Detobel

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark Alexander

unread,
Aug 6, 2001, 11:04:43 AM8/6/01
to
It seems that nobody is posting a substantive refutation of posts III-VI
of Detobel's arguments. Only Rob seems to have taken a genuinely
critical stance in responding to posts I and II.

I suppose that until a proper refutation is posted, Detobel's arguments
stand as the better arguments.

But perhaps it is always better for Strats to *pretend* that Oxfordian
arguments are all "bilge" (in advance, before even examining them). Or
to pretend that they don't understand them.

Perhaps arguing that Oxfordian arguments are all a waste of time, and
that all of their proponents do not apply scholarly standards, is the
only way to deal with *real* scholarly work by Oxfordians.

Oxfordian scholars exist and are making well-supported scholarly
arguments.

More to come.

Besides Detobel, we are still waiting for proper refutations to
Stritmatter's dissertation (which was approved by Stratfordian
professors).

And of course, there will be my Shakespeare's Knowledge of Law essay
this fall.

We are waiting.

Cheers

Mark Alexander


Mark Steese

unread,
Aug 6, 2001, 5:39:32 PM8/6/01
to
Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "Mark Alexander"
<mark...@earthlink.net> that wrote
news:fmyb7.237$nb4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, on the day of 06
Aug 2001:

> It seems that nobody is posting a substantive refutation of posts III-VI
> of Detobel's arguments. Only Rob seems to have taken a genuinely critical
> stance in responding to posts I and II.
>
> I suppose that until a proper refutation is posted, Detobel's arguments
> stand as the better arguments.

That ain't the way it works. Erich von Däniken's book "Chariots of the
Gods?" did not stand as a plausible set of arguments until someone took the
trouble to write a 'proper refutation.'



> But perhaps it is always better for Strats to *pretend* that Oxfordian
> arguments are all "bilge" (in advance, before even examining them). Or
> to pretend that they don't understand them.

You can't fool Mister Alexander! He knows that you're just pretendin'! It
couldn't possibly be the case that you don't have time to prepare a point-
by-point refutation because you actually have a life!



> Perhaps arguing that Oxfordian arguments are all a waste of time, and
> that all of their proponents do not apply scholarly standards, is the
> only way to deal with *real* scholarly work by Oxfordians.
>
> Oxfordian scholars exist and are making well-supported scholarly
> arguments.

Argument by fiat is unconvincing, especially coming as it does from someone
who has yet to provide substantive refutation to the anti-Oxfordian
arguments made by scholars in this very newsgroup. It seems to me that by
your own standards, you should accept *all* Shakespearean arguments that
have not been substantively refuted, and we should assume that *any*
argument you haven't provided a substantive rebuttal for is an argument you
acknowledge as better than yours.



> More to come.
>
> Besides Detobel, we are still waiting for proper refutations to
> Stritmatter's dissertation (which was approved by Stratfordian
> professors).

While you're waiting, perhaps you should get to work on your own proper
refutations. You can start by refuting the following argument: given the
complete absence of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents containing so much
as a suggestion that anyone other than William Shakespeare wrote the plays
and poetry now attributed to him, it is perfectly reasonable for scholars
to reject modern assertions to the contrary.

Until I see a substantive refutation, I will assume that you agree with
this.

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

Bob Grumman

unread,
Aug 6, 2001, 6:54:41 PM8/6/01
to
Rob is dismantling Detobel, Mark. Give him time to complete
the job. In the meantime, why don't you take a minute or
two to refute something very short: my set of arguments
that Diana Price's Ogburnian interpretation of what Aubrey
said about Shakespeare is egregiously stupid. Or acknowledge
that in this one minor case, an anti-Stratfordian has erred.

You might add a minor claim of ours for why we Stratfordians
don't bother as much with your side's arguments as you think
we should, the fact that our main concern is with direct
concrete evidence, and you don't give us any to consider.
But that might trip you out of your propagandistic mode, and
you wouldn't want that.
--Bob G.

Ken Kaplan

unread,
Aug 6, 2001, 9:35:02 PM8/6/01
to
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote in message news:<5f7d2eb3.01080...@posting.google.com>...

Since by your own admission you haven't *read* Robert's posts, and
since Xrob went on vacation while only dealing with parts one and two,
bypassing the cases that supported his argument, by what stretch of
the imagination except in your fantasy is he dismantling Detobel?

Tell you what. I'll make it easy for you. Since you read the
exchanges,instead of the original posts, give me the highlights of
Xrob's dismantling. Give me two examples in which he produced
evidence, not opinion, to back his claim. Claims that Robert didn't
answer?

If you can't even muster that, all it shows is the usual use of the
tactic of avoidance, same as Steese, except he added ad hominem
attack. Thank you for once again validating Mark's observations on
Strat tactics.

Ken Kaplan

David Kathman

unread,
Aug 6, 2001, 11:59:04 PM8/6/01
to
Mark Alexander wrote:
>
> It seems that nobody is posting a substantive refutation of posts III-VI
> of Detobel's arguments. Only Rob seems to have taken a genuinely
> critical stance in responding to posts I and II.

Mark, as I've explained already, I'm overwhelmingly busy right
now with real scholarly projects, and don't have time for
a line-by-line response to Detobel's incredibly prolix
ramblings. I have however, given a general response, and this
week I may have some time to post some of the other stuff
I've promised.

> I suppose that until a proper refutation is posted, Detobel's arguments
> stand as the better arguments.

Uhhh... what? If that's what you want to think, then I guess
I can't stop you. I'm sorry that some of us have lives, and
can't drop everything to respond to every crackpot who posts
the theories he's been scribbling in his attic for the last
ten years. I know, you're going to condescendingly take me
to task for implying that this description applies to
Detobel, who I don't know apart from his posts here and
the descriptions I've heard from other Oxfordians. Well, as
I said in one of my earlier posts, there's a fair amount
in Detobel's posts that I have no problem with, though many
of his arguments contain unsupported leaps of logic, and some
of his ultimate conclusions (as near as I can decipher them)
are not supported by the evidence he cites.

> But perhaps it is always better for Strats to *pretend* that Oxfordian
> arguments are all "bilge" (in advance, before even examining them).

Uh, no. We do that after examining them. And not all
Oxfordian arguments are "bilge"; Oxfordian arguments vary
quite a bit in their bilgehood, though their ultimate
conclusions are generally at odds with reason and/or
the evidence.

> Or
> to pretend that they don't understand them.

In Detobel's case, that's genuinely true. I have
a very hard time deciphering much of his prose, and
his writing style makes it very hard to follow his
arguments, such as they are. None of this is my fault,
as much as you'd like to make it so.

> Perhaps arguing that Oxfordian arguments are all a waste of time, and
> that all of their proponents do not apply scholarly standards, is the
> only way to deal with *real* scholarly work by Oxfordians.

I have never said that "Oxfordian arguments are all a waste
of time", though experience has taught me that attempting
to rebut those arguments is rarely worth the time and
effort required. The vast majority of Oxfordians do NOT
apply scholarly standards, as you would discover if you
tried to get your Oxfordian stuff published in a real
peer-reviewed journal (as opposed to your circle-jerk
antistratfordian journals).

> Oxfordian scholars exist and are making well-supported scholarly
> arguments.

Some Oxfordians are certainly capable of doing real
scholarship, but the problem is that these same people,
in most cases I'm aware of, are also capable of doing
wacky stuff which violates scholarly standards left and
right. Diana Price's article on the Shakespeare monument
in RES is a good and valuable piece of work, but her book
is riddled with unscholarly special pleading, radical
double standards, and unwarranted conclusions. John Rollett
is capable of doing genuine research, as I've discovered to
my pleasant surprise, but his stuff on the alleged cipher
in the Sonnets dedication is still as bizarre and wacked-out
as ever. This makes me more sad than anything else.

> More to come.
>
> Besides Detobel, we are still waiting for proper refutations to
> Stritmatter's dissertation (which was approved by Stratfordian
> professors).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Stratfordian" professors;
as far as I know Stritmatter recruited people for his committee
who were sympathetic to his cause. Stritmatter had to go
to the Comparative Literature department rather than the
English department (I know at least one member of the UMass
English department who wanted nothing to do with Stritmatter),
and one former member of his committee who had expressed
skepticism of Stritmatter's conclusions was asked to leave
the committee (though ostensibly for other reasons).

As for "proper refutations" to Stritmatter's dissertation,
that would be a lot easier if it were made widely available
rather than on a "subscribers only" basis. It's very easy
to triumphantly crow that an argument hasn't been rebutted
when you only parcel it out to a select few. I suppose I'll
get to it at some point, but right now I've got much more
pressing and interesting projects to worry about. I know
how much that disappoints you, Mark.

> And of course, there will be my Shakespeare's Knowledge of Law essay
> this fall.

I'll be interested to read that. Where is it being
published?

> We are waiting.

Oh, I'm sure you are.

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

Mark Steese

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 1:18:18 AM8/7/01
to
[posted and mailed]

Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of kenka...@yahoo.com (Ken Kaplan)
that wrote news:75f2d918.01080...@posting.google.com, on the


day of 06 Aug 2001:

[snippage]


> If you can't even muster that, all it shows is the usual use of the
> tactic of avoidance, same as Steese,

Avoidance of what? I'm still waiting for your response to my last couple
of messages regarding "Twelfth Night." You asked me to "Come up with am
alternate explanation for the lines in the scene which some critics clain
change the emotional tenor of the play toward a more tragic and sober
dimension"; I did so, and answer came there none. I'm also still waiting
for an answer to your fatuous claim that I admitted "that Oxford might have
contributed to the conception of Hamlet." Avoidance, thy name is Kaplan.

> except he added ad hominem attack.

Oh, I think not. I've never substituted insult for argument, and I've
never insulted anyone who didn't earn the right.

> Thank you for once again validating Mark's observations on Strat tactics.

If you've been following my posts, Ken, perhaps you saw a recent response
of mine to Mr. Alexander, in this very thread? If not, here it is again.
Why don't you have a crack at it?

* * *


You can start by refuting the following argument: given the complete
absence of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents containing so much as a
suggestion that anyone other than William Shakespeare wrote the plays
and poetry now attributed to him, it is perfectly reasonable for scholars
to reject modern assertions to the contrary.

Until I see a substantive refutation, I will assume that you agree with
this.

* * *

Now, since we know you're not a 'Stratfordian,' presumably you won't avoid
dealing with this argument. Have fun.

Yours,

Robert Detobel

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 8:11:56 AM8/7/01
to
mst...@home.com (Mark Steese) wrote in message news:<Xns90F593EE2D9C...@130.133.1.4>...

> Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "Mark Alexander"
> <mark...@earthlink.net> that wrote
> news:fmyb7.237$nb4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, on the day of 06
> Aug 2001:
>
> > It seems that nobody is posting a substantive refutation of posts III-VI
> > of Detobel's arguments. Only Rob seems to have taken a genuinely critical
> > stance in responding to posts I and II.
> >
> > I suppose that until a proper refutation is posted, Detobel's arguments
> > stand as the better arguments.
>
> That ain't the way it works. Erich von Däniken's book "Chariots of the
> Gods?" did not stand as a plausible set of arguments until someone took the
> trouble to write a 'proper refutation.'


I didn't read Erich von Däniken's book(s). Did you? Based on what I
read ABOUT it (them) I cannot see a common denominator between his
works and my listing approx. a score of cases from a register and a
book of records. Otherwise stated, the common denominator you are
using is zero. Which makes your fraction of argument flying to
infinite, that is, out of sight. And more akin, I guess, to von
Däniken than my lists. Was he not writing about infinite and invisible
beings, too?

Mark Alexander

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 12:52:41 PM8/7/01
to

"David Kathman" <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B6F6786...@popd.ix.netcom.com...
> Mark Alexander wrote:

<snip>

Dave, since responding to me is a waste , why not just take all that
valuable time of yours and respond to Detobel?

Didn't you tell Detobel that were going to post Blayney's conclusions?

(No reply to me needed. Just follow through so we can take another step
in this argument.)

Cheers

Mark Alexander

Bob Grumman

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 1:06:27 PM8/7/01
to
> Since by your own admission you haven't *read* Robert's posts, and
> since Xrob went on vacation while only dealing with parts one and two,
> bypassing the cases that supported his argument, by what stretch of
> the imagination except in your fantasy is he dismantling Detobel?

Actually, I HAVE read a few of them now though I didn't realize
I had to report on my progress.

> Tell you what. I'll make it easy for you. Since you read the
> exchanges,instead of the original posts, give me the highlights of
> Xrob's dismantling. Give me two examples in which he produced
> evidence, not opinion, to back his claim. Claims that Robert didn't
> answer?

My impression, state in an exchange of ASSERTIONS with Mark, is
that Rob is doing a good job so far of dismantling Detobel. I
haven't time to find examples. Until I have you can properly call
what I said unsupported opinion. You can't say Mark did better,
though.

As for "avoidance," call it that if you want. But I note that
you avoid defending Mark against the charges I make of him.

Ken, I feel that you have to let us pop off at Mark every
once in a while, after he's popped off at us. I think you should
also give us time to discuss various things you want us to. I
truly doubt that you can find any anti-Stratfordian claim that no
one a HLAS has not eventually gotten to.

--Bob G.

Ken Kaplan

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 4:05:57 PM8/7/01
to
mst...@home.com (Mark Steese) wrote in message news:<Xns90F5E12C7DA...@24.9.59.72>...

> [posted and mailed]
>
> Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of kenka...@yahoo.com (Ken Kaplan)
> that wrote news:75f2d918.01080...@posting.google.com, on the
> day of 06 Aug 2001:
>
> [snippage]
> > If you can't even muster that, all it shows is the usual use of the
> > tactic of avoidance, same as Steese,

A llittle at a time.


