidence that
he is the sitter, but this evidence is strengthened by other evidence,
primarily the altered date and the other portrait of Hamersley.
The "overall context of the situation" points clearly toward the sitter
being Hamersley, and none of it (that I know of) points toward Oxford.
The alleged "evidence" presented by Barrell in 1940 has all crumbled
upon examination. We've just been talking about the coat of arms,
which turns out not to depict what Barrell thought it did, but
there's also his claim that the initials "C.K." had been painted
over in the painting, and that these must have stood for Cornelius
Ketel, who painted one of the two known portraits of Oxford.
In 1948-49, Steven S. Pichetto made a new series of X-rays of the
Ashbourne portrait, and they do not reveal any initials. Pichetto's
X-rays are still available in the Folger archives, but those
made under Barrell's supervision in 1940 seem to have disappeared.
Regardless of whether the initials were ever there, Pressly, in
his SQ article, states that "[o]n stylistic grounds, even though
the painting is in poor condition, one can confidently state that
Ketel never touched this canvas."
> The Strat-Moonies have a case for their man which makes Aliens at
> Roswell look like a sure thing. Not that it particularly bothers the
> Strat-Moonies like Kathman or Ross. True-believers have a particular
> way of filtering data, interpreting and distorting information to
> produce their foregone conclusion. The Stratfordians are no exception
> to this, and the Ashbourne portrait another example of such distortions.
I can only shake my head in sadness at your continued distortion
of the facts and gratuitous accusations of dishonesty. I have
cited sources for everything I've been saying here, in which I've
shown how wildly at odds with the facts your claims are. You,
on the other hand, just keep making wild-eyed accusations without
any apparent effort to even check the accuracy of the most basic
statements. And you have the gall to accuse us of distortions.
You seem to be projecting your own myriad faults onto your opponents.
> And not one comment on this thread has addressed the issue of "Why
> should anyone believe anything any Stratfordian has to say regarding
> the Ashbourne painting, if they MISIDENTIFIED THE PAINTING FOR A
> HUNDRED YEARS?" It is sort of Orwellian how the Strats can
> continually and rapidly reverse their thinking to conform to the latest
> propaganda position. The new truth according to them is "Ooops, not
> really the Stratman, but it can't be Oxford, so let's dig up someone
> plausible and that will be our new truth."
As Rob has pointed out, Shakespeare scholars were ambivalent about
the portrait in the century after its discovery in 1847. M. H.
Spielmann, the leading expert in portraiture of the era, examined
the portrait in 1910 (in its unrestored state, of course) and
found reasons to doubt that it was Shakespeare, though he left
open the possibility. Barrell's work in 1940 established that
the painting had been altered to look more like Shakespeare,
which caused most scholars to strongly doubt its authenticity as
a portrait of Shakespeare, but which left open the identity of
the original sitter. Only when the top layer of paint was removed
in the 1979 restoration did it become clear that the original
sitter had been Hugh Hamersley. Shakespeare scholars, as a group,
have behaved in a fairly rational and reasonable manner throughout
this whole thing, in stark contrast to the portrait you paint.
> Enough said by me on this thread. And I should say that I started this
> thread for the benefit of those lurkers who might not be aware of this
> subject, not to convince the Oxford-Deniers, Stratford-Moonies of
> anything, that's hopeless.
I have only responded at such length in order to make sure lurkers
could see the extent of your gross misrepresentations. If I didn't
do that, somebody might take what you say seriously, and that
would be a real tragedy.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Richie Miller
and the restored portrait side by side. Dave, do you know if the Folger
will ever web the two so we could see them? Could you ask them if they
would? Tell them they owe it to you for going to bat for them (and
Shakespeare) for all these years (and doing a damn fine job of it too, if I
may be uncharacteristically honest for a moment).
Richie
In article <39360ABD...@popd.ix.netcom.com>, dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com
says...
--
Rob
> Rob wrote:-
>> Your facts, however, have been mostly irrelevant
>> or unverifiable.
