Francis Bacon : A funny acrostic in Merchant
DeVereLtd
member. Keeping that in Mind...
. The following is from Merchant of Venice
ACT II SC.VII
Price of Morroco (towards the ends of this very long speech)
The watery kingdom, whose ambitions head
Spits in the face of heaven, is no bar
To stop the foreign spirits; but they come
As o'er a brook, to see fair Portia.
One of these three contains her heavenly picture
IS'T like that lead contains her?....
This IS my imagination, right?
Spits in the face of heaven...
T
A
O
IST
Regards,
Brantley
Neuendorffer
What exactly do you think you see? TAOIST?
Art N.
Tom Reedy
discuss this very fascinating topic without any distractions?
TR
"DeVereLtd" <deve...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010804164201...@mb-mc.aol.com...
Mark Alexander
Isn't it nice that a noted historian and fellow Oxfordian has had a #1
bestseller for many weeks now, with his biography of John Adams?
David McCullough: "The strange, difficult, contradictory man who emerges as the
real Shakespeare, Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, is not just plausible
but fascinating and wholly believable. It is hard to imagine anyone who reads
the book with an open mind ever seeing Shakespeare or his works in the same way
again" (From the Foreword to the second edition of The Mysterious William
Shakespeare by Charlton Ogburn)
His Oxfordian position seems not to have damaged his credibility.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Mark Steese
<mark...@earthlink.net> that wrote
news:Gc0b7.232$eU4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, on the day of
04 Aug 2001:
I suppose you must mean 'prestige,' or something like it; I don't see how
being a bestselling author necessarily makes David McCullough more credible
than Kitty Kelley or Whitley Strieber.
I might also note that McCullough doesn't write books about Elizabethan
England, and that his anti-Shakespearean sympathies are not a widely-
publicized fact. Other than the Foreword to his friend Ogburn's book, has
he ever written a single word on the subject?
Yours,
Mark Steese
--
In consideration of which, it is finally agreed by the foresaid hearers and
spectators that they neither in themselves conceal, nor suffer by them to
be concealed, any state-decipherer, or politic picklock of the scene, so
solemnly ridiculous as to search out who was meant by the Gingerbread-
woman, who by the Hobby-horse-man, who by the Costermonger, nay, who by
their wares. -Ben Jonson: Bartholomew Fair
Neuendorffer
>
> yep
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the authors of Shakespeare were not
only aware of Taoism but were even sympathetic towards it's
Spinoza/Melville/Einstein brand of pantheism. That being said, one would
expect 'TAO' to appear as a *random* acrostic more than once in any play
as long as this. (The added 'IST' horizontal is not impressive & doesn't
really add much.) What other evidence do you have that this might have
been intentional?
Art N.
Mark Alexander
"Mark Steese" <mst...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90F3B5E814F5...@24.9.59.72...
> Hwæt! We have heard of the havering of "Mark Alexander"
> <mark...@earthlink.net> that wrote
> news:Gc0b7.232$eU4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, on the day of
> 04 Aug 2001:
>
> > More bad news for Strats:
> >
> > Isn't it nice that a noted historian and fellow Oxfordian has had a #1
> > bestseller for many weeks now, with his biography of John Adams?
> >
> > David McCullough: "The strange, difficult, contradictory man who
> > emerges as the real Shakespeare, Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of
> > Oxford, is not just plausible but fascinating and wholly believable. It
> > is hard to imagine anyone who reads the book with an open mind ever
> > seeing Shakespeare or his works in the same way again" (From the
> > Foreword to the second edition of The Mysterious William Shakespeare by
> > Charlton Ogburn)
> >
> > His Oxfordian position seems not to have damaged his credibility.
>
> I suppose you must mean 'prestige,' or something like it; I don't see how
> being a bestselling author necessarily makes David McCullough more credible
> than Kitty Kelley or Whitley Strieber.
This statement reveals how little you apparently know of McCullough, a *Pulitzer
Prize winning* historian and past preseident of the Society of Amercian
Historians, well-known as being in the first tier of living historians. That's
what makes him *more credible*. To further your education, and to shame you for
your ignorance, here is his bio from Simon & Schuster:
*************
David McCullough has been called a “master of the art of narrative history.” His
books have been praised for their exceptional narrative sweep, their scholarship
and insight into American life, and for their literary distinction.
In the words of the citation accompanying his honorary degree from Yale, “As an
historian, he paints with words, giving us pictures of the American people that
live, breath, and above all, confront the fundamental issues of courage,
achievement, and moral character.”
Mr. McCullough is twice winner of the National Book Award, twice winner of the
prestigious Francis Parkman Prize. For his monumental Truman, he received the
Pulitzer Prize. For his work overall, he has been honored with the National Book
Foundation Distinguished Contribution to American Letters Award, the National
Humanities Medal, the St. Louis Literary Award, the Carl Sandburg Award, and the
New York Public Library’s Literary Lion Award.
His books include The Johnstown Flood, The Great Bridge, The Path Between the
Seas, Mornings on Horseback, Brave Companions, and Truman. As may be said of the
work of few writers, none of his books have ever been out of print.
In a crowded, productive career, Mr. McCullough has been an editor, essayist,
teacher, lecturer, and familiar presence on public television—as host of
Smithsonian World, The American Experience, and narrator of numerous
documentaries including The Civil War and Napoleon. He is a past president of
the Society of American Historians. He has been elected to the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences, and has received 31 honorary degrees.
A gifted speaker, Mr. McCullough has lectured in all parts of the country and
abroad, as well as at the White House, as part of the White House presidential
lecture series. He is also one of the few private citizens to be asked to speak
before a joint session of Congress.
Born in Pittsburgh in 1933, Mr. McCullough was educated there and at Yale, where
he was graduated with honors in English literature. An avid reader, traveler,
and landscape painter, he lives in West Tisbury, Massachusetts with his wife
Rosalee Barnes McCullough. They have five children and fifteen grandchildren.
*************
> I might also note that McCullough doesn't write books about Elizabethan
> England, and that his anti-Shakespearean sympathies are not a widely-
> publicized fact. Other than the Foreword to his friend Ogburn's book, has
> he ever written a single word on the subject?
Apparently, you have not read that Foreword. It is more than enough. He need
write no more.
And for you to imply that his not having written books about Elizabethan England
somehow disqualifies his opinion on the matter speaks volumes for your narrow
vision. His credentials supersede every contributor on this newsgroup.
Yep, bad news for Strats. The trend shall continue.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Tom Reedy
news:Hk2b7.463$M3.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Once again, so what? Is this supposed to be some kind of an argument for
Oxfordianism?
TR
Elizabeth Weir
> You'll have to ask Art. Why don't you e-mail him directly and you both could
> discuss this very fascinating topic without any distractions?
>
> TR
I think that Brantly Whitt is having us on. I'm amused.
Anything is more amusing than more analysis of Shakespeare's
non-authorship.
Who do you think Whitley Brantt is? I'm guessing Webb doing a
Nabokovian schtick--a pardoy of Baconian cyphering. LOL.
Mark Steese
<mark...@earthlink.net> that wrote
news:Hk2b7.463$M3.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, on the day of
04 Aug 2001:
>> > More bad news for Strats:
>> >
>> > Isn't it nice that a noted historian and fellow Oxfordian has had a
>> > #1 bestseller for many weeks now, with his biography of John Adams?
>> >
>> > David McCullough: "The strange, difficult, contradictory man who
>> > emerges as the real Shakespeare, Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of
>> > Oxford, is not just plausible but fascinating and wholly believable.
>> > It is hard to imagine anyone who reads the book with an open mind
>> > ever seeing Shakespeare or his works in the same way again" (From
>> > the Foreword to the second edition of The Mysterious William
>> > Shakespeare by Charlton Ogburn)
>> >
>> > His Oxfordian position seems not to have damaged his credibility.
>>
>> I suppose you must mean 'prestige,' or something like it; I don't see
>> how being a bestselling author necessarily makes David McCullough more
>> credible than Kitty Kelley or Whitley Strieber.
>
> This statement reveals how little you apparently know of McCullough, a
> *Pulitzer Prize winning* historian and past preseident of the Society
> of Amercian Historians, well-known as being in the first tier of living
> historians. That's what makes him *more credible*. To further your
> education, and to shame you for your ignorance,
Your assumption that I am unfamiliar with McCullough is as ill-informed as
your anti-Shakespeareanism. What I said was that his being a bestselling
author doesn't necessarily make him credible; I was right. You naturally
proceeded to ignore what I actually wrote and make assumptions based on
your hostility towards Shakespeareans. I especially like the way you throw
a bone toward fairness with your use of 'apparently' only to snap it back
with your fatuous comments about my ignorance.
McCullough's credentials as a writer of American history lend no
credibility to his opinion on a subject that he knows nothing about
(Elizabethan literature). Most people are not buying his book *because*
he's an Oxfordian, or even in spite of the fact that he's an Oxfordian;
most people have no idea that he wrote that silly foreword.
Thank you for providing some humor, though - the notion that an anti-
Shakespearean could further my education and shame me for my ignorance is
genuinely funny.
[pointless rehash of McCullough's career snipped]
>> I might also note that McCullough doesn't write books about
>> Elizabethan England, and that his anti-Shakespearean sympathies are
>> not a widely- publicized fact. Other than the Foreword to his friend
>> Ogburn's book, has he ever written a single word on the subject?
>
> Apparently, you have not read that Foreword. It is more than enough. He
> need write no more.
Yes, I've read 'that Foreword.' I take it that your answer to my question
is "No"? McCullough did a very nice job of supporting a friend in such a
way as to impress Oxfordians without in any way attracting the attention of
his colleagues or the general public. Why, you'd almost think McCullough
was embarrassed by his little paean to irrationality.
> And for you to imply that his not having written books about
> Elizabethan England somehow disqualifies his opinion on the matter
> speaks volumes for your narrow vision.
Congratulations, you're 0-3. My point, as a rational man might have seen,
was not that his shamefaced Oxfordianism is disqualified by his chosen
field but rather that it is irrelevant to his chosen field. In my opinion,
his credibility in the field of American history is unaffected by his
ignorance of Elizabethan literature; I would hope that any critics who
assess his works assess them on their own merits.
> His credentials supersede every contributor on this newsgroup.
His credentials in Elizabethan literature are, to my knowledge, non-
existent. I'm conditionally willing to accept that he knows more about the
Johnstown Flood than anyone who posts here.
> Yep, bad news for Strats. The trend shall continue.
The trend of historians writing fulsome anti-Shakespearean forewords for
obscure, badly-written travesties of scholarship, and then avoiding the
subject for the rest of their professional careers? Perhaps; we'll see.
Symposium1
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Isn't it nice that a noted historian and fellow Oxfordian has had a #1
>bestseller for many weeks now, with his biography of John Adams?
I'm still working on why it's a #1 bestseller. I'm about 200 pages in, and
though it's an enjoyable read, it doesn't seem to be groundbreaking stuff. Just
about everything said so far about Adams is well-covered territory.
What I think helped was a big marketing blitz around Independence Day, among
other things, with McCullough on just about every NPR program, including a full
hour session with Diane Rehm. I certainly don't begrudge the guy a chance to
hawk his book, nor am I sorry that the Adamses may be better known and
appreciated for their roles in history. I'm just looking for the fresh take I
thought this new book would impart. Maybe it'll be there as I read on. Then
again, there's nothing like reading the Adams-Jefferson letters themselves.
--Ann
Mark Alexander
> Once again, so what? Is this supposed to be some kind of an argument
for
> Oxfordianism?
>
> TR
The greatest threat to Stratfordian orthodoxy is the spread of Oxfordian
credibility in academe and among popular journalists, jurists, and
historians.
Why? Because Stratfordian orthodoxy maintains its edifice primarily
through its authoritarian stance and ridicule. Not through real
scholarship.
Oxfordian credibility in academe (Roger Stritmatter et al) and among
journalists (Lewis Lapham), jurists (Justice Stevens), and historians
(David McCullough) opens the door to more examination of sources and
real arguments. Over time, this will undermine the Strat orthodoxy as
the popular consciousness gets more and more used to the new truth about
Shakespeare.
The trend continues. I am merely pointing at the signs.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Mark Alexander
"Symposium1" <sympo...@aol.computer> wrote in message
news:20010805013406...@nso-fe.aol.com...
> In article <Gc0b7.232$eU4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Mark
> Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >Isn't it nice that a noted historian and fellow Oxfordian has had a
#1
> >bestseller for many weeks now, with his biography of John Adams?
>
> I'm still working on why it's a #1 bestseller. I'm about 200 pages in,
and
> though it's an enjoyable read, it doesn't seem to be groundbreaking
stuff. Just
> about everything said so far about Adams is well-covered territory.
Actually, I tend to agree.
> What I think helped was a big marketing blitz around Independence Day,
among
> other things, with McCullough on just about every NPR program,
including a full
> hour session with Diane Rehm. I certainly don't begrudge the guy a
chance to
> hawk his book, nor am I sorry that the Adamses may be better known and
> appreciated for their roles in history. I'm just looking for the fresh
take I
> thought this new book would impart. Maybe it'll be there as I read on.
Then
> again, there's nothing like reading the Adams-Jefferson letters
themselves.
>
> --Ann
>
Yes. Even though Ellis went through his recent fiasco, his book
persuaded my to pick up the Adams-Jefferson letters. Nothing like
reading the source material, eh?
Cheers
Mark Alexander
MakBane
although I would agree that it's not particularly groundbreaking.
As for McCullough's foreward to Ogburn's magnum opus, he has nothing to regret.
If his reputation contributed in some small way to a greater acceptance of
Ogburn's work, then that's great. But, frankly, if McCullough were to apply
himself more fully to the Question, I think even he would concede that Ogburn
has been superseded. By whom, I cannot say. But anything done in the
furtherance of a better understanding of the Stratfordian Myth can't be bad.
Toby Petzold
Mark Steese
<mark...@earthlink.net> that wrote
news:st5b7.929$eU4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, on the day of
04 Aug 2001:
>
> "Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3C2b7.505$M3.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>> Once again, so what? Is this supposed to be some kind of an argument
>> for Oxfordianism?
>>
>> TR
>
> The greatest threat to Stratfordian orthodoxy is the spread of Oxfordian
> credibility in academe and among popular journalists, jurists, and
> historians.
>
> Why? Because Stratfordian orthodoxy maintains its edifice primarily
> through its authoritarian stance and ridicule. Not through real
> scholarship.
As "Stratfordian orthodoxy" is a dream-goblin created by anti-
Shakespeareans, the only true threat to it is that someday they may wake
up.
As to the understanding among genuine Elizabethan scholars that William
Shakespeare wrote the works he is credited with, that is based on an
ability to understand evidence; it is not threatened by anything.
> Oxfordian credibility in academe (Roger Stritmatter et al) and among
> journalists (Lewis Lapham), jurists (Justice Stevens), and historians
> (David McCullough) opens the door to more examination of sources and
> real arguments.
One examination of sources and one real argument would constitute more than
the Oxfordians have provided to date.
> Over time, this will undermine the Strat orthodoxy as the popular
> consciousness gets more and more used to the new truth about
> Shakespeare.
To dream the impossible dream...
The Oxfordian notion that Oxfordianism gains credibility from Lapham,
Stevens, McCullough et al. is rather sad. The 'popular consciousness'
knows nothing of their support for anti-Shakespearean fantasies, and it is
hard to see how their piddling contributions will have more effect than
Freud's enthusiastic endorsement of Oxfordianism.
It may be that the Oxfordians know how hollow their pseudoscholarship is,
and seek celebrity endorsements after the manner of ad agencies trying to
sell a useless product; they can hardly seek the endorsement of anyone who
is familiar with and can make a reasonable evaluation of what they're
trying to sell.
> The trend continues. I am merely pointing at the signs.
Keep telling yourself that. Don't be too distressed if some of us get the
impression that you're merely attempting to indulge in schadenfreude
because you bear a grudge against the various Shakespeareans who have
repeatedly pointed out your errors. The trouble is that I doubt if even
you yourself can really believe there's any schaden here.
Tom Reedy
>
> "Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3C2b7.505$M3.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > Once again, so what? Is this supposed to be some kind of an argument
> for
> > Oxfordianism?
> >
> > TR
>
> The greatest threat to Stratfordian orthodoxy is the spread of Oxfordian
> credibility in academe and among popular journalists, jurists, and
> historians.
>
> Why? Because Stratfordian orthodoxy maintains its edifice primarily
> through its authoritarian stance and ridicule. Not through real
> scholarship.
If you say so, Mark.
TR
Mark Steese
news:20010805022035...@ng-df1.aol.com, on the day of 04 Aug
2001:
> I'm also reading McCullough's biography of John Adams. I like it very
> much, although I would agree that it's not particularly groundbreaking.
>
> As for McCullough's foreward to Ogburn's magnum opus, he has nothing to
> regret.
Presuming that he doesn't read this newsgroup.
> If his reputation contributed in some small way to a greater
> acceptance of Ogburn's work, then that's great.
Yes, it warms the heart to think that there might be a few chumps silly
enough to imagine that an endorsement by someone completely ignorant of
Elizabethan culture lends credibility to Ogburn's collection of lies.
> But, frankly, if McCullough were to apply himself more fully to the
> Question, I think even he would concede that Ogburn has been superseded.
> By whom, I cannot say.
You have no idea who has superseded Ogburn, but you're pretty sure that
somebody must have. So you've noticed how worthless his book is, eh?
> But anything done in the furtherance of a better understanding of the
> Stratfordian Myth can't be bad.
Nearly every post that Kathman and Ross make furthers a better
understanding of the Stratfordian Myth. It's become quite clear that the
monolithic orthodoxy of 'Stratfordianism,' which "maintains its edifice
primarily through its authoritarian stance and ridicule" (to quote Mark
Alexander), is a myth invented by Oxfordians as an excuse for their failure
to reverse accepted scholarship with their witless opposition to William
Shakespeare, the noted playwright of Stratford. You may have noticed that
Oxfordians (and anti-Shakespeareans in general) have difficulty accepting
responsibility for their failures; but the fault, dear Petzold, lies not in
your opponents, but yourselves.
-Mark Steese
Tom Reedy
Yes, this is an ad hominem argument in its original sense.
> The 'popular consciousness'
> knows nothing of their support for anti-Shakespearean fantasies, and it is
> hard to see how their piddling contributions will have more effect than
> Freud's enthusiastic endorsement of Oxfordianism.
>
> It may be that the Oxfordians know how hollow their pseudoscholarship is,
I really don't believe they do. Since their knowledge of scholastic methods
seems limited to the proper way of constructing a bibliography, I think they
believe their arguments are solid. There has to be something missing in a
person's thinking to believe their arguments, and part of that is not being
able to see the error in the way they frame their arguments. Apparently they
acquire the belief before they make their arguments, so whatever they can
come up with the backfill their belief is good enough for them.
Bob Grumman
some field other than Elizabethan History who believe Shakespeare
did not write Shakespeare (mainly, of course, to morons often
pointed out by your crowd before such as McCollough)--and I will
keep pointing out egregious examples of anti-Stratfordian stupidity
such as Diana Price's misreading of Aubrey's passage on Shakespeare
when ask to go carousing (with no response by you).
--Bob G.
--
Posted from nut-n-but.net [205.161.239.5]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Symposium1
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> I'm still working on why it's a #1 bestseller. I'm about 200 pages in, and
>> though it's an enjoyable read, it doesn't seem to be groundbreaking stuff.
Just
>> about everything said so far about Adams is well-covered territory.
>Actually, I tend to agree.
Then again, I don't recall anyone saying it was groundbreaking. It is, after
all, a rather populist book. I'm just glad I got interested in the guy years
ago (I'll admit it, after I saw "1776" for the first time and ordered the
letters of Abigail and John). Wonder if tour business is booming at the
homestead in Quincy.
>Yes. Even though Ellis went through his recent fiasco, his book
>persuaded my to pick up the Adams-Jefferson letters. Nothing like
>reading the source material, eh?
It took me years to finally buy a copy. My library in Orlando had two handsome
old volumes. In the age of online bookstores I finally hunted it down. Those
letters from the later years of their lives are among the most stirring I have
ever read.
--Ann
Mark Steese
that wrote news:%e7b7.1080$eU4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
on the day of 05 Aug 2001:
[snippage]
>> It may be that the Oxfordians know how hollow their pseudoscholarship
>> is,
>
> I really don't believe they do. Since their knowledge of scholastic
> methods seems limited to the proper way of constructing a bibliography,
> I think they believe their arguments are solid. There has to be
> something missing in a person's thinking to believe their arguments,
> and part of that is not being able to see the error in the way they
> frame their arguments. Apparently they acquire the belief before they
> make their arguments, so whatever they can come up with the backfill
> their belief is good enough for them.
I shouldn't have said they may *know* - I agree with you that they don't -
but I do get the impression that some of them suspect the truth. One point
that leads me to this conclusion is the reluctance of Oxfordians in general
to do original archival research. To find even a single authentic
Elizabethan document referring to anyone other than Shakespeare as the
author of one of his works would be an impressive accomplishment -
scholarly reputations have been built on less. It seems as though the
Oxfordians would rather do anything except look for unambiguous evidence
for their beliefs; it's at least possible that they suspect there's nothing
to be found.
Toby Petzold once likened Oxfordians to Heinrich Schliemann, but Schliemann
was willing to go and look and dig for the walls of windy Troy. He had
enough faith in his beliefs to run the risk of proving himself wrong.
Where's the Oxfordian who has that much faith?
Tom Reedy
> Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net>
> that wrote news:%e7b7.1080$eU4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
> on the day of 05 Aug 2001:
>
> [snippage]
> >> It may be that the Oxfordians know how hollow their pseudoscholarship
> >> is,
> >
> > I really don't believe they do. Since their knowledge of scholastic
> > methods seems limited to the proper way of constructing a bibliography,
> > I think they believe their arguments are solid. There has to be
> > something missing in a person's thinking to believe their arguments,
> > and part of that is not being able to see the error in the way they
> > frame their arguments. Apparently they acquire the belief before they
> > make their arguments, so whatever they can come up with the backfill
> > their belief is good enough for them.
>
> I shouldn't have said they may *know* - I agree with you that they don't -
> but I do get the impression that some of them suspect the truth.
Yes, I agree. I think they are examples of the type of dishonesty that pride
abetted by willful self delusion can lead to. Kierkegaard knew all about it.
TR
Neuendorffer
>
> In article <3B6CAB6A...@erols.com>, ph...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the authors of Shakespeare were not
> > only aware of Taoism but were even sympathetic towards it's
> > Spinoza/Melville/Einstein brand of pantheism. That being said, one would
> > expect 'TAO' to appear as a *random* acrostic more than once in any play
>
> (Probability >1 taken as expected #occurrences.)
If the chance of a line beginning with a 'T' or 'A' or 'O' were 1/26
then
the Expected #occurrences = (n-2)/(26^3)
However, the chance of a line beginning with a 'T' or even an 'A' is
certainly higher that 1/26.
Art N.
Peter Groves
>
> "Mark Steese" <mst...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns90F4799518B3...@130.133.1.4...
> > Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net>
> > that wrote news:%e7b7.1080$eU4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
> > on the day of 05 Aug 2001:
> >
> > [snippage]
> > >> It may be that the Oxfordians know how hollow their pseudoscholarship
> > >> is,
> > >
> > > I really don't believe they do. Since their knowledge of scholastic
> > > methods seems limited to the proper way of constructing a bibliography,
> > > I think they believe their arguments are solid. There has to be
> > > something missing in a person's thinking to believe their arguments,
> > > and part of that is not being able to see the error in the way they
> > > frame their arguments. Apparently they acquire the belief before they
> > > make their arguments, so whatever they can come up with the backfill
> > > their belief is good enough for them.
> >
> > I shouldn't have said they may *know* - I agree with you that they don't -
> > but I do get the impression that some of them suspect the truth.
>
> Yes, I agree. I think they are examples of the type of dishonesty that pride
> abetted by willful self delusion can lead to. Kierkegaard knew all about it.
>
> TR
But the question that interests me is: why do they do it? Why are such
mountains of verbiage, such indefatigable industry, devoted to bizarre
fantasies and ludicrous conspiracy theories that wouldn't take in a
reasonable child? It can't be any kind of genuine curiosity that
motivates them, given the fact that they habitually argue
disingenuously, like lawyers rather than scholars (e.g. 'proving' WS's
supposed lack of education from the fact that there's no evidence that
he attended Stratford Grammar School, when there's no evidence that
_anyone_ attended it at that time). There's some psychological malaise
here crying out for diagnosis -- any theories out there?
Peter Groves
Symposium1
(Janice Miller) writes:
>> However, the chance of a line beginning with a 'T' or even an 'A' is
>> certainly higher that 1/26.
>
>Really? I'd never heard that before. Where does one find such arcane
>information? Are you sure it's not classified?
I'd suppose one could eliminate "X" for starters. The only word in the canon
beginning with "X" is "Xanthippe's", and it's not at the beginning of a line. I
didn't see any lines beginning with "Q" either, though I didn't check every
word beginning with Q in the concordance.
According to:
http://www.concordance.com/shakespe.htm
--Ann
Greg Reynolds
Symposium1 wrote:
"Quick proceeders, marry! Now, tell me, I pray,
You that durst swear at your mistress Bianca
Loved none in the world so well as Lucentio."
HORTENSIO, Taming of the Shrew
Peter Farey
Here is what William and Elizebeth Friedman said on this
subject in their *The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined"
"...it is clearly preferable to deal with the frequencies of
initial letters of the lines of the First Folio itself. We have
worked out the figures for ourselves, making a count of 20,000
initial letters of the text of both columns of over 170 pages
taken at random from the 900 or so pages of the First Folio
text, and reducing the frequencies to a basis of 1000 letters
(omitting, of course, the names of speakers, stage directions
and so on).
The frequencies are as follows:
A 117.9
B 53.7
C 24.1
D 21.8
E 8.0
F 34.5
G 19.0
H 61.7
I 104.6
J .7
K 3.5
L 22.7
M 45.7
N 37.4
O 42.5
P 17.4
Q 1.0
R 9.3
S 60.5
T 165.7
U 7.8
V 4.6
W 105.7
X .0
Y 30.2
Z .0 "
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Nicholas Whyte
wrote:
>"...it is clearly preferable to deal with the frequencies of
>initial letters of the lines of the First Folio itself. We have
>worked out the figures for ourselves, making a count of 20,000
>initial letters of the text of both columns of over 170 pages
>taken at random from the 900 or so pages of the First Folio
>text, and reducing the frequencies to a basis of 1000 letters
>(omitting, of course, the names of speakers, stage directions
>and so on).
>
>The frequencies are as follows:
>
>I 104.6
>J .7
>U 7.8
>V 4.6
Can one meaningfully distinguish between I and J, and U and V, in this
case? (genuine question).
Nicholas
Nicholas Whyte, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels
CEPS - thinking ahead for Europe
(phone) +32 2 229 3942/3911 (mobile) +32 495 544 467
CEPS web-site: http://www.ceps.be/
Northern Ireland elections web-site: http://explorers.whyte.com/
Neuendorffer
> > >> certainly higher that 1/26.
> > (Janice Miller) writes:
> >
> > >Really? I'd never heard that before. Where does one find such arcane
> > >information? Are you sure it's not classified?
> Symposium1 wrote:
> >
> > I'd suppose one could eliminate "X" for starters. The only word in the canon
> > beginning with "X" is "Xanthippe's", and it's not at the beginning of a line. I
> > didn't see any lines beginning with "Q" either, though I didn't check every
> > word beginning with Q in the concordance.
> >
> > According to:
> > http://www.concordance.com/shakespe.htm
> Peter Farey wrote:
Thanks, Peter.
Chance of a "T" = .1657
Chance of an "A" = .1179
Chance of a "O" = .0425
Total chance = .00083
Average occurance of a random acrostic "TAO" = once every 1,205 lines.
Art Neuendorffer
Bob Grumman
> mountains of verbiage, such indefatigable industry, devoted to bizarre
> fantasies and ludicrous conspiracy theories that wouldn't take in a
> reasonable child? It can't be any kind of genuine curiosity that
> motivates them, given the fact that they habitually argue
> disingenuously, like lawyers rather than scholars (e.g. 'proving' WS's
> supposed lack of education from the fact that there's no evidence that
> he attended Stratford Grammar School, when there's no evidence that
> _anyone_ attended it at that time). There's some psychological malaise
> here crying out for diagnosis -- any theories out there?
>
> Peter Groves
Ha, you must be knew in these here parts, Peter. Hence, you are
unaware of how much I've posted on this very subject, without
getting much agreement. Do a search of HLAS for "rigidnik"
and "dysfunction." That should list a few of my musings--though
also a lot of my merely insulting posts. Put simply, I believe
anti-Stratfordians hate the imagination, and the idea that anyone
could get anywhere who has not gone by the numbers. Much more to
it, but that's the basis.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B6C6BEE...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
wrote:
> DeVereLtd wrote:
> >
> > I wish to remind everyone in this group how incredibly unqualified I am to
> > be a
> > member. Keeping that in Mind...
> >
> > . The following is from Merchant of Venice
> >
> > ACT II SC.VII
> > Price of Morroco (towards the ends of this very long speech)
> >
> >
> > The watery kingdom, whose ambitions head
> > Spits in the face of heaven, is no bar
> > To stop the foreign spirits; but they come
> > As o'er a brook, to see fair Portia.
> > One of these three contains her heavenly picture
> > IS'T like that lead contains her?....
> >
> > This IS my imagination, right?
> >
> > Spits in the face of heaven...
> > T
> > A
> > O
> > IST
> What exactly do you think you see? TAOIST?
What exactly do you think *you* see, Art? "Agnes a gob"? "I kill
Edwasd de Vese"?
David Webb
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B6CAB6A...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> DeVereLtd wrote:
> >
> > yep
> I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the authors of Shakespeare were not
> only aware of Taoism but were even sympathetic towards it's
> Spinoza/Melville/Einstein brand of pantheism. That being said, one would
> expect 'TAO' to appear as a *random* acrostic more than once in any play
> as long as this. (The added 'IST' horizontal is not impressive & doesn't
> really add much.) What other evidence do you have that this might have
> been intentional?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's *really* funny
seeing *Art*, of all people, demanding evidence that supposed anagrams,
acrostics, and other "discoveries" might have been intentional!
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> > I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the authors of Shakespeare were not
> > only aware of Taoism but were even sympathetic towards it's
> > Spinoza/Melville/Einstein brand of pantheism. That being said, one would
> > expect 'TAO' to appear as a *random* acrostic more than once in any play
> > as long as this. (The added 'IST' horizontal is not impressive & doesn't
> > really add much.) What other evidence do you have that this might have
> > been intentional?
>
"David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's *really* funny
> seeing *Art*, of all people, demanding evidence that supposed anagrams,
> acrostics, and other "discoveries" might have been intentional!\
I always demand that such items have a high proper name content,
make some sort of relevant sense for the Eliz. court
and that they are sufficiently improbable.
Clearly the TAO thing is not on the level of HERODOTUS/DROESHOUT
or most of my discoveries:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_Shakespeares POEMS_ (1640)
"To the Reader"
<<I Here presume (under favour to present to your view) some excellent
and sweetely composed Poems of Master William Shakespeare, which in
themselves appeare of the same purity, the Author himselfe then living
avouched; they had not the fortune, by reason of their Infancie in
his death, to have the due accomodation of proportionable glory,
with the rest of HIS EVERLIVING WORkes,>> - John Benson
---------------------------------------------------------------
HIS EVERLIVIN{G W}OR[kes]
{W}
VERONIH{I}LVERIUS
{G}
WIG, v. t. To censure or rebuke;
to hold up to reprobation; to scold. [Brit. Slang]
HIS EVERLIVIN{G W}OR[kes]
EVERLIVIN{G W}ORSHI[p]
".....and, when he shall die,
Take him and cut him out in little stars,
And he will make the face of heaven so fine
That all the world will be in love with night
And pay no WORSHIP to the garish sun."
W W W
W W W W
W W W W
W G W
W W W W
W W W W
W W W
most {W}orshipful {G}rand lodge
of ancient freemasons
--------------------------------------------------------
The Complete Peerage: WILLIAM HERBERT,
3rd Earl of Pembroke, {G}rand {W}arden and,
1618, Grandmaster of the Freemasons till his death.
He succeeded Inigo Jones, of whom he was a patron.
---------------------------------------------------------
Alice's Adventures in {W}UNDERland
Alice's Adventures under{G}ROUND
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WIG, v. t. To censure or rebuke;
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.austria-tourism.at/personen/haydn/19hay_e.html
<<Soon after Haydn's death, Prince Nikolaus Esterházy made the decision
to transfer the corpse to Eisenstadt and to lay it to rest in the
Franciscan crypt and to perform a solemn requiem on that occasion.
But he forgot his plan and only the visit of Duke Alfred Friedrich of
Cambridge in 1820 recalled it to him. When the grave was opened on
October 31st 1820 to put the mortal remains in the metal coffin
ordered by the prince, it turned out that the head was missing
- just the WIG was there.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defoe "wanted poster" discription:
"a middle-sized spare man about 40 years old, of a brown complexion
and dark brown-coloured hair, but weares a WIG; A HOOKED NOSE,
a sharp chin, GREY EYES, and a large mole near his mouth."
---------------------------------------------------------------
The young gentleman did not stop to bestow any other mark of
recognition upon Oliver than a humourous grin; but, turning away,
beckoned the visitors to follow him down a flight of stairs.
They crossed an empty kitchen; and, opening the door of a low
earthy-smelling room, which seemed to have been built in a
small back-yard, were received with a shout of laughter.
'Oh, my WIG, my WIG!' cried Master Charles Bates, from whose
lungs the laughter had proceeded: 'here he is! oh, cry, here
he is! Oh, FaGIN, look at him! FaGIN, do look at him!'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BEDFORD, Va. (AP) - About 15,000 people crammed onto a former cow
pasture for the unveiling of the National D-Day Memorial on Wednesday,
the 57th anniversary of the Allied invasion that turned the tide
of World War II.
