NY Times and "Antistratfordian Design"
Terry Ross
installment in his years-long effort to slip a bit of Oxfordianism into
the paper of record:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/books/30shak.html?pagewanted=print
Niederkorn surveys a number of books related to Shakespeare, including a
two that are absolutely worthless (*Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and
Coded Politics of William Shakespeare* by Clare Asquith, and
*"Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of
Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare* by Mark Anderson).
The Times recently ran a series on the "intelligent design controversy,"
which is a stalking horse for the teaching of creationism and the
rejection of science in America's schools. The ID-iots like to say that
evolution is merely a "theory" and not a "fact"; they like to say that
there is a "controversy" over the matter and that "both sides" should be
heard. Niederkorn's close is eerily similar to the stance of the ID-iots:
"On both sides of the authorship controversy, the arguments are
conjectural. Each case rests on a story, and not on hard evidence. Either
side, or both, might eventually be proved wrong. Meanwhile, and it could
be a very long meanwhile, perhaps an eternal meanwhile, things will
continue as they are.
"Or perhaps not. What if authorship studies were made part of the standard
Shakespeare curriculum?"
Niederkorn is, of course, as wrong as ever about the nature of the
evidence. There is more than enough evidence to support the attribution
of the great bulk of Shakespeare's works to William Shakespeare, the
glover's son from Stratford. A short summary of the evidence is available
in Tom Reedy and David Kathman's essay "How We Know That Shakespeare
Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts," which is available at
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chess One
> evidence. There is more than enough evidence to support the attribution
> of the great bulk of Shakespeare's works to William Shakespeare, the
> glover's son from Stratford. A short summary of the evidence is
> available in Tom Reedy and David Kathman's essay "How We Know That
> Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts," which is available
> at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
> http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is indeed a vast collation of datum to attribute to Will Shakespeare,
but the very heart of the controversy is that it should do so!
Why not indeed make attribution to other forms of authorship, to the degree
that 'evidence' of a prescriptive nature can be seen transparently as method
of inquiry - rather than the opaque laying-it-on-with-a-trowel design
which - then and now - is the likely main candidate for 'Alternate
Authorship" - a situation fomented by shoddy Stratfordian enthused and
self-pleased scholarship itself.
Now, perhaps all in all, one might conclude that the glover-boy was the
playwright, and the only playwright, and no peripeteia occlude this charming
and romantic point of view, and this surely can be in itself a respectable
gloss on authorship.
But what is indecent is proclamation of more authority [to pun again] to
this point of view than is deserving, especially when in so very many areas
of Elizabethan research more has been excluded than included to make such a
certain case.
And what is strangest of all is complete lack of psychological, or in
Elizabethan argot, spiritual, address on the nature of the author's gift, or
how he came by, evolved and sustained it, synchronously with the emergence
of the works themselves. This would indeed be a nychthemeronic concinnity
and resemble a sincere approach to the subject, rather than the campish
clamourings of auteurs-manqué.
But no-one will print this letter or echo its sentiment in the NY Times,
since that is a daily newspaper preferring the sound of louche encounter and
ripostes of its 'market' to that of any true basso profundo fons et origo.
Phil Innes
Brattleboro, Vermont
bookburn
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.62.0508300917130.21731@mail...
| William Niederkorn has struck again. Today's Times contains another
| installment in his years-long effort to slip a bit of Oxfordianism
into
| the paper of record:
| http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/books/30shak.html?pagewanted=print
|
| Niederkorn surveys a number of books related to Shakespeare,
including a
| two that are absolutely worthless (*Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs
and
| Coded Politics of William Shakespeare* by Clare Asquith, and
| *"Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of
| Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare* by Mark Anderson).
|
| The Times recently ran a series on the "intelligent design
controversy,"
| which is a stalking horse for the teaching of creationism and the
| rejection of science in America's schools. The ID-iots like to say
that
| evolution is merely a "theory" and not a "fact"; they like to say
that
| there is a "controversy" over the matter and that "both sides"
should be
| heard. Niederkorn's close is eerily similar to the stance of the
ID-iots:
IMO evolution is not even a theory but a tentative theory: "A
tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet
verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena."
An accepted theory would "incorporate facts and laws and tested
hypotheses"; and I don't think Science closes the book on testing
hypotheses. More than one theory can "explain" the same circumstances
and be true at the same time. More than one way to pick up a cat?
The notion that there is a single theory of evolution is misleading, I
think, since the concept can refer to various ones described
throughout history. There is even more than one Darwin who proposed a
theory of evolution.e records. That those failing to discriminate
between evolution and Darwinism argue against another concept such as
creationism, also undefined, is Jonathan Swift stuff for Gulliver's
Travels encountering Creationism and Evolution in the country of
Science.
| "On both sides of the authorship controversy, the arguments are
| conjectural. Each case rests on a story, and not on hard evidence.
Either
| side, or both, might eventually be proved wrong. Meanwhile, and it
could
| be a very long meanwhile, perhaps an eternal meanwhile, things will
| continue as they are.
The joke is assuming that there are two sides to a controversy, and
that truth depends on evidence we now assemble and arrange in a trial
judged by ? Both science and literary history might do well by
imitating the "Joe Friday" approach of "just getting the facts, mam"
and turning the case over to the prosecuting attorney for trial, or
the Grand Jury, which is us. Even the US Supreme Court sometimes
reverses itself.
| "Or perhaps not. What if authorship studies were made part of the
standard
| Shakespeare curriculum?"
Well, it already is, of course. The 6 semester hours of Shakespeare I
took included a few class discussions of author adversary attribution
scholarship, and we were expected to be able to demonstrate knowledge
of the positions of Bacon, Oxford, Marlowe, and Shakespeare as well as
familiarity with the arguments.
| Niederkorn is, of course, as wrong as ever about the nature of the
| evidence. There is more than enough evidence to support the
attribution
| of the great bulk of Shakespeare's works to William Shakespeare, the
| glover's son from Stratford. A short summary of the evidence is
available
What seems constructive, though, is the ongoing discussion of
alternate hypotheses--about both evolutionary theory and Shakespeare
authorship.
No question at all that Darwinism is not a closed book, that the
mechanisms he is famous for illustrating are not sufficient and more
is being done to flesh out his ideas. No doubt other individuals will
advance hypotheses that will be included in the concept of
evolutionary theory.
And I would like to see more about the Shakespeare canon described in
terms of creationism and evolution. Was Shakespeare's environment the
determining factor in his survival and success? Did he tap into some
creative forces that functioned as muses and used him for Purposes
according to some Plan? Perhaps he was a failure in an evolutionary
sense because he didn't succeed in reproducing himself or influencing
local history, at the time. Perhaps he was a success in terms of
Creationism by replicating himself in poetic fame, inspiring others,
changing our concept of ourselves, entertaining secular values but
supporting deism, etc.. bookburn
Art Neuendorffer
> William Niederkorn has struck again. Today's Times contains another
> installment in his years-long effort to slip a bit of Oxfordianism
> into the paper of record:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/books/30shak.html?pagewanted=print
----------------------------------------------------------------
"lively online discussion groups"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shakespeare Code,
and Other Fanciful Ideas From the Traditional Camp
By WILLIAM S. NIEDERKORN (August 30, 2005)
<<The controversy over who wrote Shakespeare's works has reached
a turning point of sorts. A new biography of the Earl of Oxford
improves on the unorthodox argument that he was Shakespeare, while
fantasy has now been firmly established as a primary tool of other,
more traditional Shakespeare studies.
The problem is that there is so much to be guessed at about
Shakespeare that scholars of all stripes are moved to indulge
in educated - or in some cases quite fanciful - leaps of faith.
Even the Shakespeare canon is not exempt: "William Shakespeare:
The Complete Works" (Oxford University Press), published last month,
includes a play called "Sir Thomas More," which derives from an
unpublished Elizabethan manuscript. The claim has long been made that
the handwriting in part of one scene compares favorably with six
scrawly
Shakespeare signatures generally accepted as genuine. Fewer than half
of the lowercase letters and only a fraction of the capitals are in
Shakespeare's signatures, but that seems to be enough for the Oxford
editors, whose decision will please those eager for proof that
Shakespeare is Shakespeare.
Three other new books provide more arguments for this camp.
To begin with, there is the question of Shakepeare's source materials.
Shakespeare had to have read a lot of books. Books were valuable. But
in his will, where he was very specific about a second-best bed for
his wife and about who should get plate, a sword and various rings,
there is no mention of books.
In "1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare" (Faber & Faber,
2005), James Shapiro, a professor of English at Columbia, notes,
"There's no way that Shakespeare could have bought or borrowed even
a fraction of the books that went into the making of his plays."
Mr. Shapiro's solution: "London's bookshops were by necessity
Shakespeare's working libraries and he must have spent a good many
hours browsing there, moving from one seller's wares to the next
(since, unlike today, each bookseller had a distinctive stock),
either jotting down ideas in a commonplace book or
storing them away in his prodigious actor's memory."
So, Shakespeare is Shakespeare - assuming that the booksellers
stocked the foreign titles that are sources for some plays,
and that Shakespeare could read them.
It's possible. But how did Shakespeare become such a scholar? Perhaps,
traditionalists say, he was a schoolmaster. There are no records of
what
Shakespeare was doing in 1580 and '81, but there are records of one
William Shakeshafte, then teaching school in a Roman Catholic household
in Lancashire. Documents prove that Shakespeare's family was Catholic.
Could Shakespeare become Shakeshafte?
In "Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare" (W. W.
Norton, 2004), Stephen Greenblatt, university professor of the
humanities at Harvard, notes that "skeptics have pointed out that
many local people were surnamed Shakeshafte." Nonetheless, citing some
admittedly circumstantial evidence, Mr. Greenblatt manages to make the
link and stretches it all the way to Lord Strange's Men, the forerunner
of Shakespeare's company. He goes even further: "The moment that Will
is
likely to have sojourned there is precisely the moment that the Jesuit
Campion headed in the same direction." That would be St. Edmund
Campion,
martyred in late 1581 by the Protestant authorities and canonized by
Pope Paul VI in 1970.