>
> If the discussion is about the authorship of the
> Shakespeare works, then every one of my facts
> is relevant.
>
> Every one of my facts is verifiable.
Oh yes. Like you can verify your fact that Marlowe
laid on the table in front of the jury pretending to
be dead. (While stabbed in the eye!)
>
> If you don't know the facts and you don't know the
> verification for those facts, how on earth can you
> make such a statement?
I've read some of your posts. After the first ten,
mostly, I've stopped bothering.
> Oh yes -- you are a Stratfordian....
Oh yes -- you are a flake. I won't say
that makes you a bad person. I will say
that I won't be buying your book.
Rob
Peter Zenner
>Oh yes -- you are a flake. I won't say
>that makes you a bad person. I will say
>that I won't be buying your book.
Please yourself. It is a bit like trying to sell a
book on atheism to a born again Christian.
You have your beliefs -- you "know" nothing.
"The only sin is ignorance" (C. Marlowe)
Wallow on in your ignorance, if that is what you prefer.
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Peter Zenner wrote:
> Rob wrote:-
> >Oh yes -- you are a flake. I won't say
> >that makes you a bad person. I will say
> >that I won't be buying your book.
>
> Please yourself. It is a bit like trying to sell a
> book on atheism to a born again Christian.
I see you as more as Velikovski trying to sell his _Worlds in
Collision_.
> You have your beliefs -- you "know" nothing.
I know you think that Marlowe was really stabbed in the eye. (We agree on
something!) I know you think he survived. I know you think he laid on
the table in front of the jury while pretending to be dead. And I know
that the last statement demonstrates, beyond any shadow of doubt, that
somewhere along the line, you lost the ability to accurately judge
probabilities.
> "The only sin is ignorance" (C. Marlowe)
An overstatement, but I like the sentiment.
> Wallow on in your ignorance, if that is what you prefer.
Most of your fellow Marlovians probably wish you'd drop some of your
wilder claims, but I'm not a Marlovian. Keep it up.
Rob
David Kathman
>
> It would be really interesting to see a picture of the original portrait
> and the restored portrait side by side. Dave, do you know if the Folger
> will ever web the two so we could see them? Could you ask them if they
> would? Tell them they owe it to you for going to bat for them (and
> Shakespeare) for all these years (and doing a damn fine job of it too, if I
> may be uncharacteristically honest for a moment).
>
> Richie
I don't know if the Folger will ever put them on the web, but the
Shakespeare Quarterly article by William Pressly which I quoted
(the exact citation is on our web site) has photographs of
the Ashbourne portrait both before and after the restoration.
I'm guessing that they have more important things to do than put
these photos on the web, especially since they're available in
a widely available journal. But if you're really interested,
write or e-mail to the Folger's Photographic reproduction
department, as somebody else in this thread suggested. They
might be able to get you better copies of the photographs,
as long as you're willing to pay for them.
And thanks for the compliment. I'm not sure whether the
Folger feels that it "owes" me anything, but I have received
a lot of nice comments over the years from Shakespeare scholars
who are grateful for the work Terry and I do in defending
Shakespeare and standards of scholarship.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
PFStreitz
the Folger, which makes it a very high quality reproduction of the orginal.
But it would not answer the question of whether the "restoration" conducted by
the Folger materially altered the picture.
Additionally, there has been no independent, as far as I can assessment of the
portrait, or any attempt using more modern methods, if there are any, to probe
this problem further. The entire issue is an embarassment for the Folger, for
going for so long claiming that this was the real Bard of Avon and having to
recant their view.