``Just about every family here was affected by it,'' said Holmes Updike,
a Bedford native who was in military training in Georgia at the time.
``You just couldn't keep up with all the names of the guys who had
gotten killed.''
The memorial, made mostly of polished granite, depicts a boat entering a
shallow pool rigged with air jets to replicate explosions from below.
Bronze soldiers claw across a concrete beach toward an arch inscribed
with the word "OVERLORD".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"OVERLORD" appeared as the solution to
11 across: "Some big-WIG like this has stolen it at times."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycrthk/study_pseddoscience/study_factcoincidence.htm
<<While the Allied Forces were planning the Normandy invasion
of June 6, 1944, the following code words were used
(and were among the best kept secrets of the war):
UTAH and OMAHA for the beaches where the landing would take place;
MULBERRY, for the artificial harbor which would be put in place;
NEPTUNE, the overall plan for Naval operations;
OVERLORD the entire planned invasion itself.
Thirty three days before the invasion,
on May 3, 1944, UTAH,
appeared as an answer in the London Daily Telegraph crossword.
Thirteen days before the invasion,
on May 23, OMAHA appeared similarly;
on May 31, MULBERRY appeared; and four days before the invasion,
on June 2, NEPTUNE and OVERLORD both appeared.
Sure that a spy was sending the code through the
newspaper in the crossword puzzles, security forces
descended on the "Daily Telegraph" offices, convinced that
they had uncovered a German spy. Instead what they found was
a very shocked and shaken schoolteacher by the name of
Leonard Dawe, who had been drafting the crossword puzzles
for the "Daily Telegraph" for the past twenty years.
It took a bit of convincing, but Dawe finally managed to
convince the spy catchers that it was all a huge coincidence,
and that he had never, and would never spy for the enemy."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leofric, Earl of Mercia and Lord of Coventry, imposed some very severe
imposts on the people of Coventry, which his countess, Godiva, tried to
get mitigated. The earl, thinking to silence her importunity, said he
would comply when she had ridden naked from one end of the town to the
other. Godiva took him at his word, actually rode through the town
naked, and Leofric remitted the imposts. Before Godiva started, all the
inhibitants voluntarily confined themselves to their houses, and
resolved that anyone who stirred abroad should be put to death. A tailor
thought to have a peep, but was rewarded with the loss of his eyes, and
has ever since been called Peeping Tom of Coventry. There is still a
figure in a house at Coventry said to represent Peeping Tom. Matthew of
Westminster (1307) is the first to record the story of Lady Godiva: the
addition of Peeping Tom dates from the reign of Charles II. In
Smithfield Wall is a grotesque figure of the inquisitive tailor in
“flowing WIG and Stuart cravat.” Tennyson, in his Godiva,
has reproduced the story.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://w1.909.telia.com/~u90902055/holmes/bsi.html
<<The Baker Street Irregulars was a group of street urchins who
was recruited by Holmes to perform various missions, generally
to search London following clues and to go to places where the
detective himself could not.
In return for their labors, the detective paid them a shilling a day
with a guinea bonus to the one who found the object of their
search; they were also paid for expenses (The Sign of Four.)
Watson first encountered the Irregulars in A study in Scarlet,
describing them as "six dirty little scoundrels [who] stood in
line like so many disreptuable statuettes." Their chief was
the energetic and inventive WIGGINS."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Friar WIGgums' Fantastical Beastarium:
"Behold the legendary Esquilax,
the horse with the head of a rabbit,
and the body of a rabbit. Oh, look!
It's galloping away!"
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B707F17...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> > Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > > I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the authors of Shakespeare were not
> > > only aware of Taoism but were even sympathetic towards it's
> > > Spinoza/Melville/Einstein brand of pantheism. That being said, one would
> > > expect 'TAO' to appear as a *random* acrostic more than once in any play
> > > as long as this. (The added 'IST' horizontal is not impressive & doesn't
> > > really add much.) What other evidence do you have that this might have
> > > been intentional?
> "David L. Webb" wrote:
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's *really* funny
> > seeing *Art*, of all people, demanding evidence that supposed anagrams,
> > acrostics, and other "discoveries" might have been intentional!\
> I always demand that such items have a high proper name content,
You mean, you insist upon applying the Idiotic Neuendorffer Proper
Names Criterion? But the INPNC is *idiotic*, as even its VERy name
acknowledges. More to the point, your own favorite anagrams and
"discoVERies" fail *miserably* by the INPNC. For example, "To them, my
OM, by de Vere (fool)" scores *at most* (even counting the moronic "OM"
as a proper name) an abysmal 6/22 (about 27%) by the INPNC; since there
is no indication that "OM" eVER meant "Oxford's men" to anyone but you,
Art, a score of 4/22 (about 18%) is nearer the mark.
> make some sort of relevant sense for the Eliz. court
Really? Then why does "I am Tom Shakespea" [sic!] make "some sort
of relevant sense" for the Elizabethan Court? Which Tom Shakespeare
would that be, Art? Why is he "relevant" to the Elizabethan court?
> and that they are sufficiently improbable.
>
> Clearly the TAO thing is not on the level of HERODOTUS/DROESHOUT
> or most of my discoveries:
Your favorite "anagrams" (most of which are not even anagrams!) and
your "discoVERies" are utterly farcical. For instance, consider your
"Shacespeare circle set." That one scores only 11/20 (or 55%) by the
INPNC; moreoVER, "Shacespeare" is not among the myriad extant spellings
of the name "Shakespeare".
Your "Agnes a gob" idiocy is even funnier. First, even if were an
anagram -- which it is *not* -- its INPNC score would be a mere 20/36
(about 56%). More to the point, it makes no sense -- how does "a gob"
exhibit "some sort of relevant sense for the Eliz[abethan] court"?
Of course, the funniest of all is "I kill Edwasd de Vese," which
scores a pathetic 0 by the INPNC, as there is no "pertinent proper
name" to be found therein; it is also so sidiculous and so mosonic that
if you wese seally sesious (sather than mesely tsolling), that sisible
"anagsam" would pessaude vistually any sane pesson that you wese an
uttes csetin, Ast.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> _Shakespeares POEMS_ (1640)
> "To the Reader"
>
> <<I Here presume (under favour to present to your view) some excellent
> and sweetely composed Poems of Master William Shakespeare, which in
> themselves appeare of the same purity, the Author himselfe then living
> avouched; they had not the fortune, by reason of their Infancie in
> his death, to have the due accomodation of proportionable glory,
> with the rest of HIS EVERLIVING WORkes,>> - John Benson
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> HIS EVERLIVIN{G W}OR[kes]
>
> {W}
> VERONIH{I}LVERIUS
> {G}
That's *not* an anagram, Art: first, the letters "kes" concluding
the word "workes" appear nowhere in the "anagrammed" text; second, the
"i" is used twice. Third, even if one temporarily ignores its inherent
idiocy and invokes the INPNC, there are no proper names therein, so
this (non)anagram scores a miserable zero by the INPNC.
> WIG, v. t. To censure or rebuke;
> to hold up to reprobation; to scold. [Brit. Slang]
>
> HIS EVERLIVIN{G W}OR[kes]
> EVERLIVIN{G W}ORSHI[p]
That's not an anagram either, Art! Are you dyslexic? The final
letters "kes" in "workes" do not appear in the "anagrammed" text, nor
is there even a single occurrence of "p" in the "cleartext"; finally,
there are no proper names in the (non)anagram, so even if one
temporarily ignores its inherent idiocy and invokes the INPNC, this
(non)anagram scores zero.
[...]
> Alice's Adventures in {W}UNDERland
You mean, Art's Adventures in Blunderland.
[...]
> WIG, v. t. To censure or rebuke;
You already *said* that, Art; are you getting senile, or are you
parodying (or emulating?!) Richard Kennedy?
[...]
> They crossed an empty kitchen; and, opening the door of a low
> earthy-smelling room, which seemed to have been built in a
> small back-yard, were received with a shout of laughter.
> 'Oh, my WIG, my WIG!' cried Master Charles Bates,
You do VERy well to quote Master Bates, Art.
The upshot appears to be that not a *single one* of your supposed
"anagrams" passes muster, even by your own moronic INPNC!
David Webb
Nicholas Whyte
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> Really? Then why does "I am Tom Shakespea" [sic!] make "some sort
>of relevant sense" for the Elizabethan Court? Which Tom Shakespeare
>would that be, Art? Why is he "relevant" to the Elizabethan court?
Must be my old Cambridge friend Tom Shakespeare:
http://www.windmills.u-net.com/home.htm
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <Gc0b7.232$eU4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Mark
Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> More bad news for Strats:
>
> Isn't it nice that a noted historian and fellow Oxfordian has had a #1
> bestseller for many weeks now, with his biography of John Adams?
I certainly wouldn't call that "bad news" for anyone; it's good news
for McCullough and his well-wishers, and he is to be congratulated.
His expertise in his area is irrelevant to his lack of professional
expertise in other areas, and it is unlikely that any but the credulous
would look to a specialist in American history for authoritative
information concerning Elizabethan literary history.
> David McCullough: "The strange, difficult, contradictory man who emerges as
> the
> real Shakespeare, Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, is not just
> plausible
> but fascinating and wholly believable. It is hard to imagine anyone who reads
> the book with an open mind ever seeing Shakespeare or his works in the same
> way
> again" (From the Foreword to the second edition of The Mysterious William
> Shakespeare by Charlton Ogburn)
>
> His Oxfordian position seems not to have damaged his credibility.
Nor did Martin Bernal's _Black Athena_, a book savaged by Classics
scholars, damage its author's credibility in his area of expertise,
Chinese history and politics. In this case a distinguished historian
ventured into the history of an era and a culture in which he lacked
professional expertise and drew surprising conclusions that did not
withstand scrutiny. Even William Shockley's notorious, racist forays
into genetics did not damage his credibility as a Nobel Laureate in
Physics, and indeed it is unlikely that any but the credulous would
look to a specialist in solid state physics for authoritative opinions
on genetics.
in short, McCullough's well-deserved success, while a cause for
jubilant celebration among those who admire his work in his area of
professional expertise, is irrelevant to the question of who wrote the
works of Shakespeare; I doubt that any reasonable person would view
McCullough's success as "bad news," whatever his or her opinion
concerning Shakespeare authorship might be.
David Webb
David L. Webb
Tom Reedy <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Mark Steese" <mst...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns90F46EE64DC...@130.133.1.4...
> > Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "Mark Alexander"
> > <mark...@earthlink.net> that wrote
> > news:st5b7.929$eU4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, on the day of
> > 04 Aug 2001:
[...]
> > > The greatest threat to Stratfordian orthodoxy is the spread of Oxfordian
> > > credibility in academe and among popular journalists, jurists, and
> > > historians.
> > >
> > > Why? Because Stratfordian orthodoxy maintains its edifice primarily
> > > through its authoritarian stance and ridicule. Not through real
> > > scholarship.
> > As "Stratfordian orthodoxy" is a dream-goblin created by anti-
> > Shakespeareans, the only true threat to it is that someday they may wake
> > up.
> >
> > As to the understanding among genuine Elizabethan scholars that William
> > Shakespeare wrote the works he is credited with, that is based on an
> > ability to understand evidence; it is not threatened by anything.
> > > Oxfordian credibility in academe (Roger Stritmatter et al)
Dr. Stritmatter's credibility in academe is still an unresolved
issue, and will probably remain so until his thesis is published and
made widely available in the fuller book form that we are told is
forthcoming.
> > > and among
> > > journalists (Lewis Lapham), jurists (Justice Stevens), and historians
> > > (David McCullough) opens the door to more examination of sources and
> > > real arguments.
> > One examination of sources and one real argument would constitute more
> than
> > the Oxfordians have provided to date.
Yes, that's certainly my impression.
> > > Over time, this will undermine the Strat orthodoxy as the popular
> > > consciousness gets more and more used to the new truth about
> > > Shakespeare.
The "popular consciousness" has gotten "used to" lots of
demonstrably false nonsense in many disciplines; that fact has done
little to hinder genuine scholarly research.
> > To dream the impossible dream...
> >
> > The Oxfordian notion that Oxfordianism gains credibility from Lapham,
> > Stevens, McCullough et al. is rather sad.
> Yes, this is an ad hominem argument in its original sense.
Well, at least it's marginally better than the notion that
Oxfordianism gains credibility from Freud, Sobran, Lord Burford, Enoch
Powell, _et al_.
> > The 'popular consciousness'
> > knows nothing of their support for anti-Shakespearean fantasies, and it is
> > hard to see how their piddling contributions will have more effect than
> > Freud's enthusiastic endorsement of Oxfordianism.
> >
> > It may be that the Oxfordians know how hollow their pseudoscholarship is,
> I really don't believe they do. Since their knowledge of scholastic methods
> seems limited to the proper way of constructing a bibliography,
It's funny that you should mention this -- Baker seemed to think
that Honan's scholarship was "exemplary" simply because Honan knew how
to handle footnotes, references, quotations, etc.
> I think they
> believe their arguments are solid. There has to be something missing in a
> person's thinking to believe their arguments, and part of that is not being
> able to see the error in the way they frame their arguments. Apparently they
> acquire the belief before they make their arguments, so whatever they can
> come up with the backfill their belief is good enough for them.
There's at least some indication that at least some Oxfordians are
aware just how hollow much of their "core" pseudoscholarship is. I
quote from the Writer's Guidelines of "The Oxfordian":
"Crucial facts should be supported by citations from works other
than those by the Ogburns or Millers. These important scholars
have contributed immensely to our knowledge of the authorship
question, but their assertions cannot always be verified
[What an understatement!]
and so must be backed up by solid citations from other sources.
As much as is possible, verify their sources and use those sources.
If they give no sources or those sources can't be verified,
[...a despressingly commonplace occurrence in the core works of
Oxfordian "scholarship"...]
seek a solid second source. If you can find nothing to back up
an assertion and still feel you must make it, qualify it in
some way.
[Why on earth would any *genuine* scholar feel that he or she *must*
make an assertion which he or she can find "*NOTHING* to back up"
[Emphasis mine]?! This is perhaps the most unintentionally self-damning
advice I've ever seen!]
(This is relative only to assertions that are fundamental
to credibility; it is not necessary, or even desirable, to burden
every little point with citations.)"
> > and seek celebrity endorsements after the manner of ad agencies trying to
> > sell a useless product; they can hardly seek the endorsement of anyone who
> > is familiar with and can make a reasonable evaluation of what they're
> > trying to sell.
Yes, but the only thing that I find *really* objectionably dishonest
is some Oxfordians' tendency to try to recruit (posthumously!) the
support of people who would have laughed in their faces, as some
Oxfordians who had not even read what Nabokov wrote have done (and
*still* do!) in the case of Nabokov.
The case of Leslie Howard has been discussed at length, and, while I
would be neither especially surprised nor at all disappointed to learn
that Howard was an Oxfordian, *so far* the only evidence I've seen
adduced is that he played an Oxfordian in a movie! I discussed this
point at length by e-mail and offline with several Oxfordians; all
assured me confidently that Howard *was* an Oxfordian, and that they
could prove it. However, when pressed to do so, the best they could
come up with was a claim that some Oxfordian or other had written a
pamhplet making this claim, based (it was said) upon Howard's own
correspondence; however, nobody seemed to be able to locate a copy of
the pamphlet. When one finally turned up, there was no documentation
of Howard's putative Oxfordian allegiance drawn from his correspondence
-- there was only the unsupported assertion that Howard was an
Oxfordian, presumably because he had played one in a movie! A couple
of people claimed that the pamhplet's author definitely *did* have
documentation from Howard's correspondence (why he did not cite this
evidence was never disclosed), but that he had a nervous breakdown
before his definitive work on the subject was completed. Thus, to my
knowledge, there is *STILL* no reliable evidence that Howard was an
Oxfordian, although as far as I am aware that claim is still bruited on
the S.O.S. web site.
Of course, like any good urban legend, this one possessed many
versions and variants; the above is an amalgam the gist of
correspondence from several people concerning Howard, but no evidence
was ever forthcoming -- merely more unsupported hearsay.
> > > The trend continues. I am merely pointing at the signs.
> > Keep telling yourself that. Don't be too distressed if some of us get the
> > impression that you're merely attempting to indulge in schadenfreude
> > because you bear a grudge against the various Shakespeareans who have
> > repeatedly pointed out your errors.
The anger at Dave Kathman and Terry Ross expressed by any Oxfordians
in this forum is sad confirmation of that conjecture, as are the
frothing-at-the-mouth fulminations of Mr. Crowley concerning academe, a
milieu in which he possesses no experience whatever.
David Webb
Mark Alexander
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:080820011120088461%David....@Dartmouth.edu...
You raise some good points.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Art Neuendorffer
> > >
> > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's *really* funny
> > > seeing *Art*, of all people, demanding evidence that supposed anagrams,
> > > acrostics, and other "discoveries" might have been intentional!
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
> > I always demand that such items have a high proper name content,
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> You mean, you insist upon applying the Idiotic Neuendorffer Proper
> Names Criterion? But the INPNC is *idiotic*, as even its VERy name
> acknowledges.
Idiotic is clearly a reference to Neuendorffer
*not* the Proper Names Criterion itself.
> More to the point, your own favorite anagrams and
> "discoVERies" fail *miserably* by the INPNC. For example, "To them, my
> OM, by de Vere (fool)" scores *at most* (even counting the moronic "OM"
> as a proper name) an abysmal 6/22 (about 27%) by the INPNC; since there
> is no indication that "OM" eVER meant "Oxford's men" to anyone but you,
> Art, a score of 4/22 (about 18%) is nearer the mark.
L. WEB = {WE}akest {L}ink's
anne ro{B}inson
> > make some sort of relevant sense for the Eliz. court
>
> Really? Then why does "I am Tom Shakespea" [sic!] make "some sort
> of relevant sense" for the Elizabethan Court? Which Tom Shakespeare
> would that be, Art? Why is he "relevant" to the Elizabethan court?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/sources/a_kempis.html
Thomas à Kempis
[I am Tom Shakspea.]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Shakspea. = Thomas Rogers
ROGER is German for: "famous spear"
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.stratford.co.uk/harvard/house.html
<<In 1596, after the fires, Thomas Rogers, who owned the plot, rebuilt
part of his premises, recording the date and the initials of himself and
his wife Alice, on the front 'TR 1596 AR'. Amongst the elaborate
carvings on the front of the house is a BULL's head, supposedly placed
there to record Rogers' trade as a BUTCHER,
although he was a MALTSTER and a grazier.
His daughter Katherine married Robert Harvard of Southwark,
and their son, John, emigrated to new England in 1636.>>
<<John soon became an important member of the local community but
unfortunately lived only one more year before dying of consumption at
the age of 30. He had taken over 400 books to America and took an
interest in the founding of a college. In his will he left half of
his estate to "the erecting of a college and all his library".
Harvard College, now University, was born.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/1190/stjohnb.html>
"No satisfactory explanation has yet been advanced to explain
why operative Masons adopted these two particular Christian saints,
[i.e., John the Baptist & John the Divine] when, St. THOMAS,
the patron of architecture and building, was already in wide use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubting Apostle St. THOMAS: THOMAS (twin) was evidently a TWIN.
We know him because he voiced a doubt,
but he also showed himself to be faithful.
Every indication is that he was the first missionary to India,
where he built a church with his own hands.
That is why his symbol includes a CARPENTER’S SQUARE.
He was killed by the spear of a heathen priest,
so that [SPEAR] is also included in his symbol.
His day on the calendar is December 21.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/spershak.html
1584 THOMAS Phayer and THOMAS TWYNNE, _The Aeneid_
Aeneas forcing forth a mighty speare in hand doth shake
Of sturdy timber framde, and with great courage thus he spake.
. . .
Whilst thus he doubtes, Aeneas forth his speare doth shake in sight,
And vauntadge watcheth with his eie, and strait with all his might,
Afar he flings it forth. (book 12, lines 986-988)
1609 THOMAS Heywood, _Troia Britanica_
And shaking in his hand an Oaken Speare Headed with Brasse:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1625 (THOMAS Heywood, transl., The Art of Love)
Cast off these loose vailes and thy armour take,
And in thy hand the speare of Pelias shake.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pantheon.org/mythica/articles/p/pelias.html
<<Pelias is the son of Tyro and Poseidon. Tyro was married to Cretheus,
but was in love with Enipeus, the patron god of the river. One day,
Poseidon filled with lust disguised himself as Enipeus and had
intercourse with Tyro. As a result, Tyro gave birth to TWIN sons Neleus
and Pelias. In desperation, Tyro exposed her sons on the mountain, a
housekeeper found them and raised them. When the two men grew up, they
found Tyro and killed their stepmother Sidero because they knew she had
mistreated their mother. Sidero hid in the temple of Hera, but brave
Pelias speared Sidero on Hera’s pristine altars, thus Hera’s extreme
hatred of Pelias. . .Medea devised a plan to kill Pelias.
She told Pelias’ daughters that she could make an old ram
into a young ram. She then cut the old ram into pieces and
threw them into a cauldron and boiled them. When Medea revealed the
concoction to Pelias’ daughters, out jumped a young ram. The daughters
were convinced and that night went into Pelias’ room and chopped him
into tiny pieces. The daughters took the pieces to Medea for the
boiling. When the mixture was ready, the only thing in the cauldron
was a smelly, gushy slop and that was the end of Pelias.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > and that they are sufficiently improbable.
> >
> > Clearly the 'TAO' thing is not on the level of HERODOTUS/DROESHOUT
> > or most of my discoveries:
>
> Your favorite "anagrams" (most of which are not even anagrams!) and
> your "discoVERies" are utterly farcical. For instance, consider your
> "Shacespeare circle set." That one scores only 11/20 (or 55%) by the
> INPNC; moreoVER, "Shacespeare" is not among the myriad extant spellings
> of the name "Shakespeare".
>
> Your "Agnes a gob" idiocy is even funnier. First, even if were an
> anagram -- which it is *not* -- its INPNC score would be a mere 20/36
> (about 56%). More to the point, it makes no sense -- how does "a gob"
> exhibit "some sort of relevant sense for the Eliz[abethan] court"?
At least 28/36, possibly 36/36
--------------------------------------------------------------------
GOB, n. [OF. gob morsel; cf. F. gobe, gobbe,
a poisoned morsel, poison ball, gobet a piece swallowed]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAMBERING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE
L
V E R O N I L V E R I U S
E
N
K
C
N
I
R
B
A G N E S A G O B
A
M
O
H
T
(G)rooms (O)f the (B)edchamber.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2 Samuel 21:19 RSV
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob;
and Elha'nan the son of Ja'areor'egim, the Bethlehemite,
slew Goliath the Gittite,
the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Samuel 21:19 KJV
And there was again a battle in GOB with the Philistines,
where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite,
slew THE BROTHER of Goliath the Gittite,
the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shakespeare opts for RSV/Geneva over KJV:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR Act 5, Scene 1
FALSTAFF I fear not Goliath with a weaver's beam;
because I know also life is a shuttle.
-------------------------------------------------------------
pet...@nortel.ca (Peter Wilson) wrote:
> Some *coincidences* between
> the marked verses of Oxford's Bible
> and Shakespeare's canon:
> * Consider Falstaff's boast: "I fear not Goliath with a weaver's beam".
> This is clearly drawn from II Samuel 21.19 where Goliath's spear is
> identified as "like a weaver's beam". This strange phrase is UNDERLINED
> in Oxford's Bible. It *coincidentally* caught the attention and interest
> of both Oxford and Shakespeare.
---------------------------------------------------------
On St. Peter’s Day, 1613, during a performance of
Shakespeare’s Henry VIII (or All Is True), the Globe theater
caught fire and burned to the ground. The fire was
allegedly started accidentally, by a cannon salute
to Henry VIII.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry VII b. Jan. 28, 1457
Henry VIII June 28, 1491 - Jan. 28, 1547
Globe Theatre fire June 29, 1613
-------------------------------------------------------
Shakespeare purchases
Blackfriar's Gate-House: March 10, 1613
Elizabeth Vere: (July 2, 1575 - March 10, 1626)
Sir Henry Wotton writes
Edmund Bacon about
Globe Theatre fire: July 2, 1613
Thomas Cranmer: (July 2, 1489 - March 21, 1556)
Antoon Van Dyck: born March 21, 1599
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frans Van Dyck: Son of a silk merchant [a la St. Francis]
http://www.vandyck.co.uk/life.html
<<Antoon Van Dyck was born on 21 March 1599 in Antwerp, then the main
port of the Spanish Netherlands . A member of a well-to-do family, he
was named after his paternal grandfather, who had himself once been a
Master in the Antwerp painter's guild. But, in a city where there were
more painters than bakers, Van Dyck the Elder had found it impossible to
make his art pay. So he turned to commerce, becoming a successful
merchant in luxury textiles - velvet, satin and silk. His eldest son,
Frans, was Antoon's father. If there is an enigma about Van Dyck's
character, it is complicated by a SCARCITY OF FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS OF HIM
and the almost complete LACK OF LETTERS BY HIS HAND. In the nineteenth
century he was often cast, disparagingly, as Rubens's brilliant but
degenerate successor - effeminate, dissolute, irresolute. These are
unwarranted slurs. He set a relentless work-rate, so much so that you
could call him a compulsive worker, a 'workaholic'. In 27 years'
professional practice he turned out full-size paintings at an average
rate of between two and three per month, not counting the preparatory
sketches, studio copies and engraved prints that were made under his
direction. Hoping to extricate himself from London, he visited Antwerp
in 1640 where the Guild of Crossbowmen agreed to pay him a large sum for
an altarpiece on The Martyrdom of ST GEORGE. Although he continued for
the time being to work in England, he returned to his homeland in the
Autumn of 1641, showing his patrons an oil sketch for the Martyrdom (now
in Musée Bonnat, Bayonne) which was probably his last painting. On the
way back to London via Calais, although ill, he made an impulsive trip
to Paris hoping to secure employment from the French King. But he was
now too ill even to meet Louis XIII. After only a few days, he painfully
retraced his steps to London, where he died on 9 December 1641 at 42.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Antoon Van converted the top room of his house at Salon into a study
and as he tells us in the Prophecies, worked there at night with his
occult books. The main source of his magical inspirations was a book
called De Mysteriis Egyptorum. By 1555 Nostradamus had completed the
first part of his book of prophecies that were to contain predictions
from his time to the end of the world. In order to avoid being
prosecuted as a magician, Nostradamus writes that he deliberatly
confused the time sequence of the Prophecies so that their secrets would
not be revealed to the non-initiate. The prophecies became all the rage
at Court, the Queen, Catherine de Medici, sent for Nostradamus to come
to Court, and he set out for Paris on 14th July 1556. Nostradamus was
faced with the delicate and difficult task of drawing up the horoscopes
of the seven Valois children, whose tragic fates he had already
revealed. All he would tell Catherine was that all of her sons would be
kings, which is slightly inaccurate since one of them, Francois, died
before he could inherit. The gout from which Nostradamus suffered was
turning to dropsy and he, the doctor, realized that his end was near. He
made his will on 17th June 1566 and left the large sum, for those days,
of 3444 crowns over and above his other possessions. On 1st July he sent
for the local priest to give him the last rites, and when Chavigny took
leave of him that night, he told him that he would not see him alive
again. He was BURIED UPRIGHT in one of the walls of the Church of the
Cordeliers at Salon, and his wife Anne erected a splendid marble PLAQUE
to his memory.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark wrote:
<<For those unfamiliar with the work, "A Quip for an Upstart Courtier"
is basically a refereed argument between a pair of Cloth Breeches, who
represents the honest yeomanry, and a pair of Velvet Breeches, the
"upstart" whose character becomes clear as the work progresses.>>
On page 231:
"As I have had always that honest humor in me to measure all estates by
their vertues, not by their apparel, so did I never grudge at the
bravery of any whom birth, time, place, or dignity made worth of such
costly ornaments, but if by the favour of their Prince and their own
deserts they merited them, I held both lawful and commendable to answer
their dignities.
I am not so precise directly to inveigh against the use of velvet,
either in breeches or in other suits, nor will I have men go like John
Baptist, in coats of Camels hair. Let Princes have their Diademes, and
Caesar what is due to Caesar, let Noblemen go as their birth requires,
and Gentlemen as they are born or bear office: I speak in my own
defence, for the ancient Gentility and yeomandrie of Englande, and
inveigh against none, but such malapart *upstart* as raised up from the
Plough, or advanced for their Italian devices, or for their witless
wealth, covet in bravery to match, nay to exceed the greatest Noblemen
in this land.">>
_Tristram Shandy_ Chapter 2.XLIX.
--Then reach me my breeches off the chair, said my father to Susannah.--
There is not a moment's time to dress you, Sir, cried Susannah--the
child is as black in the face as my--As your what? said my father, for
like all orators, he was a dear searcher into comparisons.--Bless, me,
Sir, said Susannah, the child's in a fit.--And where's Mr.
Yorick?--Never where he should be, said Susannah, but his curate's in
the dressing-room, with the child upon his arm, waiting for the
name--and my mistress bid me run as fast as I could to know, as captain
Shandy is the godfather, whether it
should not be called after him.
Were one sure, said my father to himself, scratching his eye-brow, that
the child was expiring, one might as well compliment my brother Toby as
not-- and it would be a pity, in such a case, to throw away so great a
name as Trismegistus upon him--but he may recover.
No, no,--said my father to Susannah, I'll get up--There is no time,
cried Susannah, the child's as black as my shoe. Trismegistus,
said my father--
But stay--thou art a leaky vessel, Susannah, added my father; canst thou
carry Trismegistus in thy head, the length of the gallery without
scattering?--Can I? cried Susannah, shutting the door in a huff.--If she
can, I'll be shot, said my father, bouncing out of bed in the dark, and
groping for his breeches.
Susannah ran with all speed along the gallery.
My father made all possible speed to find his breeches.
Susannah got the start, and kept it--'Tis Tris--something, cried
Susannah-- There is no christian-name in the world, said the curate,
beginning with Tris--but Tristram. Then 'tis Tristram-gistus, quoth
Susannah.
--There is no gistus to it, noodle!--'tis my own name, replied the
curate, dipping his hand, as he spoke, into the bason--Tristram! said
he, &c. &c. &c. &c.--so Tristram was I called, and Tristram shall I be
to the day of my death.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bartleby.com/216/0911.html
<<The brightest and pleasantest of Brome’s comedies of manners is The
City Witt (or The Woman wears the Breeches).
I must take nimble hold upon occasion
Or lie for ever in the bankrupt ditch
Where no man lends a hand to draw one out
------------------------------------------------------
II King Henry VI ACT I SCENE III
KING HENRY VI Sweet aunt, be quiet; 'twas against her will.
DUCHESS Against her will! good king, look to't in time;
She'll hamper thee, and dandle thee like a BABY:
Though in this place most master wear no breeches,
She shall not strike Dame Eleanor unrevenged.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wait. Something confused. She had red slippers on. Turkish. Wore the
breeches. Suppose she does. Would I like her in pyjamas? Damned hard to
answer. Nannetti's gone. Mailboat. Near Holyhead by now. Must nail that
ad of Keyes's. Work Hynes and Crawford. Petticoats for Molly. She has
something to put in them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robinson Crusoe - Daniel Defoe
<<I had a short jacket of goat's skin, the skirts coming down to
about the middle of the thighs, and a pair of open-kneed breeches
of the same; the breeches were made of the skin of an old he-goat,
whose hair hung down such a length on either side that, like
pantaloons, it reached to the middle of my legs;>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<The French word Noel can be explained as either coming from the
Latin Natalis (birthday) or from the word Nowell which means
"news." In a 17th century English Xmas carol the angel says:
I come from hevin to tell
The best nowellis that ever befell.
[The First Nowell: English carol]
It is possible that both explanations are right. Noel and Nowell
may be words of different origin which have become identical in
meaning because they are pronounced the same.>>
http://library.catholic.org/family/family121.txt
---------------------------------------------------------
1568... Mary Stuart flees to England
... Mary Stuart and Duke of Norfolk conspire to marry
... Alexander NOWELL, Dean of St. Paul's,
invents bottled beer
... London Bricklayers and Tylers incoorporated
http://members.delphi.com/ginnyann/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
BOTTLED BEERS, THE PREHISTORY
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/John_Mann/history.htm
<<A problem in looking at the origins of bottled beer is the confusion
between glass and stoneware (or even leather) bottles as we understand
the word and leather drinking vessels called bottels which were in use
in the 16th and 17th centuries. Thus in Ben Jonson's play Bartholomew
Fair (1631), Ursula calls for "A Bottle of Ale to quench me, rascal".
Earlier, when the Globe Theatre burnt down there was a story that the
only casualty was a man whose breeches caught fire, and that he was
saved when a bottle of ale was thrown over them extinguishing the
flames. But in either case, was the bottle a container as we understand
it or a leather drinking mug?
A pleasant tale ascribes the discovery of bottle conditioning to one Dr.
ALEXANDER NOWELL, Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral from 1560 to 1602 and
onetime master of Westminster School. A keen fisherman, one day [in
1565-8] while enjoying his hobby he happened to leave a [corked] bottle
of beer on the river bank, probably just in the water to keep it cool.
Coming back some time later to what was clearly a favourite fishing
spot, he discovered the bottle he had left behind. On opening it he
found "no bottle but a gun, so great was the sound at the opening
thereof". Bottle conditioned beer had been discovered. Izaak Walton
recounts the story. It also appears in Fuller's Worthies of England,
where Nowells leaving the bottle is said to be due to a hasty departure
to avoid the attentions of the Catholic Bonner, Bishop of London in the
reign of Queen Mary. This would put the date before 1558.