Which explains why Shakespeare was so secretive. With Campion mentoring
Shakespeare, and all of Shakespeare's fanatical Catholic connections in
his home county of Warwickshire, and the heads of executed Catholics
displayed on pikes on London Bridge, Shakespeare must have known he had
to be careful.
So that is why there are no letters in Shakespeare's hand, or books
in which he wrote his name: because, Mr. Greenblatt says, "the heads
on the pikes may have spoken to him on the day he entered London
- and he may well have heeded their warning."
But wait a minute. Isn't the Shakespeare canon the cornerstone of
secular English literature? How can a radical Catholic have written
it in good conscience?
The argument that Shakespeare was a secret Catholic dates from at
least the 1850's and was long ridiculed, much as authorship studies
continue to be ridiculed today. But now, as the Catholic theory
furnishes a viable reason for Shakespeare's secrecy, many scholars,
like Mr. Greenblatt, are entertaining that possibility.
In "Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William
Shakespeare" (PublicAffairs, 2005), Clare Asquith, an independent
scholar, provides a key argument: Shakespeare encrypted Catholic
propaganda in his plays and poems. Every time Shakespeare writes "high"
and "fair," he means Catholic; by "low" and "dark," he means
Protestant.
A "tempest" refers to the Protestant Reformation, which Catholics saw
as
a frightening upheaval in their world. And so on.
All these books are provocative and have generally been well received.
But in the end their reliance on coded writing or shaky circumstantial
evidence raises doubts.
The traditional theory that Shakespeare was Shakespeare has the passive
to active acceptance of the vast majority of English professors and
scholars, but it also has had its skeptics, including major authors,
independent scholars, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, academics and
even prominent Shakespearean actors. Those who see a likelihood that
someone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems attributed
to him have grown from a handful to a thriving community with
its own publications, organizations, lively online discussion
groups and annual conferences.
For the traditional side, any suggestion that the author might not be
Shakespeare is sacrilege. Just three months ago, the next artistic
director of Shakespeare's Globe Theater in London, Dominic Dromgoole,
lost no time in telling The Times of London, within days of the
announcement of his appointment, "I think that all this
theorizing about Shakespeare is absolute baloney."
In an article in the current TLS about another new crop of Shakespeare
authorship books, Brian Vickers - the dean of Shakespeare scholars,
who a year and a half ago in TLS argued for the attribution of a
Shakespeare poem, "A Lover's Complaint," to John Davies of Hereford -
gives a kind of fire-and-brimstone academic sermon attacking
the Shakespeare-must-have-been-someone-else scholars.
In fact, there are real problems for the traditional arguments. For
instance, how could a writer of such stature leave no evidence of his
ever having made money for his work? In a folio edition that preceded
Shakespeare's, Ben Jonson published his plays, floridly dedicating
them, each to a different patron; Shakespeare did nothing of the kind.
Yet, this was a man who, as Mr. Greenblatt notes, "hated to let
even small sums of money slip through his fingers."
Many of the plays languished unpublished until seven years after his
death, finally to be assembled by others and published, but not for
the profit of Shakespeare's heirs. And none of the descendants of
Shakespeare left a word about his literary achievement.
If Shakespeare's biography is fiction based on fact and requires the
use
of fantasy to be understandable, then another new book deserves serious
attention - " 'Shakespeare' by Another Name: The Life of Edward de
Vere,
Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare" (Gotham Books, 2005), by
Mark Anderson.
As Mr. Anderson shows, there are myriad Shakespeare authorship
connections for de Vere. For example, the youngest of de Vere's three
daughters, Susan, whom Mr. Anderson finds to be associated in a
contemporary epigram with King Lear's youngest daughter, Cordelia,
married Philip Herbert, the Earl of Montgomery, after an effort to
marry her older sister Bridget to William Herbert, the Earl of
Pembroke,
failed. The compilers of the First Folio, the original source of many
Shakespeare plays, dedicated it to these two earls.
Of the scores upon scores of associations Mr. Anderson makes between
de Vere and Shakespeare, there are certainly some weak ones, but
none are any dicier than Ms. Asquith's code or the identification
of Shakespeare with Shakeshafte.
" 'Shakespeare' by Another Name" has problems, too. Mr. Anderson seems
willing to go along with questionable traditional arguments if they can
easily be turned into arguments for his case. For instance, he wholly
accepts "Sir Thomas More" as de Vere's - not only the parts of Scene 6
that traditional scholars claim for Shakespeare, but the entire play.
Most of the manuscript is in the handwriting of Anthony Munday, an
author of the period who for a time, Mr. Anderson says, was de Vere's
secretary. De Vere, like the play's hero, had firsthand experience
as a prisoner in the Tower of London, where, Mr. Anderson supposes,
he might well have written the play.
On both sides of the authorship controversy, the arguments are
conjectural. Each case rests on a story, and not on hard evidence.
Either side, or both, might eventually be proved wrong. Meanwhile,
and it could be a very long meanwhile, perhaps an eternal meanwhile,
things will continue as they are.
Or perhaps not. What if authorship studies were
made part of the standard Shakespeare curriculum?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Why not Shakespeare? by Brian Vickers 17 August 2005
<<Those who seek to deny Shakespeare?s authorship of over thirty plays,
two narrative poems and a collection of sonnets are driven to strange
expedients. Consider the following stories:
(1) Francis Bacon, despite his busy life as a barrister, involved in
both state and private legal cases, who kept up his connections with
Gray?s Inn as a law lecturer, an MP and chairman of several committees,
a rising government legal officer (Solicitor-General 1607, Attorney
General 1613), and a scholar whose avowed ambition was to reform
science
so that it could benefit mankind ? despite all this, had enough time to
write the works published under Shakespeare?s name, with the connivance
of the actor from Stratford. Either they managed to deceive all the
theatre people with whom Shakespeare worked on a daily basis ? his
fellow actors; those who shared with him the management of both the
theatre company (the Lord Chamberlain?s Men until 1603, thereafter the
King?s Men) and their playhouse (the Theatre until 1599, thereafter the
Globe); and the playwrights (Peele, Middleton, Wilkins, Fletcher) with
whom he co-authored at least six plays, a process involving much viva
voce discussion of plotting ? or else all these people were in on the
secret. Bacon concealed his authorship during his and Shakespeare?s
lifetime, but thoughtfully left some encoded messages in the First
Folio, which were not deciphered until 1856. Bacon was also the
President or Imperator of the Rosicrucians, an adept of
the Kabbalah, and the leading English freemason.
(2) Although Christopher Marlowe was to all appearances killed in a
tavern brawl in Deptford on May 30, 1593, his death being certified at
an inquest held on June 1 and presided over by the Queen?s coroner, at
which sixteen local jurors acquitted the assailant, Ingram Frazer, on
the grounds of self-defence, this was all an elaborate scam arranged by
Thomas Walsingham, Queen Elizabeth?s spymaster and Marlowe?s homosexual
lover. The body buried in an unmarked grave in St Nicholas?s Churchyard
on June 1 was in fact that of John Penry, the
Separatist leader, who had just been executed. With the help of the
Muscovy Company, Marlowe was spirited away to Scotland, or Russia, or
most likely Italy, from whence he entered into ?the Shakespeare
Compact?, an arrangement under which his works appeared under that
actor?s name, regularly supplying the company with new plays, including
co-authored ones, subject to the difficulties previously mentioned. The
true story, wasnot revealed until 1955, persuaded those who erected a
plaque to Marlowe in Westminster Abbey to give his death date as
?1593??
and 1955.
These stories both come from books under review here, The Shakespeare
Enigma, by Peter Dawkins, and Alex Jack?s edition of Hamlet: By
Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare. Both purport to be works
of
scholarship. As Dawkins describes the ?treasure trail? he has been
following for ?the best part of thirty years?: it has been ?a rigorous
journey. It demands rigour. It demands attention to detail. It demands
accuracy, as far as that is humanly possible. It demands
open-mindedness
and humility as well as a willingness to question
everything . . .?. But the history of ?the Baconian heresy? since its
appearance in 1856 has been strikingly lacking in these qualities. For
generation after generation its proponents have cloned themselves on
their predecessors? work, ignoring all counter-evidence. Regularly
refuted, they rise again from the dead.
Its genesis is to be found in the Shakespeare idolatry expressed by so
many nineteenth-century commentators, which produced a counter-reaction
summed up in the book by R. M. Theobald (Hon Sec of the Bacon Society),
Dethroning Shakspere (1888). Enthusiastic bardolators had ascribed to
him a remarkable knowledge of Greek, Latin and other languages; wide
reading; expert knowledge of the law; a huge vocabulary, introducing
many new words into English, and so on. The Baconians objected that
virtually nothing was known of Shakespeare?s life or education, that he
was illiterate, a mere actor, a thief, and a plagiarist (he has come in
for a lot of gratuitous abuse). By contrast, Bacon was a highly learned
scholar, skilled in several languages, an eminent lawyer, a man of vast
intellect ? and so a rival idolatry was set up to topple Shakespeare?s.
The Baconian enthusiasts conveyed their theories in huge volumes, 675
pages for Delia Bacon?s The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakspere
Unfolded (1857), 1,000 pages for Ignatius Donnelly?s The Great
Cryptogram: Francis Bacon?s cipher in the so-called Shakespeare plays
(1888), which spawned many imitators (the New York Public Library has
134 books on Baconian cryptography). The excitement of toppling the
idol
released huge quantities of psychic confidence, encouraging Donnelly to
ascribe to Bacon the authorship of Montaigne?s Essays, Burton?s Anatomy
of Melancholy, the plays of Marlowe and at least seven other dramatists
(since Bacon took only a fortnight to write a play). Sir Edward
Durning-Lawrence (whose name as the donor of one of its collections
still embarrasses users of the Senate House Library), in Bacon is
Shakespeare (1910) also credited Bacon with the Authorized Version of
the Bible, and believed that Bacon had written Montaigne?s essays in
the
original French.