>
> Avoidance of what? I'm still waiting for your response to my last couple
> of messages regarding "Twelfth Night." You asked me to "Come up with am
> alternate explanation for the lines in the scene which some critics clain
> change the emotional tenor of the play toward a more tragic and sober
> dimension"; I did so, and answer came there none. I'm also still waiting
> for an answer to your fatuous claim that I admitted "that Oxford might have
> contributed to the conception of Hamlet." Avoidance, thy name is Kaplan.

From: Mark Steese (mst...@home.com)
Subject: Re: Polonius/Burghley Ophelia/Anne Hamlet/Oxford Parallels
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 2001-01-19 23:05:58 PST

Sure there is. I just don't happen to see the "strong parallels" in
either
case. Never did. You see, the standard I go by is that fictional
characters based on real ones ought to behave in a manner consistent
with
the known behavior of their models. This is untrue for both Polonius
and
Hamlet. I have no trouble believing that Shakespeare, magpie that he
was
when it came to source material, might have incorporated bits and
pieces
from the life of Burghley into Polonius, and *possibly Oxford to
Hamlet*; but
it amounted to no more than that.

>
> > except he added ad hominem attack.
>
> Oh, I think not. I've never substituted insult for argument, and I've
> never insulted anyone who didn't earn the right.
>
> > Thank you for once again validating Mark's observations on Strat tactics.
>
> If you've been following my posts, Ken, perhaps you saw a recent response
> of mine to Mr. Alexander, in this very thread? If not, here it is again.
> Why don't you have a crack at it?
>
> * * *
> You can start by refuting the following argument: given the complete
> absence of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents containing so much as a
> suggestion that anyone other than William Shakespeare wrote the plays
> and poetry now attributed to him, it is perfectly reasonable for scholars
> to reject modern assertions to the contrary.
>
> Until I see a substantive refutation, I will assume that you agree with
> this.

Its nice of you to demand a recapitulation of the entire authorship
controversy in a paragraph. My answer is this:

In a society in which direct communication of such things was not the
norm, with the intervention by the Cecil's or others a possibility,
the demand for "extant documentation" has always been the core of the
Strat strategy. But I would contend that parodies of the dedication of
Venus and Adonis, some including reference to concealment, the Davies
epistle, which can be read as an oblique swipe at the Stratford
attribution, the strange aloofness of Drayton, who does not even
acknowledge Shakespeare as a writer are examples of the way that
society would handle such a matter. This is consistent with the very
oblique references to Penelope Devereaux in Astrophil and Stella. Are
there "extant documents" proclaiming "Mrs. Rich is Stella"? Maybe
there are, I seemed to have missed them.

Furthermore, the folio attributiion and the monument, as Diana and
many others such as Greenwood have shown is not corroborated by the
contemporary record. You want to argue constantly from one position
(extant evidence-folio), but forced onto other ground (contemporary
silence regarding Shakespeare PERSONALLY) your position is like Swiss
Cheese. Whether you agree or not I could care less. The issue is has a
_credible_ argument been made contesting the traditional attribution,
not the absolute proof of the matter at this time. The fact that so
many prominent and respectable people and institutions have constantly
come to a positive conclusion is all that matters imo. That the core
of Stratford academe refuses to acknowledge this and the major holes
in its argument is not my concern.

Ken Kaplan

Robert Detobel

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 5:12:35 PM8/7/01
to
David Kathman <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B6F6786...@popd.ix.netcom.com>...

It is easy to repeat a widely held belief widely thought to have been
once and
for all carefully researched. Still one may be aware that some doubts
remain.
But one may feel confident that, re-stating an often repeated view, he
can
make up for residual flaws by using exploitive rhetoric.

That is what Irvin Matus is doing: "What Greenwood found impossible to
believe
- that a publisher might, without let or hindrance, publish a stolen
manuscript if only he had obtained the license of the Stationers'
Company" -
turns out to be precisely the case...".

You see the bullying attitude: "Well, well, what you think was
impossible, -- I, Matus-in-fact, tell you -- was the general rule."
He then adduces his evidence. None of the cases he presents is beyond
doubt and he probably never looked deeper into it as where he thought
he could extract the evidence he needed and, in one case, the case of
Bacon's * Essays * in 1597 patching it up with an apparently
knowledgeable remark, which is sheer humbug.

Here is that remark: "Sergier [the stationer who entered the
unauthorized version of the * Essays *] had given an opening: his
edition was not yet published and the Register had the license of no
one but Thomas Dawson, a junior warden of the Stationers." (p. 92)

Thomas Dawson was the under warden of the Stationers' Company, one of
the three leading officers of the Stationers' Company, empowered as
well as the two others to license works, that is, to grant the
company's copyright. Matus's phrasing suggests that Dawson was * but *
a junior warden and that, therefore, his license carried no great
weight. Nonsense!

How to call such rhetorical bluff? By trying to overbluff it
rhetorically? What would you have said if I had restricted myself to a
similar statement: "What Matus found impossible to believe - that a
publisher might not, without let or hindrance, publish a stolen
manuscript if only he had obtained the license of the Stationers'
Company - turns out exactly to correspond to the common practice of
the Stationers' Company." Well, I think calling me a fool would have
been among your mildest expressions, recommending me to take drugs
against delirium your mildest sarcasm. I apologize if I have
overstated your propensity to chiding; I also apologize if I have
understated it.

So what to do to call Matus's bluff, to expose Kirschbaum's unctuous
self-assuredness? The best thing seemed to me simply to list the cases
flatly contradicting them and to briefly comment on flaws in their
explanations. And to list those cases as they are contained in the
Stationers' Register and the Court Books B and C. Then, everybody
looking at them is in the position to
verify the core of my argument: the Stationers' Company recognized the
author's right to be paid and, more important to me, what is now
called the author's creative rights. The term did not exist (most
probably), but the fact appears from the records of the Stationers'
Company.
Isn't that fair play?

At least your tone has grown more friendly; better than, "Crackpot who


posts the theories he's been scribbling in his attic for the last ten

years" - but it is still profoundly inadequate. What I have presented
in III-VI are not theories but cases from SC documents.

I would appreciate if you are so busy not to respond with insult,
innuendo, and appeal to authority without citing any evidence. You
seem to have a strange propensity to make assertions with no
evidentiary support. Is this your idea of "scholarship"? If you want
clarification, you can ask for it, and until you can bring something
meaningful to the table other than belittling pose, your silence would
be appreciated.

Detobel

Mark Alexander

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 5:34:27 PM8/7/01
to
It is easy to repeat a widely held belief widely thought to have been once
andfor all carefully researched. Still one may be aware that some doubts remain.

Mark Steese

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 9:11:00 PM8/7/01
to
Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of det...@aol.com (Robert Detobel) that
wrote news:53fa849e.01080...@posting.google.com, on the day of
07 Aug 2001:

>> > I suppose that until a proper refutation is posted, Detobel's
>> > arguments stand as the better arguments.
>>
>> That ain't the way it works. Erich von Däniken's book "Chariots of
>> the Gods?" did not stand as a plausible set of arguments until someone
>> took the trouble to write a 'proper refutation.'
>
> I didn't read Erich von Däniken's book(s). Did you?

Yes.

> Based on what I read ABOUT it (them) I cannot see a common denominator
> between his works and my listing approx. a score of cases from a register
> and a book of records. Otherwise stated, the common denominator you are
> using is zero.

No. My point was that neither your arguments nor von Däniken's may be
assumed true pending "a proper refutation," which is what Mark Alexander
was arguing. The 'common denominator' between your arguments and his is
the attempt to disprove something that is commonly accepted as true: in
your case, that Shakespeare was an author, in von Däniken's, that
civilization arose without extraterrestrial intervention. If I am
mistaken, and you do in fact believe that Shakespeare was an author, please
accept my apologies.

> Which makes your fraction of argument flying to infinite, that is, out of
> sight. And more akin, I guess, to von Däniken than my lists. Was he not
> writing about infinite and invisible beings, too?

No, he was not.

Yours,

Mark Steese

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 9:30:07 PM8/7/01
to
Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of kenka...@yahoo.com (Ken Kaplan)
that wrote news:75f2d918.0108...@posting.google.com, on the

day of 07 Aug 2001:

> mst...@home.com (Mark Steese) wrote in message

I see. So, instead of thanking me for acknowledging that William
Shakespeare of Stratford might have picked up a few details of the life of
Edward deVere and worked them into one of his plays, you said I
acknowledged "that Oxford might have contributed to the conception of
Hamlet." Anyone who hadn't read my original post might be led to believe
that I was acknowledging that Oxford might have *actively* contributed
something. A nice piece of Oxfordian misdirection.



>> > except he added ad hominem attack.
>>
>> Oh, I think not. I've never substituted insult for argument, and I've
>> never insulted anyone who didn't earn the right.
>>
>> > Thank you for once again validating Mark's observations on Strat
>> > tactics.
>>
>> If you've been following my posts, Ken, perhaps you saw a recent
>> response of mine to Mr. Alexander, in this very thread? If not, here
>> it is again. Why don't you have a crack at it?
>>
>> * * *
>> You can start by refuting the following argument: given the complete
>> absence of Elizabethan and Jacobean documents containing so much as a
>> suggestion that anyone other than William Shakespeare wrote the plays
>> and poetry now attributed to him, it is perfectly reasonable for
>> scholars to reject modern assertions to the contrary.
>>
>> Until I see a substantive refutation, I will assume that you agree
>> with this.
>
> Its nice of you to demand a recapitulation of the entire authorship
> controversy in a paragraph. My answer is this:
>
> In a society in which direct communication of such things was not the
> norm, with the intervention by the Cecil's or others a possibility,
> the demand for "extant documentation" has always been the core of the
> Strat strategy.

That's not an argument; that's incoherent paranoia.

> But I would contend that parodies of the dedication of Venus and Adonis,
> some including reference to concealment, the Davies epistle, which can be
> read as an oblique swipe at the Stratford attribution, the strange
> aloofness of Drayton, who does not even acknowledge Shakespeare as a
> writer are examples of the way that society would handle such a matter.

There is no evidence that there was "such a matter" to be contended with in
the first place. You're assuming the truth of something that needs to be
demonstrated.

> This is consistent with the very oblique references to Penelope Devereaux
> in Astrophil and Stella. Are there "extant documents" proclaiming "Mrs.
> Rich is Stella"? Maybe there are, I seemed to have missed them.

What does that have to do with Shakespeare's authorship of his own works?

> Furthermore, the folio attributiion and the monument, as Diana and
> many others such as Greenwood have shown is not corroborated by the
> contemporary record.

Yes it is. Every document we have from the period that attributes
authorship to a play or poem now known to be Shakespeare's *attributes it
to Shakespeare*.

> You want to argue constantly from one position (extant evidence-folio),
> but forced onto other ground (contemporary silence regarding Shakespeare
> PERSONALLY) your position is like Swiss Cheese.

No it isn't. There was no contemporary silence regarding Shakespeare's
authorship of his plays. As I said, every document we have from the period
that attributes authorship to a play now known to be Shakespeare's
*attributes it to Shakespeare*. That is the issue under discussion.
Dragging the red herring of PERSONAL references across the trail isn't
fooling anyone.

> Whether you agree or not I could care less. The issue is has a
> _credible_ argument been made contesting the traditional attribution,
> not the absolute proof of the matter at this time.

If that is the issue, then you still lose, because the answer is 'no.'

> The fact that so many prominent and respectable people and institutions
> have constantly come to a positive conclusion is all that matters imo.

Appeal to authority. Wonderful! You lose there, too; far more 'prominent
and respectable people and institutions' accept the attribution of
Shakespeare's works to Shakespeare than have ever accepted any of the
various anti-Shakespearean attributions. Even by your own standards, you
can't make a case.

> That the core of Stratford academe refuses to acknowledge this and the
> major holes in its argument is not my concern.

So, given that you have completely failed to provide a substantive
refutation to my argument, I assume that you agree with it.

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, The Terrors of the Night

baker

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 10:18:53 PM8/7/01
to
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 21:59:04 -0600, David Kathman
<dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:


>As for "proper refutations" to Stritmatter's dissertation,
>that would be a lot easier if it were made widely available
>rather than on a "subscribers only" basis.

Dave,

You know its a requirement that all dissertations be microfilmed and
placed in the record...have you looked?

You aren't saying that you couldn't get a copy via interlibrary loans
are you?

baker

> It's very easy
>to triumphantly crow that an argument hasn't been rebutted
>when you only parcel it out to a select few. I suppose I'll
>get to it at some point, but right now I've got much more
>pressing and interesting projects to worry about. I know
>how much that disappoints you, Mark.
>
>> And of course, there will be my Shakespeare's Knowledge of Law essay
>> this fall.
>
>I'll be interested to read that. Where is it being
>published?
>
>> We are waiting.
>
>Oh, I'm sure you are.
>
>Dave Kathman
>dj...@ix.netcom.com

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur

baker

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 10:28:41 PM8/7/01
to

Mark,

Thanks for reformatting this for us...it may help Kathman to digest
it, but it will be a bitter pill no matter how it is formatted.

The basic tenets of Stratfordianism keeping going down the drain
one after another.

What's next? The tenants?

baker

Robert Detobel

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 4:12:13 AM8/8/01
to
mst...@home.com (Mark Steese) wrote in message news:<Xns90F6B7CDE80A...@24.9.59.72>...