Whether you believe the story or not it suggests a popular belief that
beer began to be bottled in the second half of the 16th century. The
bottles would have been stoneware, probably the saltglazed bottles
with a face moulded on the shoulder popularly known as bellarmines.
GERVASE MARKHAM, in the English Housewife(1615) advises that ale should
be put into "round bottles with narrow mouths, and then stopping them
close with corks, set them in a cold cellar up to the waist in sand, and
be sure that the corks be fast tied in with strong pack thread, for fear
of them rising out and taking vent, which is the utter spoil of the
ale". This could be a reference to stoneware bottles or to the early
glass "shaft & GLOBE" bottles that were appearing at this time
- so called because of their rounded bodies and long necks.>>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _Shakespeares POEMS_ (1640)
> > "To the Reader"
> >
> > <<I Here presume (under favour to present to your view) some excellent
> > and sweetely composed Poems of Master William Shakespeare, which in
> > themselves appeare of the same purity, the Author himselfe then living
> > avouched; they had not the fortune, by reason of their Infancie in
> > his death, to have the due accomodation of proportionable glory,
> > with the rest of HIS EVERLIVING WORkes,>> - John Benson
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > HIS EVERLIVIN{G W}OR[kes]
> >
> > {W}
> > VERONIH{I}LVERIUS
> > {G}
>
> That's *not* an anagram, Art: first, the letters "kes" concluding
> the word "workes" appear nowhere in the "anagrammed" text; second, the
> "i" is used twice. Third, even if one temporarily ignores its inherent
> idiocy and invokes the INPNC, there are no proper names therein, so
> this (non)anagram scores a miserable zero by the INPNC.
VERONIHILVERIUS counts as a defining Elizabethan proper name by
INPNC standards.
> > WIG, v. t. To censure or rebuke;
> > to hold up to reprobation; to scold. [Brit. Slang]
> >
> > HIS EVERLIVIN{G W}OR[kes]
> > EVERLIVIN{G W}ORSHI[p]
>
> That's not an anagram either, Art! Are you dyslexic? The final
> letters "kes" in "workes" do not appear in the "anagrammed" text, nor
> is there even a single occurrence of "p" in the "cleartext";
That is why Sha[kes][p]e is left out
> finally, there are no proper names in the (non)anagram, so even if one
> temporarily ignores its inherent idiocy and invokes the INPNC, this
> (non)anagram scores zero.
EVERLIVIN{G W}ORSHI[p] is a bonus freebie to:
{W}
VERONIH{I}LVERIUS
{G}
> [...]
> > Alice's Adventures in {W}UNDERland
>
> You mean, Art's Adventures in Blunderland.
>
> [...]
> > WIG, v. t. To censure or rebuke;
>
> You already *said* that, Art; are you getting senile, or are you
> parodying (or emulating?!) Richard Kennedy?
Keep your wig on, Dave.
> > They crossed an empty kitchen; and, opening the door of a low
> > earthy-smelling room, which seemed to have been built in a
> > small back-yard, were received with a shout of laughter.
> > 'Oh, my WIG, my WIG!' cried Master Charles Bates,
>
> You do VERy well to quote Master Bates, Art.
>
> The upshot appears to be that not a *single one* of your supposed
> "anagrams" passes muster, even by your own moronic INPNC!
They are not without muster.
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
http://www.yeoldesussexpages.co.uk/sqdining.htm
<<Sir Anthony VAN DYCK(1599-1641) portrait of Henry Percy, 9th Earl of
Northumberland, the 'Wizard Earl' (1564-1632) A scholar and scientist
who spent years in the Tower after being implicated in the Gunpowder
plot, he is depicted in academical robes in a pose suggesting
wisdom. His alchemical experiments gained him his nickname.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
One foot on a skull
http://cincinnati.com/masterpieces/vandyck2.html
http://cincinnati.com/masterpieces/mustsee2.html
<<The National Gallery portrait, commissioned by the countess De
Ruvigny's husband, Thomas Wriothesley, 4th Earl of Southampton, and
painted after the countess' death, is physically imposing at 8 feet high
by 7.3 feet wide. In death, the countess assumes mythic proportions.
"She is riding on the clouds here and personified as Fortune," said Ms.
Aronson. "Van Dyck had a way of making these people look and feel
important." Her hand rests upon a transparent globe, executed with
considerable accomplishment. "She is triumphing over death with the
skull here (at her feet) It's the perfect painting to discuss the
Baroque style with all the swirling drapery, the dramatic lighting.">>
Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton as Fortuna
http://www.vandyck.co.uk/south.html
<<To anyone familiar with the full range of Van Dyck's portrait types
this is a startling painting. He is generally associated with splendid
but nevertheless essentially naturalistic images and, even in England,
the Tate Gallery's sedate A Lady of the Spencer Family is more the sort
of thing we expect to see. It's true that, after he went to England
(where the nobility were enthusiastic masquers), he did quite frequently
paint his sitters in costume (see Sir John Suckling). But, even so, the
Countess of Southampton as Fortuna stands out for its extravagant
conception. This is more the kind of setting associated with continental
catholic altarpieces than with aristocratic portraiture. The lady
masquerades not as the medieval Dame Fortune, spinning her wheel, but
the Latin goddess Fortuna. It has been recently argued that she actually
represents Virtue Triumphant over Death but I see no particular reason
to overturn the tradition title, which is provided by Van Dyck's
earliest biographer Bellori, probably on the authority of the painter's
friend Kenelm Digby.>>
http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/collection/international/painting/d/ipa00218_a.html
------------------------------------------------------------
"Agent XX"
http://www.vandyck.co.uk/life.html
<<Among VAN DYCK's close personal friends were the two de Wael brothers,
both Antwerp painters settled in Genoa, the Abbé Scaglia, a Piedmontese
intelligence agent known in diplomatic correspondence as "Agent XX",
the genial French bookseller and art dealer François Langlois and the
eccentric English buccaneer, scientist and philosopher Sir Kenelm Digby.
It was for Digby that he painted the delicate Lady Venetia Digby on her
Deathbed.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/dec1999/dyck-d01.shtml
<<Most people must be moved when they see the painting
of VENETIA STANLEY by Anthony VAN DYCK.
She seems asleep, her head gently resting
on her hand, but then you see one of her eyes is open in an unnatural
way. You realise she is dead. VAN DYCK, with just black and white paint,
evokes a timeless image of serenity and beauty within death.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Venetia, Lady Digby on her Deathbed
http://www.vandyck.co.uk/venetia.html
<<Sir Kenelm, a leading courtier, was grief-stricken after Venetia's
death and immediately entered a long period of withdrawal, during which
he kept VAN DYCK's portrait continually to hand. VAN DYCK also painted
his friend in mourning clothes, accompanied by the attributes of the
melancholic and including emboldening classical quotations. But his
response to Venetia is quite different - unselfconsciously simple and
yet full of feeling. Whereas other painters might have preached or
pointed a moral, VAN DYCK is content to paint the corpse exactly as it
lay, with only the addition of her favourite string of pearls and a dog
rose lying on the sheet cuff, its petals falling away.>>
Venetia, Lady Digby, as Prudence
http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/mm_shop/index.html?target=Van_DyckVan_Dyck_2.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/gallery/painters/vandyck.html
The Continence of Scipio
Oil on canvas
<<One of VAN DYCK's most important "history paintings", it was probably
commissioned in 1620-21 by George Villiers, Ist Duke of Buckingham and
favourite of James I. Although it ostensibly represents a classical
subject it is thought to be an allegory of the difficult circumstances
surrounding the marriage of Buckingham to Lady Katherine Manners, and
the figures holding hands are likely to be portraits of the couple. Like
his master Rubens, VAN DYCK had a keen interest in antiquity, and he
invokes the world of ancient Carthage with the inclusion of a Roman
frieze copied from a piece known to have been in the Earl of Arundel's
celebrated collection of antiquities.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Continence of Scipio
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/art-vandyck-scipio.htm
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/scipio-continence.htm
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/art-batoni-scipio.htm
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/art-bellini-scipio.htm
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/art-dellabate-scipio.htm
<<Once the Carthago Nova (Kartagenea) was captured, Roman General
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (237 -183 BC) acted with great
humanity toward the people thus put in his power. The Carthaginian
citizens he set free and restored to their property; of two thousand
artisans (it was the main armory of Spain), he promised freedom if they
would work in the Roman service. Others he enrolled as rowers for the
ships he had captured in the harbour. The large number of Spanish
hostages that had been kept in the city, he sent home, a calculated
diplomatic move. During the capture, some young Roman soldiers came
across an exceptionally beautiful girl. Knowing that Scipio had an eye
for beautiful women, they brought her to their commander as a present.
Scipio was astonished at her beauty, but mindful of his position of
Commander expressed his gratitude to his men, he showed his own
moderation and self-restraint by refusing the gift. Learning that the
girl was betrothed to a young Spanish chief named Allucius, Scipio sent
for the young man and presented her to him. When the girl's parents came
to thank him and presented him with gifts, Scipio turned the gifts over
to Allucius as a dowry from himself. Thus Scipio's reputation for
kindness and generosity was spread far and wide among the Spanish
tribes. This gallant act may well have been policially inspired -
Allucius himself soon after joined Scipio with 1,400 Spanish warriors of
his tribe. But it has been the insipiration of dozens of works of art.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,3884385,00.html
Monday July 19, 1999 The Guardian
<<A painting in the VAN DYCK exhibition due to open at London's Royal
Academy in September has been misidentified and may not be by the
Flemish master at all, according to an Italian collector who claims to
own the real thing. According to Angiolo Magnelli, a retired Florentine
auctioneer, the painting to be exhibited could well be by Rubens rather
than VAN DYCK, and shows a historical scene completely different from
the one its title gives. The work that visitors to the Royal Academy
will see is The Continence of Scipio, which is owned by Christ Church
college, Oxford. Renaissance and baroque artists liked the romantic
theme of the self-restraint exercised by the young Roman general Scipio.
After capturing part of Spain from Carthage in 209BC, he is supposed to
have won local allegiance by returning a beautiful captive unharmed to
her betrothed, Allucius.
"They have made a huge mistake and I absolutely contest this
identification of the subject," Mr Magnelli said.
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/Art/vandyck-scipio.jpg
What the work from Christ Church actually depicts, he argues, is a
scene, possibly painted by Rubens, from the previous century, in which
Alexander the Great receives peace envoys from the Persian king he
defeated, Darius III. The former auctioneer bought his own Continence of
Scipio at a London art gallery 29 years ago and has spent much of the
time since then studying the two pictures. He is angry that Christ
Church has consistently refused to discuss the matter with him.
"By refusing to recognise the true nature of this work the art experts
are depriving British culture of an extraordinary painting," Mr Magnelli
said. "I challenge them to a public debate and to put the two paintings
on display side by side, so the public can judge."
He has become increasingly fascinated by the Oxford work, which he
concedes is greater and more complex than his own: "My interpretation
makes the Christ Church painting much more interesting and valuable.
It's a work that contains an important cultural message that has lain
dormant for the last four centuries."
Mr Magnelli's painting shows Scipio on the right as he offers the bride
to her betrothed with a gesture of his open hand. Allucius, on the left,
cups his hand to receive that of the bride, while a lictor - a kind of
court runner - looks on from the right, indicating that the action had
the approval of the Roman magistrature.
A similar scene unfolds in the Oxford painting, but according to Mr
Magnelli, the figure on the left is Alexander the Great, and he is not
offering but rejecting the hand of the woman on the right - a daughter
whom Darius is offering, along with territory, in exchange for peace.
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/Art/vandyck-scipio.jpg
Far from being in Carthaginian Spain, says Mr Magnelli, we are in a
ruined Greek temple in the eastern Mediterranean. Next to Alexander's
feet is a marble frieze showing the heads of two Gorgons, and on a large
metal urn opposite is embossed an image of their sister, Medusa - a
symbol of death that would hardly make an appropriate wedding gift.
"The Gorgons are creatures of Greek mythology, while there isn't a
trace of Roman culture in the entire composition," Mr Magnelli said.
The exhibition catalogue says the picture dates from Anthony VAN DYCK's
time in England in 1620-21 and was probably commissioned by George
Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. The subject could refer to his
marriage to Lady Katherine Manners, according to this reading.
For Mr Magnelli, nothing could be further from the truth. The work, he
believes, was almost certainly commissioned by Thomas Howard, Earl of
Arundel, a political rival of Buckingham's, and could not have been
painted in 1620-21 because the marble frieze showing the Gorgon heads
did not arrive in England to join the Arundel collection until about
1627.
The supposed Allucius could not possibly have the features of the Duke
of Buckingham, unless the painting was commissioned by one of his
enemies. As the deceitful ambassador of Darius he is represented with
deformed feet and his tongue is sticking out as though blowing a
raspberry.
The painting "contains a message that is still topical today: that you
cannot destroy other people's culture", Mr Magnelli said. "Alexander
waged war on the Persians because they had destroyed the temples of the
Greeks, but he incorporated the customs of conquered peoples into those
of his army and forbade any damage to the temples when he conquered
Thebes."
Peter Paul Rubens, he argued, "painted it for Arundel in 1629-30,
probably in secret because of the diabolical theme. It constitutes
the political, spiritual and cultural testament of the two men.">>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.vandyck.co.uk/life.html
<<Antoon Van Dyck was born on 21 March 1599 in Antwerp, then the main
port of the Spanish Netherlands . A member of a well-to-do family, he
was named after his paternal grandfather, who had himself once been a
Master in the Antwerp painter's guild. But, in a city where there were
more painters than bakers, Van Dyck the Elder had found it impossible to
make his art pay. So he turned to commerce, becoming a successful
merchant in luxury textiles - velvet, satin and silk. His eldest son,
Frans, was Antoon's father. He expanded the family business but
ultimately overreached himself, falling into financial 'disgrace' at the
end of his life.
The young Van Dyck has been called "the Mozart of painting". This is an
exaggeration, although there is no doubt he was an exceptionally gifted
teenage draughtsmen and painter. He was lucky, also, in his mother
Maria. Born Maria Cuypers, she encouraged his talent from an early age
and had close family ties with many of the most distinguished Antwerp
artists, including the Brueghel and de Wael dynasties. Her sudden death,
three weeks after Antoon celebrated his seventh birthday, had a profound
effect on her son, setting a seal on his character for the rest of his
life.
In 1609, at the age of 10, the boy signed on as a 'leerjonger' or
apprentice at the studio of Hendrick Van Balen, the Dean of the Antwerp
painters. But Van Dyck's time here was a brief stop on a road to greater
things. As soon as a vacancy occurred (and almost certainly by 1613 or
1614), Van Dyck transferred to the workshop of Peter Paul Rubens, who
had recently re-settled in the city.
In the Rubens Studio
Van Dyck's new master was a man of towering importance. As the world's
most famous, wealthy, influential and versatile painter his influence
over the art of his age would find no parallel until the career of
Picasso. Van Dyck, who seems to have got along badly with his own
father, adopted Rubens as a surrogate parent. Rubens returned the
compliment, finding in his talented new pupil a phenomenally quick and
willing disciple.
In imitation of Rubens's Self-Portrait (now in the Galleria Uffizi) Van
Dyck painted an ultra-confident Self-Portrait of his own at the age of
14 or 15, one of the earliest of his paintings to have survived. Van
Dyck's talent and skill was now developing so quickly that, by the age
of 17, he stood unchallenged as Rubens's chief assistant. He worked for
the Master on important commissions such as the Decius Mus Cycle of
tapestry cartoons (commissioned in 1616) and the 33 ceiling paintings
for Antwerp's striking new Jesuit Church, which was dedicated in 1621.
But at the same time Van Dyck was establishing his own practice with
portraits and religious pictures including his first masterpieces such
as The Taking of Christ, The Crowning With Thorns and the series on St
Jerome.
Il Pittore Cavalieresco
By the age of twenty-one Van Dyck began to detach himself from Rubens,
taking up a post at the court of King James VI & I in London. He painted
his great portrait of the Earl of Arundel and the exceptionally
interesting Continence of Scipio, but Van Dyck seems to have found the
job uncongenial an, after only five months, he returned home. Eight
months later, although officially only on leave from London, he moved on
to Italy. Travelling from his base in Genoa to Rome, Florence, Bologna,
Venice, Turin and Palermo, he discovered for himself the warm colours of
the Mediterranean world and the inspirational Italian paintings of
Titian, Veronese, Giorgione, the younger Rubens and Guido Reni. During
these travels Van Dyck recorded much of what he saw in his Italian
Sketchbook, now in the British Museum.
Van Dyck's refined Italian contacts earned him a reputation amongst
other painters as 'il pittore cavalieresco', which can be translated as
'the chivalrous painter'. However, with more than a tinge of satire (if
not of malicious envy) in the nickname, the 'uppity painter' might be
more accurate. Any envy on the part of Van Dyck's rivals is
understandable. During six-years in Italy, his art reached its full
maturity and he produced many brilliant baroque portraits, including Sir
Robert Shirley, Cardinal Bentivoglio and Elena Grimaldi Cattaneo. His
greatest religious work of this period is the altarpiece The Madonna of
the Rosary, at the Dominican Oratorio del Rosario in Palermo, Sicily.
This vast canvas was begun in the summer of 1624 during a violent
outbreak of plague, but not finished until 1627 in Genoa. The artist
despatched the altarpiece back to Sicily as he was himself preparing to
return to the Spanish Netherlands.
Return to Antwerp
Returning wealthy and renowned to his native town, Van Dyck established
himself as a master with a large studio and was to work there, now at
his creative peak, for the next four years. He produced beautiful
narrative paintings (two of the most stunning are Rinaldo and Armida and
The Arrest of Samson) as well as a series of altarpieces and the usual
plethora of portraits. He also now accepted his first official post, the
relatively undemanding sinecure of court painter to Isabella, the
austere Archduchess of the Southern Netherlands. Meanwhile his wealth
increased in proportion to his growing fame.
There is a noticeable increase in the erotic content of Van Dyck's
painting at this time, which is partly the legacy of Italy and partly
attributable to a new relationship. The unknown model for Delilah in The
Arrest of Samson has a good claim to be remembered as Van Dyck's
inspiration, and perhaps his mistress, during the late 1620s. She is
also represented most sensually in Venus at the Forge of Vulcan (Louvre,
Paris) and Thetis at the Forge of Vulcan (Kuntshistorische Museum,
Vienna) and is probably the model for Armida in the monumental Rinaldo
and Armida (Baltimore Museum of Art, Maryland).
At the same time Van Dyck had become a very busy religious artist
fulfilling numerous commissions for altarpieces, with particular
emphasis on the Crucifixion. He also began to compile a unique
enterprise known as The Iconography, a series of portrait prints of
artists, collectors and politicians, many of whom happened also to be
Van Dyck's friends. Eventually (but not until after his death) a hundred
portraits were published.
Sir Anthony
In 1632 Van Dyck accepted Charles I's invitation to return to London as
court painter and so began one of the most remarkable of all
artist-client partnerships. It is from this period that we draw our
modern idea of Van Dyck - now Sir Anthony since his knighthood in 1633 -
as the image-maker of the satin-and-lace clad cavaliers and ladies of
the Caroline court. Great portraits of this period include King Charles
on Horseback, Archbishop Laud, Sir John Suckling, and The Countess of
Southampton.
England was ruled throughout the 1630s by the King without Parliament.
Although there was plenty of trouble being stored up for the future, it
seemed a sunny period in which the privileged lived well, contentedly
and at peace with the world. It was this class amongst whom Van Dyck
lived and worked. He worked hard, producing an enormous output of
portraits in a style - whether we are talking about composition, colours
or brushwork - which was clearly distinguishable from what had gone
before. That said, there is a clear continuity between, for example, the
Italian masterpiece Elena Grimaldi Cattaneo. and Queen Henrietta Maria
with Sir Jeffrey Hudson.
But Van Dyck was busier than he had ever been and he worked with a
number of studio assistants, developing a system to speed up the
production of society portraits. Quality was in some cases sacrificed,
but in others - and Van Dyck still frequently felt driven to produce his
best work - the fast brushwork and thin paint surface were used to
expressive effect in portraying the bright, brittle reality of the
Caroline court.
Last Days
By the end of the decade, the storm clouds had began to gather over
Charles's government and Van Dyck, a devout Catholic, felt under threat
from the Crown's highly vocal puritan opposition. Hoping to extricate
himself from London, he visited Antwerp in 1640 where the Guild of
Crossbowmen agreed to pay him a large sum for an altarpiece on The
Martyrdom of St George. Although he continued for the time being to work
in England, he returned to his homeland in the Autumn of 1641, showing
his patrons an oil sketch for the Martyrdom (now in Musée Bonnat,
Bayonne) which was probably his last painting. On the way back to London
via Calais, although ill, he made an impulsive trip to Paris hoping to
secure employment from the French King. But he was now too ill even to
meet Louis XIII. After only a few days, he painfully retraced his steps
to London, where he died on 9 December 1641. He was 42.
Van Dyck's personality and his circle of friends
If there is an enigma about Van Dyck's character, it is complicated by a
scarcity of first hand accounts of him and the almost complete lack of
letters by his hand. In the nineteenth century he was often cast,
disparagingly, as Rubens's brilliant but degenerate successor -
effeminate, dissolute, irresolute. These are unwarranted slurs. As an
artist he was a resolute professional who commanded considerable respect
amongst his clients and fellow artists. He set a relentless work-rate,
so much so that you could call him a compulsive worker, a 'workaholic'.
In 27 years' professional practice he turned out full-size paintings at
an average rate of between two and three per month, not counting the
preparatory sketches, studio copies and engraved prints that were made
under his direction.
There is an important psychological reason behind this. As a man he
seems to have been stand-offish, perhaps shy although confident of his
own abilities. Certain aspects of his character were probably consequent
on the early loss of his mother Maria. From a series of hints in his
self-portraits, it can be inferred that he suffered troubling attacks of
depression throughout his career and compulsive work is one of the
characteristic traits of the depressive. Another possible indication is
his strong religious beliefs: Van Dyck was a lifelong and devout
Catholic.
Nevertheless, he had a sense of humour and an obvious gift for
companionship. His circle of patrons, friends and acquaintances is
immortalised in a commercial enterprise he conceived with the Antwerp
publisher Martin van den Enden - a series of prints for publication
which came to be known as The Iconography of Anthony Van Dyck, and which
eventually comprised a hundred images.
Among Van Dyck's close personal friends were the two de Wael brothers,
both Antwerp painters settled in Genoa, the Abbé Scaglia, a Piedmontese
intelligence agent known in diplomatic correspondence as "Agent XX", the
genial French bookseller and art dealer François Langlois and the
eccentric English buccaneer, scientist and philosopher Sir Kenelm Digby.
It was for Digby that he painted the delicate Lady Venetia Digby on her
Deathbed.
Nor did Van Dyck lack lovers. First there was the anonymous model who
posed so alluringly for several of his mythological paintings during the
late 1620s, including The Arrest of Samson. Later, in England, he fell
in love with Katherine, Lady Stanhope, the Princess Mary's governess,
but she was not interested. Instead, he became the lover of the jealous
courtesan, Margaret Lemon until finally, in 1639, marrying his young
wife Mary Ruthven in 1639. Mary gave birth to their daughter Justiniana
in December 1641, a week before Van Dyck's death.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Dickens => Mr. Dick with Charles' head
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<'Do you recollect the date,' said Mr. Dick, looking earnestly at
me, and taking up his pen to note it down, 'when King Charles the
First had his head cut off?'
I said I believed it happened in the year sixteen hundred and
forty-nine.
'Well,' returned Mr. Dick, scratching his ear with his pen, and
looking dubiously at me. 'So the books say; but I don't see how
that can be. Because, if it was so long ago, how could the people
about him have made that mistake of putting some of the trouble out
of his head, after it was taken off, into mine?'>>
<<Did he say anything to you about King Charles the First, child?'
'Yes, aunt.'
'Ah!' said my aunt, rubbing her nose as if she were a little vexed.
'That's his allegorical way of expressing it. He connects his
illness with great disturbance and agitation, naturally, and that's
the figure, or the simile, or whatever it's called, which he
chooses to use. And why shouldn't he, if he thinks proper!'>>
<<In fact, I found out afterwards that Mr. Dick had been for upwards
of ten years endeavouring to keep King Charles the First out of the
Memorial; but he had been constantly getting into it, and was there
now.
'I say again,' said my aunt, 'nobody knows what that man's mind is
except myself; and he's the most amenable and friendly creature in
existence. If he likes to fly a kite sometimes, what of that!
Franklin used to fly a kite. He was a Quaker, or something of that
sort, if I am not mistaken. And a Quaker flying a kite is a much
more ridiculous object than anybody else.'>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<Anthony Van Dyck(1599-1641) "Among Rubens's many famous pupils and
assistants, the greatest and most independent was Anthony van Dyck. He
soon acquired all the virtuosity of Rubens in rendering the texture and
surface of things, whether it were silk or human flesh, but he differed
widely from his master in temperament and mood. It seems that Van Dyck
was not a healthy man, and in his paintings a languid and slightly
melancholic mood often prevails. It may have been this quality that
appealed to the austere noblemen of Genoa and to the cavaliers of
Charles I's entourage. In 1632 he had become the Court Painter of
Charles I, and his name was Anglicized into Sir Anthony Vandyke. It is
to him that we owe an artistic record of this society with its defiantly
aristocratic bearing and its cult of courtly refinement. His portrait of
Charles I, just dismounted from his horse on a hunting expedition,
showed the Stuart monarch as he would have wished to live in history: a
figure of matchless elegance, of unquestioned authority and high
culture, the patron of the arts, and the upholder of the divine right of
kings, a man who needed no outward trappings of power to enhance his
natural dignity. No wonder that a painter who could bring out these
qualities in his portraits with such perfection was so eagerly sought
after by society. In fact, Van Dyck was so overburdened with commissions
for portraits that he, like his master Rubens, was unable to cope with
them all himself. He had a number of assistants, who painted the
costumes of his sitters arranged on dummies, and he did not always paint
even the whole of the head. Some of these portraits are uncomfortably
near the flattering fashion-dummies of later periods, and there is no
doubt that Van Dyck established a dangerous precedence which did much
harm to portrait painting. But all this cannot detract from the
greatness of his best portraits. Nor should it make us forget that it
was he, more than anyone else, who helped to crystallize the ideals of
blue-blooded nobility and gentlemanly ease which enrich our vision of
man no less than do Rubens's robust and sturdy figures of over-brimming
life.">>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B749450...@erols.com>, Art Neuendorffer
<ph...@erols.com> (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> > > "David L. Webb" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's *really* funny
> > > > seeing *Art*, of all people, demanding evidence that supposed anagrams,
> > > > acrostics, and other "discoveries" might have been intentional!
> > > I always demand that such items have a high proper name content,
> > You mean, you insist upon applying the Idiotic Neuendorffer Proper
> > Names Criterion? But the INPNC is *idiotic*, as even its VERy name
> > acknowledges.
> Idiotic is clearly a reference to Neuendorffer
> *not* the Proper Names Criterion itself.
No, Art; I coined both the name of the criterion and its acronym,
and I assure you that I had in mind the criterion itself. If you like,
you can change the acronym to NIPNC.
> > More to the point, your own favorite anagrams and
> > "discoVERies" fail *miserably* by the INPNC. For example, "To them, my
> > OM, by de Vere (fool)" scores *at most* (even counting the moronic "OM"
> > as a proper name) an abysmal 6/22 (about 27%) by the INPNC; since there
> > is no indication that "OM" eVER meant "Oxford's men" to anyone but you,
> > Art, a score of 4/22 (about 18%) is nearer the mark.
> L. WEB = {WE}akest {L}ink's
> anne ro{B}inson
????????
> > > make some sort of relevant sense for the Eliz. court
> > Really? Then why does "I am Tom Shakespea" [sic!] make "some sort
> > of relevant sense" for the Elizabethan Court? Which Tom Shakespeare
> > would that be, Art? Why is he "relevant" to the Elizabethan court?
> http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/sources/a_kempis.html
> Thomas ą Kempis
> [I am Tom Shakspea.]
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Shakspea. = Thomas Rogers
> ROGER is German for: "famous spear"
Oh -- you mean, ROGER Stritmatter is just trolling, too? In view of
the given name's connection with "spear" and the surname's odd likeness
to "Stratnutter," the possiblility had occurred to me, but I had neVER
given it serious consideration. If so, he's *really* good -- unlike
you, Art, he neVER lets the mask slip.
[...]
> > > and that they are sufficiently improbable.
> > >
> > > Clearly the 'TAO' thing is not on the level of HERODOTUS/DROESHOUT
> > > or most of my discoveries:
> > Your favorite "anagrams" (most of which are not even anagrams!) and
> > your "discoVERies" are utterly farcical. For instance, consider your
> > "Shacespeare circle set." That one scores only 11/20 (or 55%) by the
> > INPNC; moreoVER, "Shacespeare" is not among the myriad extant spellings
> > of the name "Shakespeare".
> >
> > Your "Agnes a gob" idiocy is even funnier. First, even if were an
> > anagram -- which it is *not* -- its INPNC score would be a mere 20/36
> > (about 56%). More to the point, it makes no sense -- how does "a gob"
> > exhibit "some sort of relevant sense for the Eliz[abethan] court"?
> At least 28/36, possibly 36/36
No, Art; the only proper names (even counting idiotic proper names)
are "Thomas Brincknell" and "Agnes."
> GOB, n. [OF. gob morsel; cf. F. gobe, gobbe,
> a poisoned morsel, poison ball, gobet a piece swallowed]
See? "Gob" is a common noun here.
> CLAMBERING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE
>
> L
> V E R O N I L V E R I U S
> E
> N
> K
> C
> N
> I
> R
> B
> A G N E S A G O B
> A
> M
> O
> H
> T
>
> (G)rooms (O)f the (B)edchamber.
You surmise that *Agnes Brincknell* was a "Groom of the Bedchamber,"
Art? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 2 Samuel 21:19 RSV
> And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob;
> and Elha'nan the son of Ja'areor'egim, the Bethlehemite,
>
> slew Goliath the Gittite,
>
> the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
If you mean "Gob" as a place name, then "*a* Gob" is *complete
nonsense*. It also has no discernible connection with Oxford,
Brincknell, his wife, or any of the other key players in your hilarious
hallucination, Art.
[...]
> Frans Van Dyck: Son of a silk merchant [a la St. Francis]
> http://www.vandyck.co.uk/life.html
>
> <<Antoon Van Dyck was born on 21 March 1599 in Antwerp,
But Art -- "Antwerp" is an anagram of "Art N. -- pew!"
[...]
> > > _Shakespeares POEMS_ (1640)
> > > "To the Reader"
> > >
> > > <<I Here presume (under favour to present to your view) some excellent
> > > and sweetely composed Poems of Master William Shakespeare, which in
> > > themselves appeare of the same purity, the Author himselfe then living
> > > avouched; they had not the fortune, by reason of their Infancie in
> > > his death, to have the due accomodation of proportionable glory,
> > > with the rest of HIS EVERLIVING WORkes,>> - John Benson
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > HIS EVERLIVIN{G W}OR[kes]
> > >
> > > {W}
> > > VERONIH{I}LVERIUS
> > > {G}
> > That's *not* an anagram, Art: first, the letters "kes" concluding
> > the word "workes" appear nowhere in the "anagrammed" text; second, the
> > "i" is used twice. Third, even if one temporarily ignores its inherent
> > idiocy and invokes the INPNC, there are no proper names therein, so
> > this (non)anagram scores a miserable zero by the INPNC.
> VERONIHILVERIUS counts as a defining Elizabethan proper name by
> INPNC standards.
Only if one uses *idiotic* standards. I remind you that INPNC is an
acronym for "*IDIOTIC* Neuendorffer Proper Names Criterion."
> > > WIG, v. t. To censure or rebuke;
> > > to hold up to reprobation; to scold. [Brit. Slang]
> > >
> > > HIS EVERLIVIN{G W}OR[kes]
> > > EVERLIVIN{G W}ORSHI[p]
> > That's not an anagram either, Art! Are you dyslexic? The final
> > letters "kes" in "workes" do not appear in the "anagrammed" text, nor
> > is there even a single occurrence of "p" in the "cleartext";
> That is why Sha[kes][p]e is left out
> > finally, there are no proper names in the (non)anagram, so even if one
> > temporarily ignores its inherent idiocy and invokes the INPNC, this
> > (non)anagram scores zero.
> EVERLIVIN{G W}ORSHI[p] is a bonus
^^^^^
You misspelled "bogus," Art.
> freebie to:
>
> {W}
> VERONIH{I}LVERIUS
> {G}
> > [...]
> > > Alice's Adventures in {W}UNDERland
> > You mean, Art's Adventures in Blunderland.
> > [...]
> > > WIG, v. t. To censure or rebuke;
> > You already *said* that, Art; are you getting senile, or are you
> > parodying (or emulating?!) Richard Kennedy?
> Keep your wig on, Dave.
> > > They crossed an empty kitchen; and, opening the door of a low
> > > earthy-smelling room, which seemed to have been built in a
> > > small back-yard, were received with a shout of laughter.
> > > 'Oh, my WIG, my WIG!' cried Master Charles Bates,
> > You do VERy well to quote Master Bates, Art.
> > The upshot appears to be that not a *single one* of your supposed
> > "anagrams" passes muster, even by your own moronic INPNC!
> They are not without muster.
Excellent, Art! You make a *great* Sogliardo, just as you make a
great Dogberry.
David Webb
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > make some sort of relevant sense for the Eliz. court
>
> > "David L. Webb" wrote:
> > > Really? Then why does "I am Tom Shakespea" [sic!] make "some sort
> > > of relevant sense" for the Elizabethan Court? Which Tom Shakespeare
> > > would that be, Art? Why is he "relevant" to the Elizabethan court?
>
> > http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/sources/a_kempis.html
> > Thomas à Kempis
> > [I am Tom Shakspea.]