Equally embarassing is the overlwhelming similarity to already existing
portraits of Oxford existing at the time when the Folger bought the portrait,
and began claiming it to be of the Bard of Avon. When art frauds and
misrepresentations occur in the art world, by supposed experts, they quietly
bury their mistakes, as the Folger has done by removing the portrait from
public view and away from any prying questions as to the identity of the
sitter, after all, why are they holding a portrait labelled the Ashbourne
Portrait William Shakespeare, but then again, it is the Ashbourne Portrait of
William Shakespeare, who is of course, Edward de Vere.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
clears up in about twenty years, that it will be apparent that the Folger, or
whoever, deliberately tampered with or destroyed evidence in regards to the
Ashbourne portrait. If the Barell x-rays are missing, then there is little
remaining of the evidence, but in twenty years, with or without x-rays, the
Ashbourne portrait will be back on display in the Folger as the portrait of
William Shakespeare, recognizing Oxford.
It should be pointed out that tampering with evidence by Stratfordians is not
unknown as the Stratford monument of a man with a grain sack was changed over
the years to a man with a pen and quill in hand, who looked nothing like the
original.
paul streitz
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
So the only evidence you've got for Stratfordians tampering with evidence
is your inability to comprehend the facts.
Oh well.
Rob
Nigel Davies
> As a further thought, I would not be surprised when this whole authorship issue
> clears up in about twenty years, that it will be apparent that the Folger, or
> whoever, deliberately tampered with or destroyed evidence in regards to the
> Ashbourne portrait. If the Barell x-rays are missing, then there is little
> remaining of the evidence, but in twenty years, with or without x-rays, the
> Ashbourne portrait will be back on display in the Folger as the portrait of
> William Shakespeare, recognizing Oxford.
>
> It should be pointed out that tampering with evidence by Stratfordians is not
> unknown as the Stratford monument of a man with a grain sack was changed over
> the years to a man with a pen and quill in hand, who looked nothing like the
> original.
And thereby you declare yourself a dimwit who believes that a contemporary
Renaissance convention across Europe consisted of depicting anything held in
reverence, particularly literature, on woolsacks.
Botticelli's (1457-1504) "The Madonna of the Book", depicts the book that the
Madonna is reading resting not on a tassel-cornered cushion...but on a woolsack.
Botticelli's "Madonna del Padiglione" again shows a book resting not on a golden
tasseled cushion...but on a woolsack. Van Eyck's "The Madonna with Chancellor
Rolin" (1435) shows Rolin reading the Bible to the Madonna and child with
Rolin's Bible resting not on a sumptuous cushion...but on a woolsack. Van Eyck's
"The Virgin" (1432) shows the Bible held by the Madonna not on a tassel-cornered
square of green and gold silk...but on a woolsack. Campin's "The Annunciation"
(1425) has the book on the table next to the angel resting not on a green and
red tassled square of satin...but on a woolsack. Many various monuments across
Europe depict their characters resting not on tassel-cornered cushions...but on
woolsacks. Shakespeare is depicted not resting on a conventional tassel-cornered
cushion...but on a woolsack.
Just when we all thought that depicting a person holding a woolsack of all
things was so uniquely ridiculous that it doesn't exist anywhere in the world,
Streitz's dumb theory actually shows that Europe is bursting at the seams with
all sorts of contemporary Renaissance monuments and paintings that depict its
characters holding, of all things, not tassel-cornered cushions...but woolsacks.
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
Peter Zenner
> I know you think that Marlowe was really stabbed in the eye. (We agree on
> something!) I know you think he survived.
Correct on both counts -- and now that I have found that the
Chandos portrait of 'Shakespeare' is a self portrait of a
man who is blind in his right eye, I KNOW that he was
stabbed in his right eye and survived. The scar tissue
around the side of that eye is extra confirmation that the
blindness was caused by a stab. The only thing that I cannot
confirm is that it was done with a twelvepenny dagger -- I
shall have to accept the coroner's report on that one.
A lady from your own country sent me an e-mail yesterday. It
included the following paragraph:-
>I have a Masters of Fine Art degree in Painting. What I found so similar in
>your Marlowe and reversed Chandos paintings were the mouths and noses, and
>the design of the moustaches. The Chandos portrait is an aged portrait of
>the younger Marlowe.
I don't know her, apart from her name (Janie Angus) and I
have no idea what brought her to my web-site -- but it is nice
to have someone agreeing with you when you spend so much
time battling with the Stratpack!