I see. The common denominator is "intervention". In Däniken's case it
is extraterrestrial, in my posts it is by authors with the Stationers'
Company, "intraregistrial". It is probably easier to refute me than
Däniken. Just approx. 20 cases. About 20 cases which refute the belief
that the author was powerless and had no rights in relation to the SC.
What Mark wrote is, I think: this theory must be considered as refuted
as long as my refutation is not refuted. In presenting 20 cases
(complete texts of entries) I've spared you the pain of looking them
up yourselves.
Let us come down to earth.

Robert Detobel

john_baker

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 5:35:14 PM8/8/01
to


Yep, you did it. Common sense wins again and the Strats go down in
flames.

I've just posted a tutortial for Kathman on the Elizabethan hand, when
he recovers from your blasts maybe he'll take a shot of mine...

You can check it out at:

http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/collier3.htm

Ken Kaplan

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 6:23:20 PM8/8/01
to
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote in message news:<5f7d2eb3.01080...@posting.google.com>...
> > Since by your own admission you haven't *read* Robert's posts, and
> > since Xrob went on vacation while only dealing with parts one and two,
> > bypassing the cases that supported his argument, by what stretch of
> > the imagination except in your fantasy is he dismantling Detobel?
>
> Actually, I HAVE read a few of them now though I didn't realize
> I had to report on my progress.
>
> > Tell you what. I'll make it easy for you. Since you read the
> > exchanges,instead of the original posts, give me the highlights of
> > Xrob's dismantling. Give me two examples in which he produced
> > evidence, not opinion, to back his claim. Claims that Robert didn't
> > answer?
>
> My impression, state in an exchange of ASSERTIONS with Mark, is
> that Rob is doing a good job so far of dismantling Detobel. I
> haven't time to find examples. Until I have you can properly call
> what I said unsupported opinion. You can't say Mark did better,
> though.

Fine. The term "dismantling" is very strong. It is our tendency on
this NG to one degree or another see what we want, rather than what is
before us. Therefore I asked you to back up your claim, especially
since Robert's posts are very well docunented and the discussion with
Xrob was only in beginning stages. (I expect him to return and
complete it.)I think will be a valuable exercise since he seems to be
the only Stratfordian who has even a smidgen of knowledge on this
subject who has shown willingness to deal with evidentiary matters.)

> As for "avoidance," call it that if you want. But I note that
> you avoid defending Mark against the charges I make of him.

The five Strast tactics? Sorry I'm only on this reply.


>
> Ken, I feel that you have to let us pop off at Mark every
> once in a while, after he's popped off at us. I think you should
> also give us time to discuss various things you want us to. I
> truly doubt that you can find any anti-Stratfordian claim that no
> one a HLAS has not eventually gotten to.

On this NG _no one_ ever refrains from "popping off". Go for it, it is
the norm here, but an unsupported(your words) claim concerning
important essays
was not appropriate imo.

"the Upstart Crow Supposes" is one, which goes to the core of
Groatsworth. I looked in the archives and only you and Jerry Downs had
a discussion on it. Technically since you dealt with it, it can't be
termed "avoidance", but I saw no others weigh in on an extremely
important matter. Perhaps they were unaware
of its significance. Possibly I'll post it. Since it caused you, a
specialist in Groatsworth, to rethink your orientation, it seems woth
examining.

Mark may want to add his perspective on this of how topics are
avoided.

Ken Kaplan
> --Bob G.

Ken Kaplan

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 7:05:34 PM8/8/01
to
Follow Up.

I suppose you have the right to ask Mark to deal with the point you
raised. The analogy in my opinion is not apprpriate however. To
discuss a minor aspect or one detail of Diana's argument is far
different from unilaterally claiming the whole of Robert's position
has been discredited.

I want to add my two cents in on the Price discussions with you. As I
said, we all _to one degree or another_ (remember the relativity in
that statement) see things the way we wish. This is true in
Shakespeare studies in general. Kornstein, in Kill All the Lawyers,
seems to attack Justice Stevens for his interpretation of that line.
The Oxfordian reading of As You Like It, Act V, scene I is very
different from that espoused by Bate or Duncan Jones.

What distubs me about the Stratfordian response to Diana and Pat ala
Larque and others is what seems to be the lack of common sense and
simple perspective. Its not rocket science. Kathman, as he is wont to
do these days makes assertions about accepted standards blah blah with
no specifics as to his contention.
All you others are missing what seems to me a basic point, beyond the
intense "content" of your arguments. Why, if your position and
scholarship is so strong,
the edifice of your research so supposedly self evident, are you
forced to rely on the most arcane examples and highly technical
positions to buttress your view? Why is that needed?

I am always hearing about Ocam's razor. It seems to me that what Diana
has done is codify the most important Anti Stratfordian argument of
the centuries, the lack of documentation supporting the folio
attribution. When I began my own investigation into this, that is what
leapt out at me. I termed it "the silence", way before I read Price's
book. I have always seen the debate against William of Stratford(not
_for any other candidate_) fall into two competing catagories, the
Folio-monument attribution and the inability to corroborate those in
any meaningful way.

Therefore, to use a phrase , in the arena of corroboration, Ocam's
razor would postulate that Shakespeare's(of Stratford) personal
evidence linking him to writing would fall in the same ballpark as
those of his contemporaries with similar documentation.That is what
Pat has been trying to say. For years Strats
have been double dealing on this. They contend William's records are
"more abundant" than those of his fellow writers and contemporaries,
but have hidden behind the contrary view that because records were so
little kept, or "because he was middle class"-Kathman)we shouldn't
expect an incontrovertible link (such as John Hall did for Drayton).

Diana has shown this is a _myth_ and nonsense. When challanged on this
she has *expressly* and *specifically* stated that she *has* the
evidence to _prove_ this is a myth. It amazes me how everyone just
blows right by it. Pat puts up documentation on other writers to
support it with evidence and everyone IGNORES it. That is avoidance,
Bob. That is a big example of what Mark referred to.

Now I know you see things differently. But again, the fact that you
must rely on a highly technical argument, and look for arcane
examples, "Oh, here in 1471 we found one guy, that invalidates your
position" tells me a great deal about the desperate nature of your
argument. The best analogy I can come up with is the institution
policies of racism (I'm not accusing anyone of being racist-I'm trying
to show a parallel). In spite of massive redlining (banks drawing
lines
around poorer districts and refusing loans therein) and consistent
discrimination on housing, if one black couple gets a house, it can be
pointed to and said, "but see, blacks have gotten houses here". But
what is the larger picture?

I'm looking at the larger picture and seeing only blanks for
Shaksper.I find Diana's position extremely credible. My sense is that
most people who look at it dispassionately will also. However, I
realize that there has been "contention" over certain pieces of
evidence, and we see it in the way we wish. Therefore, it has always
been my belief that this will play out in the larger arena.

Strats have always argued on this NG from a position of "we have the
folio, show us the money(extant documentation)". Diana has forced you
to the other ground.
Your collective posture for months has been a highly defensive one. No
longer do I routinely see the haughty cries of "idiot" and "moron" so
endemic to this group for years. If I were a general of an arrmy, that
would be a most significant development.

Ken Kaplan


bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote in message news:<5f7d2eb3.01080...@posting.google.com>...

Tom Reedy

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 7:29:33 PM8/8/01
to
"Ken Kaplan" <kenka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:75f2d918.01080...@posting.google.com...
<snip>

No
> longer do I routinely see the haughty cries of "idiot" and "moron" so
> endemic to this group for years. If I were a general of an arrmy, that
> would be a most significant development.
>
> Ken Kaplan

That's because R. Kennedy has left again, and you probably don't bother to
read any replies to Baker--I know I try to avoid any thread stemming from
one of his moronic idiot posts.

TR

Richard Nathan

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 10:22:57 PM8/8/01
to
David Kathman <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B6F6786...@popd.ix.netcom.com>...

> Mark Alexander wrote:

(snip)

> >
Mark Alexander> > Besides Detobel, we are still waiting for proper


refutations to Stritmatter's dissertation (which was approved by
Stratfordian
professors).
>

David Kathman: > I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Stratfordian"


professors; as far as I know Stritmatter recruited people for his
committee who were sympathetic to his cause. Stritmatter had to go to
the Comparative Literature department rather than the English
department (I know at least one member of the UMass English department
who wanted nothing to do with Stritmatter), and one former member of
his committee who had expressed skepticism of Stritmatter's
conclusions was asked to leave the committee (though ostensibly for
other reasons).

(snip)

According to a May 22, 2001 post on another newsgroup
(alt.assassination.jfk), the five professors before whom Stratmatter
defended his thesis included vising professor Daniel Wright from
Concordia University.

This news was posted by someone DEFENDING Stritmatter.

Nothing like stacking the deck.

Mark Alexander

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 10:46:59 PM8/8/01
to
"Ken Kaplan" <kenka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:75f2d918.01080...@posting.google.com...
> Now I know you see things differently. But again, the fact that you
> must rely on a highly technical argument, and look for arcane
> examples, "Oh, here in 1471 we found one guy, that invalidates your
> position" tells me a great deal about the desperate nature of your
> argument. The best analogy I can come up with is the institution
> policies of racism (I'm not accusing anyone of being racist-I'm trying
> to show a parallel). In spite of massive redlining (banks drawing
> lines
> around poorer districts and refusing loans therein) and consistent
> discrimination on housing, if one black couple gets a house, it can be
> pointed to and said, "but see, blacks have gotten houses here". But
> what is the larger picture?

Just because Strats can move from tree to tree and say, "Hey, THIS tree
does not constitute a forest. Now look at THIS tree. Nope. Not a
forest." does not mean there is no forest.

Divide and conquer is the strategy, since the larger picture is
uncomfortable.

That's the point of my *connections* posts. I mean, look at THIS forest.
If Oxford is not the author, then the author has some unexplained deep
connection with Oxford.

1) The three dedicatees to in Shakespeare's works were all engaged to
marry an Oxford daughter, and one actually did. (Explains how the
manuscripts got into the hands of the Folio printers.)

2) Lyly and Munday are strongly linked as influences on Shakespeare
plays. (Both employed by Oxford. Munday was an actor in Oxford's Men,
and Lyly and Oxford produced plays together.)

3) George Baker's medical book acknowledged as a key influence. (Was the
Oxford family physician, with that same book dedicated to the Countess
of Oxford. Booth points to the book in his Sonnets, but excludes mention
of Oxford.)

4) Golding's translation of Ovid a profound influence. (Golding is
Oxford's uncle and Oxford was a teen living in the same house while
Golding wrote. Golding in a dedication to Oxford notes Oxford's interest
and command of history.)

5) Castioglione's The Courtier noted by Strats as an influence on
Hamlet. (Oxford wrote a Latin preface to a translation at the age of
21.)

6) Cardan's Comforte noted by Strats as an influence on Hamlet.
(Translation dedicated to Oxford, which was commanded by him to be
translated and published.)

7) Shakespeare's knowledge of law, music, power, etc. (He was raised in
THE most political house in England. His tutors were profoundly learned,
one, a master of law, stating that he had no more to teach the teenage
Oxford; Oxford acknowledged in a dedication by John Farmer [Madrigals]
that Oxford was known as an exceedingly accomplished musician, and one
writer of a book on insider political power saying that Shakespeare is
the best tutor on the insider workings of political power...and Oxford
was right there seeing and experiencing it. He was at the top of the
Earls. He was raised and educated reflecting his position.)

8) Strats almost 100-year acknowledgement of Polonius (Corambis) as
Burghley, Anne as Ophelia, and Thomas/Robert as Laertes. (Oxford as
ward and then son-in-law to Burghley, Oxford as only lover of Anne, and
Oxford placed squarely in the role of Hamlet. That's how the public
would see it.)

9) Shakespeare had access to a significant library. (Oxford raised and
tutored in the household of one of the finest libraries in England.)

10) Shakepeare's knowledge of Northern Italy. (And Oxford's travel
itinery hitting practically all of the locations of Shakespeare's
Italian plays. Not to mention is affinity with Italian works...remember
Castoglione and Cardan.)

11) Unusual topical connections in the plays -- like the Gad's Hill
episode, being attacked by pirates, and the bed trick -- to Oxford's
life.

12) Words credited to Shakespeare as the first public usage showing up
in the Oxford's letters, some with 75 years' difference .

13) Phrase "I am That I am" peculiar to Shakespeare in its being in the
first person. (Shows up in the same form only in Oxford's letter.)

14) Shakespeare's unusual kinship with Truth. (Oxford's "Truth" motto
and play on his name Vere as Latin for Truth.)

15) Henry Peacham's naming Oxford above all others among the Golden Age
of writers under Elizabeth, *with no mention of Shakespeare*. (And this
happening in 1922, repeated in later revised editions, at the same time
as the First Folio is being put together around the corner. Peacham knew
the Folio project was on.)


And the fact that Oxford was raised his first 12 years by a father who
*kept an acting company* (the Earl of Oxford's Men), that he was an
acknowledged playwright, patron to players, playhouse producer.

And that he received the kinds of literary accolades worthy of a
Shakespeare (yet no Strat has dared lay claim to what plays might be
Oxford's and why):

(1584) John Soowthern, Pandora: "De Vere, that hath given him in part: /
The love, the war, honour and art, / And with them an eternal fame./
Among our well-renowned men, / De Vere merits a silver pen / Eternally
to write his honour. / A man so honoured as thee, / And both of the
Muses and me."

(1586) William Webbe, A Discourse of English Poetry: "I may not omit the
deserved commendations of many honourable and noble Lords and Gentlemen
in Her Majesty's Court, which, in the rare devices of poetry, have been
and yet are most skilful; among whom the right honourable Earl of Oxford
may challenge to himself the title of most excellent among the rest."