None of the Baconians was a literary scholar, none of them felt the
need
to acquire any knowledge of English literature, or the English language
in the sixteenth century, and none bothered to read Bacon, although the
magnificent fourteen-volume edition of James Spedding was completed in
1874. All they needed was the preconceived notion that Shakespeare
could
not have written the plays, while Bacon could. A semblance of expertise
was provided by the lawyers and judges ever ready to pronounce that the
plays demonstrated a knowledge of the law only possible to a trained
lawyer. Unfortunately, these eminent lawyers had no knowledge of
Elizabethan literature, and did not realize that the works of many
other
dramatists ? Lyly, Greene, Chapman, Jonson, Dekker, Heywood, Massinger
?
contain extended passages of legal jargon in comparison to which those
in the Shakespeare plays seem like fleeting allusions. These oversights
were documented in extraordinary detail by
J. M. Robertson in The Baconian Heresy: A confutation (1913), still the
best study of this delusion, who devoted nearly 200 pages to
demonstrating that legalisms pervaded Elizabethan and Jacobean
literature, and that litigiousness was a widespread pastime.
The Baconian case uses a kind of literary ?identikit?, deducing from
Shakespeare?s plays a series of acquirements that the actor from
Stratford could not have possessed, but exaggerating them in the
process, until they reach unreal dimensions. As Robertson pointed out,
they were unwittingly aided by ?idolatrous Shakespeareans [who] set up
a
visionary figure of the Master?, so playing into the Baconians? hands.
In The Classical Allusions in The Shakespeare Plays (1908), R. M.
Theobald claimed to find traces of 100 Greek and Latin authors, some of
them extremely obscure (Anaxandrides, Artemidorus, Arianus, Avienus . .
.). The briefest examination shows that Theobald?s learning was
misplaced, for to cite Laurentius Abstemius as the source of the phrase
?wolf in sheep?s array? or Athenaeus for ?bull-bearing Milo? is to
demonstrate your
ignorance of all the other more likely sources on which Shakespeare
could have drawn. J. M. Robertson devoted another 200 pages to a
devastating exposure of this fallacy, also demolishing the
anti-Stratfordians? claim that the plays contained such a huge
vocabulary and word-creation that the actor from Stratford could never
have written them. Robertson showed that the size of Shakespeare?s
vocabulary was not exceptional, and that the Oxford English Dictionary
gave earlier dates for the 200-odd words claimed as occurring for the
first time in the plays. None of the Baconians had bothered to study
Bacon?s vocabulary, but Robertson showed how completely different it
was
from Shakespeare?s. His refutation is never cited by the Baconians, who
know where to draw a veil.
Although he and others had destroyed their case, Robertson had no
illusion that he had silenced the Baconians. Many of their current
claims had been made years before, he noted, ?but they seem to recur
spontaneously?, and he added: ?if I can forecast the future with any
safety from my knowledge of the Baconian movement, the common run of
Baconians will go on as before?. The Shakespeare Enigma, like any
number
of such books published since Robertson?s prediction, shows that he was
right. Dawkins?s first footnote offers ?an example of the encyclopedic
learning of Shakespeare?, reprinting William Theobald?s list of the
?nearly one hundred different classical authors of works that would
have
had to have been read in their original by Shakespeare?. This unreal
claim betrays a quite stunning indifference to all that we learned in
the twentieth century about the diverse forms in which classical
literature was transmitted during the
Renaissance, an age of piecemeal quotation and imitation, with the
grammar school curriculum relentlessly inculcating the major Latin
authors.
Dawkins is ready to admit that Ben Jonson ?became a formidable scholar?
after his grammar school education, but will not concede ?the actor?
Shakespeare any such ability. Dawkins?s own classical attainments can
be
gauged from his description of Socrates as ?a renowned orator? who
advocated ?the inductive procedure?, and who ?partly composed the
tragedies of his pupil Euripides?. Terence, too, ?was alleged to have
been used as a mask for the writings of great men, such as the Roman
Senators, Scipio the Younger and Laelius, who wished to keep the fact
of
their authorship concealed?, while Virgil was ?an initiate of the
Orphic
Mysteries?. Dawkins finds concealment and mystery everywhere.
Quite apart from these howlers, Dawkins?s book is a digest of all the
anti-Stratfordians? clichés and errors. ?The facts we have about
Shakespeare?s literary life, compared with those to do with other major
writers, are outstandingly few. Indeed, one could say that they are
virtually nil.? Well, it is true that some Elizabethans have almost
disappeared from view. What we know of the literary career of that
great
writer Thomas Kyd can be written on the back of an envelope. For
Richard
Hathway, described by Francis Meres as among the ?best for comedy?,
Henslowe?s Diary records the titles of eighteen plays he co-authored
for
the Admiral?s and Worcester?s Men between 1598 and 1603: none has
survived. For Shakespeare, by contrast, we have a large number of
Quarto
editions, produced by many different publishers, on the title-pages of
which his name occurs more often than that of any other dramatist of
the
period, together with two narrative poems personally dedicated to his
patron Southampton. We have a huge number of allusions, both laudatory
and envious, from fellow-writers and others in the London theatre-world
who knew him well (Greene, Meres, Jonson, Heywood, Webster, Marston,
Gabriel Harvey, Chettle, Weever, Dekker); an almost continuous series
of
references from 1592 to his death in 1616, all of which identify him as
both actor and author. Many legal documents have survived, and of the
generally available biographical sources
it is enough to mention two: Samuel Schoenbaum?s William Shakespeare: A
documentary life (1975), and the more inclusive collection by Catherine
Loomis?s collection, William Shakespeare, The Life Records, volume 263
in Gale?s Dictionary of Literary Biography (2002). This runs to over
300
pages, including facsimiles and transcripts of all documents connected
with Shakespeare and his family, all records of the theatrical
companies
with which he was involved, and all significant allusions up to 1612.
(Currently only available as a subscription to the whole series, this
volume deserves to be reissued in paperback, as the most convenient
answer to those who think that little is known about Shakespeare?s
life.)
Dawkins simply recycles the stock-in-trade of the anti-Stratfordians
since the nineteenth century, that there are no records of Shakespeare
possessing books ? but nor are there for Bacon, or for a majority of
writers in this period. ?There are no records of his ever having been
paid for his plays?: but the only records that exist for the public
theatre come from Henslowe, impresario for the rival company, the
Admiral?s Men. Dawkins, like other anti-Stratfordians, wilfully
misinterprets early modern English to make his case. In his notebook
Discoveries Jonson took issue with Shakespeare?s fellow actors (such as
Heminge and Condell, who edited the First Folio), who ?have often
mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that in his writing . . . hee
never blotted out line. My answer hath beene, Would he had blotted a
thousand. Which they thought a
malevolent speech?. Dawkins comments, perplexingly, ?Jonson implies
that
Shakespeare had indeed blotted (i.e., finished) a thousand lines?,
referring to the meagre output of ?the actor Shakespeare?. But
?blotted?
here anyway means corrected or rewritten, a process then often
involving
ink blots, and none of Shakespeare?s contemporaries distinguished the
actor from the author. Like all his kin, Dawkins suppresses contrary
evidence, failing to comment on Jonson?s praise of Shakespeare?s
?excellent Phantsie, brave [admirable] notions, and gentle expressions:
wherein hee flow?d with that facility that sometimes it was necessary
he
should be stop?d?: this implies that the actor was also an author.
Peter Dawkins is founder of the Francis Bacon Research Trust, and the
book?s blurb (and the Trust?s website) informs us of his wide range of
interests in ?the world?s wisdom traditions, mythology, geomancy and
landscape cosmology?. These may seem like New Age interests, but
Baconians have long been occultists. Dawkins?s belief in the tradition
preserved ?in still-existing Rosicrucian societies? that Bacon was a
Rosicrucian derives from Mrs Henry Pott?s book Francis Bacon and His
Secret Society (1891). Dawkins embraces the Rosicrucians, the Kabbalah,
and cryptography indiscriminately, quite immune to critical discussion.
He draws on Frank Woodward?s ?classic book, Francis Bacon?s Cipher
Signatures? (1923), oblivious to the annihilation it received at the
hands of two professional cryptologists, William and Elizabeth
Friedman,
in The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined (1957), a truly classic book that
deserves to be reprinted. The whole cryptographical approach may be
described, paraphrasing Bacon, as deceptive knowledge, imposture
sustained by credulity.
There are many odd things in The Shakespeare Enigma, but one of the
oddest is the laudatory foreword by Mark Rylance, artistic director of
the New Globe Theatre and chairman of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust,
in which he repeats some of the anti-Stratfordians? oldest errors (?the
actor Shakespeare?s extremely limited access to learning?. . . ?so
little known as a writer in his own life?). Rylance professes to be an
?agnostic? on this issue, and ?welcomes all forms of interest in
Shakespeare?, even that which denies his authorship of the plays. It is
reasonable to be agnostic about the existence of God, whom no man hath
seen, but not about a dramatist who left so many proofs, direct and
indirect, of his ?right happy and copious industry?, as Webster
described it. The triumphant success of the New Globe as an acting
space, under Rylance?s direction, is a tribute to all the scholars who
have reconstructed Elizabethan theatre architecture. The same scholarly
methods have established beyond doubt
Shakespeare?s authorship (and co-authorship) of his plays, so one can
hardly lick one hand and bite the other.
Bacon may be the oldest authorship candidate, but there are others. The
case for Edward de Vere (1550?1604) was first made by Thomas J. Looney,
in ?Shakespeare? Identified (1920). Looney constructed his own
identikit
of the general features possessed by the author of Shakespeare?s works,
with the usual demand that he be ?of superior education ? classical?,
and some special provisos: ?a man with feudal connections?, ?a member
of
the higher aristocracy?. This mixture of snobbery and ignorance as to
the actual nature of Elizabethan grammar school education eliminated
Shakespeare but unerringly identified the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, a
courtier poet with some twenty fairly conventional lyrics to his name.