>I know you think he laid on the table in front of the jury while
>pretending to be dead.
I don't know that he did -- I only said that there is no reason to
deny the possibility that he did. He WAS stabbed in the eye.
Everybody involved in the incident was known to each other.
The Queen's coroner? The house of a cousin of Burghley?
I said that it would not take much to pretend that you are dead
for a couple of seconds when a sheet is pulled back. We are
talking 407 years ago, not yesterday.
>And I know
> that the last statement demonstrates, beyond any shadow of
>doubt, that somewhere along the line, you lost the ability to
>accurately judge probabilities.
Are you clowns paid by Kathman and Ross? Or is attacking
other people when you actually "know" nothing a hobby of yours?
> Most of your fellow Marlovians probably wish you'd drop some of your
> wilder claims, but I'm not a Marlovian. Keep it up.
Who are my "fellow Marlovians"? I have made no wild claims and
you are in no position to say that I have. You are just a clock-work
mouth, supplied by the same firm that supplied Messrs Grimm'un,
Reedy and Reynolds. My story is certainly different to those of
Hoffman and Wraight -- and it is new to the (few) Marlovians who
participate in hlas. That doesn't make it wrong, just new.
Richie Miller
says...
The monument "bust" could have been of the father, not the son. Is there
any proof that this bust could NOT have been erected BEFORE 1616?
Are pillows usually filled with grain? If it is a pillow and it belongs to
the Shakesper family it is probably filled with wool...or scraps of
manuscript.
Rob
> Rob wrote:-
>> I know you think that Marlowe was really stabbed in the eye. (We agree on
>> something!) I know you think he survived.
>
> Correct on both counts -- and now that I have found that the
> Chandos portrait of 'Shakespeare' is a self portrait of a
> man who is blind in his right eye, I KNOW that he was
> stabbed in his right eye and survived. The scar tissue
> around the side of that eye is extra confirmation that the
> blindness was caused by a stab. The only thing that I cannot
> confirm is that it was done with a twelvepenny dagger -- I
> shall have to accept the coroner's report on that one.
>
> A lady from your own country sent me an e-mail yesterday. It
> included the following paragraph:-
>
>> I have a Masters of Fine Art degree in Painting. What I found so similar in
>> your Marlowe and reversed Chandos paintings were the mouths and noses, and
>> the design of the moustaches. The Chandos portrait is an aged portrait of
>> the younger Marlowe.
>
> I don't know her, apart from her name (Janie Angus) and I
> have no idea what brought her to my web-site -- but it is nice
> to have someone agreeing with you when you spend so much
> time battling with the Stratpack!
A life filled only with disagreement would be unfortunate.
It's good you've found a kindred soul.
>> I know you think he laid on the table in front of the jury while
>> pretending to be dead.
>
> I don't know that he did -- I only said that there is no reason to
> deny the possibility that he did. He WAS stabbed in the eye.
> Everybody involved in the incident was known to each other.
> The Queen's coroner? The house of a cousin of Burghley?
> I said that it would not take much to pretend that you are dead
> for a couple of seconds when a sheet is pulled back. We are
> talking 407 years ago, not yesterday.
>
>> And I know
>> that the last statement demonstrates, beyond any shadow of
>> doubt, that somewhere along the line, you lost the ability to
>> accurately judge probabilities.
>
> Are you clowns paid by Kathman and Ross?
No. I'm working purely for the fun of it.
Seriously, do you think any of us are making money off this?
The only people who make money in the authorship arena are those
guys like you who write books or who try to get people to pay
to hear them speak.
> Or is attacking
> other people when you actually "know" nothing a hobby of yours?
It was perhaps a little bit rude of me to call attention
to your deficit. My pointing it out, probably did you no
good whatsoever. Sorry about that.
>> Most of your fellow Marlovians probably wish you'd drop some of your
>> wilder claims, but I'm not a Marlovian. Keep it up.
>
> Who are my "fellow Marlovians"?