(1589) The Art of English Poesie: "Noblemen and Gentlemen of Her Majesty
's own servants, who have written excellently well as it would appear if
their doings could be found out and made public with the rest, of which
number is first the noble gentleman Edward Earl of Oxford..The Earl of
Oxford and Master Edwards of her Majesty's Chapel for Comedy and
Enterlude."

(1590) Edmund Spenser, dedication to Oxford in Fairie Queene:

And also for the loue, which thou doest beare
To th'Heliconian ymps, and they to thee,
They vnto thee, and thou to them most deare:

(1598) Francis Meres, Palladis Tamiai: "The best for comedy among us be
Edward Earl of Oxford."

(1613) George Chapman: "I overtook, coming from Italy. / a great and
famous Earl. / Valiant and learn'd, and liberal as the sun, / Spoke and
writ sweetly, or of learned subjects, / Or of the discipline of public
weals; / And 'twas the Earl of Oxford."

There's more, but that's good for a forest.

This an *insider* forest here, guys. These are the kinds of connections
that *explain* Shakespeare. They have the kind of *explanatory power*
that Strats only dream they had. They connect a man to the plays.

That's why you Strats are constantly attempting to put our fires. (Hey,
Polonius was Burghley. Oops, no he wasn't. Cardan's Comforte was an
influence. Oops, no it wasn't. Shakespeare knew his law and music and
court life. Oops, no he didn't. Shakespeare had an insider's knowledge
of political power. Oops, no he didn't. Shakespeare was extremely
well-educated. Oops, no, he only had a bunch of smart friends at the
tavern. Shakespeare knew Latin and Greek and Italian and Fench. Oops, no
he didn't. Shakespeare knew his Italy. Oops, no he didn't.)

That's why the Oxfordian position is advancing steadily. Too many fires
started, and no adequate water supply. <G>

And I bet some of you still believe that Shakespeare erred in stating
that Bohemia had a coastline (it did for a 40-year period during which
Oxford traveled.)

Cheers

...and Truth in your eye.

Mark Alexander

Mark Steese

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 11:06:50 PM8/8/01
to
Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of det...@aol.com (Robert Detobel) that
wrote news:53fa849e.01080...@posting.google.com, on the day of
08 Aug 2001:

>> No. My point was that neither your arguments nor von Däniken's may be
>> assumed true pending "a proper refutation," which is what Mark
>> Alexander was arguing. The 'common denominator' between your
>> arguments and his is the attempt to disprove something that is
>> commonly accepted as true: in your case, that Shakespeare was an
>> author, in von Däniken's, that civilization arose without
>> extraterrestrial intervention. If I am mistaken, and you do in fact
>> believe that Shakespeare was an author, please accept my apologies.
>>
>> > Which makes your fraction of argument flying to infinite, that is,
>> > out of sight. And more akin, I guess, to von Däniken than my lists.
>> > Was he not writing about infinite and invisible beings, too?
>>
>> No, he was not.
>

> I see. The common denominator is "intervention".

No. The common denominator is, as I said, the attempt to disprove
something that is commonly accepted as true.

> In Däniken's case it is extraterrestrial, in my posts it is by authors
> with the Stationers' Company, "intraregistrial".

Either you are a very bad reader, which bodes ill for your arguments, or
you are dissembling, sir. Do you believe that William Shakespeare of
Stratford wrote the plays and poetry now attributed to him? That is the
issue at hand; the rest is commentary.

Mark Steese

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 11:33:06 PM8/8/01
to
[posted and mailed]

Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "Mark Alexander"
<mark...@earthlink.net> that wrote

news:DQmc7.1325$Fc7.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, on the day of
08 Aug 2001:

> "Ken Kaplan" <kenka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message


> news:75f2d918.01080...@posting.google.com...
>> Now I know you see things differently. But again, the fact that you
>> must rely on a highly technical argument, and look for arcane
>> examples, "Oh, here in 1471 we found one guy, that invalidates your
>> position" tells me a great deal about the desperate nature of your
>> argument. The best analogy I can come up with is the institution
>> policies of racism (I'm not accusing anyone of being racist-I'm trying
>> to show a parallel). In spite of massive redlining (banks drawing
>> lines around poorer districts and refusing loans therein) and
>> consistent discrimination on housing, if one black couple gets a
>> house, it can be pointed to and said, "but see, blacks have gotten
>> houses here". But what is the larger picture?
>
> Just because Strats can move from tree to tree and say, "Hey, THIS tree
> does not constitute a forest. Now look at THIS tree. Nope. Not a
> forest." does not mean there is no forest.
>
> Divide and conquer is the strategy, since the larger picture is
> uncomfortable.

Who is better at not looking at the larger picture than you Oxfordians?
You see a picture of a man, William Shakespeare, who was an actor and a
sharer in the company that performed the plays attributed to him. Everyone
of his time who mentioned any of his plays in conjunction with their author
cited his name. His friend and fellow playwright Ben Jonson knew him to be
the author of his own works; fellow actors in his company knew him to be
that selfsame author. *No one* of his time, or for two hundred years
following, thought it strange that he had written those works.

It is not that you Oxfordians don't see the forest for the trees; you've
repeatedly demonstrated that you don't see the trees to begin with. You
bear so much hatred towards William Shakespeare that it blinds you.

[snip]


> (1590) Edmund Spenser, dedication to Oxford in Fairie Queene:
>
> And also for the loue, which thou doest beare
> To th'Heliconian ymps, and they to thee,
> They vnto thee, and thou to them most deare:

Yes. Oxford was a patron of poets ("th'Heliconian ymps"); Spenser is
praising his munificence, not his poetical talents. This has been pointed
out time and again; you choose to ignore it or disbelieve it, I don't know
which. The *best* of the 'connections' you have ginned up to demonstrate a
'deep connection' between Oxford and Shakespeare are of this nature -
misinterpretation of facts. The *worst* of the connections - well, I'll
let it speak for itself:

> 14) Shakespeare's unusual kinship with Truth. (Oxford's "Truth" motto
> and play on his name Vere as Latin for Truth.)

And everywhere, of course, your laughable double standards:

> 15) Henry Peacham's naming Oxford above all others among the Golden Age
> of writers under Elizabeth, *with no mention of Shakespeare*. (And this

> happening in 1922[sic], repeated in later revised editions, at the same


> time as the First Folio is being put together around the corner. Peacham
> knew the Folio project was on.)

What is your evidence that "Peacham knew the Folio project was on"? He
never referred to it, did he? To believe that he knew about it, you are
required to make the same sort of inference that you will not allow the
Shakespeareans.



> This an *insider* forest here, guys. These are the kinds of connections
> that *explain* Shakespeare. They have the kind of *explanatory power*
> that Strats only dream they had. They connect a man to the plays.

No. They connect a fantasy of a man (who bears but passing resemblance to
Edward De Vere) with a fantasy of the Shakespearean canon, a fantasy that
in its quest for 'explanatory power' likes to skip over inconvenient
details, such as the Earl of Oxford writing plays after his death, and the
fact that the internal evidence of the plays shows over and over again that
the author was an actor.Neither you nor any other Oxfordian in this
newsgroup has demonstrated that you can read Shakespeare's plays any better
than you can understand the evidence of his life. That's why I call you
anti-Shakespeareans; that's what you are.

KQKnave

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 3:12:45 AM8/9/01
to
In article <DQmc7.1325$Fc7.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Mark
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:

>
>Just because Strats can move from tree to tree and say, "Hey, THIS tree
>does not constitute a forest. Now look at THIS tree. Nope. Not a
>forest." does not mean there is no forest.
>

Why do they make it so easy?

A tree can *never* be a forest. What you meant to say was
"THIS tree can never be a *part* of a forest." Stratfordians have
looked at all the trees so far presented, and none of them
have been shown to be part of the forest. Therefore there is
no forest. It certainly possible that some day, a tree will be
found that is part of the forest, but *part* of a forest is not
a forest.


Jim

KQKnave

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 3:12:45 AM8/9/01
to
In article <75f2d918.01080...@posting.google.com>,
kenka...@yahoo.com (Ken Kaplan) writes:

>
>I want to add my two cents in on the Price discussions with you.

Why don't you post this in the appropriate thread? Are you afraid
that lurkers might search the thread to see how wrong you are?

>As I
>said, we all _to one degree or another_ (remember the relativity in
>that statement) see things the way we wish. This is true in
>Shakespeare studies in general. Kornstein, in Kill All the Lawyers,
>seems to attack Justice Stevens for his interpretation of that line.
>The Oxfordian reading of As You Like It, Act V, scene I is very
>different from that espoused by Bate or Duncan Jones.
>
>What distubs me about the Stratfordian response to Diana and Pat ala
>Larque and others is what seems to be the lack of common sense and
>simple perspective. Its not rocket science. Kathman, as he is wont to
>do these days makes assertions about accepted standards blah blah with
>no specifics as to his contention.

When has he done that? Why don't you ever post specifics? Don't you
have any?

>All you others are missing what seems to me a basic point, beyond the
>intense "content" of your arguments.

The "content" of the argument is all there is. Again, why are you
so afraid of specifics?

>Why, if your position and
>scholarship is so strong,
>the edifice of your research so supposedly self evident, are you
>forced to rely on the most arcane examples and highly technical
>positions to buttress your view? Why is that needed?

What arcane examples? Your statement is a joke. The most
down-to-earth examples suffice to show that Price's categories
are a joke.

>
>I am always hearing about Ocam's razor. It seems to me that what Diana
>has done is codify the most important Anti Stratfordian argument of
>the centuries, the lack of documentation supporting the folio
>attribution.

Here is our "arcane" evidence supporting the folio attribution:

Shakespeare's name on about 19 title pages of quartos published in
his lifetime; Robert Greene's attack on Shakespeare in
Greene's Groatsworth of Wit (1592), where he paraphrases
a play by Shakespeare; the mention of Shakespeare in
the dedication to Willobie His Avisa (1594); the
Parnassus plays (1598-1601), where Shakespeare is mentioned
by name and Venus and Adonis and Romeo & Juliet are
parodied, and where Shakespeare is said to have "put them
[university playwrights] all down, aye, and Ben Jonson too";
Gabriel Harvey (nlt 1603), who said "The younger sort takes much
delight in Shakespeares Venus, & Adonis: but his Lucrece, & his
tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, have it in them, to please
the wiser sort," and who called Shakespeare "one of our florishing
metricians;" and Francis Meres (1598), who said "...so the English
tongue is mightily enriched, and gorgeously invested in rare ornaments
and resplendent abiliments by sir Philip Sidney, Spencer, Daniel,
Drayton, Warner, Shakespeare, Marlow and Chapman...."
[notice that he distinguishes between Marlowe and Shakespeare]
and who said "...the sweete wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous
& hony-tongued Shakespeare, witnes his Venus and Adonis, his
Lucrece, his sugred Sonnets among his private friends, &c."
and who also said that Shakespeare was one of England's "best
Lyrick Poets" and "our best for tragedie" and among the "best
Poets for Comedy" and "the most passionate among us to bewaile
and bemoane the perplexities of Love;" and Francis Beaumont (1608),
who said "...here I would let slippe/(If I had any in mee) schollershippe,/
And from all Learning keepe these lines as cleere/ as Shakespeare's
best are, which our heires shall heare/ Preachers apte to their auditors
to showe/ how farre sometimes a mortall man may goe/ by the dimme
light of Nature...,"

>When I began my own investigation into this, that is what
>leapt out at me. I termed it "the silence", way before I read Price's
>book. I have always seen the debate against William of Stratford(not
>_for any other candidate_) fall into two competing catagories, the
>Folio-monument attribution and the inability to corroborate those in
>any meaningful way.

Ignoring, of course, all the evidence that corroborates the Folio-monument
attribution - see above.

>
>Therefore, to use a phrase , in the arena of corroboration, Ocam's
>razor would postulate that Shakespeare's(of Stratford) personal
>evidence linking him to writing would fall in the same ballpark as
>those of his contemporaries with similar documentation.That is what
>Pat has been trying to say. For years Strats
>have been double dealing on this. They contend William's records are
>"more abundant" than those of his fellow writers and contemporaries,
>but have hidden behind the contrary view that because records were so
>little kept, or "because he was middle class"-Kathman)we shouldn't
>expect an incontrovertible link (such as John Hall did for Drayton).

Again, where are your specifics? The evidence for Shakespeare as
the writer of the plays attributed to him constitutes a *unique* body
of evidence, just as the evidence constituting any author's attribution
to his works is unique. That Price does not recognize this is proof
of the ridiculousness of her position.

>
>Diana has shown this is a _myth_ and nonsense. When challanged on this
>she has *expressly* and *specifically* stated that she *has* the
>evidence to _prove_ this is a myth. It amazes me how everyone just
>blows right by it. Pat puts up documentation on other writers to
>support it with evidence and everyone IGNORES it. That is avoidance,
>Bob. That is a big example of what Mark referred to.

This is the biggest joke of all. It is Price and Dooley who ignore completely
the points made in refutation of their arguments. *Everyone knows that the
evidence constituting proof of Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship of
the plays attributed to him constitutes a *unique* body of evidence.*
What Price and Dooley fail to understand is that this is true of *all*
writers.

>
>Now I know you see things differently. But again, the fact that you
>must rely on a highly technical argument, and look for arcane
>examples, "Oh, here in 1471 we found one guy, that invalidates your
>position"

The evidence for Shakespeare is given above. What are you talking
about?

>tells me a great deal about the desperate nature of your
>argument.

The best evidence for a desperate argument is yours here, where no
specifics are given.

>The best analogy I can come up with is the institution
>policies of racism (I'm not accusing anyone of being racist-I'm trying
>to show a parallel). In spite of massive redlining (banks drawing
>lines
>around poorer districts and refusing loans therein) and consistent
>discrimination on housing, if one black couple gets a house, it can be
>pointed to and said, "but see, blacks have gotten houses here". But
>what is the larger picture?