There are several insuperable objections to Oxford?s candidature: he
died with a dozen of Shakespeare?s sole and co-authored plays unwritten
(or at least unperformed); the style of his poetic oeuvre is extremely
limited and un-Shakespearean; he led a busy and wasteful aristocratic
existence, abroad and at home. Looney tried to get round the first
difficulty by re-dating the plays, and in the years since he wrote the
Oxfordians have invented a new chronology, improbably dating
Shakespeare?s early comedies to the late 1570s, and postulating that
Oxford left drafts of all the remaining plays for Shakespeare to touch
up and pass off as his own, either completely hoaxing everyone
connected
with the Globe, or relying on their connivance.
The Oxfordian cause has been vigorously pursued, with the perverse
enthusiasm that any anti-Stratfordian candidate generates: a curious
psychological phenomenon. Supporters may sustain themselves with the
sense of cocking a snook at official culture, or exposing an evil
conspiracy whose existence was unsuspected for 300 years. Certainly,
metaphors of detection and exposure abound, as in the title of one of
the Oxfordians? sacred texts, Charlton Ogburn?s The Mysterious William
Shakespeare: The myth and the reality (1984). But whatever the
Oxfordians are producing, it is not scholarship. Great Oxford, a
miscellaneous collection of essays edited by Richard Malim and
apparently reprinted from the De Vere Society Newsletter, carries a
foreword in which another Thespian urges its claims on us. Sir Derek
Jacobi hails it for ?the intellectual energy and factual honesty shown
by the often ridiculed but dogged researchers who seek to unravel what
to most open minds is an obvious mystery?, now addressed with ?logical,
valid and excitingly precise arguments?.
Only one contributor makes any attempt at a scholarly evaluation of the
anti-Oxfordian case, but his two essays on chronology are neither
logical nor precise. Kevin Gilvary candidly recognizes that De Vere?s
death in 1604 is the most serious obstacle to Oxfordian claims, and
fears that if any play of Shakespeare could be dated after June 24,
1604
?then the number of adherents to the Oxfordian cause would be greatly
reduced?. Gilvary dismisses all attempts to use metrical or stylistic
tests to establish a chronology for Shakespeare, but he fails to cite
the two most successful modern approaches. In Shakespeare?s Verse
(1987), Marina Tarlinskaja applied the rigorous quantitative prosody of
the Moscow school, analysing over 800,000 lines of poetry and showing
that the rhythmic evolution of Shakespeare?s verse style was absolutely
consistent over twenty-five years, a finding which confirms that only
one author can have written the plays. In 1979 MacDonald Jackson
updated
a method invented in the 1890s by the great German scholar Gregor
Sarrazin, computing the rare words Shakespeare used at various points
in
his career. Both approaches corroborate the chronology established by
other means, including the plays? known dates of performance and
publication, their use of recently published books, and their allusions
to contemporary events.
Gilvary rejects all such data with the blunt claim that the only sure
contemporary allusion in Shakespeare is the supposed reference to Essex
in Henry V (1599), and he is sure that neither Coriolanus nor The
Tempest can be dated post-1604. But Geoffrey Bullough?s magisterial
edition of Shakespeare?s sources showed that some details of the
belly-fable which Menenius uses to quell the Roman citizens? uprising
over a corn shortage derive from Camden?s Remaines of a greater worke
concerning Britaine (1605) ? a work in which Shakespeare is mentioned;
and he agreed with many historians that the Roman citizens? unrest
reflects the serious riots over the dearth of corn which took place in
Warwickshire and other midland counties in 1607?8. As for The Tempest,
Bullough endorsed the well-founded view that Shakespeare was affected
by
the events of 1609?10, when a hurricane hit the Virginia Company?s
fleet
which was carrying 400 new colonists, the governor?s ship foundering
near Bermuda. These events were widely reported in London, both in
printed pamphlets and in a famous letter written in July 1609 by
William
Strachey (not published until 1625), used by Shakespeare, who also knew
several members of the Virginia Company personally. Gilvary dismisses
this evidence, and assures Oxfordians that the two most recent
editions,
?the aptly named Oxford Shakespeare?, as he puts it, and the new Arden,
share his view. But whoever consults those editions will find them
agreeing that Shakespeare ?was evidently familiar? with
Strachey?s letter, which ?very likely came to the playwright?s hands in
the autumn of 1610 or soon thereafter?. So much for the ?factual
honesty? Sir Derek promises us, and so much for the Oxfordians? attempt
to freeze Shakespeare?s chronology at 1604. I look forward to a speedy
reduction in the ?number of adherents to the Oxfordian cause?.
A similar hope must have been in Scott McCrea?s mind when he added the
subtitle to The Case for Shakespeare: The end of the authorship
question. This is the latest in an honourable line of books reaffirming
Shakespeare?s authorship, of which the most notable are H. N. Gibson?s
The Shakespeare Claimants (1962), Samuel Schoenbaum?s Shakespeare?s
Lives (1970; revised edition, 1991), Irving Matus?s Shakespeare in Fact
(1994) and Jonathan Bate?s The Genius of Shakespeare (1997). The first
part of McCrea?s book, called ?The man who wrote the plays?, summarizes
the evidence for Shakespeare?s existence, patiently showing that the
biographical details twisted by the anti-Stratfordians do not have the
sinister significance claimed for them. The second part, ?The men who
didn?t?, reviews the main candidates in turn, drawing on extant
refutations and adding to them. Based on wide reading, The Case for
Shakespeare gives reliable and well argued accounts of both sides,
bringing out the ?sleight of hand?, ?specious logic?, ?imaginary
evidence?, ?misdirection? and above all ?subjective? approaches that
have spawned so many rival candidates. Professional Shakespeareans may
regret that McCrea accepts Caroline Spurgeon?s interpretation of
Shakespeare?s imagery as showing his personal predilections, and that
he
relies on Park Honan?s account of Shakespeare?s education in
Shakespeare: A Life (1998), rather than better authorities. He has
missed some relevant points, such as J. W. Lever?s demonstration that
much of the French in Henry V derives from John Eliot?s Orthoepia
Gallica (1593), but the scholarly standard is high.
In any case, Scott McCrea?s book is addressed not to specialists but to
ordinary readers, those most likely to be taken in by the
anti-Stratfordians? show of scholarship. In his final chapter, ?All
conspiracy theories are alike?, he suggests that ?denial of Shakespeare
follows exactly the same flawed reasoning as Holocaust denial? in that
it rejects the most obvious explanation of an event, and reinterprets
evidence to fit a preconceived idea (?the ovens at Auschwitz baked
bread?). Facts that contradict the theory are explained by conspiracy,
but this ploy means that ?conspiracy theories are really not theories
at
all?, but faiths, which cannot be proved false. McCrea recognizes that,
despite his subtitle, ?there can never be an end to the Authorship
Question?, a depressing prospect. He maintains a good-humoured tone, a
pleasant contrast to many works in this field, but one can be too cool.
As we survey the never-ending flow of anti-Shakespeare books it is hard
not to share the bitterness of Georg Brandes, moved in part to write
his
William Shakespeare (1898) by the ?ignorant and arrogant attack? of the
?wretched group of dilettanti? who have ?been bold enough . . . to deny
William Shakespeare the right to his own life-work?.>>
--------------------------------------
kenkap
world's smallest violin playing "my heart cries for you."
Ken
graham
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11h8ujo...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> IMO evolution is not even a theory but a tentative theory: "A
> tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet
> verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena."
> An accepted theory would "incorporate facts and laws and tested
> hypotheses"; and I don't think Science closes the book on testing
> hypotheses.
I can see that your views are clouded by religious nonsense and your
knowledge of science (not to mention scientific method) is barely at an
elementary school level. I strongly advise you to read "Darwin's Ghost", by
Steve Jones; "What evolution is", by Ernst Mayr or anything by Richard
Dawkins before you again spout off such a load of twaddle!
Graham
LynnE
> William Niederkorn has struck again.
Terry Ross has struck again. ;)
Today's Times contains another
> installment in his years-long effort to slip a bit of Oxfordianism into
> the paper of record:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/books/30shak.html?pagewanted=print
Thanks for putting up Niederkorn's article. He is not, by the way, an
Oxfordian.
>
> Niederkorn surveys a number of books related to Shakespeare, including a
> two that are absolutely worthless (*Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and
> Coded Politics of William Shakespeare* by Clare Asquith, and
> *"Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of
> Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare* by Mark Anderson).
Thanks, Terry. I knew I could rely on you for a fair summary. I hope
you've read the books before pronouncing on them. By the way,
Niederkorn says: "The problem is that there is so much to be guessed at
about Shakespeare that scholars of all stripes are moved to indulge in
educated - or in some cases quite fanciful - leaps of faith." He
excludes no one from this summation.
(snip)
> Niederkorn is, of course, as wrong as ever about the nature of the
> evidence. There is more than enough evidence to support the attribution
> of the great bulk of Shakespeare's works to William Shakespeare, the
> glover's son from Stratford. A short summary of the evidence is available
> in Tom Reedy and David Kathman's essay "How We Know That Shakespeare
> Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts," which is available at
> http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html
O, do be fair, dear. Equal time and all that. Our response to Mr. Reedy
and Dr. Kathman's essay can be found here:
http://shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/State%20of%20the%20Debate.htm
together with our response (unedited--I have an updated and shorter one
somewhere) to Dr. Kathman's essay on The Tempest. Both of our essays on
The Tempest are also now available to members of the Fellowship or
(other) interested scholars while we decide where to send them (the
essays, that is, not the scholars).
Lots of love,
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lynne Kositsky Visit the SHAKESPEARE FELLOWSHIP home page
> http://www.shakespearefellowship.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
bookburn
"graham" <g.dol...@fingershaw.ca> wrote in message
news:WI%Qe.44588$Hk.6894@pd7tw1no...
Why don't you make a statement about any of the particulars I mention,
instead of stamping your mental foot? Then I would be glad to comment
on what you can say about what I said. Failing that, you might speak
to the argument between Creationism vs. Evolution in some way relevant
to the Shakespeare authorship controversy, and that would possibly be
constructive. Failing that, too, better not reply. bb
John W. Kennedy
> "graham" <g.dol...@fingershaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:WI%Qe.44588$Hk.6894@pd7tw1no...