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Tom Shakspea. = Thomas Rogers
> > ROGER is German for: "famous spear"
"David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> Oh -- you mean, ROGER Stritmatter is just trolling, too? In view of
> the given name's connection with "spear" and the surname's odd likeness
> to "Stratnutter," the possiblility had occurred to me, but I had neVER
> given it serious consideration. If so, he's *really* good -- unlike
> you, Art, he neVER lets the mask slip.
Unlike you, Dave, he neVER lets the mask slip.
> > > > and that they are sufficiently improbable.
> > > >
> > > > Clearly the 'TAO' thing is not on the level of HERODOTUS/DROESHOUT
> > > > or most of my discoveries:
>
> > > Your favorite "anagrams" (most of which are not even anagrams!) and
> > > your "discoVERies" are utterly farcical. For instance, consider your
> > > "Shacespeare circle set." That one scores only 11/20 (or 55%) by the
> > > INPNC; moreoVER, "Shacespeare" is not among the myriad extant spellings
> > > of the name "Shakespeare".
> > >
> > > Your "Agnes a gob" idiocy is even funnier. First, even if were an
> > > anagram -- which it is *not* -- its INPNC score would be a mere 20/36
> > > (about 56%). More to the point, it makes no sense -- how does "a gob"
> > > exhibit "some sort of relevant sense for the Eliz[abethan] court"?
>
> > At least 28/36, possibly 36/36
> <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> No, Art; the only proper names (even counting idiotic proper names)
> are "Thomas Brincknell" and "Agnes."
Even counting idiotic proper names?
> > GOB, n. [OF. gob morsel; cf. F. gobe, gobbe,
> > a poisoned morsel, poison ball, gobet a piece swallowed]
>
> See? "Gob" is a common noun here.
>
> > CLAMBERING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE
> >
> > L
> > V E R O N I L V E R I U S
> > E
> > N
> > K
> > C
> > N
> > I
> > R
> > B
> > A G N E S A G O B
> > A
> > M
> > O
> > H
> > T
> >
> > (G)rooms (O)f the (B)edchamber.
>
> You surmise that *Agnes Brincknell* was a "Groom of the Bedchamber,"
> Art? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Senior members of the King's Men were known as:
(G)rooms (O)f the (B)edchamber.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 2 Samuel 21:19 RSV
> > And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob;
> > and Elha'nan the son of Ja'areor'egim, the Bethlehemite,
> >
> > slew Goliath the Gittite,
> >
> > the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
>
> If you mean "Gob" as a place name, then "*a* Gob" is *complete
> nonsense*.
Thomas à Kempis
Agnes à Gob
> It also has no discernible connection with Oxford,
> Brincknell, his wife, or any of the other key players in your hilarious
> hallucination, Art.
Oxford was fencing with a tailor! No doubt he used a weaver's beam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coroner's Inquest (Engl. translation)
<<Inquisition taken in the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields 24 July
1567 before Richard Vale, coroner, upon a viewing of the body of Thomas
Brincknell, of Westminster, yeoman, lying dead, by SEVENTEEN NAMED
JURYMEN, who affirm that on 23 July 1567 between seven and eight in the
evening Edward earl of Oxford and Edward Baynham, tailor of the same
city, were together in the back yard of the residence of Sir William
Cecil in the same parish, meaning no harm to anyone. Each had a sword,
called a foil, and together they meant to practice the science of
defense. Along came Thomas Brincknell, drunk, . . . who ran and fell
upon the point of the earl of OXFORD's FOIL (WORTH TWELVE PENCE), which
Oxford held in his right hand intending to play a round (as they call
it). With the foil Thomas [Brincknell] gave himself a wound to the
front of his thigh four inches deep and one inch wide, of which he died
instantly. This, to the exclusion of all other explanations, was the
way he died.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Frans Van Dyck: Son of a silk merchant [a la St. Francis]
> > http://www.vandyck.co.uk/life.html
> >
> > <<Antoon Van Dyck was born on 21 March 1599 in Antwerp,
>
> But Art -- "Antwerp" is an anagram of "Art N. -- pew!"
A.N. Twerp
twerp n : someone who is regarded as contemptible [syn: {twirp}, {twit}]
> > > > _Shakespeares POEMS_ (1640)
> > > > "To the Reader"
> > > >
> > > > <<I Here presume (under favour to present to your view) some excellent
> > > > and sweetely composed Poems of Master William Shakespeare, which in
> > > > themselves appeare of the same purity, the Author himselfe then living
> > > > avouched; they had not the fortune, by reason of their Infancie in
> > > > his death, to have the due accomodation of proportionable glory,
> > > > with the rest of HIS EVERLIVING WORkes,>> - John Benson
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > HIS EVERLIVIN{G W}OR[kes]
> > > >
> > > > {W}
> > > > VERONIH{I}LVERIUS
> > > > {G}
>
> > > That's *not* an anagram, Art: first, the letters "kes" concluding
> > > the word "workes" appear nowhere in the "anagrammed" text; second, the
> > > "i" is used twice. Third, even if one temporarily ignores its inherent
> > > idiocy and invokes the INPNC, there are no proper names therein, so
> > > this (non)anagram scores a miserable zero by the INPNC.
>
> > VERONIHILVERIUS counts as a defining Elizabethan proper name by
> > INPNC standards.
>
> Only if one uses *idiotic* standards. I remind you that INPNC is an
> acronym for "*IDIOTIC* Neuendorffer Proper Names Criterion."
Whatever.
> > > > WIG, v. t. To censure or rebuke;
> > > > to hold up to reprobation; to scold. [Brit. Slang]
> > > >
> > > > HIS EVERLIVIN{G W}OR[kes]
> > > > EVERLIVIN{G W}ORSHI[p]
>
> > > That's not an anagram either, Art! Are you dyslexic? The final
> > > letters "kes" in "workes" do not appear in the "anagrammed" text, nor
> > > is there even a single occurrence of "p" in the "cleartext";
>
> > That is why Sha[kes][p]e is left out
> > freebie to:
> >
> > {W}
> > VERONIH{I}LVERIUS
> > {G}
>
> > > [...]
> > > > Alice's Adventures in {W}UNDERland
>
> > > You mean, Art's Adventures in Blunderland.
>
> > > [...]
> > > > WIG, v. t. To censure or rebuke;
>
> > > You already *said* that, Art; are you getting senile, or are you
> > > parodying (or emulating?!) Richard Kennedy?
>
> > Keep your wig on, Dave.
>
> > > > They crossed an empty kitchen; and, opening the door of a low
> > > > earthy-smelling room, which seemed to have been built in a
> > > > small back-yard, were received with a shout of laughter.
> > > > 'Oh, my WIG, my WIG!' cried Master Charles Bates,
>
> > > You do VERy well to quote Master Bates, Art.
>
> > > The upshot appears to be that not a *single one* of your supposed
> > > "anagrams" passes muster, even by your own moronic INPNC!
>
> > They are not without muster.
>
> Excellent, Art! You make a *great* Sogliardo, just as you make a
> great Dogberry.
1 Chronicles 7:36 The sons of Zophah; Suah, and Harnepher, and Shual,
and Beri, and Imrah,
Beri: my son; my corn
DOG BERI
DOG SAILOR
SOGLIARDO
DOS GLORIA, in excelsius!
Rod Galois
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B756AEF...@erols.com>, Art Neuendorffer
(ph...@errors.comedy) <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
> > No, Art; the only proper names (even counting idiotic proper names)
> > are "Thomas Brincknell" and "Agnes."
> Even counting idiotic proper names?
Even counting idiotic proper names, Art.
And you surmise that Agnes Brincknell was a senior member of the
King's Men, Art?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 2 Samuel 21:19 RSV
> > > And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob;
> > > and Elha'nan the son of Ja'areor'egim, the Bethlehemite,
> > >
> > > slew Goliath the Gittite,
> > >
> > > the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
> > If you mean "Gob" as a place name, then "*a* Gob" is *complete
> > nonsense*.
> Thomas à Kempis
> Agnes à Gob
And you surmise that Agnes Brincknell was from the Middle East,
Art?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> > It also has no discernible connection with Oxford,
> > Brincknell, his wife, or any of the other key players in your hilarious
> > hallucination, Art.
> Oxford was fencing with a tailor! No doubt he used a weaver's beam.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Coroner's Inquest (Engl. translation)
>
> <<Inquisition taken in the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields 24 July
> 1567 before Richard Vale, coroner, upon a viewing of the body of Thomas
> Brincknell, of Westminster, yeoman, lying dead, by SEVENTEEN NAMED
> JURYMEN, who affirm that on 23 July 1567 between seven and eight in the
> evening Edward earl of Oxford and Edward Baynham, tailor of the same
> city, were together in the back yard of the residence of Sir William
> Cecil in the same parish, meaning no harm to anyone. Each had a sword,
> called a foil, and together they meant to practice the science of
> defense. Along came Thomas Brincknell, drunk, . . . who ran and fell
> upon the point of the earl of OXFORD's FOIL (WORTH TWELVE PENCE), which
> Oxford held in his right hand intending to play a round (as they call
> it). With the foil Thomas [Brincknell] gave himself a wound to the
> front of his thigh four inches deep and one inch wide, of which he died
> instantly. This, to the exclusion of all other explanations, was the
> way he died.>>
> > > Frans Van Dyck: Son of a silk merchant [a la St. Francis]
> > > http://www.vandyck.co.uk/life.html
> > >
> > > <<Antoon Van Dyck was born on 21 March 1599 in Antwerp,
> > But Art -- "Antwerp" is an anagram of "Art N. -- pew!"
> A.N. Twerp
>
> twerp n : someone who is regarded as contemptible [syn: {twirp}, {twit}]
If you say so, Art; I won't contest the point.
David Webb
David L. Webb
<Peter....@arts.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > "Mark Steese" <mst...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns90F4799518B3...@130.133.1.4...
> > > Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net>
> > > that wrote news:%e7b7.1080$eU4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
> > > on the day of 05 Aug 2001:
> > >
> > > [snippage]
> > > >> It may be that the Oxfordians know how hollow their pseudoscholarship
> > > >> is,
> > > > I really don't believe they do. Since their knowledge of scholastic
> > > > methods seems limited to the proper way of constructing a bibliography,
> > > > I think they believe their arguments are solid. There has to be
> > > > something missing in a person's thinking to believe their arguments,
> > > > and part of that is not being able to see the error in the way they
> > > > frame their arguments. Apparently they acquire the belief before they
> > > > make their arguments, so whatever they can come up with the backfill
> > > > their belief is good enough for them.
> > > I shouldn't have said they may *know* - I agree with you that they don't -
> > > but I do get the impression that some of them suspect the truth.
> > Yes, I agree. I think they are examples of the type of dishonesty that pride
> > abetted by willful self delusion can lead to. Kierkegaard knew all about it.
> But the question that interests me is: why do they do it? Why are such
> mountains of verbiage, such indefatigable industry, devoted to bizarre
> fantasies and ludicrous conspiracy theories that wouldn't take in a
> reasonable child? It can't be any kind of genuine curiosity that
> motivates them, given the fact that they habitually argue
> disingenuously, like lawyers rather than scholars (e.g. 'proving' WS's
> supposed lack of education from the fact that there's no evidence that
> he attended Stratford Grammar School, when there's no evidence that
> _anyone_ attended it at that time). There's some psychological malaise
> here crying out for diagnosis -- any theories out there?
It's a very interesting question. I suspect that the motivations
are as diverse as the people themselves.
Even confining one's scope to some of the Oxfordians in one's
limited experience, one can only hazard a guess at what may actuate
them. For instance, I suspect that one or two are actually quite
bright and very creative -- but theirs is an untrained, undisciplined
creativity, unfettered by inconveniences like evidentiary standards.
Some very imaginative people are so taken by their imaginative
constructs that they simply see no need to check the fantasies they
concoct against objective reality; they thereby confuse history with
fiction and romance. Some have simply read too many Georgette Heyer
novels.
Others are merely sadly misinformed, and having once read Ogburn or
Clark, they may have been captivated by those books' passion, and may
well have been utterly oblivious to the howlers throughout. Such
devotees probably never bothered to check Ogburn for accuracy. Some
might even be afraid of what they might find if they did so, and a few
may even have done so without having their faith shaken, hence the
rather telling caveat in the Writer's Guidelines for "The Oxfordian" at
<http://www.oxfordian.com/Ox_Guide.html>.
A very powerful influence that may mislead some otherwise sensible
people is the perception of a web of tanalizing "connections," each
somewhat nebulous and vaguely perceived individually, which the viewer
feels nonetheless constitutes an overwhelmingly persuasive whole
greater than the sum of the parts. This, as I understand it, is the
tenor of Mark Alexander's post on forests and trees. Of course, if
each individual tree is a mirage, then so is the entire forest. This
"web of connections" view of history is enormously seductive, and it
probably accounts for the majority of untenable conspiracy theories,
ranging from harmless fringe fulminations about Freemasons and the
Trilateral Commission to genuinely dangerous suspicions that ultimately
precipitate tragedy on a grand scale. What conspiracy theorists
generally fail to realize is that the human mind is marvelously adept
at pattern recognition -- it is *too* good, in fact, and hence often
perceives nonexistent patterns in the random coincidences present in
any dataset of reasonable size and complexity. Thus checking the solid
reality of the trees one perceives is vitally important.
The feeling that one is among an elite few to whom an awesome truth
has been vouchsafed is probably an invigorating, even intoxicating
feeling, one that may well lend an apostolic fervor to the activities
of some Oxfordians. This phenomenon must surely be a factor in the
otherwise improbable allegiance of otherwise intelligent people to
fringe religious cults. The same intoxicating illusion of clarity must
surely play a role in driving some inveterate conspiracy theorists in
other spheres.
Still others simply are not very intelligent, some are utterly
incoherent, and a few are probably actually delusional. Finally, I
suspect that one or two are simply having us on in the venerable Usenet
trolling tradition.
Oxfordians' motivations are probably still more diverse than even
these suggestions hint. Abnormal psychology covers a spectrum probably
at least as broad as normal psychology.
David Webb
Alisa Beaton
>
>
> The greatest threat to Stratfordian orthodoxy is the spread of Oxfordian
> credibility in academe and among popular journalists, jurists, and
> historians.
>
> Why? Because Stratfordian orthodoxy maintains its edifice primarily
> through its authoritarian stance and ridicule. Not through real
> scholarship.
>
********************************************************************
Roger Stritmatter is not a member of academe. See previous posts
to read about attempts to peruse his doctoral dissertation, the one
he has evidently been laboring over for ten years or more. We assume
that he actually submitted it. Perhaps he did. And who are the
"et al"s? Names, please.
*********************************************************************
and among
> journalists (Lewis Lapham), jurists (Justice Stevens),
*********************************************************************
Several years ago some very well-connected members of the Shakespeare
Oxford Society put together a "mock court" held in the National
Cathedral, in which some Supreme Court justices listened to arguments,
presented by attorneys, for and against Shakespeare's authorship and
for and against Oxford's. The jutices came to no decision as
to whether either of the two was the true author of the canon.
(The possibility of other writers/group authorship was not brought
into the debate). Justice Stevens said that he now believes there
might well be some doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the canon,
but he did not say that he now believes that Edward de Vere, 17th
earl of Oxford, was Shakespeare. I remember it well. I was there
(along with the National Cathedral Choir, a huge mainstream press
contingent, and a PBS Frontline crew). The SOS has at its command
substantial influence and funds. If they were without these resources,
I very much doubt that this debate would be raging.
*********************************************************************
and historians
> (David McCullough) opens the door to more examination of sources and
> real arguments. Over time, this will undermine the Strat orthodoxy as
> the popular consciousness gets more and more used to the new truth about
> Shakespeare.
>
> The trend continues. I am merely pointing at the signs.
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark Alexander
john_baker
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
Webb,
I had the rare please to catch two of your ethereal typographical
mistakes (tanalizing and dataset) both of which I corrected (below)
with considerable glee!
You know if you don't know how to use a spell checker, having one
doesn't help.
This said I couldn't help but take a shot at this subject.
I'm not, as you know, an Oxfordian. Moreover I hold to my
Marlovianism only as one holds to any working hypothesis, tentatively.
I think skepticism here is well worth its price.
I have several times called our collective attention to Eric Hoffer
and his benchmark book _The True Believer_. Much better than
Kierkegaard on this particular topic.
Hoffer points out that most of us need a belief structure of some kind
in order to explain the world. Your "tantalizing web" of connections.
The less we actually know about it the more important these perceived
connections become.
Myself, I don't understand why we have elected George Bush, Jr. as
president..and yet here I am trying to explain events that took place
four centuries ago!
As Art knows its pretty hopeless.
But it is, in Jacques Barzum's language, the "great entertainment."
An entertainment that has enchanted even the likes of you. And it
sharpens our wits and keeps us out of the dives. Like Fermat.
And until Stratfordians realize this, they will forever be in a muddle
about what is happening in the real world.
In the real world, ordinary people, people who are from all walks of
life, have looked at the design or paradigm that Stratfordians offer
as an explanation of these distant events and voted, overwhelmingly,
NO!
(I don't mean within the general population, I'm speaking only of
anti-Stratfordians.) All anti-Stratfordians are in some sense
comrades and iconoclasts. They simply don't buy what the Strats are
selling. And in this there are as many reasons as there are
anti-Strats.
It is true in the Hofferian model the anti-camps quickly organize
themselves into true believers as well...but lets not go there.
Now take a deep breath and try to look at the problem objectively.
Lets simplify the model. Lets, for argument sake, say we have the
Stratfordian position, the Oxfordian, the Baconian and the Marlovian.
(Like a three body problem, the muddle gets increasingly complex the
larger it is.)
So looked at objectively, which paradigm makes the most sense viewed
against common sense?
Stratfordianism simply doesn't wash against common sense.
No one supposes that a rustic actor could have written these plays
and, as many anti-Strats have pointed out, if Willy's name wasn't on
those title pages there would be no corroborative or circumstantial
evidence to suggest his authorship.
For Marlowe there is much corroborating and circumstantial evidence.
Ditto for Bacon and Oxford.
Huge amounts of it for all three camps, to be truthful.
Just on the surface all three have a better "common sense" chance of
being correct than the Stratfordian position.
Learning about any of the camps (if one focuses on the issues raised
by the camps and not on the personalities of the members of the camps)
simply improves one's knowledge of these distant events.
Or so it has been in my experience.
Stratfordians are unable to explain what Shakespeare, if it was
Shakespeare in the Sonnets, meant when he wrote about "art made tongue
tied by authority."
Here the entire sonnet You be the judge.
. 66.
Tired with all these, for restful death I cry:
As to behold desert a beggar born,
And needy Nothing trimmed in jollity,
And purest faith unhappily forsworn,
And gilded honor shamefully misplaced,
And maiden virtue rudely strumpeted,
And right perfection wrongfully disgraced,
And strength by limping sway disabled,
And art made tongue-tied by authority,
And Folly (Doctor-like) controlling skill,
And simple Truth miscalled Simplicity,
And captive good attending Captain ill:
Tired with all these, from these would I be gone,
Save that to die, I leave my love alone.
With your knowledge of Russian literature, you must have some grasp of
what Russian authors experienced in living and working under
totalitarian systems.
Yet you can read a biography like Schoenbaum's or Honan's of
Shakespeare and _never_ once come to grips with the rack and the ax.
My god John Stubbs had his right hand chopped off with a "dull knife
driven home by a wooden mallet." His publisher or printer also lost
his right hand for the same "offense." Men were racked and tortured
over dinner conversations. Raleigh lived a virtual poisoner and
eventually lost his life over one. John Penry and John Greenwood both
university divines, one a personal friend of Marlowe's, or at least a
classmate, were hanged over their religious opinions and their desire
to simply preach the word of god to their own congregation.
I've looked evil straight in the eye, but I've never had to live under
those types of conditions. And don't think I could.
Marlowe and Marlowe's former roommate, both poets and university men,
had their rooms ransacked and their papers taken over a "libel" that
showed up on the Dutch Church...a libel that embodied, in iambic
pentameter, the sentiment of Gaunt's speech in _Richard II_. It was
signed "Tambrulaine."
No proof connected Kyd to the libel or Marlowe either, but both paid
enormously for their...what...opinions?
We don't even know what their opinions on this subject were.
Stratfordianism cannot and does not deal with this level of
Elizabethan and Jacobean life.
They think of this period as "early modern."
And they suppose the freedoms we have, freedoms we fought and died
for, were as commonplace then as they are now!!!
Its nuts, David, just plain nuts.
Now I have, in my long life, attended the Shakespeare Society of
America's conference or whatever its called, the Oxfordian conference
and the International Marlowe Society conferences.
I have given papers at Oxford, Cambridge and the University of
Sheffield on these topics, so I am well qualified to observe that it
was _only_ at the Oxfordian conference that I found a collection of
intellectual giants, men and women well versed in their subject and
willing to discuss and defend it.
I'm ashamed to say most of the Marlovian crowd is scared witless to
talk about Marlowe's possible survival.
You should take time to attend one of the conferences just to see this
phenomena in action. I guess they suppose its contagious.
But what they know, David, is that if the catch the germ they may well
loose their academic position.
And this is the sad underbelly of this problem.
I know you suppose that university departments are the citadels of
radical thought...but sadly this is hardly the case. They are
actually the repositories of fossilized intellectual suppositories.
Not long ago we had a critique of Kathman which pointed out that
scholars trained in "histrionics" are _unqualified_ to defend this
turf (i.e., Shakespearian studies) to debaters trained in the subject
itself.
Meaning debaters familiar with the primary sources. Meaning debaters
who have been staining their brains to put the works in their real
political, social and economic context.
I've taken university courses in Shakespeare, at both the graduate and
undergraduate levels. Frankly there wasn't much difference in the
subject matter. The difference was in the papers required. (as it
should be)
None of the classes I've sat in on stressed the milieu in which the
works were written or focused on the life of the writer. No one
dared....because it leads to chaos. This isn't the case with other
writers.
You'd get a tickle out this one David, I know an English department
where _Atlas Shrugged_ and _The Fountainhead_ are or were taught in
Russian Literature classes...in English of course. They just don't
seem to "fit" as American novels.
So the bottom line here is that it is the Strats who should be doing
some serious soul searching, for they are the hardline True Believers.
It is they who suppose they have all the answers and who hold their
hypothesis as fact and Truth, with a capital T.
I, for one, am just looking for an explanation here. And the
Stratfordian answer, which I am _very_ familiar with, just doesn't cut
it.
I've asked you before why you buy into their paradigm and you have
answered, candidly I thought.
However your answer and your continued defense of this shrine of
calcified orthodoxy sadly says more about you, I fear, than about
those you belittle.
John
>people is the perception of a web of tanalizing [sic ~ tantalizing?] "connections," each
>somewhat nebulous and vaguely perceived individually, which the viewer
>feels nonetheless constitutes an overwhelmingly persuasive whole
>greater than the sum of the parts. This, as I understand it, is the
>tenor of Mark Alexander's post on forests and trees. Of course, if
>each individual tree is a mirage, then so is the entire forest. This
>"web of connections" view of history is enormously seductive, and it
>probably accounts for the majority of untenable conspiracy theories,
>ranging from harmless fringe fulminations about Freemasons and the
>Trilateral Commission to genuinely dangerous suspicions that ultimately
>precipitate tragedy on a grand scale. What conspiracy theorists
>generally fail to realize is that the human mind is marvelously adept
>at pattern recognition -- it is *too* good, in fact, and hence often
>perceives nonexistent patterns in the random coincidences present in
>any dataset [~ data set?] of reasonable size and complexity.
>Thus checking the solid
>reality of the trees one perceives is vitally important.
>
> The feeling that one is among an elite few to whom an awesome truth
>has been vouchsafed is probably an invigorating, even intoxicating
>feeling, one that may well lend an apostolic fervor to the activities
>of some Oxfordians. This phenomenon must surely be a factor in the
>otherwise improbable allegiance of otherwise intelligent people to
>fringe religious cults. The same intoxicating illusion of clarity must
>surely play a role in driving some inveterate conspiracy theorists in
>other spheres.
>
> Still others simply are not very intelligent, some are utterly
>incoherent, and a few are probably actually delusional. Finally, I
>suspect that one or two are simply having us on in the venerable Usenet
>trolling tradition.
>
> Oxfordians' motivations are probably still more diverse than even
>these suggestions hint. Abnormal psychology covers a spectrum probably
>at least as broad as normal psychology.
>
> David Webb
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
"Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur
baker
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>> I really don't believe they do. Since their knowledge of scholastic methods
>> seems limited to the proper way of constructing a bibliography,
>
> It's funny that you should mention this -- Baker seemed to think
>that Honan's scholarship was "exemplary" simply because Honan knew how
>to handle footnotes, references, quotations, etc.
>
check my answer out in my other post, but this needs a bit
more focus.
Given this subject area, scholarship means getting these footnotes and
quotes correctly...nothing new is coming in and no new ideas are
tossed out..or in...so its merely a "formal" matter.
Clearly if Honan was to use the same methods of "scholarship" to
defend the view of Bacon or Oxford or Marlowe..he'd be out on his
butt...so I well understand that it is not merely the style of his
footnotes.
But let make the focus larger and take in those top journals you've
mentioned.
Price and Downs...neither one of whom has credentials in this area,
unless I am mistaken...have both published in top journals.
The reason is that they have gone to a "blind" review system, that
keeps this information from the readers....or reviewers.
You spoke about the professor who passed the PhD student and then
savaged his paper when it came up for publication...how did he know it
was the student's and if he knew it, why didn't he disqualify himself?
In any case by getting all of their footnotes, quotes and spellings
correct, they have been able to publish.
Fancy that....so again these are the first and largest of the hurdles
here. Its not a subject like math, where you can sit back and
say...but your answer is wrong.
There isn't or shouldn't be a wrong answer here.
That's why Roger's dissertation passed, within the framework of its
subject it was fine.
You clucks suppose that if a scholar or a layman challenges the
framework he's wrong..but he's not...he's just looking at this subject
from a different angle (if we can use a mathematical term).
What part of this don't you understand?
Stephanie Caruana
"Alisa Beaton" <alisa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:49c43974.01081...@posting.google.com...
> "Mark Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > >
> >
> >
> > The greatest threat to Stratfordian orthodoxy is the spread of Oxfordian
> > credibility in academe and among popular journalists, jurists, and
> > historians.
> >
> > Why? Because Stratfordian orthodoxy maintains its edifice primarily
> > through its authoritarian stance and ridicule. Not through real
> > scholarship.
> >
> > Oxfordian credibility in academe (Roger Stritmatter et al)
>
> ********************************************************************
> Roger Stritmatter is not a member of academe. See previous posts
> to read about attempts to peruse his doctoral dissertation, the one
> he has evidently been laboring over for ten years or more. We assume
> that he actually submitted it. Perhaps he did. And who are the
> "et al"s? Names, please.
Roger may be a dud when it comes to behaving properly in submitting his
dissertation for scholars to read. And he and I have certainly had a
running feud for about seven of the nine years he has been working on the
dissertation. So I am not "coming to his defense." We are personally not
friends. And I hope that he will eventually correct (or explain) the
situation regarding availability of his dissertation. However, I remind you
that the history of Shakespearean scholarship has not been without battles
and scandals. It really is nothing new, and started a long way back.
But he has one thing that Strats don't have: A dissertation on a Bible,
bound with Oxford's coat of arms, with annotations which can be related to
the Shakespeare plays. And we also have in the records kept by Lord
Burghley, Oxford's future father-in-law, widely believed to be the model for
"Polonius" in Hamlet, a record of the purchase of one Geneva Bible by the
youthful Earl of Oxford. And this is very likely it.
And whether you like it or not, this Bible is about 1 million times the
evidence for the connection of Oxford to "Shakespeare" than the evidence for
the connection of Stratford Will to "Shakespeare". There is more, of
course; I know of at least 2 other equally "smoking guns" that connect
Oxford to "Shakespeare, one at the Folger (If Laetitia Yaendle is still
there she will know what I am talking about), and one at the British Museum.
And they will eventually emerge. And I am sure that there are enough
additional "smoking guns" lurking in those two places alone to blow away
whoever is left standing.
> *********************************************************************
>
> and among
> > journalists (Lewis Lapham), jurists (Justice Stevens),
>
> *********************************************************************
> Several years ago some very well-connected members of the Shakespeare
> Oxford Society put together a "mock court" held in the National
> Cathedral, in which some Supreme Court justices listened to arguments,
> presented by attorneys, for and against Shakespeare's authorship and
> for and against Oxford's. The jutices came to no decision as
> to whether either of the two was the true author of the canon.
> (The possibility of other writers/group authorship was not brought
> into the debate).
Justice Stevens said that he now believes there
> might well be some doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the canon,
> but he did not say that he now believes that Edward de Vere, 17th
> earl of Oxford, was Shakespeare.
He did give a speech some years later, regarding the desired sequence of
application of elements of the legal canon (I don't have the article in
front of me so am messing up the description), using the Shakespeare
Authorship question as the illustration of the process. The speech was
reprinted as an article, and I believe he made it fairly clear that he was
leaning more than half way toward Oxford as Shakespeare.
> I remember it well. I was there
> (along with the National Cathedral Choir, a huge mainstream press
> contingent, and a PBS Frontline crew).
So was I. (With the first copies of the first issue of Spear Shaker
Review.)
>The SOS has at its command
> substantial influence and funds.
Huh? One carload of us drove drove down from NYC. The SOS had no money and
did not spend a dime on any promotion; they didn't even HAVE a brochure,
much less have any at the debate at the Cathedral.
>If they were without these resources,
> I very much doubt that this debate would be raging.
Huh? See above.
>
> *********************************************************************
Stephanie
Alisa Beaton
> > Alisa Beaton had written:
> Several years ago some very well-connected members of the Shakespeare
> > Oxford Society put together a "mock court" held in the National
> > Cathedral, in which some Supreme Court justices listened to arguments,
> > presented by attorneys, for and against Shakespeare's authorship and
> > for and against Oxford's. The jutices came to no decision as
> > to whether either of the two was the true author of the canon.
> > (The possibility of other writers/group authorship was not brought
> > into the debate). Justice Stevens said that he now believes there
> > might well be some doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the canon,
> > but he did not say that he now believes that Edward de Vere, 17th
> > earl of Oxford, was Shakespeare.
>
Stephanie Caruana wrote:
> He did give a speech some years later, regarding the desired sequence of
> application of elements of the legal canon (I don't have the article in
> front of me so am messing up the description), using the Shakespeare
> Authorship question as the illustration of the process. The speech was
> reprinted as an article, and I believe he made it fairly clear that he was
> leaning more than half way toward Oxford as Shakespeare.
>
************************************************************************
It might be, as you surmise (you "believe" that "he made it fairly
clear"), that Justice Stevens is now "leaning more than half way"
toward Oxfordianism, but he has not, as I have argued, declared
himself an Oxfordian.
A.B.
************************************************************************
Alisa Beaton had written:
> >...I remember it well. I was there (along with the National Cathedral Choir, a huge mainstream press contingent, and a PBS Frontline crew).
>
Stephanie Caruana wrote:
> So was I. (With the first copies of the first issue of Spear Shaker
> Review.)
>
Alisa Beaton had written:
"...The SOS has at its command substantial influence and funds.
>
Stephanie Caruana wrote:
> Huh? One carload of us drove drove down from NYC. The SOS had no money and
> did not spend a dime on any promotion; they didn't even HAVE a brochure,
> much less have any at the debate at the Cathedral.
>
************************************************************************
I mentioned no brochure.
A.B.
************************************************************************
Alisa Beaton had written:
> >If they were without these resources, I very much doubt that this debate would be raging.
>
Stephanie Caruana wrote:
> Huh? See above.
> >
> ************************************************************************
I have done so, and I say again: The SOS has, and had at the time of
the mock court event which was arranged for and produced by
well-connected SOS members, substantial influence and funds at its
disposal. Without influence the event could not have taken place
(Supreme Court justices, a PBS Frontline production arranged for,
the cathedral and its choir, an enormous amount of publicity and
hoopla). The SOS has at its disposal, and had at the time,
discretionary funds supplied through generous underwriting by some
of its members.
A.B.
************************************************************************
Stephanie Caruana
> Stephanie Caruana wrote:
> > [Supreme Court Justice Stevens] did give a speech some years later,
regarding the desired sequence of
> > application of elements of the legal canon (I don't have the article in
> > front of me so am messing up the description), using the Shakespeare
> > Authorship question as the illustration of the process. The speech was
> > reprinted as an article, and I believe he made it fairly clear that he
was
> > leaning more than half way toward Oxford as Shakespeare.
> >
> ************************************************************************
> It might be, as you surmise (you "believe" that "he made it fairly
> clear"), that Justice Stevens is now "leaning more than half way"
> toward Oxfordianism, but he has not, as I have argued, declared
> himself an Oxfordian.
> A.B.
> ************************************************************************
>
That was the impression that I received from reading his article in, I
believe, the Law Review. Perhaps you would get another impression. I
wasn't aware that this was an "argument."
> Alisa Beaton had written:
> > >...I remember it well. I was there (along with the National Cathedral
Choir, a huge mainstream press contingent, and a PBS Frontline crew).
> >
> Stephanie Caruana wrote:
> > So was I. (With the first copies of the first issue of Spear Shaker
> > Review.)
> >
> Alisa Beaton had written:
> "...The SOS has at its command substantial influence and funds.
> >
> Stephanie Caruana wrote:
> > Huh? One carload of us drove drove down from NYC. The SOS had no money
and
> > did not spend a dime on any promotion; they didn't even HAVE a brochure,
> > much less have any at the debate at the Cathedral.
> >
> ************************************************************************
> I mentioned no brochure.
> A.B.
> ************************************************************************
>
Picky, picky.
> Alisa Beaton had written:
> > >If they were without these resources, I very much doubt that this
debate would be raging.
> >
>
> Stephanie Caruana wrote:
> > Huh? See above.