The larger picture is the evidence given above. Where is your evidence
for Oxford as the author of the canon, other than your wish that it
be so?

>
>I'm looking at the larger picture and seeing only blanks for
>Shaksper.I find Diana's position extremely credible.

What is your evidence for its credibility besides the fact that
you wish that is was credible?

>My sense is that
>most people who look at it dispassionately will also.

Keep wishing.

>However, I
>realize that there has been "contention" over certain pieces of
>evidence, and we see it in the way we wish. Therefore, it has always
>been my belief that this will play out in the larger arena.
>
>Strats have always argued on this NG from a position of "we have the
>folio, show us the money(extant documentation)". Diana has forced you
>to the other ground.
>Your collective posture for months has been a highly defensive one.

Please show us the evidence for this ridiculous statement.

>No
>longer do I routinely see the haughty cries of "idiot" and "moron" so
>endemic to this group for years. If I were a general of an arrmy, that
>would be a most significant development.

I think that you're an idiot and a moron. I think that Pricedooley are
either idiots or purposely deceptive.


Jim

KQKnave

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 3:12:41 AM8/9/01
to

>
>I want to add my two cents in on the Price discussions with you.

Why don't you post this in the appropriate thread? Are you afraid


that lurkers might search the thread to see how wrong you are?

>As I


>said, we all _to one degree or another_ (remember the relativity in
>that statement) see things the way we wish. This is true in
>Shakespeare studies in general. Kornstein, in Kill All the Lawyers,
>seems to attack Justice Stevens for his interpretation of that line.
>The Oxfordian reading of As You Like It, Act V, scene I is very
>different from that espoused by Bate or Duncan Jones.
>
>What distubs me about the Stratfordian response to Diana and Pat ala
>Larque and others is what seems to be the lack of common sense and
>simple perspective. Its not rocket science. Kathman, as he is wont to
>do these days makes assertions about accepted standards blah blah with
>no specifics as to his contention.

When has he done that? Why don't you ever post specifics? Don't you
have any?

>All you others are missing what seems to me a basic point, beyond the


>intense "content" of your arguments.

The "content" of the argument is all there is. Again, why are you
so afraid of specifics?

>Why, if your position and


>scholarship is so strong,
>the edifice of your research so supposedly self evident, are you
>forced to rely on the most arcane examples and highly technical
>positions to buttress your view? Why is that needed?

What arcane examples? Your statement is a joke. The most


down-to-earth examples suffice to show that Price's categories
are a joke.

>


>I am always hearing about Ocam's razor. It seems to me that what Diana
>has done is codify the most important Anti Stratfordian argument of
>the centuries, the lack of documentation supporting the folio
>attribution.

Here is our "arcane" evidence supporting the folio attribution:

>When I began my own investigation into this, that is what


>leapt out at me. I termed it "the silence", way before I read Price's
>book. I have always seen the debate against William of Stratford(not
>_for any other candidate_) fall into two competing catagories, the
>Folio-monument attribution and the inability to corroborate those in
>any meaningful way.

Ignoring, of course, all the evidence that corroborates the Folio-monument
attribution - see above.

>


>Therefore, to use a phrase , in the arena of corroboration, Ocam's
>razor would postulate that Shakespeare's(of Stratford) personal
>evidence linking him to writing would fall in the same ballpark as
>those of his contemporaries with similar documentation.That is what
>Pat has been trying to say. For years Strats
>have been double dealing on this. They contend William's records are
>"more abundant" than those of his fellow writers and contemporaries,
>but have hidden behind the contrary view that because records were so
>little kept, or "because he was middle class"-Kathman)we shouldn't
>expect an incontrovertible link (such as John Hall did for Drayton).

Again, where are your specifics? The evidence for Shakespeare as

the writer of the plays attributed to him constitutes a *unique* body
of evidence, just as the evidence constituting any author's attribution
to his works is unique. That Price does not recognize this is proof
of the ridiculousness of her position.

>


>Diana has shown this is a _myth_ and nonsense. When challanged on this
>she has *expressly* and *specifically* stated that she *has* the
>evidence to _prove_ this is a myth. It amazes me how everyone just
>blows right by it. Pat puts up documentation on other writers to
>support it with evidence and everyone IGNORES it. That is avoidance,
>Bob. That is a big example of what Mark referred to.

This is the biggest joke of all. It is Price and Dooley who ignore completely


the points made in refutation of their arguments. *Everyone knows that the
evidence constituting proof of Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship of
the plays attributed to him constitutes a *unique* body of evidence.*
What Price and Dooley fail to understand is that this is true of *all*
writers.

>


>Now I know you see things differently. But again, the fact that you
>must rely on a highly technical argument, and look for arcane
>examples, "Oh, here in 1471 we found one guy, that invalidates your
>position"

The evidence for Shakespeare is given above. What are you talking
about?

>tells me a great deal about the desperate nature of your
>argument.

The best evidence for a desperate argument is yours here, where no
specifics are given.

>The best analogy I can come up with is the institution


>policies of racism (I'm not accusing anyone of being racist-I'm trying
>to show a parallel). In spite of massive redlining (banks drawing
>lines
>around poorer districts and refusing loans therein) and consistent
>discrimination on housing, if one black couple gets a house, it can be
>pointed to and said, "but see, blacks have gotten houses here". But
>what is the larger picture?

The larger picture is the evidence given above. Where is your evidence


for Oxford as the author of the canon, other than your wish that it
be so?

>


>I'm looking at the larger picture and seeing only blanks for
>Shaksper.I find Diana's position extremely credible.

What is your evidence for its credibility besides the fact that


you wish that is was credible?

>My sense is that


>most people who look at it dispassionately will also.

Keep wishing.

>However, I
>realize that there has been "contention" over certain pieces of
>evidence, and we see it in the way we wish. Therefore, it has always
>been my belief that this will play out in the larger arena.
>
>Strats have always argued on this NG from a position of "we have the
>folio, show us the money(extant documentation)". Diana has forced you
>to the other ground.
>Your collective posture for months has been a highly defensive one.

Please show us the evidence for this ridiculous statement.

>No


>longer do I routinely see the haughty cries of "idiot" and "moron" so
>endemic to this group for years. If I were a general of an arrmy, that
>would be a most significant development.

I think that you're an idiot and a moron. I think that Pricedooley are

Reno

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 7:45:43 AM8/9/01
to
"Mark Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<DQmc7.1325$Fc7.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...

> "Ken Kaplan" <kenka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:75f2d918.01080...@posting.google.com...

test Reno

Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 8:26:32 AM8/9/01
to
On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 02:46:59 GMT, "Mark Alexander"
<mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>And I bet some of you still believe that Shakespeare erred in stating
>that Bohemia had a coastline (it did for a 40-year period during which
>Oxford traveled.)

How appropriate that my final contribution to the group before I go on
holidays actually brings me to my day job, which is analysis of
eastern European politics. OK, my day job doesn't involve this period
in history very often (though more often than I expected it would).
There is no truth in the statement that Bohemia had a coastline at any
point during the Earl of Oxford's lifetime, let alone for a forty year
period.

I commented a while back that "Of course the King of Bohemia also
ruled places that did have a coast, so it's not as egregious as it
looks at first sight" - I have changed my mind completely, and am now
in agreement with Peter Farey, Mark Steese and Robert Detobel that the
Bohemian coastline demonstrates that Shakespeare was more interested
in converting Robert Greene's story into a usable drama that in
checking out the geographical facts. This is what comes of doing
research.

Bohemia never had a coastline. Its rulers on occasion were also rulers
of coastal places. The most striking example of this was King Ottakar
II of Bohemia in the 13th century who conquered a number of Austrian
provinces including those on the Adriatic. That was the only
historical occasion when a coastal territory could really be said to
have been under "Bohemian rule" as opposed to "under the same ruler as
Bohemia". However the coastal provinces did not become part of
Bohemia; they retained their separate political identity and were
reconquered in the 1270s.

Bohemia has often been ruled by men and women who also ruled coastal
territories, including almost continuously from the election of
Matthias Corvinus in 1469 until Czechoslovakia became independent from
the Austro-Hugarian Empire in 1918, apart from the brief tenure of
Frederick in 1619-20 (as far as I know he had no coastal territories).
This does not make Bohemia a coastal state at any time during those
449 years. (Bizarrely enough even Paul Crowley made this point at one
stage - even a stopped clock is right twice a day, after all - though
he also identified Bohemia as a major European power, which was not
the case in the Elizabethan period anyway.)

If you look at the maps of Bohemia available in Shakespeare's time at
http://www.asommer.de/boehmen_e.htm it's quite clear that any
Elizabethan who cared to know would have known that Bohemia was
surrounded by mountains and forests - "mit Bergen und Wälden
geringsumb beschlossen" as the oldest map on that page puts it. It
seems clear that Shakespeare didn't care to know, and none of his
colleagues cared to put him right, because they did not expect total
accuracy from a work of literature.

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/

Ken Kaplan

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 9:38:32 AM8/9/01
to
Excuse me. I was responding to Bob Grumman, who is halfway civil. That
tangent points occur all over this NG is completely common.

Ken Kaplan


kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) wrote in message news:<20010809031241...@nso-cj.aol.com>...

Ken Kaplan

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 9:42:41 AM8/9/01
to
kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) wrote in message news:<20010809031241...@nso-cj.aol.com>...
P.S. If its that important to you, repost it so its more visible. I
don't care. One thing I've learned here is that this is not an
intellectuasl forum, it is an ideological battleground. Therefore your
ravings are meaningless to me. By the way, I noticed you stopped
responding to Robert when he put *facts* and *evidence* in front of
you to counter your assertions in the earlier thread.

Ken KAplan

Ken Kaplan

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 10:26:19 AM8/9/01
to
It's hot here and there is no air conditioning and I really don't feel
like getting into a long piece on this so I'll make a few general
remarks. When I said Oxford contributed to Hamlet, I did not mean he
helped write it, I meant what you inferred, that it seemed Shakespeare
in some fashion drew upon his life.

Your tone as I expereienced it was very confrontive and sarcastic
(which unfortunately I have allowed myself too often to be drawn into
in replies), therefore originally there was no "thanking you" for the
point. Perhaps I should have. I did, in a rather semi sarcastic
manner just recently, to which you denied ever having made the
reference. (Perhaps you were thinking along the lines of contributed).

As I just mentioned to Jim, Mark, this forum is not an arena for
intellectual inquiry, although it occasionally stumbles into that, but
much more an ideaological battleground. Mark Alexander, in his piece
on why he became an Oxfordian talks about the foreground-background
principle. That we really view this fom different lenses. YOur lens
seems to me to depend greatly on "extant documentation" and the face
value of things. The name Shakespeare is on the plays, there was a man
named Shakespeare who was an actor and shareholder in the acting
company, Shakespeare is named in the folio, and tributes to
"Shakespeare" were present in the society. No one stood up and
directly _in print_said "Hey this is fake".

My lens sees things in a different manner. The massive
inconsistencies, certainly an opinion, gleaned from the record,
between the stated biographical evidence and the works, the strange
silence of contemporaries and lack of meaningful corroboration of the
folio attribution, and the incredible sloppiness and disingenuousness
of standard scholarship around the biography are all huge red flags.
Furthermore, I think that a lot has to be inferred and that there is a
great deal we do not know about what may have gone on behind the
scenes. TO strart going over all this again is to recapitulate nearly
every argument that's been beaten to death on this NG. The plain fact
is no one listens to another because positions arecsert in stone.

For example, if I tried to say "I think what appear to be extensive
borrowings from Devere's Preface to the Bedingfield letter by
Shakespeare that seem to indicate a connection in some form between
the two men, especially when linked to what seems to be homage to
Oxford and his ancestors in the early history plays, and a whole host
of other "cooincidences" (one of which you semi admitted, that
Oxford's life may have in some fashion influencedc the character of
Hamlet", I believe there would be no room here for fruitful inquiry.

It is interesting to me that in spite of reservations, I encouraged
Robert to go ahead and post his findings here, thinking if there were
serious flaws in his argument, the more informed Strats would find
them. To date there have been about four threads on Detobel's
research, yet about 90% of the posts have been *about* Debotel or spun
off into tangents, rather than DEALING WITH AND ATTEMPTING TO DEBATE
THE MERITS OF HIS POSITION. Even you, here, in response to Mark A. are
talking AROUND Detobel, not responding TO Detobel. Isn't that exactly
Mark's point? Also, you bring up Van Daniken,who has extremely
negative connotations and is a prejudicial example.

Xrob is the only Strat who has meaningfully tried to engage Detobel.
His first response was feeling out and general agreement on licenses,
refuting Kennedy's assertions that to publish without a license was
criminal. In the second post, Xrob began a debate which was only in
its formative stages. Jim tried to enter the fray, seemed to get
clobbered by the facts in Robert's last reply and hasn't been heartd
from since.

Part of the strategy of our position is to systematically deal with
Stratfordian research and demonstrate that the biography may have been
built on a flawed foundation. This is why I believe Robert's posts are
important. They confront
a core position taken by scholars, especiallu Irwin Matus as a
recapitulation of the general Strat community, whose work was roundly
praised. Robetrt decided that the response of the Strat community here
to his argument would be most instructive. The massive avoidance of
his arguments, even in the face of explicit attempts to dialogue and
clarify, are extremely telling. Even you have not dealt once with any
of Detobel's points. Here you are, like the others, talking "around"
them.

I think Mark's points on Strat tactics so far have been amply proven.
I think you all have no answer for Robert. But I will wait for Xrob's
return. And I look forward to his continued dialogue on the matter.