> |
> | "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | news:11h8ujo...@corp.supernews.com...
> | >
> | >> IMO evolution is not even a theory but a tentative theory: "A
> | > tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not
> yet
> | > verified but that if true would explain certain facts or
> phenomena."
> | > An accepted theory would "incorporate facts and laws and tested
> | > hypotheses"; and I don't think Science closes the book on testing
> | > hypotheses.
> |
> | I can see that your views are clouded by religious nonsense and your
> | knowledge of science (not to mention scientific method) is barely at
> an
> | elementary school level. I strongly advise you to read "Darwin's
> Ghost", by
> | Steve Jones; "What evolution is", by Ernst Mayr or anything by
> Richard
> | Dawkins before you again spout off such a load of twaddle!
> | Graham
>
> Why don't you make a statement about any of the particulars I mention,
> instead of stamping your mental foot?
Probably because most of your post was ungrammatical, unanswerable nonsense.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
Spam Scone
Terry Ross wrote:
> William Niederkorn has struck again.
I'll say. What a load of crap. But what do you expect from the "paper
of record" that published Jayson Blair and "balanced" articles on
Holocaust denial?
gangleri
forth on the concept of scientific theory.
graham
>
> "graham" <g.dol...@fingershaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:WI%Qe.44588$Hk.6894@pd7tw1no...
> |
> | "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | news:11h8ujo...@corp.supernews.com...
> | >
> | >> IMO evolution is not even a theory but a tentative theory: "A
> | > tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not
> yet
> | > verified but that if true would explain certain facts or
> phenomena."
> | > An accepted theory would "incorporate facts and laws and tested
> | > hypotheses"; and I don't think Science closes the book on testing
> | > hypotheses.
> |
> | I can see that your views are clouded by religious nonsense and your
> | knowledge of science (not to mention scientific method) is barely at
> an
> | elementary school level. I strongly advise you to read "Darwin's
> Ghost", by
> | Steve Jones; "What evolution is", by Ernst Mayr or anything by
> Richard
> | Dawkins before you again spout off such a load of twaddle!
> | Graham
>
> Why don't you make a statement about any of the particulars I mention,
> instead of stamping your mental foot?
I wasn't stamping my mental foot. I was kicking your mental arse!
I think my comments formed a perfectly reasonable reply to your questioning
of Darwinism.
Failing that, you might speak
> to the argument between Creationism vs. Evolution in some way relevant
> to the Shakespeare authorship controversy,
Why should I? You proposed the parallel!
and that would possibly be
> constructive.
I was being constructive! I was suggesting ways in which you could correct
your profound ignorance of science and evolutionary theory, and the meaning
of "theory" itself. If you choose to remain in a blissfully ignorant state,
that's your folly!
Graham
bookburn
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Ug5Re.3503$bT1....@fe08.lga...
Why is it that instead of making a reasonable reply, grammarians think
they can escaped logic by fixating on impedimenta? Of course it's
unanswerable if you are caught like a deer in the headlights. bb
Greg Reynolds
> It's interesting to see epistemological nincompoops - no names! - hold
> forth on the concept of scientific theory.
WELL, that includes the entire discussion worldwide.
Creation = Big Bang
Call it what you will.
(For some reason, both sides want a certain beginning. Let's
make them agree as to why they need a beginning and what
was going on prior to the creation/big bang.)
Evolution = all the changes ever since.
There is room for both a beginning and a continuation
and everyone needs to shut up.
I can prove evolution--kids look like their parents!
No one can prove the creation/big bang. That's what faith is for.
If it took a millisecond or six days to bang out the universe is incidental.
I grew up in Kansas.
Stupid, unfounded nonsense is just as stupid and unfounded
in Kansas as it is in your town.
End of discussion.
Please drive safely.
bookburn
What passes for making a statement in your evident state of perception
is more like verbal diarrhea, probably a symptom of mental confusion.
| I think my comments formed a perfectly reasonable reply to your
questioning
| of Darwinism.
Of course you do. Now go lie down and have a nice nap. Don't forget
to take your medicine.
|
| Failing that, you might speak
| > to the argument between Creationism vs. Evolution in some way
relevant
| > to the Shakespeare authorship controversy,
|
| Why should I? You proposed the parallel!
Thus you demonstrate failure to recognize and understand the analogy
between the authorship controversy and the evolution-Creationism
controversy begun in the Times article.
It's hard to communicate with someone you have to educate in the
process. I do offer to comment on anything constructive, or at least
coherent you can manage to state about the points I raise. But so
far, you don't say anything in rebuttal or state even the lamest case
of your own.
If anyone would like to assist Graham, I would try to expound further
on my comparison of authorship attribution controversy with
evolution-Creationism controversy. bb
gangleri
I can see that your views are clouded by religious nonsense and your
knowledge of science (not to mention scientific method) is barely at an
elementary school level.
Comment:
What is "scientific method"?
How does it relate to formulation of no-nonsense scientific "theory"?
John W. Kennedy
Nope. Still not making sense.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
Fryzer
Well bb, so far as I can see the only comparison to be made is that
anti-stratfordianism, like creation science is a matter of faith; the
theory of evolution like 'stratfordianism' is grounded in an
impenetrable thicket of facts and logic (although IMO that shakespeare
of stratford wrote the works of sjakespeare is more likely true than is
the theory of evolution).
Jim KQKnave
"bookburn" <bookb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Terry Ross" <t...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
Evolution has been demonstrated in every possible
way other than experiments that would require
10 million years to complete. What exactly is
"tentative" about it? It is certainly "accepted"
by all biological scientists who don't have
a religious axe to grind. Do you think the theory
of gravity is "tentative"? It certainly is, but
that doesn't mean that it doesn't explain most
of the facts that we know. We haven't observed
gravity waves yet, there is still some doubt
in areas involving "dark energy". Still, it's not
a bad little "theory", good enough to get men
to the moon, anyway. Say, just how did we get
that corn to be disease resistant, anyway?
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Greg Reynolds
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
>
>>William Niederkorn has struck again. Today's Times contains another
>>installment in his years-long effort to slip a bit of Oxfordianism
>> into the paper of record:
>
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/books/30shak.html?pagewanted=print
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> "lively online discussion groups"
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The Shakespeare Code,
> and Other Fanciful Ideas From the Traditional Camp
> By WILLIAM S. NIEDERKORN (August 30, 2005)
E P I G R A M S .
Ben Jonson
ON POET-APE.
Poor POET-APE, that would be thought our chief,
Whose works are e'en the frippery of wit,
From brokage is become so bold a thief,
As we, the robb'd, leave rage, and pity it.
At first he made low shifts, would pick and glean,
Buy the reversion of old plays ; now grown
To a little wealth, and credit in the scene,
He takes up all, makes each man's wit his own :
And, told of this, he slights it. Tut, such crimes
The sluggish gaping auditor devours ;
He marks not whose 'twas first : and after-times
May judge it to be his, as well as ours.
Fool ! as if half eyes will not know a fleece
From locks of wool, or shreds from the whole piece ?
M O N K E Y S C O P E S.
Bryan's Show and Darrow's Finale
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/inherit/1925home.html
From the moment of Bryan's arrival in Dayton, the weight of public
sentiment was in his favor. The records of the trial indicate that the
townspeople came out for the trial in record numbers, packing the small
country courthouse. Cries of "Amen" peppered the trial proceedings until
the judge had to ask the observers to lower the noise level. Bryan
planned to end the trial with a speech consummating his lifetime of
preaching, one he had been preparing for seven weeks. Darrow, however,
had other plans. Since the intention was to test the constitutionality
of the Butler Law, Darrow wanted the jury to find Scopes guilty, so he
could then appeal the decision in a higher court. He did not, however,
plan to call Scopes to the stand, for if he were to do so, it might
surface that Scopes had, in fact, not even been in school on the day
mentioned in the indictment. He was meticulous in his effort to keep the
trial free of technicalities. Just one could get the case thrown out
with the law itself yet untested. Darrow also planned to call expert
witnesses to give testimony about evolution. But when the judge ordered
that Darrow could not call the scholars as witnesses, he shifted his plans.
After the judge moved the trial outside because of the 100-plus degree
heat inside and the instability of the courtroom floor under the weight
of so many spectators, Darrow, in a fantastic gesture, called William
Jennings Bryan to the stand. The interchange which follows targets the
essence of Darrow's argument and signals the turning point in the trial,
which brought public sentiment decisively over to Darrow's side:
"You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?"
"Yes, sir; I have tried to ... But, of course, I have studied it more as
I have become older than when I was a boy."
"Do you claim then that everything in the Bible should be literally
interpreted?"
"I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given
there ..."
Darrow continued to question Bryan on the actuality of Jonah and the
whale, Joshua's making the sun stand still and the Tower of Babel, as
Bryan began to have more difficulty answering.
Q: "Do you think the earth was made in six days?"
A: "Not six days of 24 hours ... My impression is they were periods ..."
Q: "Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time?"
A: "They might have been."
Q: "The creation might have been going on for a very long time?"
A: "It might have continued for millions of years ..."
Darrow had set his trap and Bryan walked right in. Darrow asked for and
was granted an immediate direct verdict, thereby blocking Bryan from
giving his speech. Within eight minutes of deliberation, the jury
returned with a verdict of guilty and the judge ordered Scopes to pay a
fine of $100, the minimum the law allowed. In his last words to the
court, Scopes, the man who was reluctant from the start, said, "Your
Honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute.
I will continue in the future ... to oppose this law in any way I can.
Any other action would be in violation of my idea of academic freedom".
Terry Ross
I expect delivery every morning at my door. On Saturdays and Sundays I
have to go to my neighbor's door to find the paper, because my weekend
carrier hasn't gotten the word, despite my best efforts. The odd thing is
that this person is also the weekend carrier for my Baltimore Sun, and he
DOES deliver that paper to my door.