Baker, More, Farey, and Dafydd(sp?) are the only other
Marlovians I remember posting on HLAS.
> I have made no wild claims and
> you are in no position to say that I have.
I've only read about a dozen or so of your posts. You made
wild claims in most of them.
> You are just a clock-work
> mouth, supplied by the same firm that supplied Messrs Grimm'un,
> Reedy and Reynolds.
Maybe we're not real at all. We might all be just a figment of
your ever more diseased imagination. Or maybe we're all just a
group of not-so-craftily written subroutines residing in some
Stratfordian Trust supercomputer. Imagine a pencil necked
Stratfordian geek laughing his ass off at you wasting all of
that valuable time on an AI. Or maybe I'm just one of the
many reasonable people who've carefully evaluated the evidence
and come to the same conclusion; Shakespeare was Shakespeare.
> My story is certainly different to those of
> Hoffman and Wraight -- and it is new to the (few) Marlovians who
> participate in hlas. That doesn't make it wrong, just new.
Have you converted any other Marlovians to your story yet?
Baker seems a good candidate.
Rob
Rob
<snip>
> The monument "bust" could have been of the father, not the son. Is there
> any proof that this bust could NOT have been erected BEFORE 1616?
Heck. There's no real proof it wasn't erected before 1006, is there?
> Are pillows usually filled with grain? If it is a pillow and it belongs to
> the Shakesper family it is probably filled with wool...or scraps of
> manuscript.
I favor bombast, myself.
Rob
PFStreitz
the
Madonna is reading resting not on a tassel-cornered cushion...but on a
woolsack.>>>
Wonderul. Your research is remarkable. But completely off the point.
The point being that original staute was altered over the centuries to change
from a sack to a cushion and insert a quill pen. In addition the sculpted face
is changed with a more bald head to make it more fit the Droeshould engraving.
This is the morphing of the image from one that is not connected to writing in
anyway to one that is. That I would define as tampering with the evidence to
make it more in line with the Stratfordian dogmas.
paul streitz
Richie Miller
John W. Kennedy
>
> John 'Whitgift' Kennedy denounces another atheist with:-
No, I am denouncing a pair of nasty little swine who, with an utter lack
of evidence, even putative evidence, have publicly accused honorable men
of the most vile crime a scholar, qua scholar, can commit.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-jwk...@attglobal.net
"Perhaps you can not comprehend such a virtue when you
have none to your name, villain" -- King Roland of Somerset
Nigel Davies
> In article <393805BF...@BTInternet.com>, Nigel....@BTInternet.com
> says...
> > PFStreitz wrote:
> >
> > > As a further thought, I would not be surprised when this whole authorship issue
> > > clears up in about twenty years, that it will be apparent that the Folger, or
> > > whoever, deliberately tampered with or destroyed evidence in regards to the
> > > Ashbourne portrait. If the Barell x-rays are missing, then there is little
> > > remaining of the evidence, but in twenty years, with or without x-rays, the
> > > Ashbourne portrait will be back on display in the Folger as the portrait of
> > > William Shakespeare, recognizing Oxford.
> > >
> > > It should be pointed out that tampering with evidence by Stratfordians is not
> > > unknown as the Stratford monument of a man with a grain sack was changed over
> > > the years to a man with a pen and quill in hand, who looked nothing like the
> > > original.
> >
> > And thereby you declare yourself a dimwit who believes that a contemporary
> > Renaissance convention across Europe consisted of depicting anything held in
> > reverence, particularly literature, on woolsacks.
> >
> > Madonna is reading resting not on a tassel-cornered cushion...but on a woolsack.
> > tasseled cushion...but on a woolsack. Van Eyck's "The Madonna with Chancellor
> > Rolin" (1435) shows Rolin reading the Bible to the Madonna and child with
> > Rolin's Bible resting not on a sumptuous cushion...but on a woolsack. Van Eyck's
> > "The Virgin" (1432) shows the Bible held by the Madonna not on a tassel-cornered
> > square of green and gold silk...but on a woolsack. Campin's "The Annunciation"
> > (1425) has the book on the table next to the angel resting not on a green and
> > red tassled square of satin...but on a woolsack. Many various monuments across
> > Europe depict their characters resting not on tassel-cornered cushions...but on
> > cushion...but on a woolsack.