P.S. Go to Shakespeare Oxford Society site, click on publications,
then Ever Reader online magazine and find the article on AStrophil and
Stella. The connections should be obvious.

P.P.S. The point you made about changing Oldcastle's name but
supposedly no "comment" on Polonious was a decent point (although one
could argue the name change from Corambis was in a similar vein).
Therefore I will look into that aspect further.

Ken Kaplan


mst...@home.com (Mark Steese) wrote in message news:<Xns90F6BB0A880D...@24.9.59.72>...

Mark Steese

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 12:14:44 PM8/9/01
to
Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of kenka...@yahoo.com (Ken Kaplan)
that wrote news:75f2d918.01080...@posting.google.com, on the
day of 09 Aug 2001:

> It's hot here and there is no air conditioning and I really don't feel
> like getting into a long piece on this so I'll make a few general
> remarks. When I said Oxford contributed to Hamlet, I did not mean he
> helped write it, I meant what you inferred, that it seemed Shakespeare
> in some fashion drew upon his life.

As you believe that Oxford *was* Shakespeare, this seems a tad
disingenuous.

> Your tone as I expereienced it was very confrontive and sarcastic
> (which unfortunately I have allowed myself too often to be drawn into
> in replies), therefore originally there was no "thanking you" for the
> point. Perhaps I should have. I did, in a rather semi sarcastic
> manner just recently, to which you denied ever having made the
> reference. (Perhaps you were thinking along the lines of contributed).
>
> As I just mentioned to Jim, Mark, this forum is not an arena for
> intellectual inquiry, although it occasionally stumbles into that, but
> much more an ideaological battleground.

It's a newsgroup, open to all, including those who believe Shakespeare was
Shakespeare and can argue the point.

> Mark Alexander, in his piece on why he became an Oxfordian talks about
> the foreground-background principle. That we really view this fom
> different lenses. YOur lens seems to me to depend greatly on "extant
> documentation" and the face value of things.

That's because you're a fantasist - why else put scare quotes around the
phrase extant documentation? You prefer to believe in your groundless
conspiracy theories and argue backwards from them, rather than examine the
actual evidence and draw conclusions from it.

> The name Shakespeare is on the plays, there was a man named Shakespeare
> who was an actor and shareholder in the acting company, Shakespeare is
> named in the folio, and tributes to "Shakespeare" were present in the
> society. No one stood up and directly _in print_said "Hey this is fake".

No one stood up *at all*. Does it seem at all significant to you that the
first stirrings of anti-Shakespeareanism occurred in the eighteenth
century, right around the time Shakespeare was being transformed into a
godlike avatar of England rather than the exceptionally talented but
imperfect playwright that he actually was? Full-blown anti-
Shakespeareanism, in the person of Delia Bacon, arose in the nineteenth
century, after the transformation of Shakespeare into The Immortal Bard was
complete; the pernicious influence of the Romantic fantasy-ideal of the
Artist Suffering For His Art, and the general Romantic willingness to value
personal impressions over objective evidence, contributed heavily as well.

> My lens sees things in a different manner.

Your metaphor is defective - lenses don't see.

> The massive inconsistencies, certainly an opinion, gleaned from the
> record, between the stated biographical evidence and the works,

I perceive massive inconsistencies between your impression of the works and
the actual works. There is *nothing* in the Shakespearean canon that is
inconsistent with the life of William Shakespeare of Stratford. The most
depressing aspect of Oxfordianism and the other breeds of anti-
Shakespeareanism is their unimaginative character.

> the strange silence of contemporaries

Ben Jonson?

> and lack of meaningful corroboration of the folio attribution, and the
> incredible sloppiness and disingenuousness of standard scholarship around
> the biography are all huge red flags.

And you're the bull, I take it.

> Furthermore, I think that a lot has to be inferred and that there is a
> great deal we do not know about what may have gone on behind the
> scenes. TO strart going over all this again is to recapitulate nearly
> every argument that's been beaten to death on this NG. The plain fact
> is no one listens to another because positions arecsert in stone.

That is not a plain fact; that's paranoia.



> For example, if I tried to say "I think what appear to be extensive
> borrowings from Devere's Preface to the Bedingfield letter by
> Shakespeare that seem to indicate a connection in some form between
> the two men, especially when linked to what seems to be homage to
> Oxford and his ancestors in the early history plays, and a whole host
> of other "cooincidences" (one of which you semi admitted, that
> Oxford's life may have in some fashion influencedc the character of
> Hamlet", I believe there would be no room here for fruitful inquiry.

The issue of what seems to you to be homage in the early history plays has
been dealt with on this newsgroup. To me it looks as though you're the one
whose positions are set in stone, since you ignore all efforts at
refutation. You *know* that Oxford was Shakespeare, and all the evidence
in the world won't convince you of anything other than a massive attempt to
cover up the truth - and for what reason?



> It is interesting to me that in spite of reservations, I encouraged
> Robert to go ahead and post his findings here, thinking if there were
> serious flaws in his argument, the more informed Strats would find
> them. To date there have been about four threads on Detobel's
> research, yet about 90% of the posts have been *about* Debotel or spun
> off into tangents, rather than DEALING WITH AND ATTEMPTING TO DEBATE
> THE MERITS OF HIS POSITION. Even you, here, in response to Mark A. are
> talking AROUND Detobel, not responding TO Detobel. Isn't that exactly
> Mark's point?

No. Didn't you read his post?

> Also, you bring up Van Daniken,who has extremely negative connotations
> and is a prejudicial example.

It was an accurate comparison. Detobel's response was not encouraging.



> Xrob is the only Strat who has meaningfully tried to engage Detobel.
> His first response was feeling out and general agreement on licenses,
> refuting Kennedy's assertions that to publish without a license was
> criminal. In the second post, Xrob began a debate which was only in
> its formative stages. Jim tried to enter the fray, seemed to get
> clobbered by the facts in Robert's last reply and hasn't been heartd
> from since.
>
> Part of the strategy of our position is to systematically deal with
> Stratfordian research

You have yet to demonstrate that there is such a thing as 'Stratfordian'
research. So far as I can see, there is research, and there is anti-
Shakespearean research. The first tends to support the attribution of the
plays to Shakespeare; the second doesn't.

> and demonstrate that the biography may have been built on a flawed
> foundation. This is why I believe Robert's posts are important. They
> confront a core position taken by scholars, especiallu Irwin Matus as a
> recapitulation of the general Strat community, whose work was roundly
> praised. Robetrt decided that the response of the Strat community here to
> his argument would be most instructive. The massive avoidance of his
> arguments, even in the face of explicit attempts to dialogue and clarify,
> are extremely telling. Even you have not dealt once with any of Detobel's
> points.

As I believe I've made it clear on numerous occasions, I'm not a scholar;
I'm an interested amateur. The only regular posters here who are qualified
to assess Detobel's argument and make a complete response are Terry Ross
and David Kathman, and I'd be surprised if either of them has the time to
do so. My point was that Detobel's arguments cannot be assumed true simply
because no one has posted a complete refutation.

> Here you are, like the others, talking "around" them.

I'm not talking around them. I'm not personally qualified to address them;
I am, however, well-enough versed in reason and logic to understand why
Mark Alexander's claim that Detobel's argument may be presumed valid until
refuted is nonsense. That's what I addressed, and no one has demonstrated
that I was wrong.



> I think Mark's points on Strat tactics so far have been amply proven.

Obviously. You're an anti-Shakespearean. You wouldn't believe in "Strat
tactics" otherwise.

> I think you all have no answer for Robert. But I will wait for Xrob's
> return. And I look forward to his continued dialogue on the matter.

I'm sure Terry and David do. For my own part, I don't see how Detobel's
arguments in any way weaken the case for Shakespeare.



> P.S. Go to Shakespeare Oxford Society site, click on publications,
> then Ever Reader online magazine and find the article on AStrophil and
> Stella. The connections should be obvious.
>
> P.P.S. The point you made about changing Oldcastle's name but
> supposedly no "comment" on Polonious was a decent point (although one
> could argue the name change from Corambis was in a similar vein).
> Therefore I will look into that aspect further.
>
> Ken Kaplan

So, given that you have completely failed to provide a substantive


refutation to my argument, I assume that you agree with it.

Mark Steese

--

Mark Alexander

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 12:28:54 PM8/9/01
to

"Nicholas Whyte" <expl...@whyte.com> wrote in message
news:3b726b98...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

> On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 02:46:59 GMT, "Mark Alexander"
> <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >And I bet some of you still believe that Shakespeare erred in stating
> >that Bohemia had a coastline (it did for a 40-year period during
which
> >Oxford traveled.)
>
> How appropriate that my final contribution to the group before I go on
> holidays actually brings me to my day job, which is analysis of
> eastern European politics. OK, my day job doesn't involve this period
> in history very often (though more often than I expected it would).
> There is no truth in the statement that Bohemia had a coastline at any
> point during the Earl of Oxford's lifetime, let alone for a forty year
> period.

Nicholas, please don't make this your final contribution until you have
helped me understand a couple of points. Your research appears adequate
and I may very well be wrong in this (having missed the discussion you
allude to). This is a good opportunity to demonstrate that some
Oxfordians DO change their positions when confronted with evidence.

I based my statement on the following claims taken from notes onat a
lecture given in 1964 that I did not attend. I wonder if you can account
for them, or explain why they would be in error. This is not a trick. I
am sincerely questioning:

"A promontory of land on the Yugoslavian coast -- wild then as it is
now -- was ceded to the Emperor Rudolph II in 1576, and on his
abdication in 1609 was partitioned between two claiments, and the
sea-coast absorbed."

No source was given, but when I went to the Web site you gave me,

http://www.asommer.de/boehmen_e.htm

I naturally went to the one map on the page that applied to the time
period above (the second one, EUT097, dated 1580), and I may be mistaken
but it sure looks to me like that one has a seacoast. The previous map
is for 1550 and the next map is for 1628.

So the map seems to back up the claim.

Could you please clarify?

Cheers

Mark Alexander


David L. Webb

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 2:57:50 PM8/9/01
to
In article <3b70a0b4...@News.localaccess.com>, baker wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 21:59:04 -0600, David Kathman
> <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> >As for "proper refutations" to Stritmatter's dissertation,
> >that would be a lot easier if it were made widely available
> >rather than on a "subscribers only" basis.
>
> Dave,
>
> You know its a requirement that all dissertations be microfilmed and
> placed in the record...have you looked?

What are you talking about, Baker? Dissertation Abstracts? That
database contains the *abstracts*, not the theses themselves. Even so,
I invite you to consult the online database at
<http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/search>, type "Stritmatter" in the
Author field, and conduct a search -- you will find no items authored
by anyone named Stritmatter. Don't you ever check *anything* yourself?



> You aren't saying that you couldn't get a copy via interlibrary loans
> are you?

That might be possible -- but if the only copies reside in the U.
Mass. library, it might also be quite difficult, as there might be
other potential readers; why should Dave Kathman take the trouble? In
any event, as Kathman says, he has more pressing scholarly pursuits to
undertake.

I realize that you have scant experience in academics, despite your
unpersuasive pretense to scholarship, so let me try to explain how
things work. The usual practice is that a dissertation is published,
sometimes in expanded form, either in one or more papers in a
mainstream, peer reviewed professional journal or in a book (typically
published by an academic publisher) widely accessible in university
research libraries; in either case, before the work is published, it is
normally subjected to critical scrutiny by experts in the discipline.
These readers or referees are charged with carefully reading the
manuscript, pointing out any errors, omissions, or other lapses, and
either recommending publication or recommending against it.

As far as I know, Dr. Stritmatter's thesis has not yet undergone
this expert scrutiny, nor is it widely available. Matters being so, it
is premature to make any judgments concerning its importance or even
its correctness until it has been duly refereed and published. Then
scholars will read it and will draw their own conclusions, with the
assurance that at least the more glaring factual errors, if any, will
have been rectified by the referees' careful pre-publication reading.
Until then, why should Kathman or anyone else spend his valuable time
checking all the details and thereby doing the referees' work for them?
It's a fruitless duplication of effort.

There might be many people, myself included, who would be interested
in reading the thesis, if only out of curiosity; however, I am not
willing to pay nearly $70 (double or even triple the price of many
university press monographs in the humanities) for the privilege of
doing so, particularly when, if it has merit, it will appear in the
university library in due course. I will wait until Dr. Stritmatter
publishes the book that we are told is in the works. Until then, it is
pretty ridiculous to insist that Kathman or anyone else take time off
from his own pursuits to frame a careful rebuttal (particularly when
even anti-Stratfordians like yourself haven't even bothered to check
whether the volume is indexed by Dissertation Abstracts yet). Dr.
Stritmatter is the one who is making the case -- the onus is on him to
persuade scholars in the field that his conclusions are correct. When
he publishes his book, that process will be underway, but not before.

David Webb

KQKnave

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 4:14:31 PM8/9/01
to

> By the way, I noticed you stopped
>responding to Robert when he put *facts* and *evidence* in front of
>you to counter your assertions in the earlier thread.

What thread would that be? Do you ever get specific? One reason
why this newsgroup is *sometimes* an "idealogical battleground"
is because posters like you just post some generalized nonsense
that avoids facts and specifics and instead relies on your
"feeling", or "idealogical belief" that Shakespeare was not Shakespeare.
When the rest of us debate among ourselves, we seem to
have a much intellectual rigor as any other newsgroup or list,
including SHAKSPER, which for the most part avoids any
substantive discussion about facts, and instead sticks to various
poster's opinions on the psychology of the characters or opinions
about performances, and the pissing contests that occur there
sometimes are, well, precious would be the word.
If you want to tell me what thread you're talking about, I'd be
glad to point out why I stopped responding. I don't recall seeing
any facts or evidence, just a good deal of opinion.