I have come to expect the periodic Oxfordian bit from Niederkorn. Since
he moved to the arts section, there have been 10 articles published under
his name in the Times, all relating to Shakespeare one way or another, and
most of which contain at least some antistratfordian nuggets. It is as if
the Times employed a science editor whose occasional articles concerned
biology and whose creationist leanings became a part of most of those
articles.
As for the comparison to Holocaust denial "revisionism", it is one that
Joseph Sobran himself embraces. Joseph Sobran thinks anti-Darwinism AND
Oxfordianism AND Holocaust "revisionism" are all courageous rejections of
"liberal orthodoxy." See Sobran's "Subsidized Consensus" at
http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000420.shtml
For Sobran's latest expression of ID-iocy, see "The President and the
Professor" at http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050811.shtml
Here is a full list of Niederkorn's articles in the Times from 2002 on:
A Historic Whodunit: If Shakespeare Didn't, Who Did? William S.
Niederkorn. New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)). New York,
N.Y.:Feb 10, 2002. p. 2.7
A Scholar Recants on His 'Shakespeare' Discovery William S. Niederkorn.
New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)). New York, N.Y.:Jun 20, 2002.
p. E.1
Beyond the Briefly Inflated Canon: Legacy of the Mysterious 'W. S.'
William S. Niederkorn. New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)). New
York, N.Y.:Jun 26, 2002. p. E.3
New Chief at Stratford-Upon-Potomac William S. Niederkorn. New York Times
(Late Edition (east Coast)). New York, N.Y.:Oct 10, 2002. p. E.3
In Shakespeare, the Play's the Thing, and Here It Is, Trimmed to Living
Room Size William S. Niederkorn. New York Times (Late Edition (east
Coast)). New York, N.Y.:Dec 25, 2002. p. E.5
All Is True? Naye, Not If Thy Name Be Shakespeare William S. Niederkorn.
New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)). New York, N.Y.:Aug 19, 2003.
p. E.1
Seeing the Fingerprints of Other Hands in Shakespeare William S.
Niederkorn. New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)). New York,
N.Y.:Sep 2, 2003. p. E.1
Where There's a Will, or Two, or Maybe Quite a Few William S. Niederkorn.
New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)). New York, N.Y.:Nov 16, 2003.
p. 2.5
To Be or Not to Be . . . Shakespeare William S. Niederkorn. New York
Times (Late Edition (east Coast)). New York, N.Y.:Aug 21, 2004. p. B.7
The Shakespeare Code, and Other Fanciful Ideas From the Traditional Camp
William S. Niederkorn. New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)). New
York, N.Y.:Aug 30, 2005. p. 3
Art Neuendorffer
> Darrow continued to question Bryan on
> the actuality of Jonah and the whale,
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moby Dick - Melville
For an instant, the tranced boat's crew stood still; then turned.
"The ship? Great God, where is the ship?" Soon they through dim,
bewildering mediums saw her sidelong fading PHANTOM, as in the gaseous
[FATA] Morgana; only the uppermost masts out of water; while fixed by
in[FAT]u[A]tion, or fidelity, or FATE, to their once lofty perches,
the pagan harpooneers still maintained their sinking look-outs on
the sea. And now, concentric circles seized the lone boat itself,
and all its crew, and each floating oar, and EVERY LANCEPOLE,
and spinning, animate and inanimate, all round and round in one
vortex, carried the smallest chip of the Pequod out of sight.
---------------------------------------------------------------
gaseous [FATA] Morgana
<<ACROSTICKS, and Tellesticks, or jumpe names,>> -- B. Jonson
------------------------------------------------------------
E P I G R A M S . by Ben Jonson
ON POET-APE.
Poor POET-APE, that would be thought our chief,
Whose works are e'en the frippery of wit,
[F]rom brokage is become so bold a thief,
As we, the robb'd, leave rage, and pity it.
[A]t first he made low shifts, would pick and glean,
Buy the rEVERsion of old plays ; now grown
[T]o a little wealth, and credit in the scene,
He takes up all, makes each man's wit his own :
[A]nd, told of this, he slights it. Tut, such crimes
The sluggish gaping auditor devours ;
He marks not whose 'twas first : and after-times
May judge it to be his, as well as ours.
Fool ! as if half eyes will not know a fleece
From locks of wool, or shreds from the whole piece ?
--------------------------------------------------
"Funere soluentes FATA aliena suo"
"freeing other men's FATES by their death"
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/anagrams/text.html
<< EDOUARUS VEIERUS
per anagramma
AURE SURDUS VIDEO
[A]uribus hisce licet studio, Fortuna, susurros
[PE]rfidiae et technas efficis esse procul,
Attamen accipio (quae mens horrescit et auris)
Rebus facta malis corpora surda tenus.
Imo etiam cerno Catilinae* fraude propinquos
Funere solventes FATA aliena suo.
.............................................
EDWARD VERE by an anagram
AURE SURDUS VIDEO ('DEAF IN MY EAR, I SEE')
Though by your zeal, FORTUNE, you keep perfidy's
murmurs & schemings at a distance, nonetheless I learn
(at which my mind & ear quake) that our bodies have
been deafened with respect to evil affairs. Indeed,
I perceive men who come close to Catiline* in deception,
freeing other men's FATES by their death.
* Catiline was the rabble-rouser suppressed by Cicero.
His name became a watchword for incendiary troublemakers.>>
------------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida Act 2, Scene 2
HECTOR: 'Twixt right & wrong, for pleasure & REVEnge
Have EARs more DEAF than adders to the voice
Of any TRUE decision.
Act 5, Scene 3
CASSANDRA: The gods are DEAF to hot and peevish VOWS:
They are polluted offerings, more abhorr'd
Than spotted liVERS in the sacrifice.
-----------------------------------------
IURO: to make an oath, to SWEAR.
AUSUS: dare, gamble, HAZARD, risk.
"DE VERE AUSUS IURO"
"EDOUARUS VEIERUS"
---------------------------------------------------
"QUO FATA VOCANT"
---------------------------------------------------
http://home.freeuk.net/sidsoft/pensinfo.html
The Sidney Family arms shows a porcupine & a lion
on either side of the Sidney Pheon.
"Whither the Fates call" is the meaning of the motto:
"QUO FATA VOCANT"
The Penshurst village pub the Leicester Arms, was once
called the Porcupine & Sir Philip Sidney's funeral helm
(on display at Penshurst Place) is surmounted by
a porcupine now, sadly, missing most of it's quills.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"si qua FATA aspera rumpas"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ancientlanguages.org/bios/pvmaro.html
<<Virgil spent about seven Years in writing the first six Books of
the Æneid, some Part of which Augustus & Octavia longed to hear him
rehearse, and hardly prevailed with him, after many Intreaties.
Virgil to this Purpose pitches on the Sixth, which, not without Reason,
he thought would affect them most; as in it he had, with his usual
Dexterity, inserted the Funeral Panegyric of young Marcellus (who died
a little before that) whom Augustus designed for his Successor, and
was the Darling of his Mother Octavia, and of all the Romans; and
as the Poet imagined, so it happened: For after he had raised their
Passions by reciting their inimitable Lines. He at last surprizes them
with:
Heu miserande puer! si qua FATA aspera rumpas,
Tu Marcellus eris.
At which affecting Words the Emperor & Octavia burst both into Tears,
and Octavia feel into a Swoon. Upon her Recovery she ordered the
Poet ten Sesterces for every Line, each Sesterce making about £78
in our Money. A round Sum for the whole! but they were Virgil's
Verses. In about four Years more he finished the Aeneid, and then
set out for Greece, where he designed to revise it as a Bye-work
at his Leisure; proposing to devote the chief of the remaining
Part of his Days to Philosophy, which had been always his darling
Study, as he himself informs us in these charming Lines;>>
------------------------------------------------------------
"quodsi FATA negant veniam pro coniuge"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Specular Desires: _Orpheus and Pygmalion as Aesthetic Paradigms
in Petrarch's Rime sparse_ by Thérèse Migraine-George
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/cls/36.3migraine-george.html
<<Both Eurydice's & Laura's absence & death can be read as necessary
not only because of the dangers they represent, but also because both
poets need their disappearance to fully realize their aesthetic
agendas.
While proclaiming: "quodsi FATA negant veniam pro coniuge, certum est
/nolle redire mihi: leto gaudete duorum" (X.38-39) ["...if the fates
refuse her a reprieve, I have made up my mind that I do not wish to
return either. You may exult in my death as well as hers!"] (226),
Orpheus chooses to come back to the world of the living instead of
staying with Eurydice in the underworld. Rather than as an act of
cowardice, Orpheus' decision can be interpreted as his choice of
artistry over love & death, especially since his songs & lyrical
mastery over beasts & stones may be largely inspired by his own
tragic fate. It is a similar refusal to follow Laura into death
in spite of his mourning & proclaimed desire to be reunited with
her, that characterizes Petrarch's attitude in the Rime sparse.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Pascitur in vivis Livor; post FATA quiescit+,"
------------------------------------------------------------
<<On the titlepage of the first edition of Venus & Adonis
is the Ovidian phrase "Vilia miretur vulgus ... " or,
"allow the public to admire that which is sordid.">>
(Rowse, A.L. ed., The Annotated Shakespeare, 1984.)
----------------------------------------------------------
P. Ovidius Naso, Amores
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.amor1.shtml
XV Vilia miretur vulgus; mihi flavus Apollo+
Pocula Castalia plena ministret aqua,
Sustineamque coma metuentem frigora myrtum,
Atque a sollicito multus amante legar!
Pascitur in vivis Livor; post FATA quiescit+,
Cum suus ex merito quemque tuetur honos.
Ergo etiam cum me supremus adederit ignis++,
Vivam, parsque mei multa superstes erit.
Marlowe translation:
Let base conceited wits admire vilde things,
Faire Phoebus leade me to the Muses springs.
About my head be QUIVERING Mirtle wound,
And in sad lovers heads let me be found.
The living, not the dead can ENVIE bite,
For after death all men receive their right:
Then though death RACKES my bones in funerall fler,
lie live, and as he puls me downe, mount higher
Ben Jonson translation:
Kneele hindes to trash: me let bright Phoebus swell,
With cups full flowing from the Muses well.