> > >
> > ************************************************************************
> I have done so, and I say again: The SOS has, and had at the time of
> the mock court event which was arranged for and produced by
> well-connected SOS members, substantial influence and funds at its
> disposal.
The debate was conceived of and arranged by Paul Nitze, indeed a prominent
and well-connected Washingtonian, and a member of the S.O.S. At the time,
the membership of S.O.S. was "83, and some of them are dead," according to
Betty Sears, who had a membership listing. (So did I for that matter.) I
really don't want to get into the parlous state of the S.O.S. at that time.
So what is your problem? Does it bother you that some well-connected
people, some with plenty of money, believed (and still believe) that Oxford
wrote the Shakespeare plays? Do you think it is only appropriate that
S.O.S. members live exclusively in loony bins and dust bins? Such is not
the case.
Without influence the event could not have taken place
> (Supreme Court justices, a PBS Frontline production arranged for,
> the cathedral and its choir, an enormous amount of publicity and
> hoopla). The SOS has at its disposal, and had at the time,
> discretionary funds supplied through generous underwriting by some
> of its members.
> A.B.
> **
**********************************************************************
What bothers you about that? Putting stars at the top and bottom doesn't
render the repetition any more impressive.
Stephanie
David L. Webb
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 12:00:35 -0400, "David L. Webb"
> <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I really don't believe they do. Since their knowledge of scholastic methods
> >> seems limited to the proper way of constructing a bibliography,
> > It's funny that you should mention this -- Baker seemed to think
> >that Honan's scholarship was "exemplary" simply because Honan knew how
> >to handle footnotes, references, quotations, etc.
> check my answer out in my other post, but this needs a bit
> more focus.
>
> Given this subject area, scholarship means getting these footnotes and
> quotes correctly...nothing new is coming in and no new ideas are
> tossed out..or in...so its merely a "formal" matter.
No, Baker; exciting, even audacious new ideas are constantly being
proposed, and new data is being unearthed -- it's a pity that you're
evidently unaware of this. All the punctiliousness in the world
concerning footnotes and quotations will not get one's work published
if it lacks originality or content.
> Clearly if Honan was to use the same methods of "scholarship" to
> defend the view of Bacon or Oxford or Marlowe..he'd be out on his
> butt...
Since he could not even *begin* to use accepted scholarly norms and
methods to promote the authorship of Bacon or Oxford for want of
evidence, the inference is vacuous.
> so I well understand that it is not merely the style of his
> footnotes.
But you yourself characterized his scholarship as "exemplary"
precisely because of his footnotes, quotations, etc. Do you want me to
repost your sentence to that effect?
> But let make the focus larger and take in those top journals you've
> mentioned.
>
> Price and Downs...neither one of whom has credentials in this area,
> unless I am mistaken...have both published in top journals.
>
> The reason is that they have gone to a "blind" review system, that
> keeps this information from the readers....or reviewers.
*What* information? The content of the article, or the identity of
the author(s)? How would a "blind" review system help, except to
eliminate a few instances of personal animus? Above you seemed to be
claiming that Honan would be "out on his butt," as you colorfully
expressed it, if he promoted the authorship of Bacon or Oxford. How
precisely would a blind review system help? Regardless of whether or
not the author's identity were known, the article would *still* promote
the authorship of Oxford or Bacon, as would be perfectly plain to the
reviewer. How would a blind reviewing system help in getting Honan's
hypothetical Baconian article published? You're not making any sense,
Baker -- as usual.
> You spoke about the professor who passed the PhD student and then
> savaged his paper when it came up for publication...how did he know it
> was the student's and if he knew it, why didn't he disqualify himself?
I wasn't speaking about one particular professor, but of several
such cases; I know of people who will go to great lengths to help a
student finish a Ph.D., but will then pan a student's first grant
application or recommend against publication of the student's thesis in
a top journal. First, grant proposals are certainly *not* reviewed
blindly, since one of the judgments the reviewer must make is whether
the proposer has a track record of solid work indicative of probable
success in the proposed work; this judgment he or she could not
reasonably make if the identity of the proposer were unknown! Second,
it's not automatic that a grant proposal would be sent to someone other
than the student's adviser or committee members to review, although the
identity of the thesis adviser is normally provided by the proposer;
the officer administering the grant can and sometimes does send the
proposal to the thesis adviser, and then can use the information
furnished in the review as he/she sees fit. In one of the cases I know
of, a grant proposal was sent to the proposer's thesis adviser,
presumably because the officer had a high regard for both the
professional opinion and the integrity of the thesis adviser, and knew
that the thesis adviser would be candid in his assessment of the work
and would *not* engage in self-promotion by exaggerating the quality of
his student's work. That's not by any means to say that such reviewers
are not generous in helping advance their students' careers even after
the Ph.D., but only to the point permitted by fairness and professional
honesty. Had the student shown his adviser a copy of his grant
proposal before submitting it, the adviser might have suggested many
concrete ways of strengthening the proposal. By the same token, if a
student seeks his or her thesis adviser's advice about where to submit
a manuscript for publication, the adviser might make helpful and
tactful suggestions commensurate with the quality of the work,
suggestions which might save the student a succession of rejections
from journals by which the article's chance of acceptance was remote.
> In any case by getting all of their footnotes, quotes and spellings
> correct, they have been able to publish.
No, Baker; I realize that for you, footnotes, spellings, etc. seem
insuperable obstacles, but for about the tenth time: all the footnotes,
quotations, and spellings can be punctiliously correct and the
manuscript will *still* be rejected by the top journals if the content
is not sufficiently original and interesting; it will be rejected even
faster if the argument is weak.
> Fancy that....so again these are the first and largest of the hurdles
> here. Its not a subject like math, where you can sit back and
> say...but your answer is wrong.
Referees for mathematics journals do *not* confine their activities
to finding mistakes, as I've told you before, Baker. It's often the
case that a top journal will reject a manuscript that the referee has
certified as correct and interesting, purely because it isn't
*sufficiently* interesting and ground-breaking for the journal's
exacting standards. Many mathematicians have articles rejected by the
top journals that are later published by other journals with excellent
reputations, but not quite the prestige of the very top journals.
> There isn't or shouldn't be a wrong answer here.
There is nevertheless a scholarly consensus on some matters.
> That's why Roger's dissertation passed, within the framework of its
> subject it was fine.
>
> You clucks suppose that if a scholar or a layman challenges the
> framework he's wrong..but he's not...he's just looking at this subject
> from a different angle (if we can use a mathematical term).
No, if a scholar or a lay person challenges the "framework" using
convincing evidence that meets normal scholarly standards, he or she
may well succeed in changing most people's minds. If a scholar (or
more usually, a lay person) challenges the "framework" by the farcical
expedient of wanton disregard for disciplinary evidentiary standards
and methods, then he or she will probably not get very far, which is as
it should be.
> What part of this don't you understand?
I understand fine. You, on the other hand, display abysmal
misunderstandings and farcical misconceptions concerning academic
procedures nearly every time you open your mouth.
David Webb
baker
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> Since he could not even *begin* to use accepted scholarly norms and
>methods to promote the authorship of Bacon or Oxford for want of
>evidence, the inference is vacuous.
Wrong again Webb. There is much more circumstantial and corroborating
evidence for these contenders than for Willy...any scholar should be
able to say this and to review it without censure...but you opinion is
so widely reflected in the community that no such reviews are
allowed...its stupid...but true.
It's a truism that the more vulnerable a paradigm is the less likely
it is to encourage debate.
I don't understand why you don't understand that there is, on a scale
of one to ten, overwhelming circumstantial and corroborating evidence
for Marlowe, Bacon and Oxford, but not for Shakespeare.
But then you're the fellow who thinks math is a science. Or thought
it.
>
>> so I well understand that it is not merely the style of his
>> footnotes.
>
> But you yourself characterized his scholarship as "exemplary"
>precisely because of his footnotes, quotations, etc. Do you want me to
>repost your sentence to that effect?
Sure, I always enjoy seeing my stuff reposted....but unlike you I
don't think inside the box, thought should be open ended. And I just
amplified that original phrase. Thinking might in time lead me to
even contradict it...so what...
>
>> But let make the focus larger and take in those top journals you've
>> mentioned.
>>
>> Price and Downs...neither one of whom has credentials in this area,
>> unless I am mistaken...have both published in top journals.
>>
>> The reason is that they have gone to a "blind" review system, that
>> keeps this information from the readers....or reviewers.
>
> *What* information? The content of the article, or the identity of
>the author(s)? How would a "blind" review system help, except to
>eliminate a few instances of personal animus? Above you seemed to be
>claiming that Honan would be "out on his butt," as you colorfully
>expressed it, if he promoted the authorship of Bacon or Oxford. How
>precisely would a blind review system help?
Come on Webb aren't we speaking of little essays in "top journals?"
The MLA has switched to sending the essays to readers without the name
of the writer on them...as I understand the system...what's your take
on it?
Obviously this has nothing to do with Kathman or Honan coming out of
the close and saying in a full sized book that Bacon, Marlowe or
Oxford were much more likely to have written Shakespeare than that
jerk from Stratford...or if it does I didn't intend for it to.
>Regardless of whether or
>not the author's identity were known, the article would *still* promote
>the authorship of Oxford or Bacon, as would be perfectly plain to the
>reviewer. How would a blind reviewing system help in getting Honan's
>hypothetical Baconian article published? You're not making any sense,
>Baker -- as usual.
See above. But you do have a point.
Inside a system that will not allow discussion of these
issues, any discussion of them would not be allowed...that's a
tautology and the problem faced by real scholars, like Wright, who
have to buck this system.
>
>> You spoke about the professor who passed the PhD student and then
>> savaged his paper when it came up for publication...how did he know it
>> was the student's and if he knew it, why didn't he disqualify himself?
>
> I wasn't speaking about one particular professor, but of several
>such cases; I know of people who will go to great lengths to help a
>student finish a Ph.D., but will then pan a student's first grant
>application or recommend against publication of the student's thesis in
>a top journal. First, grant proposals are certainly *not* reviewed
>blindly, since one of the judgments the reviewer must make is whether
>the proposer has a track record of solid work indicative of probable
>success in the proposed work; this judgment he or she could not
>reasonably make if the identity of the proposer were unknown!
You must be speaking of other top journals. See above.
> Second,
>it's not automatic that a grant proposal would be sent to someone other
>than the student's adviser or committee members to review, although the
>identity of the thesis adviser is normally provided by the proposer;
>the officer administering the grant can and sometimes does send the
>proposal to the thesis adviser, and then can use the information
>furnished in the review as he/she sees fit. In one of the cases I know
>of, a grant proposal was sent to the proposer's thesis adviser,
>presumably because the officer had a high regard for both the
>professional opinion and the integrity of the thesis adviser, and knew
>that the thesis adviser would be candid in his assessment of the work
>and would *not* engage in self-promotion by exaggerating the quality of
>his student's work. That's not by any means to say that such reviewers
>are not generous in helping advance their students' careers even after
>the Ph.D., but only to the point permitted by fairness and professional
>honesty. Had the student shown his adviser a copy of his grant
>proposal before submitting it, the adviser might have suggested many
>concrete ways of strengthening the proposal. By the same token, if a
>student seeks his or her thesis adviser's advice about where to submit
>a manuscript for publication, the adviser might make helpful and
>tactful suggestions commensurate with the quality of the work,
>suggestions which might save the student a succession of rejections
>from journals by which the article's chance of acceptance was remote.
In my case, both John Shawcross and Bill Streitberger, high men on the
pole, wanted my essay on the Dering ms. to go to a top journal, and
both suggested several, but I enjoyed having it appear in the
Elizabethan Review...the information was the same and I could slip in
a few words that the "top journals" would have clipped out.
I think it more important that the information be put out there and
judged over time...rather than by the weeds of today's crop....time
has a way of picking out the best...and to accomplish this one need
merely to publish...look at Mendel...you should take a moment are read
Schopenhauer's essay on this subject...that's Arthur not Willy...
>
>> In any case by getting all of their footnotes, quotes and spellings
>> correct, they have been able to publish.
>
> No, Baker; I realize that for you, footnotes, spellings, etc. seem
>insuperable obstacles, but for about the tenth time: all the footnotes,
>quotations, and spellings can be punctiliously
your over working "punctiliously" try "scrupulously"...
>correct and the
>manuscript will *still* be rejected by the top journals if the content
>is not sufficiently original and interesting; it will be rejected even
>faster if the argument is weak.
There is nothing weak about the lack of evidence for Shakespeare..
>
>> Fancy that....so again these are the first and largest of the hurdles
>> here. Its not a subject like math, where you can sit back and
>> say...but your answer is wrong.
>
> Referees for mathematics journals do *not* confine their activities
>to finding mistakes, as I've told you before, Baker. It's often the
>case that a top journal will reject a manuscript that the referee has
>certified as correct and interesting, purely because it isn't
>*sufficiently* interesting and ground-breaking for the journal's
>exacting standards. Many mathematicians have articles rejected by the
>top journals that are later published by other journals with excellent
>reputations, but not quite the prestige of the very top journals.
Sure, so what.
>
>> There isn't or shouldn't be a wrong answer here.
>
> There is nevertheless a scholarly consensus on some matters.
And that consensus has proven wrong, over and over in the history of
ideas....
>
>> That's why Roger's dissertation passed, within the framework of its
>> subject it was fine.
>>
>> You clucks suppose that if a scholar or a layman challenges the
>> framework he's wrong..but he's not...he's just looking at this subject
>> from a different angle (if we can use a mathematical term).
>
> No, if a scholar or a lay person challenges the "framework" using
>convincing evidence that meets normal scholarly standards, he or she
>may well succeed in changing most people's minds. If a scholar (or
>more usually, a lay person) challenges the "framework" by the farcical
>expedient of wanton disregard for disciplinary evidentiary standards
>and methods, then he or she will probably not get very far, which is as
>it should be.
Again you speak without experience in these matters.
I'm telling you the stronger your arguments are and the better your
evidence is for one of the alternative contenders, the
LESS likely you are to get published....the last thing the "top
journals" want is proof that they have been wrong.
Don't you understand this?
>
>> What part of this don't you understand?
looks like I'm repeating myself...
>
> I understand fine. You, on the other hand, display abysmal
>misunderstandings and farcical misconceptions concerning academic
>procedures nearly every time you open your mouth.
Sure Webb, anything you say. And what are the Fermat steps called?
>
> David Webb
David L. Webb
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:47:36 -0400, "David L. Webb"
> <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > Since he could not even *begin* to use accepted scholarly norms and
> >methods to promote the authorship of Bacon or Oxford for want of
> >evidence, the inference is vacuous.
> Wrong again Webb. There is much more circumstantial and corroborating
> evidence for these contenders than for Willy...
To my knowledge, there is no record of *any* of Shakespeare's works
having been attributed to any of the other contenders I mentioned until
at least a century and a half after his death. There is no evidence
for other "contenders" that it even remotely comparable to the
appearance of Shakespeare's name on numerous Quarto title pages, the
Stationers' Register entries, the Folio tributes, the encomiums of
Jonson and other contemporaries, etc.
> any scholar should be
> able to say this and to review it without censure...but you opinion is
> so widely reflected in the community that no such reviews are
> allowed...its stupid...but true.
>
> It's a truism that the more vulnerable a paradigm is the less likely
> it is to encourage debate.
What?! Martin Bernal's claims seem, according to classicists, to be
highly vulnerable, yet that circumstance does not seem to have hindered
debate on the subject. There are loads of such examples.
> I don't understand why you don't understand that there is, on a scale
> of one to ten,
"On a scale of one to ten"?
> overwhelming circumstantial and corroborating evidence
> for Marlowe, Bacon and Oxford, but not for Shakespeare.
>
> But then you're the fellow who thinks math is a science. Or thought
> it.
> >> so I well understand that it is not merely the style of his
> >> footnotes.
> > But you yourself characterized his scholarship as "exemplary"
> >precisely because of his footnotes, quotations, etc. Do you want me to
> >repost your sentence to that effect?
> Sure, I always enjoy seeing my stuff reposted....but unlike you I
> don't think inside the box,
Or anywhere else, for that matter?
> thought should be open ended. And I just
> amplified that original phrase. Thinking might in time lead me to
> even contradict it...so what...
Oh, I'm aware that you contradict yourself all the time.
> >> But let make the focus larger and take in those top journals you've
> >> mentioned.
> >>
> >> Price and Downs...neither one of whom has credentials in this area,
> >> unless I am mistaken...have both published in top journals.
> >>
> >> The reason is that they have gone to a "blind" review system, that
> >> keeps this information from the readers....or reviewers.
> > *What* information? The content of the article, or the identity of
> >the author(s)? How would a "blind" review system help, except to
> >eliminate a few instances of personal animus? Above you seemed to be
> >claiming that Honan would be "out on his butt," as you colorfully
> >expressed it, if he promoted the authorship of Bacon or Oxford. How
> >precisely would a blind review system help?
> Come on Webb aren't we speaking of little essays in "top journals?"
>
> The MLA has switched to sending the essays to readers without the name
> of the writer on them...as I understand the system...what's your take
> on it?
I don't know anything about the system first-hand, so any comments
of mine are provisional. I see no problem with a "blind review"
system, provided it's competently administered.
[...]
> >Regardless of whether or
> >not the author's identity were known, the article would *still* promote
> >the authorship of Oxford or Bacon, as would be perfectly plain to the
> >reviewer. How would a blind reviewing system help in getting Honan's
> >hypothetical Baconian article published? You're not making any sense,
> >Baker -- as usual.
> See above. But you do have a point.
>
> Inside a system that will not allow discussion of these
> issues, any discussion of them would not be allowed...that's a
> tautology and the problem faced by real scholars, like Wright, who
> have to buck this system.
I've seen no indication whatever that "discussion of them would not
be allowed"; I have, however, seen very ample indications that much
anti-Stratfordian work has very serious methodological deficiencies.
Perhaps that's the circumstance that you're confusing with some
imaginary prohibition.
> >> You spoke about the professor who passed the PhD student and then
> >> savaged his paper when it came up for publication...how did he know it
> >> was the student's and if he knew it, why didn't he disqualify himself?
> > I wasn't speaking about one particular professor, but of several
> >such cases; I know of people who will go to great lengths to help a
> >student finish a Ph.D., but will then pan a student's first grant
> >application or recommend against publication of the student's thesis in
> >a top journal. First, grant proposals are certainly *not* reviewed
> >blindly, since one of the judgments the reviewer must make is whether
> >the proposer has a track record of solid work indicative of probable
> >success in the proposed work; this judgment he or she could not
> >reasonably make if the identity of the proposer were unknown!
> You must be speaking of other top journals. See above.
No, Baker; can you read? (Again, that's a purely rhetorical
question, long ago settled conclusively in the negative.) I
specifically said:
"First, ###***GRANT PROPOSALS***### [emphasis added] are certainly
*not* reviewed blindly, since one of the judgments the reviewer
must make is whether the proposer has a track record of solid work
indicative of probable success in the proposed work; this judgment
he or she could not reasonably make if the identity of the proposer
were unknown!"
Do you know the difference between a *grant proposal* and a *paper in a
journal*, Baker? Sadly, you probably don't.
> judged over time... rather than by the weeds of today's crop....time
> has a way of picking out the best...and to accomplish this one need
> merely to publish...
Anti-Stratfordianism has been around for over a century and a half.
[...]
> >> In any case by getting all of their footnotes, quotes and spellings
> >> correct, they have been able to publish.
> > No, Baker; I realize that for you, footnotes, spellings, etc. seem
> >insuperable obstacles, but for about the tenth time: all the footnotes,
> >quotations, and spellings can be punctiliously
[...]
> >correct and the
> >manuscript will *still* be rejected by the top journals if the content
> >is not sufficiently original and interesting; it will be rejected even
> >faster if the argument is weak.
[...]
> >> Fancy that....so again these are the first and largest of the hurdles
> >> here. Its not a subject like math, where you can sit back and
> >> say...but your answer is wrong.
> > Referees for mathematics journals do *not* confine their activities
> >to finding mistakes, as I've told you before, Baker. It's often the
> >case that a top journal will reject a manuscript that the referee has
> >certified as correct and interesting, purely because it isn't
> >*sufficiently* interesting and ground-breaking for the journal's
> >exacting standards. Many mathematicians have articles rejected by the
> >top journals that are later published by other journals with excellent
> >reputations, but not quite the prestige of the very top journals.
> Sure, so what.
What? You're the one who mentioned mathematics.
> >> There isn't or shouldn't be a wrong answer here.
> > There is nevertheless a scholarly consensus on some matters.
> And that consensus has proven wrong, over and over in the history of
> ideas....
When that has occurred, it has been by means of persuasive arguments
meeting rigorous scholarly standards and based upon solid evidence.
> >> That's why Roger's dissertation passed, within the framework of its
> >> subject it was fine.
> >>
> >> You clucks suppose that if a scholar or a layman challenges the
> >> framework he's wrong..but he's not...he's just looking at this subject
> >> from a different angle (if we can use a mathematical term).
> > No, if a scholar or a lay person challenges the "framework" using
> >convincing evidence that meets normal scholarly standards, he or she
> >may well succeed in changing most people's minds. If a scholar (or
> >more usually, a lay person) challenges the "framework" by the farcical
> >expedient of wanton disregard for disciplinary evidentiary standards
> >and methods, then he or she will probably not get very far, which is as
> >it should be.
> Again you speak without experience in these matters.
What matters?
> I'm telling you the stronger your arguments are and the better your
> evidence is for one of the alternative contenders, the
> LESS likely you are to get published....the last thing the "top
> journals" want is proof that they have been wrong.
Journals frequently publish articles strenuously disputing the
conclusions of other articles that have appeared in the same journal.
That's part of normal academic discourse in many fields. Individual
authors may dislike being proven wrong, but journals are less
ideologically based and publish a wide range of *tenable* points of
view.
[...]
> > I understand fine. You, on the other hand, display abysmal
> >misunderstandings and farcical misconceptions concerning academic
> >procedures nearly every time you open your mouth.
> Sure Webb, anything you say. And what are the Fermat steps called?
As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about, because you
haven't, to my knowledge, defined precisely what you mean by the term.
David Webb
john_baker
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <3b7aa2f8...@News.localaccess.com>, baker wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:47:36 -0400, "David L. Webb"
>> <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Since he could not even *begin* to use accepted scholarly norms and
>> >methods to promote the authorship of Bacon or Oxford for want of
>> >evidence, the inference is vacuous.
>
>> Wrong again Webb. There is much more circumstantial and corroborating
>> evidence for these contenders than for Willy...
>
> To my knowledge, there is no record of *any* of Shakespeare's works
>having been attributed to any of the other contenders I mentioned until
>at least a century and a half after his death. There is no evidence
>for other "contenders" that it even remotely comparable to the
>appearance of Shakespeare's name on numerous Quarto title pages, the
>Stationers' Register entries, the Folio tributes, the encomiums of
>Jonson and other contemporaries, etc.
David, you can't be this dense. His name appeared on works that
aren't in the FF...so the appearance of his name on a title page
stands as a wash. What is the circumstantial or corroborative
evidence for him?
>
>> any scholar should be
>> able to say this and to review it without censure...but you opinion is
>> so widely reflected in the community that no such reviews are
>> allowed...its stupid...but true.
>>
>> It's a truism that the more vulnerable a paradigm is the less likely
>> it is to encourage debate.
>
> What?! Martin Bernal's claims seem, according to classicists, to be
>highly vulnerable, yet that circumstance does not seem to have hindered
>debate on the subject. There are loads of such examples.
Daivd, now you want you cake and eat it too. You've said that the
debate is closed to those who suggest a viewpoint other than
Willy's...it is closed. I'm saying it should be...don't you agree?
>
>> I don't understand why you don't understand that there is, on a scale
>> of one to ten,
>
> "On a scale of one to ten"?
Is that unclear? 1 is at the bottom, ten is at the top...
>
>> overwhelming circumstantial and corroborating evidence
>> for Marlowe, Bacon and Oxford, but not for Shakespeare.
>>
>> But then you're the fellow who thinks math is a science. Or thought
>> it.
>
>> >> so I well understand that it is not merely the style of his
>> >> footnotes.
>
>> > But you yourself characterized his scholarship as "exemplary"
>> >precisely because of his footnotes, quotations, etc. Do you want me to
>> >repost your sentence to that effect?
>
>> Sure, I always enjoy seeing my stuff reposted....but unlike you I
>> don't think inside the box,
>
> Or anywhere else, for that matter?
Sometimes....
>
>> thought should be open ended. And I just
>> amplified that original phrase. Thinking might in time lead me to
>> even contradict it...so what...
>
> Oh, I'm aware that you contradict yourself all the time.
good and so what...so long as I'm learning as I go along...
>
>> >> But let make the focus larger and take in those top journals you've
>> >> mentioned.
>> >>
>> >> Price and Downs...neither one of whom has credentials in this area,
>> >> unless I am mistaken...have both published in top journals.
>> >>
>> >> The reason is that they have gone to a "blind" review system, that
>> >> keeps this information from the readers....or reviewers.
>
>> > *What* information? The content of the article, or the identity of
>> >the author(s)? How would a "blind" review system help, except to
>> >eliminate a few instances of personal animus? Above you seemed to be
>> >claiming that Honan would be "out on his butt," as you colorfully
>> >expressed it, if he promoted the authorship of Bacon or Oxford. How
>> >precisely would a blind review system help?
>
>> Come on Webb aren't we speaking of little essays in "top journals?"
>>
>> The MLA has switched to sending the essays to readers without the name
>> of the writer on them...as I understand the system...what's your take
>> on it?
>
> I don't know anything about the system first-hand, so any comments
>of mine are provisional. I see no problem with a "blind review"
>system, provided it's competently administered.
good, we agree...
>
>[...]
>> >Regardless of whether or
>> >not the author's identity were known, the article would *still* promote
>> >the authorship of Oxford or Bacon, as would be perfectly plain to the
>> >reviewer. How would a blind reviewing system help in getting Honan's
>> >hypothetical Baconian article published? You're not making any sense,
>> >Baker -- as usual.
>
>> See above. But you do have a point.
>>
>> Inside a system that will not allow discussion of these
>> issues, any discussion of them would not be allowed...that's a
>> tautology and the problem faced by real scholars, like Wright, who
>> have to buck this system.
>
> I've seen no indication whatever that "discussion of them would not
>be allowed"; I have, however, seen very ample indications that much
>anti-Stratfordian work has very serious methodological deficiencies.
>Perhaps that's the circumstance that you're confusing with some
>imaginary prohibition.
I don't think so, David, I wish it was. I suggest you take a longer
look at some of the better papers in all three of the camps...
Or better yet, task this great intellect of yours to writing just a
short essay that would aboid all the problems you have noted and
still address the issue of whether or not Willy wrote the plays...
Just a page or two...like a style manual we errant scholars could
follow....
I remember in a Sk class the Prof was red eyed from reading the mid
terms...which were poor...and I told him...Hardin (Goodman) if you'd
tell the students what you want them to write they'll write it...
And together we did and the students did write it and Hardin's red
eye's got better...
I'm not saying word for word...just want is expected and how it should
look...he took fifteem extra minutes of class time and save ten hours
of paper work...
>
>> >> You spoke about the professor who passed the PhD student and then
>> >> savaged his paper when it came up for publication...how did he know it
>> >> was the student's and if he knew it, why didn't he disqualify himself?
>
>> > I wasn't speaking about one particular professor, but of several
>> >such cases; I know of people who will go to great lengths to help a
>> >student finish a Ph.D., but will then pan a student's first grant
>> >application or recommend against publication of the student's thesis in
>> >a top journal. First, grant proposals are certainly *not* reviewed
>> >blindly, since one of the judgments the reviewer must make is whether
>> >the proposer has a track record of solid work indicative of probable
>> >success in the proposed work; this judgment he or she could not
>> >reasonably make if the identity of the proposer were unknown!
>
>> You must be speaking of other top journals. See above.
>
> No, Baker; can you read? (Again, that's a purely rhetorical
>question, long ago settled conclusively in the negative.) I
>specifically said:
>
> "First, ###***GRANT PROPOSALS***### [emphasis added] are certainly
> *not* reviewed blindly, since one of the judgments the reviewer
> must make is whether the proposer has a track record of solid work
> indicative of probable success in the proposed work; this judgment
> he or she could not reasonably make if the identity of the proposer
> were unknown!"
ok...your point...grant proposals are different...my fault..but we
have switched back and forth from journals to proposals...and I got
lost...sorry..
>
>Do you know the difference between a *grant proposal* and a *paper in a
>journal*, Baker? Sadly, you probably don't.
I'll look it up...
Yes and getting stronger in my opinion, but we can use your help..get
us that style manual...
>
>[...]
>> >> In any case by getting all of their footnotes, quotes and spellings
>> >> correct, they have been able to publish.
>
>
>> And that consensus has proven wrong, over and over in the history of
>> ideas....
>
> When that has occurred, it has been by means of persuasive arguments
>meeting rigorous scholarly standards and based upon solid evidence.
Not always. But again the point is that the debat should be
open...and here it is closed. You simply aren't allowed to air these
issues...
>> Again you speak without experience in these matters.
>
> What matters?
Have you attempted to obtain a PhD where you propose Willy wasn't
Willy...
Have you attempted to have a journal article published where you
suggest something contrary to the established theory on this subject.
David I've quote to you the remarks of Hardin Craig...a very respected
scholar of the generation past...so said very clearly that when he
attempted to present facts at odds with the theories of scholars who
he respected...he found himself in "danger." And he was and they
lied about him and hurt him...
Its a closed shop...
>
>> I'm telling you the stronger your arguments are and the better your
>> evidence is for one of the alternative contenders, the
>> LESS likely you are to get published....the last thing the "top
>> journals" want is proof that they have been wrong.
>
> Journals frequently publish articles strenuously disputing the
>conclusions of other articles that have appeared in the same journal.
>That's part of normal academic discourse in many fields. Individual
>authors may dislike being proven wrong, but journals are less
>ideologically based and publish a wide range of *tenable* points of
>view.
See above and bring it to Hardin Craig's attention when you see him
in the afterlife..
>
>[...]
>> > I understand fine. You, on the other hand, display abysmal
>> >misunderstandings and farcical misconceptions concerning academic
>> >procedures nearly every time you open your mouth.
>
>> Sure Webb, anything you say. And what are the Fermat steps called?
>
> As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about, because you
>haven't, to my knowledge, defined precisely what you mean by the term.
I sent you a calculation that traces the cross over point where the
first two terms become larger than the third term. If you plot this
by putting the powers at the top and going across and then the numbers
(1,2, 3, etc.) going down the cross over point makes a set
of stairs descending...very regular stairs...this program does not
allow us to draw such a table, but if you'd like I'll send you one or
post one for you on my web page. 8th grade stuff of course...
consider
(n-2)^k+(n-1)^k
this sum is greater than n^k for all k if n is larger than
approximately 2(k+1).
Of course there is always the possibility of satisfying Fermat's
conjecture with two numbers less than n...but there are good reasons
why this isn't possible.
Anyhow, of the two I'd rather see your style manual of how a paper on
the authorship question should be couched.
We can solve Fermat next year...
baker
Alisa Beaton
> > Stephanie Caruana wrote:
> > > [Supreme Court Justice Stevens] did give a speech some years later,
> regarding the desired sequence of application of elements of the
legal canon (I don't have the article in front of me so am
messing up the description), using the Shakespeare
Authorship question as the illustration of the
process. The speech was reprinted as an article, and I believe
he made it fairly clear that he was leaning more than half way
toward Oxford as Shakespeare.
> > >
> > ************************************************************************
> > It might be, as you surmise (you "believe" that "he made it fairly
> > clear"), that Justice Stevens is now "leaning more than half way"
> > toward Oxfordianism, but he has not, as I have argued, declared
> > himself an Oxfordian.
> > A.B.
> > ************************************************************************
> >
>
> That was the impression that I received from reading his article in, I
> believe, the Law Review. Perhaps you would get another impression. I
> wasn't aware that this was an "argument."
>
>
> > Alisa Beaton had written:
>...I remember it well. I was there (along with the National
Cathedral
> > >
> Stephanie Caruana replied:
> > > So was I. (With the first copies of the first issue of Spear Shaker
> > > Review.)
> > >
> > Alisa Beaton had written:
> > "...The SOS has at its command substantial influence and funds.
> > >
> > > Huh? One carload of us drove drove down from NYC. The SOS had no money
> and did not spend a dime on any promotion; they didn't even HAVE a brochure, much less have any at the debate at the Cathedral.
> > >
> > ************************************************************************
> > I mentioned no brochure.
> > A.B.
> > ************************************************************************
>
> Picky, picky.
> ****************************************************************
You made a statement which inferred that I mentioned something
which I did not, in fact, mention. And when I pointed this out,
you responded in the way you so frequently do when one of your
constant errors is pointed out. But your brilliant response
("Picky, picky") is superior to that of some of your usual
efforts at intellectual exchange, e.g., "Huh?" and "Duh".
A.B.
*****************************************************************
> >
Alisa Beaton had written:
> > > >If they were without these resources, I very much doubt that this
> debate would be raging.
> > >
> >
> > > Huh? See above.
> > > >
> > > ********************************************************************
Alisa replied:
time of
> > the mock court event which was arranged for and produced by
> > well-connected SOS members, substantial influence and funds at its
> > disposal.
>
> The debate was conceived of and arranged by Paul Nitze, indeed a prominent
> and well-connected Washingtonian, and a member of the S.O.S. At the time,
> the membership of S.O.S. was "83, and some of them are dead," according to
> Betty Sears, who had a membership listing. (So did I for that matter.) I
> really don't want to get into the parlous state of the S.O.S. at that time.
> So what is your problem? Does it bother you that some well-connected
> people, some with plenty of money, believed (and still believe) that Oxford
> wrote the Shakespeare plays? Do you think it is only appropriate that
> S.O.S. members live exclusively in loony bins and dust bins? Such is not
> the case.