Jim

Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 4:39:24 PM8/9/01
to
Aargh. Am surrounded by boxes but will try to help.


On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:28:54 GMT, "Mark Alexander"
<mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Nicholas, please don't make this your final contribution until you have
>helped me understand a couple of points. Your research appears adequate
>and I may very well be wrong in this (having missed the discussion you
>allude to). This is a good opportunity to demonstrate that some
>Oxfordians DO change their positions when confronted with evidence.
>
>I based my statement on the following claims taken from notes onat a
>lecture given in 1964 that I did not attend. I wonder if you can account
>for them, or explain why they would be in error. This is not a trick. I
>am sincerely questioning:
>
>"A promontory of land on the Yugoslavian coast -- wild then as it is
>now -- was ceded to the Emperor Rudolph II in 1576, and on his
>abdication in 1609 was partitioned between two claiments, and the
>sea-coast absorbed."

I'll expand a bit on the role of Bohemia within the Holy Roman Empire,
since my previous post slightly compressed the politics of the title
of "King of Bohemia", which was often bestowed on the Emperor's chosen
heir in his lifetime; rather as the heir to the British throne is the
Prince of Wales, with the important difference that the Bohemian
nobles got to vote on it (and in 1619 they voted the wrong way). The
person who happened to be "King of Bohemia" rarely used this title to
identify himself, and also unless he was backed up with the additional
authority of being emperor as well he tended to leave the Bohemian
nobles to themselves if he was sensible (and Rudolph was not).

Rudolph held the titles of King of Hungary from 1572 to 1608, King of
Bohemia from 1575 to 1611, and Emperor from 1576 to his death in 1612.
He did not abdicate in 1609. That was however the year in which he
granted an increased measure of home rule to the Bohemians under much
pressure. He did give up Bohemia to his more tolerant brother and heir
Matthias in 1611, and Matthias became Emperor the next year on
Rudolph's death (he had taken over what was left of Hungary as well as
Austria and Moravia in 1608).

Since Rudolph was already notionally ruler of Hungary, which had a
coast (including the Croatian "wild promontories" subsequently in
Yugoslavia), at the time he became ruler of Bohemia, and since he came
into the rest of the Habsburg coastal possessions (including tamer
promontories also subsequently in Yugoslavia) shortly afterwards, it
doesn't seem to make sense that he would be allocated a particular
coastal region in his role as King of Bohemia; and given the very poor
relationship between him and the Bohemians (which turned out to be
early rumblings of the Thirty Years War) it wouldn't make much sense
to put a promontory over 300 miles away under the control of the
Bohemians themselves.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that I can't find a record of it
having happened or a good reason to believe that it might have. In
1608 it would seem that Matthias got the entire coast - at least, I
assume that Austria for these purposes includes Carniola and the bits
of Istria not under Venetian rule, and Hungary certainly includes the
bits of coast between there and the Venetian possessions in Dalmatia.

I have identified an incident which could be confused into this story.
In 1578, Rudolf put his uncle Karl of Styria in charge of what he
still had left of Croatia (with the Turks threatening from Bosnia).
That certainly included several "wild promontories". Karl turned them
into a military frontier and settled them largely with displaced Serbs
from the Ottoman territories, thus laying the ground for the war in
Croatia in the 1990s. However Karl did not rule Bohemia.

>No source was given, but when I went to the Web site you gave me,
>
>http://www.asommer.de/boehmen_e.htm
>
>I naturally went to the one map on the page that applied to the time
>period above (the second one, EUT097, dated 1580), and I may be mistaken
>but it sure looks to me like that one has a seacoast. The previous map
>is for 1550 and the next map is for 1628.
>
>So the map seems to back up the claim.
>
>Could you please clarify?

That's straightforward enough. If you compare with the other maps
lower down the page you can see that the northern boundary of Bohemia
in the 1580 map has been squashed to fit the frame (I think I read
somewhere that this was a political move by the cunning Bohemian
nobles). The 1550 map, by the way, has north at the bottom and south
at the top, along with other eccentricities.

The 1580 map (I grant you it's not a wonderfully sharp image) shows
six other areas bordering Bohemia, alternating in colour between pink
and blue. "Moraviae Pars" (pink) and "Austriae Pars" (blue) are
clearly legible to the right and lower right respectively. I'm not
sure where you think the coastline is, but the other territories
bordering Bohemia must be Bavaria (blue, lower left), the (upper)
Palatinate (red, left - name just about legible), Saxony (blue, top
left to top right) and Silesia (pink, top right - name legible with
imagination). There's a map of Central Europe at the outbreak of the
Thirty Years War at http://www.pipeline.com/~cwa/PolMap2_1.gif which
makes it fairly clear what bits are meant to be where.

Back to packing boxes.

Nicholas

Mark Alexander

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 5:35:19 PM8/9/01
to
Thank you, Nicholas. As it stands, it appears that the argument that
Bohemia did not have a seacoast trounces the argument that Bohemia once
did.

I stand refuted. Thank you for your patience.

Cheers

Mark Alexander

"Nicholas Whyte" <expl...@whyte.com> wrote in message

news:3b72dda...@news.skynet.be...

john_baker

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 6:16:32 PM8/9/01
to
On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:57:50 -0400, "David L. Webb"
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>In article <3b70a0b4...@News.localaccess.com>, baker wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 21:59:04 -0600, David Kathman
>> <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >As for "proper refutations" to Stritmatter's dissertation,
>> >that would be a lot easier if it were made widely available
>> >rather than on a "subscribers only" basis.
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> You know its a requirement that all dissertations be microfilmed and
>> placed in the record...have you looked?
>
> What are you talking about, Baker? Dissertation Abstracts? That
>database contains the *abstracts*, not the theses themselves. Even so,
>I invite you to consult the online database at
><http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/search>, type "Stritmatter" in the
>Author field, and conduct a search -- you will find no items authored
>by anyone named Stritmatter. Don't you ever check *anything* yourself?

I checked what Fermat said...he didn't say he had a proof only a
demonstration...and I'm not talking about Dissertation Abstracts...I'm
talking about obtaining a microfilm copy of the original from his
university..


>
>> You aren't saying that you couldn't get a copy via interlibrary loans
>> are you?
>
> That might be possible -- but if the only copies reside in the U.
>Mass. library, it might also be quite difficult, as there might be
>other potential readers; why should Dave Kathman take the trouble? In
>any event, as Kathman says, he has more pressing scholarly pursuits to
>undertake.

I'm so impressed I'm about to fall over. Interlibrary loans works
right in in Centralia WA and only takes a few days...all I have to do
is call my librarian and its in the mail the next morning...you should
try it. Meanwhile I've seen the Dissertation, it was freely offered
for sale at the Oxford conference and I'm sure Dave can get a copy
from Roger for the price of postage and duplication...


>
> I realize that you have scant experience in academics, despite your
>unpersuasive pretense to scholarship,

Sure Webb..go right ahead..


>so let me try to explain how
>things work. The usual practice

what do you mean by this?

> is that a dissertation is published,

hardly ever...most of them are just stacked away in the library of the
univrsity in question...I doubt more than ten percent are published...


>sometimes in expanded form, either in one or more papers in a
>mainstream, peer reviewed professional journal or in a book (typically
>published by an academic publisher) widely accessible in university
>research libraries; in either case, before the work is published, it is
>normally subjected to critical scrutiny by experts in the discipline.

Big deal in this case it means that footnotes and quotes are checked,
not that the math is right or wrong. Roger is entitled to a contary
opinion. And no amount of checking need change it...

>These readers or referees are charged with carefully reading the
>manuscript, pointing out any errors, omissions, or other lapses, and
>either recommending publication or recommending against it.

You may have missed an earlier post of mine on this subject, which
delt with what should departments of biology do with fundamentists who
reject evolution?

But now it seems you responded to that one...?

This was causing trouble even way back when...
All a department could and can do is allow it.

You can't shove a student out of a department because he or she
doesn't buy your pet theory. If his grades and good and her papers
are good and the dissertation is on a limited topic that doesn't deal
head on with evolution...you have to allow them passage...

What would you do? Don't tell me..I know already, you'd toss them out
on their ass...


>
> As far as I know, Dr. Stritmatter's thesis has not yet undergone
>this expert scrutiny, nor is it widely available.

Roger's dissertation under went the expert scrutiny of his professors,
Webb, as you well know. That's what a committe is for. You get some
say in who is and who isn't on your committe, but its still a committe
of University PhDs...or was in my case...was yours different?

>Matters being so, it
>is premature to make any judgments concerning its importance or even
>its correctness until it has been duly refereed and published. Then
>scholars will read it and will draw their own conclusions, with the
>assurance that at least the more glaring factual errors, if any, will
>have been rectified by the referees' careful pre-publication reading.
>Until then, why should Kathman or anyone else spend his valuable time
>checking all the details and thereby doing the referees' work for them?
>It's a fruitless duplication of effort.

For the same reason you spend your valuable time proof reading my
stuff...and thank you very much for doing so so...in my book ideas are
either interesting or not and his are, indeed this whole issue
is...which is why you are here...if it were as dull as math...you'd be
looking for other subjects....


>
> There might be many people, myself included, who would be interested
>in reading the thesis, if only out of curiosity; however, I am not
>willing to pay nearly $70 (double or even triple the price of many
>university press monographs in the humanities) for the privilege of
>doing so, particularly when, if it has merit, it will appear in the
>university library in due course. I will wait until Dr. Stritmatter
>publishes the book that we are told is in the works. Until then, it is
>pretty ridiculous to insist that Kathman or anyone else take time off
>from his own pursuits to frame a careful rebuttal (particularly when
>even anti-Stratfordians like yourself haven't even bothered to check
>whether the volume is indexed by Dissertation Abstracts yet). Dr.
>Stritmatter is the one who is making the case -- the onus is on him to
>persuade scholars in the field that his conclusions are correct. When
>he publishes his book, that process will be underway, but not before.


Come on Webb...I didn't suggest any of this. I said Kathman could get
the dissertation if he wanted it...its not hidden...seventy bucks is a
drop in the bucket these days...

If I was Roger I'd put the whole thing on my web page...and in fact
Roger can use my web page if he likes...for free

John Baker

>
> David Webb

baker

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 6:21:43 PM8/9/01
to
On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 02:46:59 GMT, "Mark Alexander"
<mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>And I bet some of you still believe that Shakespeare erred in stating
>that Bohemia had a coastline (it did for a 40-year period during which
>Oxford traveled.)
>
>Cheers
>
>...and Truth in your eye.
>
>Mark Alexander

My maps show the same thing. What's your source?

baker

KQKnave

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 6:22:42 PM8/9/01
to
In article <aTyc7.841$2M3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Mark
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:

>I based my statement on the following claims taken from notes onat a
>lecture given in 1964 that I did not attend. I wonder if you can account
>for them, or explain why they would be in error.

Hey Nick, someone told me that a person that I don't know
heard someone else say in 1978 at some lecture somewhere
(maybe at a university, maybe on a streetcorner) that aliens
abducted Pee Wee Herman and did strange things to his
orifices...can you explain why that might or might not be true,
or whether I should pay attention at all?


Jim

baker

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 6:31:25 PM8/9/01
to
On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:35:19 GMT, "Mark Alexander"
<mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:

I picked up on this. But I point out that it was and is not uncommon
for landlocked nations, such as B, to have a "free port." Even though
it may be hundreds of milies away. Trade goods, sealed, would be
allowed free passage to the port and then off they'd go.

My map sources are pritned. A historical Atlas.

And I've always liked the notion that it was a joke.

But both cannot be. Either all knew B didn't have a seacoast, which
would make it a joke, or all supposed it did. Which would make it a
common mistake.

If Peter is following this, is part of his argument that Green knew it
didn't have a coast and it was a joke for him too?

David L. Webb

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 8:01:22 PM8/9/01
to
In article <3b730780...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:57:50 -0400, "David L. Webb"
> <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <3b70a0b4...@News.localaccess.com>, baker wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 21:59:04 -0600, David Kathman
> >> <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >As for "proper refutations" to Stritmatter's dissertation,
> >> >that would be a lot easier if it were made widely available
> >> >rather than on a "subscribers only" basis.
> >>
> >> Dave,
> >>
> >> You know its a requirement that all dissertations be microfilmed and
> >> placed in the record...have you looked?

> > What are you talking about, Baker? Dissertation Abstracts? That
> >database contains the *abstracts*, not the theses themselves. Even so,
> >I invite you to consult the online database at
> ><http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/search>, type "Stritmatter" in the
> >Author field, and conduct a search -- you will find no items authored
> >by anyone named Stritmatter. Don't you ever check *anything* yourself?

> I checked what Fermat said...he didn't say he had a proof only a
> demonstration...and I'm not talking about Dissertation Abstracts...I'm
> talking about obtaining a microfilm copy of the original from his
> university..

Have you tried that, Baker?

> >> You aren't saying that you couldn't get a copy via interlibrary loans
> >> are you?

> > That might be possible -- but if the only copies reside in the U.
> >Mass. library, it might also be quite difficult, as there might be
> >other potential readers; why should Dave Kathman take the trouble? In
> >any event, as Kathman says, he has more pressing scholarly pursuits to
> >undertake.

> I'm so impressed I'm about to fall over. Interlibrary loans works
> right in in Centralia WA and only takes a few days...all I have to do
> is call my librarian and its in the mail the next morning...

Sure, interlibrary loan works fine *if* the material in question is
available in a number of libraries and a copy can be readily located;
if you're trying to obtain by interlibrary loan something that hasn't
even been published, then it can take quite a while. You should try
it.

> you should
> try it.