The frost-drad myrtle shall impale my head,
And of sad lovers Ile be often read.
ENUY the living, not the dead, doth bite.
For after death all men receive their right.
Then when this body falls in funeral fire,
MY NAME SHALL LIVE, and my best part aspire.
-----------------------------------------------------
"non TIMEO strictas in mea FATA manus"
------------------------------------------------------
P. Ovidius Naso, Amores
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.amor1.shtml
IV multa miser TIMEO, quia feci multa proterve,
exemplique metu torqueor, ecce, mei.
VI nec mora, venit amor-non umbras nocte volantis,
non TIMEO strictas in mea FATA manus.
te nimium lentum TIMEO, tibi blandior uni;
tu, me quo possis perdere, fulmen habes.
--------------------------------------------------
"Funere soluentes FATA aliena suo"
---------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard Kennedy" <kenned...@charter.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Subject: A couple of heroes
Date: 29 Apr 2005 08:26:06 -0700
These verses are from D., E. Anagrammata, 1603,
honoring "IN NOMINA ILLVSTRISSIMORVM HEROVM..."
with the invention of anagrams Thomas Egerton, Charles
Howard, Thomas Sackville, and a dozen more. Notice
the liberty taken with the anagrams of that time.
Oxford is pricked out as an "Illustrious Hero,"
amongst the others. This was the year he died.
Notice also that his dedication is followed by the
name of Henry Wriothesley, the patron of Shakespeare.
EDOUARUS VEIERUS
per anagramma
AURE SURDUS VIDEO
[A]uribus hisce licet studio, Fortuna, susurros
[PE]rfidiae et technas efficis esse procul,
Attamen accipio (quae mens horrescit et auris)
Rebus facta malis corpora surda tenus.
Imo etiam cerno Catilinae* fraude propinquos
Funere solventes FATA aliena suo.
.............................................
EDWARD VERE by an anagram
AURE SURDUS VIDEO ('DEAF IN MY EAR, I SEE')
Though by your zeal, FORTUNE, you keep perfidy's
murmurs & schemings at a distance, nonetheless I learn
(at which my mind & ear quake) that our bodies have
been deafened with respect to evil affairs. Indeed,
I perceive men who come close to Catiline* in deception,
freeing other men's fates by their death.
* Catiline was the rabble-rouser suppressed by Cicero.
His name became a watchword for incendiary troublemakers.
.............................................
HENRICUS URIOTHESLEUS
per anagramma
THESEUS NIL REUS HIC RUO
Iure quidem poteras hanc fundere ab ore querelam,
Sors tibi dum ficto crimine dura fuit:
"Nil reus en Theseus censura sortis iniquae
Hic ruo, livoris traditus arbitrio."
At nunc mutanda ob mutata pericla querela est.
Inclite, an innocuo pectore teste rues?
Non sane. Hac haeres vacuo dat VIVERE cura,
Collati imperii sub Iove sceptra gerens.
.............................................
HENRY WRIOTHESLEY by an anagram
THESEUS NIL REUS HIC RUO ('HERE I FALL, THESEUS, GUILTY OF NOTHING')
Justly you were able to pour forth this complaint from
your mouth, your lot was harsh while a false accusation
prevailed. 'Lo, Theseus is guilty of nothing, here
I fall by an unfair lot's censure, betrayed by ENVY's whim.'
But now the complaint is to be altered, because of
altered perils. Great man, do you take a fall
with an innocent heart bearing witness? Not at all.
The HEIR, wielding the scepter of rule conferred
under Jove's auspices, grants you to live free of this
.............................................
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/anagrams/text.html
------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Bianca Steele
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Spam Scone wrote:
>But what do you expect from the "paper
> > of record" that published Jayson Blair and "balanced" articles on
> > Holocaust denial?
>
[snip
> As for the comparison to Holocaust denial "revisionism", it is one that
> Joseph Sobran himself embraces. Joseph Sobran thinks anti-Darwinism AND
> Oxfordianism AND Holocaust "revisionism" are all courageous rejections of
> "liberal orthodoxy." See Sobran's "Subsidized Consensus" at
> http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000420.shtml
Anyone can create a personal website, a newsletter, an e-mail list of
acolytes, and even find someone who can find a reason to publish what
he wants to write. Why should *anyone* else care what Sobran's opinion
is?
Apparently Joseph Sobran believes that there is some one worldview that
governs the world, or at least America, but from a morally invalid
point of view. He evidently includes in that worldview complete
acceptance and understanding of natural selection/evolution, dogmatic
belief in the importance of the traditional attribution of
Shakespeare's plays to a Protestant actor with an average education,
and belief that something called "the Holocaust" (whatever someone with
his other views might think that may be) should be part of the history
children are taught to understand their world with. And he thinks that
the world can be made more moral by removing "liberal orthodoxy" from
power and replacing it with government as preferred by the Republican
Party. Opposition to people who support Oxford as Shakespeare, on the
grounds that they are elevating Sobran, furthers what purpose, exactly?
>
> For Sobran's latest expression of ID-iocy, see "The President and the
> Professor" at http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050811.shtml
Yeah, I'm sure Steven Pinker's never heard the "aren't you liberals
supposed to believe the higher/lower distinction only expresses the
egotism of our species bit," before. Right on target. I bet Pinker
and the people who read his books will be devastated when they hear
that. It's obvious he has not even read Pinker's book.
Here's another example of Sobran's method: He says, "_Time_ quotes
Steven Pinker, the noted Harvard psychologist, who reminds us, 'In
practice, religion has given us stonings, inquisitions, and 9/11.'"
Sobran continues, "Not to mention pedophile priests!" Sobran implies
that Pinker's real interest was in slamming the Catholic Church on the
basis of the recent news items in the "mainstream media" that were
publicizing the trials of priests in the Boston area accused of
sexually abusing young boys. He thus implies that Pinker must hold his
beliefs as to religion's having "given us stonings, inquisitions, and
9/11" rather lightly. He also implies that "pedophile priests" are so
objectively important to every citizen, that they must be the first
thing that's *really* on the mind even of Pinker, who is not Catholic,
but Jewish. In other words, somehow Sobran *knows* that Pinker has no
real beliefs, but only political partis pris, and Sobran knows this
because Sobran doesn't believe the same thing as Pinker; the only
belief he's willing to attribute to Pinker is anti-Catholicism. I'm
sorry, but that's nuts.
I don't know what this has to do with Niederkorn or his article.
----
Bianca Steele
John W. Kennedy
It is all indicative of a general decline in intellectual rigor,
honesty, and -- in the end -- common decency in the western world. Few
people are willing anymore to speak up for truth, or even sanity, while
the two-legged wolves are howling all around us, from the relatively
harmless frauds (e.g., the "International Star Registry") at one end to
such damnable vermin as Sobran at the other.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Terry Ross wrote:
> > William Niederkorn has struck again.
> Terry Ross has struck again. ;)
> > Today's Times contains another
> > installment in his years-long effort to slip a bit of Oxfordianism into
> > the paper of record:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/books/30shak.html?pagewanted=print
> Thanks for putting up Niederkorn's article. He is not, by the way, an
> Oxfordian.
I don't recall Terry ever saying that Niederkorn was an Oxfordian.
In the post quoted, Terry merely aVERs that Niederkorn has made efforts
to "slip a bit of Oxfordianism into" the _Times_, an assertion whose
correctness you can gauge for yourself by reading some of Niederkorn's
earlier contributions (for example, "A Historic Whodunit: If Shakespeare
Didn't, Who Did?" from the February 10, 2002 Theater section).
> > Niederkorn surveys a number of books related to Shakespeare, including a
> > two that are absolutely worthless (*Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and
> > Coded Politics of William Shakespeare* by Clare Asquith, and
> > *"Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of
> > Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare* by Mark Anderson).
> Thanks, Terry. I knew I could rely on you for a fair summary. I hope
> you've read the books before pronouncing on them.
Surely you know Terry well enough by now not to have serious doubts
on that score, don't you, Lynne?
Elizabeth
Terry Ross wrote:
> As for the comparison to Holocaust denial "revisionism", it is one that
> Joseph Sobran himself embraces. Joseph Sobran thinks anti-Darwinism AND
> Oxfordianism AND Holocaust "revisionism" are all courageous rejections of
> "liberal orthodoxy." See Sobran's "Subsidized Consensus" at
> http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000420.shtml\
The Oxfordians are only aping Strat revisionism, Reedy.
Strats redescribed an England in which the English Reformation
never happened. In that way an "agnostic" playbroker or an earl who
"only dabbled in Catholicism" could have written the English
Reformation Shakespeare Works.
This is particularly ironic since Oxford was a prominent figure
in the English Counter-Reformation.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Jim KQKnave
bookburn
"Fryzer" <nig...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125458919.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| bookburn wrote:
| > "graham" <g.dol...@fingershaw.ca> wrote in message
| > news:TX7Re.337726$5V4.175009@pd7tw3no...
| > If anyone would like to assist Graham, I would try to expound
further
| > on my comparison of authorship attribution controversy with
| > evolution-Creationism controversy. bb
|
| Well bb, so far as I can see the only comparison to be made is that
| anti-stratfordianism, like creation science is a matter of faith;
the
| theory of evolution like 'stratfordianism' is grounded in an
| impenetrable thicket of facts and logic (although IMO that
shakespeare
| of stratford wrote the works of sjakespeare is more likely true than
is
| the theory of evolution).
There is this conundrum in the creationist-evironmentalist discussion
about spontaneity, sometimes expresses as whether an infinite number
of monkeys over an infinite length of time at typewriters can
replicate Shakespeare's canon.
Spontaneity and intelligent design are significant issues in the
scientific community, evidently. C. P. Snow, in his "two cultures"
essay plumbs the depths in his examples of the 2nd law of
thermodynamics regarding entropy in evolution and ability to predict
behavior of things, identifying "dams" that disallow spontaneity, if I
understand the issue.
On the other hand, I think the "chaos theory" people have a way of
explaining how order and complexity result from chaotic conditions.