> >
> > Just when we all thought that depicting a person holding a woolsack of all
> > things was so uniquely ridiculous that it doesn't exist anywhere in the world,
> > Streitz's dumb theory actually shows that Europe is bursting at the seams with
> > all sorts of contemporary Renaissance monuments and paintings that depict its
> > characters holding, of all things, not tassel-cornered cushions...but woolsacks.
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > Nigel....@BTInternet.com
> >
>
> any proof that this bust could NOT have been erected BEFORE 1616?
Can you present any evidence that points to its existence before 1616? Can you
explain why the monument is dated to immortalise a man who died in 1616? Can you
explain why the monument is in the church whilst John's body is buried
elsewhere? Can you explain what connection John might have had to Nestor and
Virgil? Can you explain how the type of monument that it is could have been
re-fashioned? Can you explain why Shakespeare died equivalent to a modern-day
millionaire but opted for the uniquely cheapskate option of having an alleged
pre-existing monument re-fashioned instead of simply having a new one made? Can
you explain why anyone would want to desecrate the memory of John Shakespeare by
corrupting his monument and re-fashion it for his son? Can you cite any instance
of other monuments being re-fashioned in this manner? Can you cite any
comparable monuments to grain merchants anywhere in the world? Can you not
generate the inkling in your mind that your suggestion is as fatuous as someone
in 400 years suggesting that a monument to John Lennon today was really
re-fashioned from an original celebrating his less noteworthy father, Fred
Lennon?
> Are pillows usually filled with grain? If it is a pillow and it belongs to
> the Shakesper family it is probably filled with wool...or scraps of
> manuscript.
Or maybe it's a monument to Marlowe and filled with leather offcuts from his
father's shoemaking business. Or a monument to Oxford and filled with tin
shavings from his Cornish mining business. Or maybe Jonson filled it with cement
powder from his step-father's bricklaying business.
It's funny how some people walk around St. Paul's cathedral in London, and on
seeing the sumptuous tassel-cornered cushion on Nelson's monument remark how
common a practice that was, such as on Shakespeare's monument and in
Botticelli's paintings. Others walk around Europe's other great cities like
Paris and Rome and remark on the same ubiquitous practice, especially during the
1500's and 1600's. But others, demonstrating a profound ignorance of artistic
influence and motifs, irreparably destroy only their own reputations when they
fatuously suggest that the monument to William Shakespeare was actually uniquely
refashioned from an original of his rather less significant father, and uniquely
depicts him holding...a sack of wool or grain. There is really no need to refute
the conspirasists, their own inventions really do say it all.
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
Nigel Davies
> >> Botticelli's (1457-1504) "The Madonna of the Book", depicts the book that
> the
> Madonna is reading resting not on a tassel-cornered cushion...but on a
> woolsack.>>>
>
Not at all. My 10-year old daughter is just as capable of flicking through any
art book and discerning the paintings, monuments, tapestries, etc., that time
and time and time again depict just what Shakespeare's monument depicts. It's
that commonplace it's that easy to see. She is also as capable of discerning the
prevalence of this motif in arts during the Italian and English Renaissance
periods. The difference is that she is objective and wants to understand what
shaped arts of the period. Conversely, you want to turn it into a grotesque
caricature of what it was by superimposing your own cross-eyed view of the
period onto what it was.
> But completely off the point.
>
> The point being that original staute was altered over the centuries to change
> from a sack to a cushion and insert a quill pen.