*************************************************************************
We must now, I see, go back to where, in this stream, I first
mentioned
the influence and money of some members of the SOS. Your reply was
that
only a carload of SOS members drove to Washington D.C. for the mock
court,
that (In my picky way, I am quoting you verbatim) "the SOS had no
money
and did not spend a dime on any promotion". Now you supply a name. I
could supply more. Money and influence, as I had said.
I had to point out to you earlier that I did not mention brochures.
And now I must point out to you that I have never used the words
"loony
bins" and "dust bins" on any of my postings. I know that you have
not
inferred that I ever did, but I want to take this opportunity to
admonish
everyone out there who has ever used such rude words, hurting
Stephanie's feelings and those of our other Oxfordian newsgroup
members.
APOLOGIZE RIGHT NOW!
Yours ever,
A.B
> *************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
> Alisa Beaton had written:
Without influence the event could not have taken place (Supreme
Court justices, a PBS Frontline production arranged for, the
cathedral and its choir, an enormous amount of publicity and
> > hoopla). The SOS has at its disposal, and had at the time,
> > discretionary funds supplied through generous underwriting by some
> > of its members.
> > A.B.
******************************************************************
>
>>Stephanie Caruana replied:
> What bothers you about that? Putting stars at the top and bottom doesn't
> render the repetition any more impressive.
>
> *******************************************************************
Stars? What stars? Are you seeing stars?
A.B.
*******************************************************************
Stephanie Caruana
--
"Alisa Beaton" <alisa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:49c43974.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > *******************************************************************
> Stars? What stars? Are you seeing stars?
> A.B.
> *******************************************************************
Not in this universe.
SC
John W. Kennedy
> But the question that interests me is: why do they do it? Why are such
> mountains of verbiage, such indefatigable industry, devoted to bizarre
> fantasies and ludicrous conspiracy theories that wouldn't take in a
> reasonable child? It can't be any kind of genuine curiosity that
> motivates them, given the fact that they habitually argue
> disingenuously, like lawyers rather than scholars (e.g. 'proving' WS's
> supposed lack of education from the fact that there's no evidence that
> he attended Stratford Grammar School, when there's no evidence that
> _anyone_ attended it at that time). There's some psychological malaise
> here crying out for diagnosis -- any theories out there?
A) Snobbery, that will not allow Shakespeare to be a bourgeois.
B) Denial, that excuses their own pathetic lives by assuming that anyone
better than them must have had an unfair advantage.
C) The "Inner Ring" factor.
D) Paranoia that battens on conspiracy theories.
E) Desire to make a great deal of money by fleecing the public with
worthless books.
F) Intellectual hysteresis that makes it impossible to unlearn a
once-learned error.
G) (These individuals may be are innocent, to a point.) Naďveté and
ignorance.
H) Near-complete inability to process Elizabethan English, so that all
Elizabethan authors seem alike to them.
I) Metrical deafness, so that all blank verse seems alike to them.
J) Moral and social blindness, so that all protagonists seem alike to
them.
K) Puritan objections to Art, requiring that the author have a hidden
agenda.
L) "Byronic" notions of Art, requiring that everything the author write
be a cri de coeur.
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
John W. Kennedy
> The case of Leslie Howard has been discussed at length, and, while I
> would be neither especially surprised nor at all disappointed to learn
> that Howard was an Oxfordian, *so far* the only evidence I've seen
> adduced is that he played an Oxfordian in a movie!
Worse than that. He played a amateur secret agent who, while adopting
as a cover the character of a silly-ass-about-town, claimed to be an
Oxfordian.
baker
<jwke...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
Kennedy I thought you got shot...
>Peter Groves wrote:
>> But the question that interests me is: why do they do it? Why are such
>> mountains of verbiage, such indefatigable industry, devoted to bizarre
>> fantasies and ludicrous conspiracy theories that wouldn't take in a
>> reasonable child? It can't be any kind of genuine curiosity that
>> motivates them, given the fact that they habitually argue
>> disingenuously, like lawyers rather than scholars (e.g. 'proving' WS's
>> supposed lack of education from the fact that there's no evidence that
>> he attended Stratford Grammar School, when there's no evidence that
>> _anyone_ attended it at that time). There's some psychological malaise
>> here crying out for diagnosis -- any theories out there?
>
>A) Snobbery, that will not allow Shakespeare to be a bourgeois.
Ah, but Marlowe and Willy were from the same straf...
>
>B) Denial, that excuses their own pathetic lives by assuming that anyone
>better than them must have had an unfair advantage.
Most of the anti-strats I know have very, very successful lives. When
I'm in Passadena I stay with the ex-mayor and city manager who is an
Oxfordian...John doesn't seem to have had a "pathetic life."
>
>C) The "Inner Ring" factor.
lost me here
>
>D) Paranoia that battens on conspiracy theories.
>
and here too
>E) Desire to make a great deal of money by fleecing the public with
>worthless books.
very funny none of the anti-books have neted their authors a great
deal of money...
>
>F) Intellectual hysteresis that makes it impossible to unlearn a
>once-learned error.
now you are talking about Stratfordians...
>
>G) (These individuals may be are innocent, to a point.) Naďveté and
>ignorance.
rewrite that phrase...something happened to it..."may be are innocent"
is it missing an "or"..."may be or are innocent....?
>
>H) Near-complete inability to process Elizabethan English, so that all
>Elizabethan authors seem alike to them.
Not likely, its the computers that overlap Marlowe and Shakespeare
>
>I) Metrical deafness, so that all blank verse seems alike to them.
Sure Emerson was "metrical deaf" and James and Dickens and
Twain...and Hugo....
>
>J) Moral and social blindness, so that all protagonists seem alike to
>them.
Very funny Richard III = Little Red Ridinghood only in the minds of
Stratfordians...
>
>K) Puritan objections to Art, requiring that the author have a hidden
>agenda.
That's a reach...Elizbethans lived in an era which Shakespeare says
cause "art made tonguetied by authority..."
Here you explain it Kennedy in Stratfordian terms:
Tired with all these, for restful death I cry:
As to behold desert a beggar born,
And needy Nothing trimmed in jollity,
And purest faith unhappily forsworn,
And gilded honor shamefully misplaced,
And maiden virtue rudely strumpeted,
And right perfection wrongfully disgraced,
And strength by limping sway disabled,
And art made tongue-tied by authority,
And Folly (Doctor-like) controlling skill,
And simple Truth miscalled Simplicity,
And captive good attending Captain ill:
Tired with all these, from these would I be gone,
Save that to die, I leave my love alone.
Its Sonnet 66 incase you don't know.
>
>L) "Byronic" notions of Art, requiring that everything the author write
>be a cri de coeur.
like Merry Wives of Windsor...
baker
working from his lap
>
>--
>John W. Kennedy
>(Working from my laptop)
>
>
John Baker
Mark Steese
<jwke...@bellatlantic.net> that wrote
news:3B7C931A...@bellatlantic.net, on the day of 17 Aug 2001:
> Peter Groves wrote:
>> But the question that interests me is: why do they do it? Why are such
>> mountains of verbiage, such indefatigable industry, devoted to bizarre
>> fantasies and ludicrous conspiracy theories that wouldn't take in a
>> reasonable child? It can't be any kind of genuine curiosity that
>> motivates them, given the fact that they habitually argue
>> disingenuously, like lawyers rather than scholars (e.g. 'proving' WS's
>> supposed lack of education from the fact that there's no evidence that
>> he attended Stratford Grammar School, when there's no evidence that
>> _anyone_ attended it at that time). There's some psychological malaise
>> here crying out for diagnosis -- any theories out there?
>
> A) Snobbery, that will not allow Shakespeare to be a bourgeois.
Well, Marlowe was a bourgeois - but *he* had a Cambridge education. The
modern prejudice against gentle William seems to be the lack of letters
after his name - a bit odd, considering how many of the antis denigrate
college-educated people like David Kathman and Terry Ross.
[snip]
> E) Desire to make a great deal of money by fleecing the public with
> worthless books.
In defense of the antis, I'd like to note that very few of them have earned
"a great deal of money" - such books don't sell very well, in general. If
they really wanted to make a ton of money through crankery, they'd put out
stuff like "The Celestine Prophecy." I really don't think making money is
a high priority with them.
[snip]
> H) Near-complete inability to process Elizabethan English, so that all
> Elizabethan authors seem alike to them.
And some of them, such as Ingman, can't parse Elizabethan grammar either,
so they think Peacham was referring to Oxford as an 'anonymous' poet.
[snip]
> K) Puritan objections to Art, requiring that the author have a hidden
> agenda.
I was under the impression that genuine Puritans simply rejected art they
considered immoral, rather than seeking hidden agendas.
> L) "Byronic" notions of Art, requiring that everything the author write
> be a cri de coeur.
I'd call that more of a Shelleyan notion; Byron could be thoroughly ironic
when he wished - "Don Juan" is hardly a cri de coeur!
Mark Steese
--
I say - the future is a serious matter -
And so - for God's sake - hock and soda water!
Mark Steese
wrote news:Xns9100CB3ACB87...@130.133.1.4, on the day of 17
Aug 2001:
[snip]
> And some of them, such as Ingman, can't parse Elizabethan grammar
> either, so they think Peacham was referring to Oxford as an 'anonymous'
> poet.
Urgh! That should be Puttenham, not Peacham. That'll teach me to post
while drunk!
Mark Steese
--
The next plague and the nearest that I know in affinity to a consumption is
long depending hope frivolously defeated, than which there is no greater
misery on earth, and *per consequens* no men in earth more miserable than
courtiers. -Thomas Nashe
Tom Reedy
> Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of mst...@home.com (Mark Steese) that
> wrote news:Xns9100CB3ACB87...@130.133.1.4, on the day of 17
> Aug 2001:
>
> [snip]
> > And some of them, such as Ingman, can't parse Elizabethan grammar
> > either, so they think Peacham was referring to Oxford as an 'anonymous'
> > poet.
>
> Urgh! That should be Puttenham, not Peacham. That'll teach me to post
> while drunk!
>
> Mark Steese
You think that might be Okay's problem? If so, he's been drunk for days now.
TR
Mark Steese
the day of 17 Aug 2001:
>> [snip]
>> > And some of them, such as Ingman, can't parse Elizabethan grammar
>> > either, so they think Peacham was referring to Oxford as an
>> > 'anonymous' poet.
>>
>> Urgh! That should be Puttenham, not Peacham. That'll teach me to
>> post while drunk!
>>
>> Mark Steese
>
> You think that might be Okay's problem? If so, he's been drunk for days
> now.
Hmm...I don't know. I tend to mellow out and say lots of nice things about
people when I'm drunk, so either Eric's the exact opposite of me, or we're
*really* in for it once he sobers up.
Mark Steese
Bob Grumman
> > here crying out for diagnosis -- any theories out there?
John W. Kennedy's thoughts, Bob G.'s comments:
> A) Snobbery, that will not allow Shakespeare to be a bourgeois.
primarily because, I think, bourgeois lives are less carefully
and explicitly regimented (and documented) than aristocratic lives,
more prone to accidents and "mysterious" blanks; hence, they are
harder to make sense of for people with rigid minds, and impossible
to countenance, because they don't follow simple black&white rules.
Also, aristocrats have more money and statooznikal prestige than
bourgeois do, and anti-Stratfordians, tending to be hero-worshippers,
like that in their heroes.
> B) Denial, that excuses their own pathetic lives by assuming that anyone
> better than them must have had an unfair advantage.
and refusing to accept that anyone could have an ability (like imagination)
that they lack (Shakespeare must have gotten all his knowledge of how
people behave from hard study of those around him; he could not have
imagined how people behave after minimal exposure to others, for example).
> C) The "Inner Ring" factor.
Yes. They aren't REALLY failures because their group, admission to
which is barred to all but the Very Special, knows . . . The Truth.
> D) Paranoia that battens on conspiracy theories.
not sure about paranoia; for me, their need for conspiracy theories
stems mostly from their need to fill in all blanks, which conspiracy
theories guarantee--and, of course, to be able to avoid contradiction
(since all evidence against them can be attributed to a cover-up)
> E) Desire to make a great deal of money by fleecing the public with
> worthless books.
I agree with Mark Steese that this is a very minor motive for
anti-Stratfordians
> F) Intellectual hysteresis that makes it impossible to unlearn a
> once-learned error.
my "rigidnikry," though I mean by that term a lot more than
"intellectual hysteresis."
> G) (These individuals may be are innocent, to a point.) Naïveté and
> ignorance.
and the fun of opposing an establishment combined with a desire to
make a splash
> H) Near-complete inability to process Elizabethan English, so that all
> Elizabethan authors seem alike to them.
this suggests they can process modern English, which does not seem to
be the case
> I) Metrical deafness, so that all blank verse seems alike to them.
make that "situational metrical deafness"; when required, they are
quick to find differences between blank verse texts, as in their
analyses of The Elegy. I guess I'd just rewrite the above as
incredible lack of metrical sensitivity
> J) Moral and social blindness, so that all protagonists seem alike to
> them.
one indication of their all-around anti-continuumism--they divide
just about all groups of anything into all-alike X's and all-alike
not-X's.
> K) Puritan objections to Art, requiring that the author have a hidden
> agenda.
Puritan objections that require them to add covert meanings to art
to give the art extra-aesthetic dimensions
> L) "Byronic" notions of Art, requiring that everything the author write
> be a cri de coeur.
to me, this goes back to theanti-Stratfordians' rigidnikal need that
all creative artists be empirical journalists because the
anti-Stratfordians can't accept the possibility that significant
feats of imagination are possible--like a villager's imagining what
a king would be like.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
<mst...@home.com> wrote:
> Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of mst...@home.com (Mark Steese) that
> wrote news:Xns9100CB3ACB87...@130.133.1.4, on the day of 17
> Aug 2001:
>
> [snip]
> > And some of them, such as Ingman, can't parse Elizabethan grammar
> > either, so they think Peacham was referring to Oxford as an 'anonymous'
> > poet.
> Urgh! That should be Puttenham, not Peacham. That'll teach me to post
> while drunk!
No, you got it right the first time -- amazingly enough, *despite*
Terry Ross's essay and *despite* KQKnave's post near the beginning of
the thread, Okay Fine *did* in fact claim that *Peacham* referred to
Oxford as author of works not attributed to him. Here are his words:
------------------------
In article <3B7D5DDD...@qwest.net>, Okay Fine <ein...@qwest.net>
wrote:
> Terry Ross wrote:
[...]
> > There is no evidence "that Oxford was the best unattributed writer in
> > England at the time." NO contemporary said any such thing.
> The Peacham selection says:
> "In the time of our late Queene Elizabeth, which was truly a golden Age
> (for such a world of refined wits, and excellent spirits it produced,
> whose like are hardly to be hoped for, in any succeeding Age) aboue
> others, who honored Poesie with their pens and practice (to omit her
> Majesty, who had a singular gift herein) were Edward, Earl of Oxford..."
> [Peacham]
>
> This says that Oxford had produced works that were not attributed to him.
-----------------------
Not content merely to hallucinate a nonexistent reference to Oxford as
"the best unattributed writer in England at the time" in the quotation,
he then, after several people pointed out this blunder, switched to
Puttenham, whose bogus "quotation" (cobbled together by Oxfordians from
two selections in Puttenham some 23 chapters apart) he triumphantly
adduced! Again, here are Okay Fine's own words:
----------------------
> > > I'm thinking of Puttenham's
> > >
> > > I know very many notable gentlemen in the Court that have written
> > > commendably and suppressed it agayne, or els sufred it to be publisht
> > > without their own names to it, of which number the first is that noble
> > > Gentleman Edward Earle of Oxford.
----------------------
When it was pointed out to him that the bogus "quotation" was *clearly*
identified in the first few lines of Terry Ross's essay as a *fake*,
Okay Fine then groused that Terry Ross had "fooled" him -- Terry, he
said, had "buried" the correct quotation in the article! I am not
making this up!
Okay Fine seems resolutely determined to exhibit farcical functional
illiteracy; whether the cause is inebriation, I would prefer not to
speculate, but I certainly hope so. Nothing is more risible than some
Oxfordian, who, having just cockily committed some monumental blunder
in his or her invincible ignorance, tries haplessly to camouflage his
or her comic confusion, or to shift the blame elsewhere (in this
instance, upon Terry Ross, of all people -- Terry ought to have *known*
that people like Okay Fine cannot begin to summon either the reading
comprehension or the attention span to read more than one or two
sentences of a very brief essay, so it *must* be Terry's fault!). Even
Mr. Streitz could scarecely improve upon this dismal admission of
incompetence.
I hope even more that Okay Fine is merely trolling, as someone else
suggested -- that possibility at least is beginning to look quite
plausible.
David Webb
Mark Steese
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> that wrote
news:180820010958180297%David....@Dartmouth.edu, on the day of 18 Aug
2001:
> In article <Xns9100CB91C24C...@130.133.1.4>, Mark Steese
><mst...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> > And some of them, such as Ingman, can't parse Elizabethan grammar
>> > either, so they think Peacham was referring to Oxford as an
>> > 'anonymous' poet.
>
>> Urgh! That should be Puttenham, not Peacham. That'll teach me to
>> post while drunk!
>
> No, you got it right the first time -- amazingly enough, *despite*
> Terry Ross's essay and *despite* KQKnave's post near the beginning of
> the thread, Okay Fine *did* in fact claim that *Peacham* referred to
> Oxford as author of works not attributed to him. Here are his words:
[much snippage]
Thanks for clarifying that, David. So it wasn't that I was posting while
drunk - Eric's posts are so silly that it's possible to get disoriented
just by reading them. Perhaps there should be a legal age for
Oxfordianism, just as there currently is for drinking and smoking...
MakBane
>>> But the question that interests me is: why do they do it? Why are such
>>> mountains of verbiage, such indefatigable industry, devoted to bizarre
>>> fantasies and ludicrous conspiracy theories that wouldn't take in a
>>> reasonable child? It can't be any kind of genuine curiosity that
>>> motivates them, given the fact that they habitually argue
>>> disingenuously, like lawyers rather than scholars (e.g. 'proving' WS's
>>> supposed lack of education from the fact that there's no evidence that
>>> he attended Stratford Grammar School, when there's no evidence that
>>> _anyone_ attended it at that time). There's some psychological malaise
>>> here crying out for diagnosis -- any theories out there?
I don't know from this Peter Groves character, but he's misstated the
Anti-Stratfordian position on Shakspere's education. No one on the right side
of this question believes that Shakspere's lack of education is proven by the
absence of the Stratford school records. Rather, his lack of education is
STRONGLY SUGGESTED by his absence from any records of higher education and by
his inexplicable lack of autography (except for those immortal signatures on
his will and whatnot). Y'all can use whatever college boy crap you must to
obscure this glaring problem, but it won't help.
As for this ongoing Stratfordian complusion to psychoanalyze those who aren't
buying into the Steaming Load upon Avon, I find it pathetic. If you company men
are so convinced that Anti-Stratfordianism is wrong, why keep arguing?
Here's how it goes: Shakspere must have gone to school in Stratford. Why?
Because he is the Author of the Canon. And since there's no good reason why his
name appears in the records of absolutely no other school or college, then the
Stratford schools must have been fantastic cradles of learning, with all sorts
of access to libraries and well-traveled scholarship. Not only must Shakspere
have availed himself of that, he must also have clerked in the court and taught
school, all without leaving ANY trace of his intellectual growth.
It's not an historiographical problem, folks: it's an identity crisis.
Toby Petzold
Tom Reedy
"MakBane" <mak...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010819095546...@mb-dd.aol.com...
> >>Peter Groves wrote about Anti-Stratfordians:
>
> >>> But the question that interests me is: why do they do it? Why are
such
> >>> mountains of verbiage, such indefatigable industry, devoted to bizarre
> >>> fantasies and ludicrous conspiracy theories that wouldn't take in a
> >>> reasonable child? It can't be any kind of genuine curiosity that
> >>> motivates them, given the fact that they habitually argue
> >>> disingenuously, like lawyers rather than scholars (e.g. 'proving' WS's
> >>> supposed lack of education from the fact that there's no evidence that
> >>> he attended Stratford Grammar School, when there's no evidence that
> >>> _anyone_ attended it at that time). There's some psychological
malaise
> >>> here crying out for diagnosis -- any theories out there?
>
> I don't know from this Peter Groves character, but he's misstated the
> Anti-Stratfordian position on Shakspere's education.
It's hard to accurately state the position of a bunch of morons.
No one on the right side
> of this question believes that Shakspere's lack of education is proven by
the
> absence of the Stratford school records. Rather, his lack of education is
> STRONGLY SUGGESTED by his absence from any records of higher education and
by
> his inexplicable lack of autography (except for those immortal signatures
on
> his will and whatnot). Y'all can use whatever college boy crap you must to
> obscure this glaring problem, but it won't help.
>
> As for this ongoing Stratfordian complusion to psychoanalyze those who
aren't
> buying into the Steaming Load upon Avon, I find it pathetic. If you
company men
> are so convinced that Anti-Stratfordianism is wrong, why keep arguing?
>
> Here's how it goes: Shakspere must have gone to school in Stratford. Why?
> Because he is the Author of the Canon.
No, moron. Shakespeare's father filled many municipal offices in Stratford,
including that of burgess, which privileged him to educate his children
without charge at the King's New School in Stratford.
Since you obviously have trouble understanding what you read, have someone
read you Dave Kathman's essay on the subject:
http://www.clark.net/tross/ws/school.html
KQKnave
(MakBane) writes:
>I don't know from this Peter Groves character, but he's misstated the
>Anti-Stratfordian position on Shakspere's education. No one on the right side
>of this question believes that Shakspere's lack of education is proven by the
>absence of the Stratford school records. Rather, his lack of education is
>STRONGLY SUGGESTED by his absence from any records of higher education and by
>his inexplicable lack of autography (except for those immortal signatures on
>his will and whatnot). Y'all can use whatever college boy crap you must to
>obscure this glaring problem, but it won't help.
How do you define "higher education"? If you mean higher than the Stratford
school, I don't think that anyone who has looked at the evidence could
conclude that he definitely had university training. It's always possible that
he, like Faulkner for example, spent a term here and there at a university,
but Jonson said that Shakespeare had "small Latin and less Greek", and
Francis Beaumont, his contemporary, said that Shakespeare's lines would
be examples of "how farre sometimes a mortall man man goe/ by the dim
light of nature", and in the Parnassus plays, one character (the actor
Kemp) says that "few of the university men pen plaies well" and that
"our fellow [actor] Shakespeare puts them all downe...."
And what on earth is "college boy crap"? Do you mean "evidence"?
>
>As for this ongoing Stratfordian complusion to psychoanalyze those who aren't
>buying into the Steaming Load upon Avon, I find it pathetic. If you company
>men are so convinced that Anti-Stratfordianism is wrong, why keep arguing?
I do it because I usually learn something in the process, and because
I have an intense dislike for bullshit.
>
>Here's how it goes: Shakspere must have gone to school in Stratford. Why?
>Because he is the Author of the Canon.
Where on earth do you get this? Answer: you just made it up! Shakespeare
probably went to the school in Stratford because his father was a wealthy
man with high standing in the community and could afford to send his kid to
school. Here is the evidence (or "college boy crap", in your parlance) for
Shakespeare's father's wealth (keep in mind that 40 pounds could buy
a house with land - a huge sum, in other words):
1556 - purchased an estate with garden and croft in
Greenhill street
1556 - purchased a house with garden in Henley street.
1556 - chosen as one of two "ale-tasters" (inspector of
bread and beer makers)
1558 - sworn in as constable
1559 - witnessing the minutes of the Leet as an afeeror,
and appointed one of the town's 14 burgesses.
~1560-62 Inherited his father's property and either gave
or sold it to his brother-in-law.
1565 - Elected alderman
1568 - Elected bailiff*
1571 - Elected chief alderman and deputy to the new bailiff
1572 - Along with the bailiff, rode to London together on
borough business, with permission from the aldermen
and burgesses to proceed 'according to their discretions'.
1572 - awarded 50 pounds by a court for money owed to him
1575 - Bought two houses with garden and orchard for 40 pounds
1578 - raised 40 pounds by mortgaging a house and 56 acres in
Wilmcote that he owned. (He was unable to pay the
mortgage on time and lost the land).
~1580 - Paid the bail of Michael Price (10 pounds)
~1580 - Forfeited a bond of 10 pounds on behalf of a debt
incurred by his brother Henry. Escaped jail because
a friend (Alderman Hill) paid his bail.
1582 - Petitioned for sureties of the peace against 4 men,
one of whom was the bailiff, for 'fear of death
and mutilation of his limbs'. This may or may not
have had something to do with his financial troubles.
Before 1590 - sold the house on Greenhill street.
1592 - Twice called on to assist in making inventories of
deceased neighbors.
1596 - The grant of his coat-of-arms notes that he has
"land and tenements of good wealth and substance"
worth 500 pounds.
1597 - sold small plot of land (one-half yard by 28 yards)
at the Henley street property for 50 shillings
(equal to about 100 days pay for an artisan).
At about the same time he also sold a 17 by 17
foot piece of land on Henley street.
1601 - Richard Quiney rode to London to plead the borough's
cause, listing on a document the names of John
Shakespeare and other town worthies to the effect
that he (Quiney) was able to speak on behalf of
the borough.
*According to Schoenbaum (CDL):
The office of bailiff was a very high office. He served as
justice of the peace, issued warrants, dealt with cases of
debt and violations of the by-laws, and carried on negotiations
with the lord of the manor. He decreed the every week the price
of corn, bread and ale. Appropriate ceremony accompanied his
exalted station. He and his deputy wore the furred gowns in public,
were escorted from their houses to the Gild Hall by the
serjeants bearing their maces before them. They were waited on
by these buff-uniformed officers once a week to receive
instructions, and accompanied by them through the market
on Thursdays, through the fair on fair-days, about the
parish-grounds at Rogation, and to and from church on Sundays.
At church they sat with their wives in the front pew on the
north side of the nave. At sermons in the Gild chapel they had
their seats of honour.
>And since there's no good reason why
>his name appears in the records of absolutely no other school or college, then
>the Stratford schools must have been fantastic cradles of learning, with all
>sorts of access to libraries and well-traveled scholarship.
This is ridiculous. All Shakespeare needed was the ability to read, principally
North, Holinshed and contemporary poets like Arthur Brooke, all
of which were easily available to Shakespeare in London. Do you
mean the sort of "well-traveled" (?) scholarship that cause him
to give Bohemia a seacoast?
>Not only must Shakspere
>have availed himself of that, he must also have clerked in the court
What? What on earth in the canon would have required him to
clerk at the court?
>and
>taught school, all without leaving ANY trace of his intellectual growth.
What on earth are you talking about? What in the canon would have
required him to teach school? And if there is no trace of intellectual
growth, why are you proposing that he must have clerked in the
court and taught school and had access to "well-traveled" (?)
scholarship? You are not making any sense whatsoever.
>It's not an historiographical problem, folks: it's an identity crisis.
I think you'd better think about it some more.
Jim
John W. Kennedy
> > K) Puritan objections to Art, requiring that the author have a hidden
> > agenda.
>
> I was under the impression that genuine Puritans simply rejected art they
> considered immoral, rather than seeking hidden agendas.
Ugh! I shouldn't use "puritan" in the journalistic sense, especially
when dealing with the period. What I meant that some anti-Strats
possess a certain sense that art, per se, it disreputable (especially
commercial theatre), and then, because Shakespeare is, by definition, a
Great Man, they are forced to conclude that Shakespeare must have really
been doing something else, like writing secret masonic codes.
> > L) "Byronic" notions of Art, requiring that everything the author write
> > be a cri de coeur.
>
> I'd call that more of a Shelleyan notion; Byron could be thoroughly ironic
> when he wished - "Don Juan" is hardly a cri de coeur!
True enough (in fact, "Don Juan" is the only Byron I know), but, for
whatever reason, "Byronic" was established as the standard term for That
Sort of Thing long before I was born. (Whitman, in fact, is very likely
a better example than either.)
John W. Kennedy
> McCullough's credentials as a writer of American history lend no
> credibility to his opinion on a subject that he knows nothing about
> (Elizabethan literature).
And, of course, scholars are some of the easiest people to fool when
they are off their subject, because they are not accustomed to allowing
for the possibility that other scholars are telling deliberate lies.
(Ask The Amazing Randi sometime about the naïveté of scholars generally
when researching paranormal claims.)
MakBane
>(MakBane) writes:
>
>>I don't know from this Peter Groves character, but he's misstated the
>>Anti-Stratfordian position on Shakspere's education. No one on the right
>side
>>of this question believes that Shakspere's lack of education is proven by
>the
>>absence of the Stratford school records. Rather, his lack of education is
>>STRONGLY SUGGESTED by his absence from any records of higher education and
>by
>>his inexplicable lack of autography (except for those immortal signatures on
>>his will and whatnot). Y'all can use whatever college boy crap you must to
>>obscure this glaring problem, but it won't help.
>
>How do you define "higher education"? If you mean higher than the Stratford
>school, I don't think that anyone who has looked at the evidence could
>conclude that he definitely had university training.
That's just what I'm saying, Jim. There is no evidence that William Shakspere
ever spent a day in ANY school or in ANY college or under ANYONE'S tutelage.
The Stratfordian approach to this problem is to elevate the Stratford school to
some heroic and brilliant level, and then attribute whatever formal training
Shakespeare might have required to the time spent at that level. This is
absurd. And that orthodoxy can buy into this and preach it is even more absurd.
>It's always possible
>that
>he, like Faulkner for example, spent a term here and there at a university,
"Possible" is a 40-weight term. Lube it up and let it ride! From a strict
evidentiary standard, Shakspere does not get to be a college student.
>but Jonson said that Shakespeare had "small Latin and less Greek",
That Jonson said this is no detraction from Shakespeare's powers of
neologizing. Shakespeare's resort to a Latinized diction is substantial.
>Francis Beaumont, his contemporary, said that Shakespeare's lines would
>be examples of "how farre sometimes a mortall man man goe/ by the dim
>light of nature",
I've never understood how this characterization applies to the works
themselves. Maybe Beaumont was alluding to the disparity between the man he
knew, who represented himself as the author, and the sublimity of the plays. I
say this because the music and philosophical profundity of Shakespeare's works
do not seem to be the contrivance of a second-rate, dimly-lit nature.
>and in the Parnassus plays, one character (the actor
>Kemp) says that "few of the university men pen plaies well" and that
>"our fellow [actor] Shakespeare puts them all downe...."
As a Stratfordian, are you allowed to deduce real biography from the words of a
fictitious character?
>And what on earth is "college boy crap"? Do you mean "evidence"?
No, I had in mind such explanations as Shakspere's middle-class status as a
reason for the loss of manuscripts and other literary evidence (thanks to Dr.
Kathman).
>>As for this ongoing Stratfordian complusion to psychoanalyze those who
>aren't
>>buying into the Steaming Load upon Avon, I find it pathetic. If you company
>>men are so convinced that Anti-Stratfordianism is wrong, why keep arguing?
>
>I do it because I usually learn something in the process, and because
>I have an intense dislike for bullshit.
But what is there to learn from the arguments of those whom you dismiss as
absolutely wrong? I mean, what point can an Anti-Stratfordian win in your view?
In the course of making their arguments, Anti-Stratfordians (with a far greater
command of the facts than I can muster) might possibly enlighten you on some
factual level, but have you ever conceded that any such factual "triumph"
might, in any way, cause you to doubt your candidate?
>>Here's how it goes: Shakspere must have gone to school in Stratford. Why?
>>Because he is the Author of the Canon.
>
>Where on earth do you get this? Answer: you just made it up!
I was stating a Stratfordian syllogism. I guess irony doesn't work with you.
>Shakespeare
>probably went to the school in Stratford because his father was a wealthy
>man with high standing in the community and could afford to send his kid to
>school.
John Shakspere was also in some financial trouble and apparently withdrew from
many of his civic duties. You can't say that William "probably" did any such
thing. Maybe John kept junior down on the farm, as it were, as an apprentice,
and didn't care to expose his boy to a lot of unnecessary book-learning. Maybe
they wanted to keep to their crypto-Catholicism.
Be these things as they may, they have nothing to do with whether his son ever
received an education. Will you not admit that?
>>And since there's no good reason why
>>his name appears in the records of absolutely no other school or college,
>then
>>the Stratford schools must have been fantastic cradles of learning, with all
>>sorts of access to libraries and well-traveled scholarship.
>
>This is ridiculous. All Shakespeare needed was the ability to read,
>principally
>North, Holinshed and contemporary poets like Arthur Brooke, all
>of which were easily available to Shakespeare in London. Do you
>mean the sort of "well-traveled" (?) scholarship that cause him
>to give Bohemia a seacoast?
Preposterous! You, as a Stratfordian, must believe that "all" he needed was the
ability to read because you must localize and isolate the foundations of a
rarely-equalled erudition to a few years of a public school education. This is
just bollocks. The Canon is based on a wide reading of Continental literature,
as well as personal knowledge that could not have been gleaned from hanging
around pubs. As for this Bohemian seacoast stuff, what difference does it make?
If, as you probably believe, the plays were written for the general public, of
what importance would fact-checking be? Theater-goers were there to be
entertained, not educated, right?
>>Not only must Shakspere
>>have availed himself of that, he must also have clerked in the court
>
>What? What on earth in the canon would have required him to
>clerk at the court?
This was me making reference to Shakespeare's use of the law, in both language
and metaphor, throughout the Canon. It is an old orthodox supposition that
Shakspere must have done some clerking in the law, if his obvious and natural
reliance upon that field of knowledge is to be explained. Are you not one of
those kinds of Stratfordians?
>>and
>>taught school, all without leaving ANY trace of his intellectual growth.
>
>What on earth are you talking about? What in the canon would have
>required him to teach school?