I have done so, on many occasions; as I said, if you are trying to
obtain a title that resides in comparatively few institutions'
libraries, it can take a while. This is especially true if the
material has *not even been published yet*.

> Meanwhile I've seen the Dissertation, it was freely offered
> for sale

"Freely offered for sale"?

> at the Oxford conference and I'm sure Dave can get a copy
> from Roger for the price of postage and duplication...

Why are you so sure of that? Several people have reported trying to
get copies from Dr. Stritmatter or his committee and being refused.



> > I realize that you have scant experience in academics, despite your
> >unpersuasive pretense to scholarship,

[...]


> >so let me try to explain how
> >things work. The usual practice

> what do you mean by this?

I mean that this is the usual first step in the trajectory of a
scholar who has just finished his or her thesis and is trying to embark
upon a scholarly career.


> > is that a dissertation is published,

> hardly ever...most of them are just stacked away in the library of the
> univrsity in question...I doubt more than ten percent are published...

For those *who intend to pursue careers in scholarship* publication
of the thesis is almost the universal rule; I'm not talking about
people who get a Ph.D. and then go to work on Wall Street.

> >sometimes in expanded form, either in one or more papers in a
> >mainstream, peer reviewed professional journal or in a book (typically
> >published by an academic publisher) widely accessible in university
> >research libraries; in either case, before the work is published, it is
> >normally subjected to critical scrutiny by experts in the discipline.

> Big deal in this case it means that footnotes and quotes are checked,
> not that the math is right or wrong.

No, it certainly does *not* mean that, as you would be aware if you
had any experience in academics. Papers submitted to professional
journals in most disciplines (particularly those journals enjoying the
highest prestige) are very carefully refereed *for content and
correctness*. In fact, not only are papers carefully vetted for
correctness, but in my field some of the top journals will often reject
papers that the referees have certified as correct if an editor feels
that the paper, although correct and interesting, is not sufficiently
earth-shaking to merit publication in his or her journal. Many
journals don't care much, if at all, about how the author handles
footnotes, bibliography entries, etc. as long the author's practice is
consistent and not too eccentric. I realize from your post on Park
Honan that you think that "scholarship" lies entirely in proper
handling of footnotes, quotations, and references, but that simply is
not the case.

> Roger is entitled to a contary [sic]


> opinion. And no amount of checking need change it...

I have no idea what, if anything, you're trying to say.

> >These readers or referees are charged with carefully reading the
> >manuscript, pointing out any errors, omissions, or other lapses, and
> >either recommending publication or recommending against it.

> You may have missed an earlier post of mine on this subject, which
> delt with what should departments of biology do with fundamentists who
> reject evolution?
>
> But now it seems you responded to that one...?
>
> This was causing trouble even way back when...
> All a department could and can do is allow it.
>
> You can't shove a student out of a department because he or she
> doesn't buy your pet theory.

Nobody does so, to my knowledge; students flunk out not because of
unconventional or even radical views, but because they cannot master
the intellectual content of their chosen discipline, or because they
cannot produce original work of high quality.

> If his grades and good and her papers
> are good and the dissertation is on a limited topic that doesn't deal
> head on with evolution...you have to allow them passage...

If a student's work is sound by disciplinary standards, I don't much
care about his or her extracurricular opinions.

> What would you do? Don't tell me..I know already, you'd toss them out
> on their ass...

> > As far as I know, Dr. Stritmatter's thesis has not yet undergone
> >this expert scrutiny, nor is it widely available.

> Roger's dissertation under went the expert scrutiny of his professors,
> Webb, as you well know.

As does the thesis of everyone who ever gets a Ph.D. That is *not*
the same thing as the scrutiny academic work must undergo in order to
be published in professional scholarly journals -- for one thing, the
journals' standards are much higher, and for another, a scholar
submitting a paper to a professional journal doesn't get to pick his or
her referees, as a student undertaking thesis work gets to pick his or
her committee. The committee is under at least some ethical, if not
legal, obligation to assist the student in finishing his or her degree;
journal referees are under no such obligations. In fact, I know of
plenty of thesis advisers who will bend over backwards to help a
student finish his or her Ph.D., but who will pitilessly pan that same
student's first NSF grant proposal, or recommend against publication of
the student's thesis in a top journal -- not because of any ill will,
but only because the adviser does not regard the proposal or the paper
as competitive with other proposals and papers, and is being
professionally honest in saying so.

Mind you, I'm *not* suggesting that anything of the sort happened in
Dr. Stritmatter's case; I know nothing of his committee or of his
thesis, and would not presume to speculate. I am merely saying that it
is premature to evaluate Dr. Stritmatter's work *until* it is completed
in the form in which he himself intends to publish it. However, your
equating the scrutiny a thesis undergoes to the much more rigorous,
careful scrutiny a manuscript submitted for publication undergoes is
absolutely farcical, and betrays remarkable ignorance of the daily
workings of academics for someone who makes some feeble pretense to
scholarship.

> That's what a committe is for. You get some
> say in who is and who isn't on your committe, but its still a committe
> of University PhDs...or was in my case...was yours different?

See above.



> >Matters being so, it
> >is premature to make any judgments concerning its importance or even
> >its correctness until it has been duly refereed and published. Then
> >scholars will read it and will draw their own conclusions, with the
> >assurance that at least the more glaring factual errors, if any, will
> >have been rectified by the referees' careful pre-publication reading.
> >Until then, why should Kathman or anyone else spend his valuable time
> >checking all the details and thereby doing the referees' work for them?
> >It's a fruitless duplication of effort.

> For the same reason you spend your valuable time proof reading my
> stuff...and thank you very much for doing so so...

What wishful thinking! I *don't* waste my time proofreading your
stuff. It takes no time *at all* to refute, and I wouldn't bother with
it if it did.

> in my book ideas are
> either interesting or not and his are, indeed this whole issue
> is...which is why you are here...if it were as dull as math...you'd be
> looking for other subjects....

I know that you know no mathematics, Baker, and hence that you
cannot appreciate the breathtaking beauty of the subject; however,
that's your loss, and you only make a monumental ass of yourself when
you characterize the subject as "dull."

> > There might be many people, myself included, who would be interested
> >in reading the thesis, if only out of curiosity; however, I am not
> >willing to pay nearly $70 (double or even triple the price of many
> >university press monographs in the humanities) for the privilege of
> >doing so, particularly when, if it has merit, it will appear in the
> >university library in due course. I will wait until Dr. Stritmatter
> >publishes the book that we are told is in the works. Until then, it is
> >pretty ridiculous to insist that Kathman or anyone else take time off
> >from his own pursuits to frame a careful rebuttal (particularly when
> >even anti-Stratfordians like yourself haven't even bothered to check
> >whether the volume is indexed by Dissertation Abstracts yet). Dr.
> >Stritmatter is the one who is making the case -- the onus is on him to
> >persuade scholars in the field that his conclusions are correct. When
> >he publishes his book, that process will be underway, but not before.

> Come on Webb...I didn't suggest any of this. I said Kathman could get
> the dissertation if he wanted it...

He already told you, the "subscribers only" format in which the
thesis is presently being distributed is not the norm in academics by
any means; it's quite common to send leading scholars in one's field,
even those whom one fears may take an adversarial position, a free copy
of one's thesis.

> its not hidden...

No, but it's not readily available through normal academic channels,
nor has it withstood normal professional scrutiny; presumably, neither
will occur until Dr. Stritmatter has expanded it into the form in which
he intends to publish it. Matters being so, it is, as I said, decidely
premature to evaluate it.

> seventy bucks is a
> drop in the bucket these days...
>
> If I was Roger I'd put the whole thing on my web page...

Good for you -- but you're not Dr. Stritmatter, and he has not done
so. In fact, here is a quote from one of Dave Kathman's posts in this
forum:

"Your impression is not mistaken. On two separate occasions
I approached members of Roger Stritmatter's committee and asked
if I might be able to see at least some of his work, so that I
might read it and subject it to the normal scholarly scrutiny
that all dissertations are expected to undergo. In both cases
I was flatly rebuffed. It seems that Mr. Stritmatter didn't want
any unfriendly eyes to see his work before it had been safely
approved by his committee. I found this behavior odd for someone
who purported to be a scholar."

Here is another post, addressed directly to Dr. Stritmatter in response
to one of the latter's posts in this forum:

"Furthermore, we [Kathman and Ross] have always been completely
open in discussing our work with any interested parties, and
have posted detailed information about authorship-related
issues both here and on our web site. In contrast, you have
continually been evasive when asked for details of your work,
and have not made your work available even to those who are
specifically interested in it. When you have deigned to make
it available, you have often charged money for it, as in your
statement that those interested in your views on Peacham's
Minerva Brittana will have to purchase tapes from Mark Alexander.
In general, you seem not to want your work subjected to critical
scrutiny by those who are not already friendly to your
conclusions. A couple of years ago I made an attempt, through
your friend Mark Anderson and your then-committee member David
Mix Barrington, to get a copy of your work on Oxford's Bible,
but I was unsuccessful. If you're willing to make any of
this work available to me now, so that I might subject it
to critical examination, I would gladly pay copying and postage
costs."

> and in fact
> Roger can use my web page if he likes...for free

Very generous, Baker. We'll see whether he takes you up on that
offer or not. Until then, it is premature to evaluate the work, as it
has not been published and is not readily available.

David Webb

KQKnave

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 8:32:56 PM8/9/01
to
In article <090820012001220061%David....@Dartmouth.edu>, "David L. Webb"
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> writes:

> Nobody does so, to my knowledge; students flunk out not because of
>unconventional or even radical views, but because they cannot master
>the intellectual content of their chosen discipline, or because they
>cannot produce original work of high quality.
>

...or because they get fed up with all the bullshit, because they
run out of money, because they get a job that seems worth
more than the degree, marriage/children interfere and a million
other reasons.

You're statements seems to imply that all Ph.D's master the
intellectual content of their discipline, and that they all produce
original work of high quality. I would say that the majority of
them don't accomplish either.


Jim

David L. Webb

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 9:53:44 PM8/9/01
to KQKnave
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article <20010809203256...@nso-fu.aol.com>, KQKnave
<kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote:

No, I'm responding to specific, unfounded suppositions of Baker's.
He wrote:

"You may have missed an earlier post of mine on this subject, which

delt [sic] with what should departments of biology do with
fundamentists [sic] who reject evolution?

But now it seems you responded to that one...?

This was causing trouble even way back when...
All a department could and can do is allow it.

You can't shove a student out of a department because he or she

doesn't buy your pet theory. If his grades and good and her papers


are good and the dissertation is on a limited topic that doesn't deal
head on with evolution...you have to allow them passage...

What would you do? Don't tell me..I know already, you'd toss them
out on their ass..."

Baker seems to be hallucinating that some sort of rigid ideological
conformity is imposed upon Ph.D. candidates, who are unceremoniously
tossed out if they don't toe the line; that isn't utterly unheard of,
but it's comparatively rare, at least at reputable institutions. On
the contrary, when students actually *flunk out*, it is generally
because they fail to master (or at least to demonstrate mastery of) the
intellectual rudiments of their field (e.g., they fail required
courses, or fail their preliminary exams), or because they do not
manage to do original work.

This does *not* imply, nor was it meant to, that students who do not
complete a Ph.D. program invariably fail to do so for one of the
reasons that I mentioned; only those students who *actually flunk out*
generally do so because of a failure to master the field's intellectual
infrastructure or to produce original work. In fact, in my experience,
comparatively *few* students actually flunk out; most who leave do so
of their own volition, for a variety of very good reasons, including
(but no means limited to) the ones you enumerated.

David Webb

Bob Grumman

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 10:06:33 PM8/9/01
to
If Shakespeare was right about Bohemia having a coast, how did
Jonson get it wrong? And be sure enough of himself to be
contemptuous of Shakespeare for thinking as he did? It seems
to me that it makes sense to take Jonson as a better authority
as to whether Bohemia was considered in his time to have coast.
I note that no one ever pointed out that Jonson was wrong as Jonson
had pointed out that Shakespeare was.

I'm also curious as to what was considered "Bohemia." It needn't
automatically be anything ruled over by the King of Bohemia, need it?
Scotland, once united with England, did not become England, though ruled
by the King of England.

--Bob G.

Ken Kaplan

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 10:59:28 PM8/9/01
to
Message 7, Copywright KQKnave.

Ken Kaplan

kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) wrote in message news:<20010809161431...@nso-fn.aol.com>...

Ken Kaplan

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 11:50:46 PM8/9/01
to
You say potato, I say pot_a_to and no I do not agree with you, and no
I will not be drawn into a recapitulation of the entire debate in one
post. I have looked into this for years and have found what you call
"research" wanting. I said before as an example, I found most of
Diana's book and her responses on this NG far more credible than
nearly all the Strat biographies I have read and many of the positions
of Kathman and Ross.

And since you never asked, and I never really offered, here is my
foundational position. I have no idea whether Oxford wrote Shakespeare
and to some extent I don't care. What I do care about are three
things.

1) That the constant ladle of Strat shit around BIOGRAPHY that passes
for scholarship be identified as such

2) That there is a clear and unequivocal connection in some fashion
between Devere and Shakespeare, patron? influence? author? I don't
know, but to me its there and the suppression of that investigation,
and of Devere's relationship in general as a potentially important
figure in the Elizabethan renaissance, is an injustice motivated
primarily by fear.

3) That consideration of authorship in light of the immense
ambiguities surrounding the historical data is a valuable tool in
assessing the nature, soul, and crative mind of this greatest of all
artists.

Ken Kaplan


mst...@home.com (Mark Steese) wrote in message news:<Xns90F85CE3156D...@130.133.1.4>...