No, it wasn't. There is no monument anywhere that has ever celebrated a figure
by depicting them holding something as ridiculous as a sack. John Shakespeare
was a wittawer, not a man who would justify being memorialised by holding a
ridiculous sack. It has not been changed from a daft sack to a cushion - the
practice of depicting figures, particularly figures in a literary aspect, with
cushions is universal. The only reason you suggest such an absurdity is your own
cack-handed ideas plus your dependence on a manifestly incompetent and
incomplete scrawled sketch of the period. Your material is that feeble you don't
seem to have the intelligence to see that your conclusion is equally feeble.
> In addition the sculpted face
> is changed with a more bald head to make it more fit the Droeshould engraving.
Rubbish. Every single aspect of your absurd suggestion is utterly stupid. That
John had a monument to him atall. That for some unfathomable reason it depicted
him with a damn sack rather than something more apposite to his occupation, like
a pair of gloves. That monuments were typically re-fashioned instead
of...duh...making a new one. That desecrating a monument to Shakespeare's father
was somehow OK. That they were so short of money they recycled monuments instead
of making new ones. That John's body is nowehere near the alleged monument.
You're a complete fool. You don't enhance your silly beliefs with intellectual
argument identifying reasons for justifiable and reasonable doubt, because there
aren't any, so you just show how preposterous you and your logic patterns are by
coming up twaddle like this.
> This is the morphing of the image from one that is not connected to writing in
> anyway to one that is. That I would define as tampering with the evidence to
> make it more in line with the Stratfordian dogmas.
"Tampering with the evidence". What a flakey guy you are.
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
PFStreitz
In a legal sense that's what it is, but it is understandable from a historical
point of view. There was no one else who was considered to be Shakespeare
other than the man from Stratford, there were no good representations of him.
(The Droeshould engraving is clearly a cartoon with head like a Beluga whale
and one shoulder on backwards), so to make a monument appropriate to what they
believed to be true they changed the monument in Stratford to more represent a
writer with a quill pen.
paul streitz
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
did NOT write the works of Shakespeare (which he dictated to his
unscrupulous son because he was illiterate only to have that son take
credit for them)? I thought Richard Kennedy had established that
beyond any question back in '98.
John W. Kennedy
> But it would not answer the question of whether the "restoration" conducted by
> the Folger materially altered the picture.
Neither does it answer the far more important question of whether _you_
finance your Internet addiction by making kiddy snuff films.
Go to Hell, freak. You are a disgrace to Homo sapiens, a lying,
cowardly, grotesque little pissant who deserves to be publicly
horsewhipped.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-jwk...@attglobal.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
John W. Kennedy
> The point being that original staute was altered over the centuries to change
> is changed with a more bald head to make it more fit the Droeshould engraving.
And you are a lying scum. Furthermore, I have in my possession proof
positive that you were the ghostwriter of "Mein Kampf".
Go to Hell.
John W. Kennedy
Your mother's milk was loaded with hallucinogens, and you've been
recycling it ever since by a diet consisting solely of your own shit.
John W. Kennedy
> You continually talk of this "restoration" as if it is some given fact. It is
> not. The "restoration" only came about after the revelations linking the
> portrait to Oxford.
STOP IT! STOP YOUR LIES! KINDLY JUST DRIVE TO GEORGIA OR SOME OTHER
STATE WITH LOOSE GUN-CONTROL LAWS AND DO THE DECENT THING.
John W. Kennedy
> As a further thought, I would not be surprised when this whole authorship issue
> clears up in about twenty years, that it will be apparent that the Folger, or
> whoever, deliberately tampered with or destroyed evidence in regards to the
> Ashbourne portrait.
And I wouldn't be surprised if, within six months, it will be apparent
that you are a paid agent of the American Nazi Party.
Damn you, and damn your impertinent lies, pig.
paul streitz
> Your mother's milk was loaded with hallucinogens, and you've been
> recycling it ever since by a diet consisting solely of your own shit.
>
> Go to Hell.
>
> --
> -John W. Kennedy
>
Paul Simon:
I had a friend who had a little bit of a breakdown.
So I said, breakdowns come and breakdowns go,
What are you going to do about it,
That's what I want to know.
paul streitz