This is just another guess at what Shakspere was doing during his Lost Years.
>And if there is no trace of intellectual
>growth, why are you proposing that he must have clerked in the
>court and taught school and had access to "well-traveled" (?)
>scholarship? You are not making any sense whatsoever.
I am not proposing any such thing. I am regurgitating the mythological factoids
and whatnot of the orthodox belief. What I am saying, affirmatively, is that
there is no evidence of any intellectual growth for Shakspere. No letters or
foul papers or anything except some silly random anecdotes about him being a
drunk or a rake or whatever.
>>It's not an historiographical problem, folks: it's an identity crisis.
>
>I think you'd better think about it some more.
I'll give you Stratfordians this much: if it weren't for the testimony of Ben
Jonson, ALL you would have is your Willy WELL in hand.
Toby Petzold
MakBane
have gone to school in Stratford. Why?
>> Because he is the Author of the Canon.
Reedy:
>No, moron. Shakespeare's father filled many municipal offices in Stratford,
>including that of burgess, which privileged him to educate his children
>without charge at the King's New School in Stratford.
Is "privileged" the same as "obligated" here? Because, if it's not, then you're
simply guessing. Shakspere's education is unprovable. You believe that he must
have gone to school in Stratford BECAUSE you believe that he is the Author. "Ex
hoc, ergo propter hoc" is not admissible as evidence, jackass.
Toby Petzold
Stephanie Caruana
"MakBane" <mak...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010823091124...@mb-df.aol.com...
Toby, trying to apply "logic" to a Stratfordian dogmatist's statements is
like trying to dress an alligator in a tuxedo. All that happens is that
they thrash around and bite as hard as they can. If they tried any of these
"learned" statements on my old logic professor, they woud get a
well-deserved "F". That is why I find their "logical statements" such a
pathetic howl.
Stephanie
Elizabeth Weir
Just for fun, Stephanie, I'd like you to post your *very best piece of
evidence* that Oxford wrote the Shakespeare works in the space below.
I'm not asking for a dissertation, just *one* piece of evidence.
Bob Grumman
> > Shakspere must have gone to school in Stratford. Why?
> > >> Because he is the Author of the Canon.
> >
> > Reedy:
> >
> > > No, moron. Shakespeare's father filled many municipal offices in
> > > Stratford, including that of burgess, which privileged him to
> > > educate his children without charge at the King's New School
> > > in Stratford.
Tom forgot that Toby is stupid, even for an anti-Stratfordian. On
behalf of the Trust, I apologize for him, and hope that the corrected
version of his comment, which I now offer, will be easier for Toby,
and his female equivalent, Stephanie, to understand:
> > > No, moron. *** STRATFORDIAN REASONING DOES NOT POSIT THAT
WE KNOW SHAKESPEARE WENT TO SCHOOL IN STRATFORD BECAUSE HE IS
THE AUTHOR OF THE CANON, AS YOU SO STUPIDLY CLAIM; STRATFORDIAN
REASONING POSITS HE WENT TO SCHOOL IN STRATFORD BECAUSE OF THE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT ***
> > > Shakespeare's father filled many municipal offices in
> > > Stratford, including that of burgess, which privileged him to
> > > educate his children without charge at the King's New School
> > > in Stratford (AND, OF COURSE, IT WAS VERY COMMON FOR FAMILIES
OF HIS CLASS TO SEND THEIR SONS TO SCHOOL THEN).
To this, I might add that Shakespeare's signatures and his monument's
stating that he was a writer are also good circumstantial evidence
that he attended school in Stratford.
> > Is "privileged" the same as "obligated" here? Because, if it's
> > not, then you're simply guessing. Shakspere's education is
> > unprovable. You believe that he must have gone to school in
> > Stratford BECAUSE you believe that he is the Author. "Ex
> > hoc, ergo propter hoc" is not admissible as evidence, jackass.
> Toby, trying to apply "logic" to a Stratfordian dogmatist's
> statements is like trying to dress an alligator in a tuxedo.
> All that happens is that they thrash around and bite as hard
> as they can. If they tried any of these "learned" statements
> on my old logic professor, they would get a well-deserved "F".
> That is why I find their "logical statements" such a
> pathetic howl.
No need to libel your old logic professor, Stephanie.
(Note: that we know beyond reasonable doubt from other evidence that
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, so the argument that since Shakespeare
wrote plays, he probably went to school somewhere, most likely to
the one in his hometown, makes perfect sense. But those of us
arguing with Shakespeare-deniers ignore that for the sake of the
argument.)
--Bob G.
Stephanie Caruana
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote in message
news:cd15e95a.01082...@posting.google.com...
Elizabeth, I can't pick out 1 piece of evidence! IMO, the "case for Oxford"
consists of many pieces of evidence, that fit together to make a coherent
picture. Refusing to look at the whole picture, and frantically attacking
every item presented as though it is a separate fragment with no connections
to the rest of the picture (and hasn't already been argued fruitlessly to
death many times) is a Stratfordian tactic that leads nowhere. I know
you're not in the mood for a dissertation, nor am I in the mood to write
one. (So I will try to make it brief.)
I also know that as a Baconian, you have come halfway along the same road
that I have. You could of course be a 2nd or 3rd (or 4th or 5th) generation
Baconian; let's say, a descendant of poor Reverend Wilmott, a mid-18th
Century voice crying in the Warwickshire wilderness. But I will assume
unless corrected that you, as an intelligent, independent, well-educated
woman with a liking for research, developed your convictions on your own.
And if you are in the academic world, you may have been subjected to a lot
of the guff that passes for "literary criticism" on h.l.a.s.
I wasn't born an Oxfordian, and I will assume (unless informed otherwise)
that you were not born a Baconian. Something happened along the way to
arouse our suspicion that there was something not quite right about the
Stratfordian attribution. I have heard many stories from Oxfordians about
how they came to their beliefs. Contrary to the common presentations here,
I wasn't suborned or hypnotized or lured by the Ogburns, or Looney, or
anyone else. My own experiences and independent thought led me away from
Stratford because of the many aspects of that story that didn't sit right.
But if "common sense" leads you to believe that the Stratfordian attribution
is incorrect, then one looks for another personality or character who seems
to fill the vacancy better than the other candidates. For me, it's Oxford;
for you, it's Bacon.
I expect I'll try to answer you in another post some time which describes my
own experiences as a 6-year-old, and then in junior high, which have some
bearing on all this.
Stephanie
Elizabeth Weir
Oh gosh Stephanie. I'm so surprised.
It was a trick question. The Oxfordians have no evidence. That's why
I asked for 'one single piece of evidence.' You can't come up with
one piece.
> IMO, the "case for Oxford"
> consists of many pieces of evidence,
I'll settle for one. Post it here------>
> that fit together to make a coherent
> picture.
Literature can be fitted together to make a coherent picture.
Literature wouldn't stand up in a court of law. The Ogburns used a
particular style of rhetoric in 'Star of England' that is calculated
to suck your brains out. The Romans invented it. I studied it. If I
had time I would deconstruct it. I'm a little backed up on posts at
the moment.
> Refusing to look at the whole picture,
I read the Bacon sites, the Oxfordian sites--three or four of them
from front to back--both Marlovian sites--Peter Farey and John Baker
are both very fine researchers and writers and make an excellent case
for Marlowe. Farey and Baker are heads above anything the Oxfordians
have to offer incidently.
I read Kathman and Ross' very well done Authorship site--too bad their
candidate is so hopeless--and as I was doing all this reading I
wavered back and forth. I finally settled on Bacon because of the
sheer weight of evidence--completely unknown to the supporters of the
other candidates--and the fact that Bacon is the only candidate with
INDISPUTABLE HARD EVIDENCE. Evidence counts, Stephanie.
I was also sucked in by 'Star of England' but I am conscious of the
fact that all human brains are susceptible to binary rhetoric and I
shook it off after a few hours and went back to look for *evidence*
for Oxford. There wasn't any in it.
> and frantically attacking
> every item presented as though it is a separate fragment with no connections
> to the rest of the picture (and hasn't already been argued fruitlessly to
> death many times) is a Stratfordian tactic that leads nowhere.
You don't have any evidence Stephanie. The 'picture' is meaningless
without it.
I realize that we have abandoned the crucial parts of Bacon's
scientific method--even William James was very hesitant about
'hypothesis' and Kuhn's paradigms are leading us over the brink of
disaster--they are too literary. Bacon would freak. So would James.
So the standard for evidence has fallen in recent centuries and any
literary fillip will do.
I know
> you're not in the mood for a dissertation, nor am I in the mood to write
> one. (So I will try to make it brief.)
My problem is that I'm in the mood for about fifty dissertations and I
have them backed up on my hard drive. I'm going to try to post on the
second T.T. the Well-wishing Adventurer post today. A new discovery.
If I am correct on that thesis--and it is fairly tight--then Oxford is
eliminated because Oxford was not an Adventurer.
Oxford was a venturer in the Edward Bonaventure and true to the
self-parodying life poor Oxford lived, the Edward Bonaventure
delivered a shipment of fool's gold to England and then sank.
Oxford was never an Adventurer in the Virginia Company--it was founded
by the Calvinist aristocrats he had abused when they were much younger
Burghley wards. Philip Sidney and his sister and brother did not
begin hating Oxford because of the tennis match episode--they hated
Oxford as children. The Earl of Pembroke [an incomparable brethren]
continued the family tradition. His brother Montgomery married
Elizabeth De Vere because Oxford was dead, Montgomery was poor unlike
his hugely wealthy brother who died the richest man in England, the De
Vere daughters had been thoroughly alienated by Burghley from their
father, and Montgomery would come into the Burghley fortune--one of
the greatest in England, probably second to the great Pembroke
fortune.
The Virginia Company's Adventurer's list was an elite list of Oxford's
worst enemies which by that time included the Cecils--Oxford managed
to alienate the most powerful--and they would not have let him in the
Company.
Incidently I wouldn't be surprised if Oxford was Dudley and
Elizabeth's first bastard after looking at the miniature on Daniel
Wrights site. Dudley and Elizabeth were very close from childhood on
and Oxford has Dudley's unusual tightly curled hair. All of Dudley's
bastards had it. It would make sense for
Elizabeth to put her bastard Edward [that was thinking ahead] in the
household of the highest peer of the realm because it would make
Oxford automatically elgible as her sucessor. Majory De Vere wouldn't
have anything to do with him and his father was an animal. Poor
Oxford was raised by wolves in the old Hedingham pile and Elizabeth
finally realized that he was unsuitable to be her successor.
There are many huge clues about Oxford's succession in Oxford's
Burghley Bible that I didn't understand until I saw Oxford's
miniature. Of course Oxfordians won't be able to read them because
Oxford underlined the Calvinist bible to make notes for his
Shakespeare plays. I laugh hysterically whenever I read that.
According to the Spanish Ambassador Elizabeth had four bastards by
Dudley. It would also explain those mysterious crowns on Oxford's
Burghley Bible and all the verses in Kings I and II as well as
Elizabeth's sudden promotion of Burghley to Baron Burghley. It would
be so perfectly in keeping with Burghley's politics to put a Puritan
queen on the throne. We know that Burghley's ambitions were out of
control because he and Robert Cecil later connived to make the
premiership of England hereditary.
Parliament was the only obstacle and with the highest peer and a
Calvinist princess in the offing the the Protestant Parliament would
go for it without hesitation. Elizabeth would have a Tudor on the
throne without having to admit she wasn't the Virgin Queen. With
Bacon or Essex she would have to admit things er vanity wouldn't
permit. Bacon was legitimate but not under English common law.
That's why he worked for decades to instate civil law and what the
plot of Hamlet is all about. Oxford didn't write that either but he
is satirized in it.
> I also know that as a Baconian, you have come halfway along the same road
> that I have.
No, Stephanie. Baconians--most of them are unaware of it--own
Oxford's turf. Oxford was never born to it--his father was a
Catholic--and Oxford was ostracized from the magnificent homes of the
Calvinist aristocracy where 'Shakespeare' played and wrote. Oxford
was at Cambridge--as well as Oxford--to pick up the honorary degrees
traditionally awarded to the highest peers and he was at the finishing
schools for peers at Gray's Inn where he was no doubt roughed up--he
was a physically tiny man--and he spent some time at Elizath's Court.
Bacon spent his entire life at Elizabeth's Court--she liked to show of
the little genius--her 'Baby Solomon--and then James' Court with years
spent at the Courts of Henry III and Henry IV, Denmark, Italy,
Germany, etc--only to come back to be a courtier then Elizabeth's
private counselor until she died.
Elizabeth kept Bacon close to her all her life. Where the Burghley's
had plenty of opportunity to stab Bacon in the back on a dailyl basis,
a favor he returned in Hamlet.
There is not a single thing in Bacon's biography that the Oxfordians
can best and Bacon's biography covers all the astronomy, natural
science--I can't list it all--in the plays. It's Bacon's landscape.
He dominates it. Oxford was ridiculed by the
Leicester-Sidney-Essex-Pembroke faction into seclusion, probably after
the publication of Harvey's brilliantly mean satire of Oxford in the
Harvey-Immerito letters. Harvey was working for Essex as a spy in
Oxford's house. The same Harvey who called Oxford a 'sky blue pig' in
Latin at the famous encomium at Cambridge whose Latin Oxford didn't
understand. He thought he was being lauded by Harvey and hired him to
write poetry right afterward. The Leister-Essex faction must have
been rolling on the floor.
> You could of course be a 2nd or 3rd (or 4th or 5th) generation
> Baconian; let's say, a descendant of poor Reverend Wilmott, a mid-18th
> Century voice crying in the Warwickshire wilderness.
I read all the authorship sights critically and then made a tentative
choice. I've only really decided for Bacon in the past couple of
months and I still have to leave room for the possibility that Marlowe
wrote the plays because the case will never be closed on Marlowe.
But I will assume
> unless corrected that you, as an intelligent, independent, well-educated
> woman with a liking for research,
Love bombing me will get you nowhere, Stephanie.
developed your convictions on your own.
> And if you are in the academic world, you may have been subjected to a lot
> of the guff that passes for "literary criticism" on h.l.a.s.
>
> I wasn't born an Oxfordian, and I will assume (unless informed otherwise)
> that you were not born a Baconian. Something happened along the way to
> arouse our suspicion that there was something not quite right about the
> Stratfordian attribution. I have heard many stories from Oxfordians about
> how they came to their beliefs.
>Contrary to the common presentations here,
> I wasn't suborned or hypnotized or lured by the Ogburns,
I'm sorry. I don't buy that. It sucked me in for at least an hour
and I have spent much time not only studying but deconstructing that
form of rhetoric. I know it well. I can shake it off but it is very
seductive. The hypnotic effect of binary rhetoric has something to do
with our bicameral brains. It makes us go into a waking dream state.
It really needs to be researched although I'm sure some black agency
is perfectly aware of the phenomenon.
> or Looney, or
> anyone else. My own experiences and independent thought led me away from
> Stratford because of the many aspects of that story that didn't sit right.
>
> But if "common sense" leads you to believe that the Stratfordian attribution
> is incorrect, then one looks for another personality or character who seems
> to fill the vacancy better than the other candidates. For me, it's Oxford;
> for you, it's Bacon.
There's your problem Stephanie. You gave yourself away when you said
you 'looked for a personality or character to fill the vacancy.'
You have to learn to read detectively. The advice of Baconian William
James'. You have to look for evidence. It's all very thrilling to
have the naughty Oxford for a candidate--actually Oxford was closer to
a serial murder--but in any case you couldn't put forth one piece of
evidence when I asked for it.
Oxfordians have no evidence. Looney was wrong. Biography is not
evidence and the fact that Bacon's biography is superior in every
sense to Oxfords proves it.
The fact that Bacon's biography is a perfect match in every way for
the shakespeare's works still would not make Bacon the author of
Shakespeare. Identical twins can have identical biographies and one
can become a serial killer and the other the great philosopher of
modern science.
It's about evidence. Oxford has zero, Bacon has huge circumstantial
evidence--
overwhelming--and at least four pieces of hard evidence.
> I expect I'll try to answer you in another post some time which describes my
> own experiences as a 6-year-old, and then in junior high, which have some
> bearing on all this.
>
> Stephanie
Don't make it too soon. I like posting to you and I love the fact that
you never let Webb get the better of you. He missed you terribly and
tried to make me his Lucy Ricardo but I can't do ebullient paranoia as
well as you do. I can kick his ass in a debate however. I'm holding
the last Nabokov post and will put it up if he tries to fool with me.
I have a series of other posts to put up starting today. I'm feeling
way behind in this forum. I still have to reply to Art's post--we've
gotten it up to 633 lines.
Sorry this is unedited. I need a latte.
Elizabeth Weir
Sorry about those caps in the last post. That was rude of me.
Neuendorffer
> The Oxfordians have no evidence. That's why
> I asked for 'one single piece of evidence.'
> You can't come up with one piece.
I have 4 pieces of evidence that directly relate Oxford with
Shakespeare:
------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Freud's evaluation that Oxford was a good psychologic match.
2) £1,000 a year in Shakespeare/Oxford/Lady Suffolk/Shelton.
3) The evidence of "VERO NIHIL VERIUS"
+ (Masonic)"G"
in the Sonnet's Dedications: "OUR EVERLIVING" &
"HIS EVERLIVING WOR(kes)"
4) The Troilus & Cressida intro: "An Ever Writer to
a Never Reader"
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The best I have for Francis Bacon is the fact that:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Frontispiece in volume 1 of Nicholas Rowe's 1709 edition of _The
Works of Mr. William Shakespeare_ there is "a horn[/oBoe] on his head."
The oBoe's "double READ" points to the number 53 on the Stratford
Monument. (See p. 193 of Matus' _Shakespeare In Fact_.)
------------------------------------------------------------
the word "BACON" is given explicitly on page 53 of both:
--------------------------------------------------------
The Comedies: The Merry Wives of Windsor Act 4, Scene 1
Mistress Quickly 'Hang-hog' is Latin for BACON, I warrant you.
-------------------------------------------------------
& The Histories: 1 King Henry IV, Act 2, Scene 1
Second Carrier I have a gammon of BACON and two razors of ginger,
to be DEliVEREd as far as Charing-cross.
----------------------------------------------
and implicitly on page 53 of:
----------------------------------------------
The Tragedies: [which starts _Romeo & Juliet_]
Enter Sampson and Gregory, with {Sw}ords and (B)[uck]lers,
of the {H}ouse of (Ca)[p]ulet.
Samps(on).
--------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> The Oxfordians have no evidence. That's why
> I asked for 'one single piece of evidence.'
> You can't come up with one piece.
I have 4 pieces of evidence that directly relate Oxford with
Shakespeare:
------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Freud's evaluation that Oxford was a good psychologic match.
2) The evidence of "VERO NIHIL VERIUS"
+ (Masonic)"G"
in the Sonnet's Dedications: "OUR EVERLIVING" &
"HIS EVERLIVING WOR(kes)"
3) The Troilus & Cressida intro: "A Never Writer to
an Ever Reader"
4) £1,000 a year in Shakespeare/Oxford/Lady Suffolk/Shelton.
MakBane
>> > Shakspere must have gone to school in Stratford. Why?
>> > >> Because he is the Author of the Canon.
>> >
>> > Reedy:
>> >
>> > > No, moron. Shakespeare's father filled many municipal offices in
>> > > Stratford, including that of burgess, which privileged him to
>> > > educate his children without charge at the King's New School
>> > > in Stratford.
>
>Tom forgot that Toby is stupid, even for an anti-Stratfordian. On
>behalf of the Trust, I apologize for him, and hope that the corrected
>version of his comment, which I now offer, will be easier for Toby,
>and his female equivalent, Stephanie, to understand:
Why such extreme petulance, Bob? I know I'm ignorant of much, but I'm hardly
stupid. What may be stupid, however, is presuming to commandeer and "amplify"
the response of another correspondent with an even more ill-considered and
embarrassing outburst of nonsense.
>> > > No, moron. *** STRATFORDIAN REASONING DOES NOT POSIT THAT
>WE KNOW SHAKESPEARE WENT TO SCHOOL IN STRATFORD BECAUSE HE IS
>THE AUTHOR OF THE CANON, AS YOU SO STUPIDLY CLAIM; STRATFORDIAN
>REASONING POSITS HE WENT TO SCHOOL IN STRATFORD BECAUSE OF THE
>CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT ***
>
>> > > Shakespeare's father filled many municipal offices in
>> > > Stratford, including that of burgess, which privileged him to
>> > > educate his children without charge at the King's New School
>> > > in Stratford (AND, OF COURSE, IT WAS VERY COMMON FOR FAMILIES
>OF HIS CLASS TO SEND THEIR SONS TO SCHOOL THEN).
"Very common" buys you exactly nothing. I guess that's your way of
approximating certitude. Will you, "on behalf of the Trust," simply acknowledge
that Shakspere's education cannot be proved? Do it, Bob. Cop to that one fact.
Acknowledge openly that the greatest man of English letters CANNOT be proven to
have received a single day of formal schooling. To do so would be to conform,
as you should, to the limitations of the documentary record. No weasel words or
subjunctive moods. BY THE RECORD, did Shakspere attend ANY school or college or
study under any tutor? Please respond.
>To this, I might add that Shakespeare's signatures and his monument's
>stating that he was a writer are also good circumstantial evidence
>that he attended school in Stratford.
What a joke. Those signatures are evidence that he went to school in Stratford?
Maybe he learned to draw his signature later in life, as a matter of pride or
appearance, but to say that those signatures are evidence of formal schooling
is crap. As for what the Monument inscription, it's pretty clear that its
author was unacquainted with anything in Stratford, let alone whether Shakspere
attended any school there.
>> > Is "privileged" the same as "obligated" here? Because, if it's
>> > not, then you're simply guessing. Shakspere's education is
>> > unprovable. You believe that he must have gone to school in
>> > Stratford BECAUSE you believe that he is the Author. "Ex
>> > hoc, ergo propter hoc" is not admissible as evidence, jackass.
>
>> Toby, trying to apply "logic" to a Stratfordian dogmatist's
>> statements is like trying to dress an alligator in a tuxedo.
>> All that happens is that they thrash around and bite as hard
>> as they can. If they tried any of these "learned" statements
>> on my old logic professor, they would get a well-deserved "F".
>> That is why I find their "logical statements" such a
>> pathetic howl.
>
>No need to libel your old logic professor, Stephanie.
>
>(Note: that we know beyond reasonable doubt from other evidence that
>Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, so the argument that since Shakespeare
>wrote plays, he probably went to school somewhere, most likely to
>the one in his hometown, makes perfect sense.
Yes, a writer of Shakespeare's stature "probably went to school somewhere," but
you CANNOT say it was Stratford. And the record is silent everywhere else, too.
I believe that the Canon is the work of a man who was very intellectually
active, yet there is no evidence that Shakspere of Stratford was any such man.
There's no books, papers, or letters with any specimen of his hand involved.
That's still a shock when one really thinks about it.
>But those of us
>arguing with Shakespeare-deniers ignore that for the sake of the
>argument.)
I see you're taking a cue from Steese by clouding the issue with
counter-terminology. Again, for your benefit, I will explain that none of us is
a "Shakespeare-denier" and that it is simple troublemaking to suggest as much
when, in the context of the Question, you should obviously either use the terms
Stratfordian or Anti-Stratfordian. "Shakespeare" is the Author, whatever his
identity.
Toby Petzold
Stephanie Caruana
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote in message
news:cd15e95a.01082...@posting.google.com...
> "Stephanie Caruana" <spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<9m48g2$9fq$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@boldplanet.com> wrote in message
> > news:cd15e95a.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stephanie Caruana" <spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:<9m349o$e5n$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
......
> > > > Toby, trying to apply "logic" to a Stratfordian dogmatist's
statements
> > is
> > > > like trying to dress an alligator in a tuxedo. All that happens is
that
> > > > they thrash around and bite as hard as they can. If they tried any
of
> > these
> > > > "learned" statements on my old logic professor, they woud get a
> > > > well-deserved "F". That is why I find their "logical statements"
such
> > a
> > > > pathetic howl.
> > > >
> > > > Stephanie
> > >
> > > Just for fun, Stephanie, I'd like you to post your *very best piece of
> > > evidence* that Oxford wrote the Shakespeare works in the space below.
> > > I'm not asking for a dissertation, just *one* piece of evidence.
> >
> > Elizabeth, I can't pick out 1 piece of evidence!
>
> Oh gosh Stephanie. I'm so surprised.
>
> It was a trick question.
Trick--y!!!
The Oxfordians have no evidence. That's why
> I asked for 'one single piece of evidence.' You can't come up with
> one piece.
I can come up with 100 pieces. The problem is I don't wish to select 1
piece when it all belongs together. Nobody in their right mind would say,
"This is my 1 piece of evidence on which I base my opinion. Have at it!"
Life isn't like that.
>
> > IMO, the "case for Oxford"
> > consists of many pieces of evidence,
>
> I'll settle for one. Post it here------>
No.
>
> > that fit together to make a coherent
> > picture.
>
> Literature can be fitted together to make a coherent picture.
> Literature wouldn't stand up in a court of law.
On the other hand, a legal case wouldn't stand up against King Lear. Nobody
would go to see it.
The Ogburns used a
> particular style of rhetoric in 'Star of England' that is calculated
> to suck your brains out. The Romans invented it.
Tell me more! Devilish rhetoric! Did you discover it all by yourself?
I studied it. If I
> had time I would deconstruct it. I'm a little backed up on posts at
> the moment.
Busy, busy!
Gee, too bad! otherwise, I gather, they wouldn't have a chance. (In your
opinion.)
>
> > Refusing to look at the whole picture,
>
> I read the Bacon sites, the Oxfordian sites--three or four of them
> from front to back--both Marlovian sites--Peter Farey and John Baker
> are both very fine researchers and writers and make an excellent case
> for Marlowe.
If he only hadn't been dead!
Farey and Baker are heads above anything the Oxfordians
> have to offer incidently.
That is just your opinion, which sounds more addled by the minute.
>
> I read Kathman and Ross' very well done Authorship site--too bad their
> candidate is so hopeless--and as I was doing all this reading I
> wavered back and forth.
I really wish you had wavered into Kathman and Ross's camp. They would have
been so proud of you!
I finally settled on Bacon because of the
> sheer weight of evidence--completely unknown to the supporters of the
> other candidates--and the fact that Bacon is the only candidate with
> INDISPUTABLE HARD EVIDENCE. Evidence counts, Stephanie.
PLEASE give me one piece of HARD EVIDENCE! Preferably a poem by Bacon that
comes within at least a continent's distance of similarity to Shakespeare's
poetry.
>
> I was also sucked in by 'Star of England' but I am conscious of the
> fact that all human brains are susceptible to binary rhetoric
OOh! Binary rhetoric! That definitely sounds like some bad disease. Is it
worse than a sore throat?
and I
> shook it off after a few hours and went back to look for *evidence*
> for Oxford. There wasn't any in it.
I think you were looking for evidence in all the wrong places. I won't say
where.
> > and frantically attacking
> > every item presented as though it is a separate fragment with no
connections
> > to the rest of the picture (and hasn't already been argued fruitlessly
to
> > death many times) is a Stratfordian tactic that leads nowhere.
>
> You don't have any evidence Stephanie. The 'picture' is meaningless
> without it.
> I realize that we have abandoned the crucial parts of Bacon's
> scientific method--even William James was very hesitant about
> 'hypothesis' and Kuhn's paradigms are leading us over the brink of
> disaster--they are too literary. Bacon would freak. So would James.
> So the standard for evidence has fallen in recent centuries and any
> literary fillip will do.
The big problem with the Baconians of a century ago is that although they
did wonderful work and good thinking when it came to pointing out some of
the many absurdities in StratWilly's case, there wasn't enough about Bacon
to make a believable case for him as a poet and dramatist. Hence they
trickled off into cryptography, code prayer wheels and etc. Durning-Lawrence
had some interesting material, paintings and diagrams, which suggest Bacon's
involvement in the "Shakespeare" cover-up, as might be expected, but no one
that I know of has yet followed up on these very interesting suggestions. I
enjoy looking at some of the Baconian websites too, and find some valuable
information there. I don't find "Shakespeare" there, but sign posts
pointing in the right direction. With regard to Bacon's book of notes which
have some Shakespearean phrases, nifty new words, etc., which I have read,
they fit into my idea of Bacon's relationship with Oxford and Oxford's
creative buddies, which I won't bother to share with you.
>
> I know
> > you're not in the mood for a dissertation, nor am I in the mood to write
> > one. (So I will try to make it brief.)
>
> My problem is that I'm in the mood for about fifty dissertations and I
> have them backed up on my hard drive. I'm going to try to post on the
> second T.T. the Well-wishing Adventurer post today. A new discovery.
Since I have been largely absent from h.l.a.s. for about a year, I had no
notion that you were a big bad Baconian girl. I thought you were just nice,
like me.
>
> If I am correct on that thesis--and it is fairly tight--then Oxford is
> eliminated because Oxford was not an Adventurer.
But he was.
>
> Oxford was a venturer in the Edward Bonaventure and true to the
> self-parodying life poor Oxford lived, the Edward Bonaventure
> delivered a shipment of fool's gold to England and then sank.
He had, let us say, a run of very bad luck. Enough to turn a man with a
great sense of humor into Timon of Athens, perhaps. At least for a while.
>
> Oxford was never an Adventurer in the Virginia Company--it was founded
> by the Calvinist aristocrats he had abused when they were much younger
> Burghley wards.
Of course, his being dead by that time could have had something to do with
his nonparticipation.
He invested heavily in Martin Frobisher's ventures, and lost everything. He
encouraged others to venture with him. "My lady's a Cathayan." They were
looking for gold, found fool's gold, and were deceived and cheated by some
crooks including, very likely, Michael Lock. His adventuring days were over
by the time the Virginia Company hit its stride (he being dead). So????
Philip Sidney and his sister and brother did not
> begin hating Oxford because of the tennis match episode--they hated
> Oxford as children.
Hate is certainly too strong a word. Sounds like a heavy dose of Weird
imagination operating here.
The Earl of Pembroke [an incomparable brethren]
> continued the family tradition. His brother Montgomery married
> Elizabeth De Vere
'Fraid not, dear; Elizabeth married William Stanley, Earl of Derby
>because Oxford was dead,
No, in 1595, when Oxford was very much alive. I withdraw my compliments
upon your scholarship.
Unless you think that your perfervid enthusiasm, or whatever it is, entitles
you to rewrite history according to your fantasies.
>Montgomery was poor unlike
> his hugely wealthy brother who died the richest man in England, the De
> Vere daughters had been thoroughly alienated by Burghley from their
> father, and Montgomery would come into the Burghley fortune--one of
> the greatest in England, probably second to the great Pembroke
> fortune.
Oh, I get it! So when Montgomery married Susan (not Elizabeth, remember?)
he did it to inherit the Burghley fortune! This does get funnier, and I
begin to see why David Webb mistook you for Lucy Ricardo. And just think:
I always thought Burghley split his fortune primarily between his oldest
son, Thomas, who he really didn't like, and his favorite, the youngest son,
Robert Cecil, who got the lion's share. And considering that Burghley died
in 1598, Montgomery the Incomparable Brother had to have been a complete
moron for marrying Susan in 1604 for Burghley's fortune, because Burghley
had been dead for 6 years after having stiffed Susan and Bridget in his
will:
"to my said son Sir Robert Cecil and to Lady Bridget and the Lady Susan
Vere, the daughters of my deceased daughter the Lady Anne, Countess of
Oxford, all my goods, money plate and stuff that are or shall be remaining
at my death within my bedchamber at Westminster, and in my two closets, and
any chamber thereto adjoining..."
>
> The Virginia Company's Adventurer's list was an elite list of Oxford's
> worst enemies which by that time included the Cecils--Oxford managed
> to alienate the most powerful--
Considering that Burghley had managed to get so much of Oxford's money while
Oxford was a minor, under his supervision, it's no wonder that Burghley
didn't like him.
>and they would not have let him in the
> Company.
(...and besides, he was dead...)
>
> Incidently I wouldn't be surprised if Oxford was Dudley and
> Elizabeth's first bastard after looking at the miniature on Daniel
> Wrights site. Dudley and Elizabeth were very close from childhood on
> and Oxford has Dudley's unusual tightly curled hair. All of Dudley's
> bastards had it. It would make sense for
> Elizabeth to put her bastard Edward [that was thinking ahead] in the
> household of the highest peer of the realm because it would make
> Oxford automatically elgible as her sucessor. Majory De Vere wouldn't
> have anything to do with him and his father was an animal. Poor
> Oxford was raised by wolves in the old Hedingham pile
....nothing to do but read and hang out with the servants and his old
man....
and Elizabeth
> finally realized that he was unsuitable to be her successor.
But James was?
>
> There are many huge clues about Oxford's succession in Oxford's
> Burghley Bible that I didn't understand until I saw Oxford's
> miniature. Of course Oxfordians won't be able to read them because
> Oxford underlined the Calvinist bible to make notes for his
> Shakespeare plays. I laugh hysterically whenever I read that.
I'm laughing hysterically as I read your post!
>
> According to the Spanish Ambassador Elizabeth had four bastards by
> Dudley. It would also explain those mysterious crowns on Oxford's
> Burghley Bible and all the verses in Kings I and II as well as
> Elizabeth's sudden promotion of Burghley to Baron Burghley. It would
> be so perfectly in keeping with Burghley's politics to put a Puritan
> queen on the throne.
I don't think I want to know who that would be!
We know that Burghley's ambitions were out of
> control because he and Robert Cecil later connived to make the
> premiership of England hereditary.
>
> Parliament was the only obstacle and with the highest peer and a
> Calvinist princess in the offing the the Protestant Parliament would
> go for it without hesitation.
Pembroke and Elizabeth, I mean Susan???
You're losing me here! I think maybe you read the Ogburns' book too fast
and shook off its evil rhetoric but stayed in the trance.
Elizabeth would have a Tudor on the
> throne without having to admit she wasn't the Virgin Queen. With
> Bacon or Essex she would have to admit things er vanity wouldn't
> permit. Bacon was legitimate but not under English common law.
> That's why he worked for decades to instate [sic ???] civil law and what
the
> plot of Hamlet is all about. Oxford didn't write that either but he
> is satirized in it.
You mean that Bacon was another of QE's bastards and wanted to inherit the
throne?
>
> > I also know that as a Baconian, you have come halfway along the same
road
> > that I have.
>
> No, Stephanie. Baconians--most of them are unaware of it--own
> Oxford's turf.
I wonder whether they'd thank you for that insight?
Oxford was never born to it--his father was a
> Catholic--and Oxford was ostracized from the magnificent homes of the
> Calvinist aristocracy where 'Shakespeare' played and wrote.
Oh, but he did go around the social circuit with the Queen for years; didn't
that count for anything?
Oxford
> was at Cambridge--as well as Oxford--to pick up the honorary degrees
> traditionally awarded to the highest peers and he was at the finishing
> schools for peers at Gray's Inn where he was no doubt roughed up--he
> was a physically tiny man--and he spent some time at Elizath's Court.
And I guess all those admiring dedications etc., were just lies? For what
purpose? It sounds as though you have invented an entirely new conspiracy!
Sitting on Occam's Razor can be dangerous!
> Bacon spent his entire life at Elizabeth's Court--she liked to show of
> the little genius--her 'Baby Solomon--and then James' Court with years
> spent at the Courts of Henry III and Henry IV, Denmark, Italy,
> Germany, etc--only to come back to be a courtier then Elizabeth's
> private counselor until she died.
Bacon never got anywhere at the English Court while Burghley was alive.
Zilch, zero. No wonder he left town.
>
> Elizabeth kept Bacon close to her all her life. Where the Burghley's
> had plenty of opportunity to stab Bacon in the back on a dailyl basis,
> a favor he returned in Hamlet.
>
> There is not a single thing in Bacon's biography that the Oxfordians
> can best and Bacon's biography covers all the astronomy, natural
> science--I can't list it all--in the plays.
But none of the art.
It's Bacon's landscape.
> He dominates it. Oxford was ridiculed by the
> Leicester-Sidney-Essex-Pembroke faction into seclusion, probably after
> the publication of Harvey's brilliantly mean satire of Oxford in the
> Harvey-Immerito letters.
Oxford wasn't exactly bowled over by Harvey.
Harvey was working for Essex as a spy in
> Oxford's house. The same Harvey who called Oxford a 'sky blue pig' in
> Latin at the famous encomium at Cambridge whose Latin Oxford didn't
> understand. He thought he was being lauded by Harvey and hired him to
> write poetry right afterward. The Leister-Essex faction must have
> been rolling on the floor.
>
> > You could of course be a 2nd or 3rd (or 4th or 5th) generation
> > Baconian; let's say, a descendant of poor Reverend Wilmott, a mid-18th
> > Century voice crying in the Warwickshire wilderness.
But I now see that you are an "instant Baconian" with a jumble of
misinformation and misinterpretation in your head.
>
> I read all the authorship sights critically and then made a tentative
> choice. I've only really decided for Bacon in the past couple of
> months and I still have to leave room for the possibility that Marlowe
> wrote the plays because the case will never be closed on Marlowe.
>
> But I will assume
> > unless corrected that you, as an intelligent, independent, well-educated
> > woman with a liking for research,
>
> Love bombing me will get you nowhere, Stephanie.
I take it all back! I was just being polite. I stand corrected. You are
conceited and ignorant and in love with your own half-baked theories. Do
you like that better?
>
> developed your convictions on your own.
> > And if you are in the academic world, you may have been subjected to a
lot
> > of the guff that passes for "literary criticism" on h.l.a.s.
> >
> > I wasn't born an Oxfordian, and I will assume (unless informed
otherwise)
> > that you were not born a Baconian. Something happened along the way to
> > arouse our suspicion that there was something not quite right about the
> > Stratfordian attribution. I have heard many stories from Oxfordians
about
> > how they came to their beliefs.
>
> >Contrary to the common presentations here,
> > I wasn't suborned or hypnotized or lured by the Ogburns,
>
> I'm sorry. I don't buy that. It sucked me in for at least an hour
> and I have spent much time not only studying but deconstructing that
> form of rhetoric. I know it well. I can shake it off but it is very
> seductive. The hypnotic effect of binary rhetoric has something to do
> with our bicameral brains. It makes us go into a waking dream state.
> It really needs to be researched although I'm sure some black agency
> is perfectly aware of the phenomenon.
Maybe you just need more sleep.
>
> > or Looney, or
> > anyone else. My own experiences and independent thought led me away
from
> > Stratford because of the many aspects of that story that didn't sit
right.
> >
> > But if "common sense" leads you to believe that the Stratfordian
attribution
> > is incorrect, then one looks for another personality or character who
seems
> > to fill the vacancy better than the other candidates. For me, it's
Oxford;
> > for you, it's Bacon.
>
> There's your problem Stephanie. You gave yourself away when you said
> you 'looked for a personality or character to fill the vacancy.'
A personality would be better than a vacuum, I always say! If this be
treason, make the most of it!
>
> You have to learn to read detectively.
Detectively?
>The advice of Baconian William
> James'. You have to look for evidence. It's all very thrilling to
> have the naughty Oxford for a candidate--actually Oxford was closer to
> a serial murder--but in any case you couldn't put forth one piece of
> evidence when I asked for it.
All you have put forth is a mass of garbage. I am disappointed. Your
exchange with Tom Reedy about the Oxfordian "mess" was so funny that I had
high hopes for you. Humor is your forte, not scholarship. Know thyself!
>
> Oxfordians have no evidence. Looney was wrong. Biography is not
> evidence and the fact that Bacon's biography is superior in every
> sense to Oxfords proves it.
Hum a few bars, and I'll fake it.
> The fact that Bacon's biography is a perfect match in every way for
> the shakespeare's works still would not make Bacon the author of
> Shakespeare. Identical twins can have identical biographies and one
> can become a serial killer and the other the great philosopher of
> modern science.
I'd cut the rest of this post and depart except that I see we are almost at
the end.
>
> It's about evidence. Oxford has zero, Bacon has huge circumstantial
> evidence--
> overwhelming--and at least four pieces of hard evidence.
Is one of them that frozen chicken he caught pneumonia over?
>
> > I expect I'll try to answer you in another post some time which
describes my
> > own experiences as a 6-year-old, and then in junior high, which have
some
> > bearing on all this.
> >
> > Stephanie
>
> Don't make it too soon. I like posting to you and I love the fact that
> you never let Webb get the better of you. He missed you terribly and
> tried to make me his Lucy Ricardo but I can't do ebullient paranoia as
> well as you do.
Thanks! Coming from you, I guess that's a compliment!
> I can kick his ass in a debate however.
Let me know....
I'm holding
> the last Nabokov post and will put it up if he tries to fool with me.
>
> I have a series of other posts to put up starting today. I'm feeling
> way behind in this forum. I still have to reply to Art's post--we've
> gotten it up to 633 lines.
Sorry but I rarely read posts that long. If you're involved, I certainly
won't.
>
>
>
> Sorry this is unedited. I need a latte.
You need something; I'm not quite sure what.
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > The Oxfordians have no evidence. That's why
> > I asked for 'one single piece of evidence.'
> > You can't come up with one piece.
>
> I have 4 pieces of evidence that directly relate Oxford with
> Shakespeare:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Freud's evaluation that Oxford was a good psychologic match.
I don't think Freud can be trusted because he confused literature with
science.
> 2) £1,000 a year in Shakespeare/Oxford/Lady Suffolk/Shelton.
I don't get the full reference. Burghley stole Oxford blind--he got
called on the carpet by Parliament for doing it. Elizabeth gave
Oxford 1000 pounds a year because he was the leading peer in the
realm. It was a royal subsidy. Or Oxford may have been her first
bastard--I was startled by the Hilliard of Oxford on Wright's site and
there is something going on in Burghley's underlined verses that fits
that theory. Elizabeth did have children and they did land somewhere.
I don't know what the relationship was between Oxford's father and
Elizabeth. He was a Catholic and an unsuitable foster parent for one
of her sons but Marjory was a Protestant. Maybe she thought that her
son would be safer with Catholics in 1550. Sort of a Moses and the
bullrushes maneuver. When I start reading the Geneva Bible verses
again I'll watch for it. I don't believe the incest stuff.
I think if Oxford were alive today he would start by suing the
Oxfordians for slander. I don't think he was sexually interested in
his son Wriothesley if Wriothesley was his son.
> 3) The evidence of "VERO NIHIL VERIUS"
> + (Masonic)"G"
> in the Sonnet's Dedications: "OUR EVERLIVING" &
> "HIS EVERLIVING WOR(kes)"
The Elizabethans were religious. They used biblical phrases all the
time. Everliving is a religious reference to God. Our Everliving
Poet. And why would Oxford refer to himself as 'our.'
>
> 4) The Troilus & Cressida intro: "An Ever Writer to
> a Never Reader"
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
If Bacon wrote Troilus and Cressida it's meant ironically.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The best I have for Francis Bacon is the fact that:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On the Frontispiece in volume 1 of Nicholas Rowe's 1709 edition of _The
> Works of Mr. William Shakespeare_ there is "a horn[/oBoe] on his head."
I've never read that.
> The oBoe's "double READ" points to the number 53 on the Stratford
> Monument. (See p. 193 of Matus' _Shakespeare In Fact_.)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> the word "BACON" is given explicitly on page 53 of both:
Bacon put little cyphers in other works. It was a fad. Even Camden
did it and he was a very stuffy fellow.
Anyway ARt, the Neuendorffer Pheon is about the Sidneys and the
Dudleys. Herbert was a Sidney-Dudley. I mean Mary Sidney was a
Dudley-Sidney. None of those people was related to Oxford unless he
was an other side of the blanket Dudley and even then he wouldn't be a
Sidney.
Maybe it's the Dudley pheon. But Southampton wasn't a Dudley unless
he was B. # 4. Maybe. Bacon was the only one who got Anne Boleyn's
coloring if Bacon was Dudley's bastard.
This is too difficult.
Peter Farey
>
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > I read the Bacon sites, the Oxfordian sites--three or four of them
> > from front to back--both Marlovian sites--Peter Farey and John Baker
> > are both very fine researchers and writers and make an excellent case
> > for Marlowe.
Why, thank you ma'am!
> If he only hadn't been dead!
Ah, the old "how could he have written them with a knife stick-
ing out of his head" routine. Where would we be without it?
If you (or for that matter anyone else on HLAS) are actually
interested in why I think he was *not* dead, I happen to have
just completed a rather lengthy (around 12 thousand words)
essay on the subject, which I am about to submit as an entry
for this year's Calvin & Rose G Hoffman Prize.
I have placed a copy of it (still in Word 6.0 format, so
although it will download alright you'll probably lose the
footnotes) on my website at
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/hoff_01.doc
Should anyone read it, I would obviously be grateful for any
glaring errors they spot to be pointed out to me straight away!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Greg Reynolds
Peter Farey wrote:
There's a fricking knife sticking out of his head.
Bob Grumman
> Shakespeare:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Freud's evaluation that Oxford was a good psychologic match.
>
> 2) The evidence of "VERO NIHIL VERIUS"
> + (Masonic)"G"
> in the Sonnet's Dedications: "OUR EVERLIVING" &
> "HIS EVERLIVING WOR(kes)"
>
> 3) The Troilus & Cressida intro: "A Never Writer to
> an Ever Reader"
>
> 4) £1,000 a year in Shakespeare/Oxford/Lady Suffolk/Shelton.
Dang, all we have is "W. Shakespeare"--an anagram for "Shakspeare"
plus "we," or "wheee!"--on one of the quartos.
--Bob G.
Neuendorffer
That's right Bob, you have nothing but equivocation.
In what sense was Shakspere either "A Never Writer"
or "EVERLIVING" in 1609?
Art N.
Neuendorffer
> >
> > > The Oxfordians have no evidence. That's why
> > > I asked for 'one single piece of evidence.'
> > > You can't come up with one piece.
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote:
> > I have 4 pieces of evidence that directly relate Oxford with
> > Shakespeare:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 1) Freud's evaluation that Oxford was a good psychologic match.
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> I don't think Freud can be trusted because he confused literature with
> science.
>
> > 2) £1,000 a year in Shakespeare/Oxford/Lady Suffolk/Shelton.
>
> I don't get the full reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Shakspear had but two daughters, one whereof Mr. Hall, the physitian,
married, and by her had on daughter married, to wit, the Lady Bernard of
Abbingdon. I have heard that Mr. Shakspeare was a natural wit, without
any art at all; hee frequented the plays all his younger time, but in
his elder days lived at Stratford, and supplied the stage with two plays
every year, and for itt had an allowance so large, that hee spent att
the rate of £1,000 a-year, as I have heard. Shakespeare, Drayton, and
Ben Jonson, had a merie meeting, and itt seems drank too hard, for
Shakespear died of a feavour there contracted. Remember to peruse
Shakespeare's plays; and bee much versed in them, that I may not bee
ignorant in that matter. Whether Dr. Heylin does well, in reckoning
up the dramatick poets which have been famous in England,
to omit Shakespeare.>> -- WARD, REV. JOHN, 1648-78, Diary
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DROMIO OF EPHESUS I buy A THOUSAND POUND a year: I buy a ROPE.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/stevens.htm
<<Queen Elizabeth made an extraordinary grant to de Vere. Using a
formula that was characteristic of special payments to members of the
Secret Service, on June 26, 1586, she signed a privy seal warrant
granting de Vere an annuity of £1,000 per year for which no accounting
was to be required. This was an unusually large amount at the time and
the grant continued for the remaining eighteen years of de Vere's life,
it having been renewed by King James.>> -- Justice John Paul Stevens
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<A Thomas Shelton was employed by Thomas Howard, the Earl of Walden,
later the Earl of Suffolk, to whom the translation of Don Quixote was
dedicated. His wife, Catherine, Lady Suffolk received a payment of
£1,000 a year from the King of Spain for her work on his behalf in this
country. What this consisted of has remained a secret. Shelton may have
worked for her and have undertaken missions in Spain, and on these
visits to Madrid, Shelton may have met and conferred with Cervantes.
From 1603 to 1614, Suffolk, the builder of Audley End, near Saffron
Walden in Essex, was Lord Chamberlain to the royal household. However,
it must be stressed that there is no evidence that the Thomas Shelton
who worked for Lady Suffolk was the Thomas Shelton who translated Don
Quixote. We have no further information about either man, if indeed two
men by this name are involved.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
> Burghley stole Oxford blind--he got
> called on the carpet by Parliament for doing it. Elizabeth gave
> Oxford 1000 pounds a year because he was the leading peer in the
> realm. It was a royal subsidy. Or Oxford may have been her first
> bastard--I was startled by the Hilliard of Oxford on Wright's site and
> there is something going on in Burghley's underlined verses that fits
> that theory. Elizabeth did have children and they did land somewhere.
> I don't know what the relationship was between Oxford's father and
> Elizabeth. He was a Catholic and an unsuitable foster parent for one
> of her sons but Marjory was a Protestant. Maybe she thought that her
> son would be safer with Catholics in 1550. Sort of a Moses and the
> bullrushes maneuver. When I start reading the Geneva Bible verses
> again I'll watch for it. I don't believe the incest stuff.
Me neither.
If incest is involved I'll gladly convert to Stratfordianism.
> I think if Oxford were alive today he would start by suing the
> Oxfordians for slander. I don't think he was sexually interested in
> his son Wriothesley if Wriothesley was his son.
What this has to do with the £1,000 a-year connection escapes me.
> > 3) The evidence of "VERO NIHIL VERIUS"
> > + (Masonic)"G"
> > in the Sonnet's Dedications: "OUR EVERLIVING" &
> > "HIS EVERLIVING WOR(kes)"
>
> The Elizabethans were religious. They used biblical phrases all the
> time. Everliving is a religious reference to God. Our Everliving
> Poet. And why would Oxford refer to himself as 'our.'
Oxford didn't, he was dead in 1609.
> > 4) The Troilus & Cressida intro: "A Never Writer to
> > an Ever Reader"
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If Bacon wrote Troilus and Cressida it's meant ironically.
Neither Bacon nor Marlowe nor Shakspere was "A Never Writer" in 1609.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The best I have for Francis Bacon is the fact that:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > On the Frontispiece in volume 1 of Nicholas Rowe's 1709 edition of _The
> > Works of Mr. William Shakespeare_ there is "a horn[/oBoe] on his head."
>
> I've never read that.
So far as I know, that part of it was my discovery.
> > The oBoe's "double READ" points to the number 53 on the Stratford
> > Monument. (See p. 193 of Matus' _Shakespeare In Fact_.)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > the word "BACON" is given explicitly on page 53 of both:
>
> Bacon put little cyphers in other works. It was a fad. Even Camden
> did it and he was a very stuffy fellow.
I have little doubt that Bacon put this in the Folio.
> Anyway ARt, the Neuendorffer Pheon is about the Sidneys and the
> Dudleys. Herbert was a Sidney-Dudley. I mean Mary Sidney was a
> Dudley-Sidney. None of those people was related to Oxford unless he
> was an other side of the blanket Dudley and even then he wouldn't be a
> Sidney.
Philip Herbert was Oxford's son-in-law.
> Maybe it's the Dudley pheon. But Southampton wasn't a Dudley unless
> he was B. # 4. Maybe. Bacon was the only one who got Anne Boleyn's
> coloring if Bacon was Dudley's bastard.
> This is too difficult.
> > the word "BACON" is given explicitly on page 53 of:
Bob Grumman
> > > from front to back--both Marlovian sites--Peter Farey and John Baker
> > > are both very fine researchers and writers and make an excellent case
> > > for Marlowe.
>
> Why, thank you ma'am!
You're thanking her, Peter?! I can't think of a worse smear than
being coupled with John Baker as a researcher.
--Bob G.
Hermione Winterstale
> If he only hadn't been dead!
> >Peter Farey wrote:
> > Ah, the old "how could he have written them with a knife stick-
> > ing out of his head" routine. Where would we be without it?
> >
> > If you (or for that matter anyone else on HLAS) are actually
> > interested in why I think he was *not* dead, I happen to have
> > just completed a rather lengthy (around 12 thousand words)
> > essay on the subject, which I am about to submit as an entry
> > for this year's Calvin & Rose G Hoffman Prize.
> >
> > I have placed a copy of it (still in Word 6.0 format, so
> > although it will download alright you'll probably lose the
> > footnotes) on my website at
> >
> > http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/hoff_01.doc
> >
> > Should anyone read it, I would obviously be grateful for any
> > glaring errors they spot to be pointed out to me straight away!
>
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> There's a fricking knife sticking out of his head.
Let's see...the only witnesses to the actual events that took place
that day in Mrs. Bull's house in Deptford were Secret Service spies.
Local villagers who had never set eyes on Christopher Marlowe were
asked to identify a body. The Queen's own coroner was called in to
supplant the local coroner. Perhaps there was a knife sticking out of
someone's head, but how can you be so sure it was Marlowe's head? Do
you have any clue as to what became of the body of the man who was
executed the night before just 4 miles away? His wife and family
wanted to know as well, but were never told. And where is Christopher
Marlowe's grave? And why were his friends inquiring, weeks after the
strange events at Deptford, if anyone had seen him lately, since he
had dropped out of sight. And why, after some time had passed, did
they inquire of each other whether he might have succumbed to the
plague which was raging at the time?
Perhaps William Shakespeare wrote all the plays and sonnets
published in the Folio. Perhaps he wrote only some of the canon or
none at all. Perhaps Francis Bacon wrote or revised some of the plays.
Perhaps Roger Manners, Edward Dyer, Walter Ralegh and/or others
contributed to the canon. But while it might be unlikely that either
he or anyone else will ever untangle the authorship, Peter Farey's
thirst for new information appears unquenchable. Isn't that
admirable?
Hermione
Rob Zigler
in article 74ff36b5.0108...@posting.google.com, Hermione
Winterstale at winte...@bigfoot.com wrote on 8/25/01 12:54 PM:
>>> Stephanie Caruana wrote:
>> If he only hadn't been dead!
>
>>> Peter Farey wrote:
>>> Ah, the old "how could he have written them with a knife stick-
>>> ing out of his head" routine. Where would we be without it?
>>>
>>> If you (or for that matter anyone else on HLAS) are actually
>>> interested in why I think he was *not* dead, I happen to have
>>> just completed a rather lengthy (around 12 thousand words)
>>> essay on the subject, which I am about to submit as an entry
>>> for this year's Calvin & Rose G Hoffman Prize.
>>>
>>> I have placed a copy of it (still in Word 6.0 format, so
>>> although it will download alright you'll probably lose the
>>> footnotes) on my website at
>>>
>>> http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/hoff_01.doc
>>>
>>> Should anyone read it, I would obviously be grateful for any
>>> glaring errors they spot to be pointed out to me straight away!
>>
> Greg Reynolds wrote:
>> There's a fricking knife sticking out of his head.
>
>
> Let's see...the only witnesses to the actual events that took place
> that day in Mrs. Bull's house in Deptford were Secret Service spies.
Poley appears to have been making a living as an agent. Skeres was
sometimes an agent. As far as I know, Frizer never appears in any
records as an agent. One thing's for sure. They were all shady
characters known to have cheated some of the men who trusted them.
If we suppose that Marlowe wasn't a fool, we can reasonably suppose
that he wouldn't have trusted men like Frizer, Poley and Skeres any
further than he could throw them.
> Local villagers who had never set eyes on Christopher Marlowe were
> asked to identify a body.
And you know this how?
> The Queen's own coroner was called in to
> supplant the local coroner.
By the map and ruler, it looks like the murder took place within
the verge. Therefore, the Royal coroner was bound to handle the
situation.
> Perhaps there was a knife sticking out of
> someone's head, but how can you be so sure it was Marlowe's head? Do
> you have any clue as to what became of the body of the man who was
> executed the night before just 4 miles away?
Presumably, you are talking about John Penry's body. Do
also know for a fact that the jurors didn't know Penry?
Penry was apparently hung. Hanging leaves physical evidence
that's rather easy to spot. (eg. purple face, rope burns.)
> His wife and family
> wanted to know as well, but were never told.
How do you know this?
> And where is Christopher
> Marlowe's grave?
According to the records, somewhere in the churchyard of
St. Nicolas parish.
> And why were his friends inquiring, weeks after the
> strange events at Deptford, if anyone had seen him lately, since he
> had dropped out of sight.
As far as I know, they weren't.
> And why, after some time had passed, did
> they inquire of each other whether he might have succumbed to the
> plague which was raging at the time?
As far as I know, none of his friends made any such
inquiries.
Actually, a conspiracy where Marlowe pretended to die of the
plague makes much more sense. Fewer people involved. No jury.
No need for shady characters like Skeres or Poley who, if they
got into trouble, might see some gain in spilling he beans.
No need for Frizer to put his neck in the noose by pretending
that he'd killed Marlowe.
> Perhaps William Shakespeare wrote all the plays and sonnets
> published in the Folio.
For the most part, that's seems pretty likely.
> Perhaps he wrote only some of the canon or
> none at all.
Well, John Fletcher may have had a hand in HVIII.
> Perhaps Francis Bacon wrote or revised some of the plays.
> Perhaps Roger Manners, Edward Dyer, Walter Ralegh and/or others
> contributed to the canon. But while it might be unlikely that either
> he or anyone else will ever untangle the authorship,
It's hard to see why anyone needs to untangle what isn't tangled.
> Peter Farey's
> thirst for new information appears unquenchable. Isn't that
> admirable?
I can't say that I've found Peter's arguments persuasive, but I can
say that he seems to be a very fine fellow.
Rob
DerColin
attribution
> is incorrect, then one looks for another personality or character who seems
> to fill the vacancy better than the other candidates. For me, it's Oxford;
> for you, it's Bacon.
EW-There's your problem Stephanie. You gave yourself away when you said
you 'looked for a personality or character to fill the vacancy.'
This is indeed the problem I saw with Oxfordianism: that it was buying into a
parallel biography that should "fit" Shakespeare -- but the biography was
largely made up. (Plus he died too soon!)
Personality and character are indeed aspects (not necessarily discernible just
through texts) that have to be consonant between a writer and his works, but
designating someone as a writer just on the basis of a perceived
personality/character is insufficient and prone to lead to lerror. Indeed,
even finding apparently perfect parallels is, as EW elsewhere mentioned,
insufficient.
But the Oxford problem is more troubling (to me) inasmuch as it seems that the
biography of this Shakespeare is made up to fit what is deemed wanted. He was
the first non-Stratfordian candidate I read about, and I was initially swayed
(but I'm swayed by everything -- for a short time: trying to get it from the
inside, as it were.) But the inconsistencies with the historical Oxford and
the supposed Shakespearean Oxford (never mind the dates) undercut the
connection -- fatally. Like you, Stephanie, I was initially opposed to Bacon
because of those poems (on the SOS website). But those objections are
surmountable.
Peter Farey
if any of you said anything else, I'm afraid I missed it.
Rob Zigler wrote:
>
> Hermione Winterstale wrote:
> >
> > Greg Reymolds wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter Farey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you (or for that matter anyone else on HLAS) are actually
> > > > interested in why I think he was *not* dead, I happen to have
> > > > just completed a rather lengthy (around 12 thousand words)
> > > > essay on the subject, which I am about to submit as an entry
> > > > for this year's Calvin & Rose G Hoffman Prize.
> > > >
> > > > I have placed a copy of it (still in Word 6.0 format, so
> > > > although it will download alright you'll probably lose the
> > > > footnotes) on my website at
> > > >
> > > > http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/hoff_01.doc
> > > >
> > > > Should anyone read it, I would obviously be grateful for any
> > > > glaring errors they spot to be pointed out to me straight away!
> >
> > Greg Reynolds wrote:
> > > There's a fricking knife sticking out of his head.
Nice one, Greg. I thought Jim had performing rights on that
joke, but I chuckled nevertheless.
> > Let's see...the only witnesses to the actual events that took place
> > that day in Mrs. Bull's house in Deptford were Secret Service spies.
>
> Poley appears to have been making a living as an agent. Skeres was
> sometimes an agent. As far as I know, Frizer never appears in any
> records as an agent.
This is how I understand it.
> One thing's for sure. They were all shady
> characters known to have cheated some of the men who trusted them.
> If we suppose that Marlowe wasn't a fool, we can reasonably suppose
> that he wouldn't have trusted men like Frizer, Poley and Skeres any
> further than he could throw them.
I get a feeling that the gulling of young men with too much
money was not seen in those days in quite the same light that
we would. It was probably seen more as we would see a hostile
takeover or a boardroom coup today. There is also reason to
suppose, of course, that Marlowe himself was just as capable
as Poley of deceiving people who trusted him.
> > Local villagers who had never set eyes on Christopher Marlowe were
> > asked to identify a body.
>
> And you know this how?
One point that has only just occurred to me is that, in the
extremely unlikely event that a jury member said that it was
not Marlowe, the famous playwright, they only had to say that
of course it wasn't, it was some other guy with a similar name.
> > The Queen's own coroner was called in to
> > supplant the local coroner.
>
> By the map and ruler, it looks like the murder took place within
> the verge. Therefore, the Royal coroner was bound to handle the
> situation.
Interestingly, this is not true. The distance between the site
of Nonsuch Palace (where the Queen was) and the nearest point
in Deptford is over 13 miles, as the crow flies, and about 16
miles by road. The verge being defined as within 12 miles of
the Queen's person, he was there under false pretences.
> > Perhaps there was a knife sticking out of
> > someone's head, but how can you be so sure it was Marlowe's head? Do
> > you have any clue as to what became of the body of the man who was
> > executed the night before just 4 miles away?
>
> Presumably, you are talking about John Penry's body. Do
> also know for a fact that the jurors didn't know Penry?
Not with a knife in his head, they didn't. And as our William
put it: "Death's a great disguiser".
> Penry was apparently hung.
Lucky Penry! Sticking to the point, however, he does appear
to have been hanged. (Sorry, Rob. Couldn't resist it).
> Hanging leaves physical evidence
> that's rather easy to spot. (eg. purple face, rope burns.)
This is undoubtedly the the strongest argument against Dave
More's Penry idea. The arguments *for* it, however, as I give
in my paper, are pretty strong. (For a start, it explains both
why Danby had to be involved, and why they had to wait all day
before the 'killing' could happen).
To address this point, though, it might help (for those who can
take it) to look at http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/strangulation.htm
First, as regards the colour of the face, in neither illustration,
as far as one can see, do they appear to be particularly purple.
Two points are worth noting in the text which might explain this.
1) (Under 'Ligature Strangulation') "Where a constricting band is
tightened round the neck, there is usually gross congestion,
cyanosis and petechiae (slight bleeding) in the face if the
pressure is maintained for more than about 20 seconds."
2) (Under 'Hanging') "Hangings that involve free swinging result
in an almost instantaneous death due to a sudden pressure on
the neck arteries".
So if Penry's death had been (as was usually the case then) by
'swinging' rather than by the 'long drop' (which was introduced
later), and he had been cut down as soon as he was dead, there
might have been little congestion etc., and certainly none that
might not be explained away by the stab wound to the eye.
Second, as regards the 'rope burns'. I assume a lot of (pig's?)
blood would have been in evidence, and that they would have
dressed 'Marlowe' with a simple ruff, which would certainly
conceal any such mark. Nobody would be allowed to touch the
body until the inquest, and Danby could make sure that nobody
did then
> > His wife and family
> > wanted to know as well, but were never told.
>
> How do you know this?
We know that his wife Helen tried desperately to get to see him,
but that her petition was denied. We know that the signing of
the warrant and the actual execution took place on an unexpected
day, and at an unexpected time. We know that the whereabouts of
the remains is unknown. Penry was a major figure in the rise of
congregationalism, one of their first martyrs. Helen would have
certainly wanted to find out, and if she had been able to, we
would undoubtedly now know where it was too.
<snip>
> Actually, a conspiracy where Marlowe pretended to die of the
> plague makes much more sense. Fewer people involved. No jury.
> No need for shady characters like Skeres or Poley who, if they
> got into trouble, might see some gain in spilling he beans.
> No need for Frizer to put his neck in the noose by pretending
> that he'd killed Marlowe.
If this was a faked death, clearly it was an essential part of
the plot that it should be recorded in this way. Absolute
incontrovertible proof (ha!) that he was dead. I think we can
overplay the 'shady' side of these characters, by the way. Those
who employed them at the time had a better idea than we do of
how far they could be trusted, I think.
<snip of all the 'authorship' stuff, which my paper is not
concerned with>,
> > Peter Farey's
> > thirst for new information appears unquenchable. Isn't that
> > admirable?
Yes, and at his age too!
> I can't say that I've found Peter's arguments persuasive, but I can
> say that he seems to be a very fine fellow.
Hey, you're not the *other* Rob, are you?
Stephanie Caruana
I apologize for the wise-ass remark. It just slipped out as I was trying to
negotiate my fragile bark through the rushing rapids of Elizabeth Weir's
bipolar rhetoric.
In response to your request, I read your essay carefully and spotted what
seemed to me to be a couple of minor errors:
In the quote from Breight:
"Crudely put, his political *conscious* may have resulted in his being
rendered permanently unconscious by a henchman of the regime ... "
"conscious" doesn't seem quite the right word; "consciousness" perhaps?
In the "Witnesses" section, in the following sentence, half of "gentleman"
is in italics:
"Drew Woodlef, who was bound 'unto a gentleman of good worshipp' for the sum
of £200, and the gentleman in question was Thomas Walsingham."
In the section on rigor mortis, "cadavre" I expect ought to be "cadaver.
I want to compliment you on this excellent essay and wish you success in the
contest. I was particularly impressed by the section on "rigor mortis" and
the timing of its effects. It would explain the long duration of the
"meeting." I can see the interest of this subject. I'd be the last person
to say that such carefully planned conspiracies on the part of "government"
spies who are capable of crime as well as "service" are unlikely or even
unusual. (I live in Cambridge, Mass., where various murders and other
crimes committed by Flemmi and Bulger in the '70's were aided and abetted by
a "respected" member of the FBI in the name of "fighting crime", and news
stories with further details appear weekly.) The ability to plan and carry
out "conspiracies" involving "murder" is clearly a part of the instinctive
or psychological apparatus of all predators who engage in group hunting,
from wolves, hunting dogs, lions, chimps, and certainly homo sapiens. We
just get cleverer at it as technology advances.
But even if Marlowe did survive his "death", I still don't think he could
have metamorphosed into "Shakespeare." (For me, it's simpler to cut off the
discussion at the Deptford pass.) If his life continued but he was barred
from the self-expression which got him into trouble in the first place, I
could see him living a life perhaps somewhat like the French poet Rimbaud, a
brilliant poetic genius who started writing at age 10, and apparently quit
writing poetry at age 19. He led a secretive and submerged but adventurous
life in Africa and the middle East as a trader, and died at the age of 37.
Stephanie
"Peter Farey" <f...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3B88CA...@rey.prestel.co.uk...
[cut]
Dr Peter Groves
choose a scarcely illiterate uneducated peasant as a plausible foster-parent
for his plays and poems. Or is it just an amazing coincidence that the
psuedonym Oxford (or whoever) chose to pen plays for the Lord Chamberlain's
men was identical to that of a prominent member of that company (I hope I
don't have to point out that Elizabethan spelling was a fairly laissez-faire
matter).
Peter Groves
Okay Fine
It's not absurd, you're correct. Oxford chose a prominent member of the
company, someone he knew well, someone he could trust. Apparently the
thought was that it was easier to attribute the work to someone known
than to someone unknown. It's a creditable perspective, particularly if
that's what they did.
OF.