And there is a work-around description of "intelligent design" in the
cosmos that is between evolution and creationism, I think George W.
says.
However, in early forms of evolutionary theory, spontaneous order, not
order determined by science, is often key, as in Adam Smith's
"invisible hand" operating in economics. I also read that evolution
by natural selection is only one example of spontaneous natural order,
which can emerge without plan, intention, or purpose. Philosophers of
science like Popper and Hayek are open-ended about evolution as a
proven fact.
(quote)
"Popper saw science itself as an evolutionary process because of the
way that critical observations contradicted, falsified, and so
eliminated scientific theories. Thus for Popper no scientific theory
is proven, it merely survives by avoiding falsification, just as a
biological species survives competitive pressures, with no certainty
that it will continue to survive in the future. . . . Like speakers
of English who might not think that English grammar is much different
from Latin grammar, scientists have ritually invoked the odological
theories of the philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and then
immediately broken most of his rules as they went about their
discoveries."
(unquote, from http://www.friesian.com/creation.htm)
I hope it only seems we live on a flat world sometimes, that
commentators only resort to such metaphors to dramatize their stuff.
I have no doubt that communities of science and literature depend on
metaphors, and Shakespeare references come up often. bb
Tom Reedy
that you're having us on. either that or you're implementing your
chaos/throw-anything-that-comes-to-mind-out-there strategy (which it seems
you've adopted in the past year or so) to stimulate responses.
A final word: Stay away from drugs, no matter who else is using them in grad
school. Let Art N. and R. Kennedy be cautionary examples to you.
TR
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11hc7al...@corp.supernews.com...
Peter Groves
news:OIqRe.17280$k32.16665@trnddc08...
> I've been reading this thread, and the only logical conclusion I can find
is
> that you're having us on. either that or you're implementing your
> chaos/throw-anything-that-comes-to-mind-out-there strategy (which it seems
> you've adopted in the past year or so) to stimulate responses.
>
I suspect it's the latter: I came to a similar conclusion about his recent
incoherent nonsense on the subject of metre.
Peter G.
gangleri
The earth isn't flat - yet the number of folks who bought/buy into that
theory must out-number Stratfordian believers by a factor of x to the
tenth power.
So William Niederkorn doesn't share your view of the Stratfordian
theory - or, as you would have it, the "historical facts" of the
Shakespeare matter.
Is it possible that Niederkorn IS a serious student of the points at
issue?
Elizabeth
"38% Of Americans Favor Replacing Evolution With Creationism...
"
I blame Strats for perpetuating the myth that
genius derived from the Dimme Light of Nature
somehow transcends illiteracy.
That's the Strat creationism theory of genius.
Tom Reedy
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1125534391.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And I blame your parents' drug abuse during your conception for your moronic
ideas.
TR
bookburn
received the alloted list of topics lately, so no doubt my unorthodox
comments about the "Antistratfordian Design" and evolution seem
alarming. bb
"Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OIqRe.17280$k32.16665@trnddc08...
bookburn
"Peter Groves" <Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:phrRe.18370$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| "Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
| news:OIqRe.17280$k32.16665@trnddc08...
| > I've been reading this thread, and the only logical conclusion I
can find
| is
| > that you're having us on. either that or you're implementing your
| > chaos/throw-anything-that-comes-to-mind-out-there strategy (which
it seems
| > you've adopted in the past year or so) to stimulate responses.
| >
|
| I suspect it's the latter: I came to a similar conclusion about his
recent
| incoherent nonsense on the subject of metre.
|
| Peter G.
He, he. Peter was caught exposing his meter. . . .said "early modern
English" (sic), then indicated my "sic" should have been in brackets.
bb
David L. Webb
"Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net> wrote:
Abysmal and apparently irremediable ignorance may also play a salient
role.
David L. Webb
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> ___________________________________
>
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > As for the comparison to Holocaust denial "revisionism", it is one that
> > Joseph Sobran himself embraces. Joseph Sobran thinks anti-Darwinism AND
> > Oxfordianism AND Holocaust "revisionism" are all courageous rejections of
> > "liberal orthodoxy." See Sobran's "Subsidized Consensus" at
> > http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000420.shtml\
> The Oxfordians are only aping Strat revisionism, Reedy [sic].
Not that Elizabeth is incapable of ascertaining the identity of her
interlocutor, despite the fact that her own post contains the text
"Terry Ross wrote:..."
right at the top -- but we have seen that functional illiteracy is
perhaps most conspicuous incapacity that Elizabeth routinely brings to
her risible 'research." The notion that someone who cannot even work
out the identity of the author of the post to which she is responding
possesses useful insight into the attribution of literary texts some
four centuries old that she has never read is most amusing.
I have been out of town, much too busy, and too inundated by the
comic cornucopia of Elizabeth's archival posts to keep up the Elizabeth
Weird "casual reading" retrospective, so I am pleased to see that
Elizabeth is generating hilarious new material daily.
> Strats redescribed an England in which the English Reformation
> never happened.
I don't know of a single reputable scholar who opines that the
English Reformation never occurred; Elizabeth must be either
hallucinating or making things up again.
Tom Reedy
> Well I'm pleased you're stimulated to share this advice. I haven't
> received the alloted list of topics lately, so no doubt my unorthodox
> comments about the "Antistratfordian Design" and evolution seem
> alarming. bb
Not unless your definition of "alarming" is radically different from mine.
TR
David Kathman
If he is, he has done a very good job of disguising the fact.
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/nyt.html
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Chess One
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:David.L.Webb-0C5E...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
Abysmal and salient!
As commentary, these addresses form the two most common forms of ad hominem
abuse [drugs and daftness] and are usually muttered together by
outmaneuvered sulky newbies. Indeed, these comments are themselves lacking
any sense, in that for example a moron is unable to express his ideas, to
which the later writer suggest is a 'role'.
Perhaps their talents lie elsewhere? Under a bush?
Phil Innes
David L. Webb
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Niederkorn is, of course, as wrong as ever about the nature of the
> > evidence. There is more than enough evidence to support the attribution
> > of the great bulk of Shakespeare's works to William Shakespeare, the
> > glover's son from Stratford. A short summary of the evidence is
> > available in Tom Reedy and David Kathman's essay "How We Know That
> > Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts," which is available
> > at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
> > http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is indeed a vast collation of datum [sic]
A vast collation of datum?
> to attribute to Will Shakespeare,
> but the very heart of the controversy is that it should do so!
>
> Why not indeed make attribution to other forms of authorship, to the degree
> that 'evidence' of a prescriptive nature can be seen transparently as method
> of inquiry - rather than the opaque laying-it-on-with-a-trowel design
> which - then and now - is the likely main candidate for 'Alternate
> Authorship" - a situation fomented by shoddy Stratfordian enthused and
> self-pleased scholarship itself.
>
> Now, perhaps all in all, one might conclude that the glover-boy was the
> playwright, and the only playwright, and no peripeteia occlude this charming
> and romantic point of view, and this surely can be in itself a respectable
> gloss on authorship.
>
> But what is indecent is proclamation of more authority [to pun again] to
> this point of view than is deserving, especially when in so very many areas
> of Elizabethan research more has been excluded than included to make such a
> certain case.
>
> And what is strangest of all is complete lack of psychological, or in
> Elizabethan argot, spiritual, address on the nature of the author's gift, or
> how he came by, evolved and sustained it, synchronously with the emergence
> of the works themselves. This would indeed be a nychthemeronic concinnity
> and resemble a sincere approach to the subject, rather than the campish
> clamourings of auteurs-manqué.
>
> But no-one will print this letter or echo its sentiment in the NY Times,
...because letters printed in the _Times_ are generally written in
English sufficiently coherent to permit the editor (and the reader) to
divine the writer's point (if any).
> since that is a daily newspaper preferring the sound of louche encounter and
> ripostes of its 'market' to that of any true basso profundo fons et origo.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> Brattleboro, Vermont
LynnE
> In article <1125420359.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Terry Ross wrote:
> > > William Niederkorn has struck again.
>
> > Terry Ross has struck again. ;)
>
> > > Today's Times contains another
> > > installment in his years-long effort to slip a bit of Oxfordianism into
> > > the paper of record:
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/books/30shak.html?pagewanted=print
>
> > Thanks for putting up Niederkorn's article. He is not, by the way, an
> > Oxfordian.
>
> I don't recall Terry ever saying that Niederkorn was an Oxfordian.
I don't recall suggesting that he did; however, if Terry *implied* that
Mr. Niederkorn was an Oxfordian, I am alerting HLAS readers to the fact
that he is not.
> In the post quoted, Terry merely aVERs that Niederkorn has made efforts
> to "slip a bit of Oxfordianism into" the _Times_, an assertion whose
> correctness you can gauge for yourself by reading some of Niederkorn's
> earlier contributions (for example, "A Historic Whodunit: If Shakespeare
> Didn't, Who Did?" from the February 10, 2002 Theater section).
I know Mr. Niederkorn pretty well, and find him very open on the
authorship question, whatever he's published.
>
> > > Niederkorn surveys a number of books related to Shakespeare, including a
> > > two that are absolutely worthless (*Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and
> > > Coded Politics of William Shakespeare* by Clare Asquith, and
> > > *"Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of
> > > Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare* by Mark Anderson).
>
> > Thanks, Terry. I knew I could rely on you for a fair summary. I hope
> > you've read the books before pronouncing on them.
>
> Surely you know Terry well enough by now not to have serious doubts
> on that score, don't you, Lynne?
Frankly, I was a little surprised that Terry had already managed to
read both _Shadowplay_, which came out in May, and _Shakespeare by
Another Name_, which came out about three weeks ago. I always envision
a huge stack of books on Terry's bedside table that he needs to read at
some point as he's interested in so many subjects. But he could have
read them, of course.
Regards,
Lynne
Pat Fallon
> Subject: Re: NY Times and "Antistratfordian Design"
> Yup, just a "tentative" theory:
As Karl Popper pointed out, ALL scientific theories are tentative.
There can be no valid reasons justifying our belief in a universal law other
than those based on experience.
There is no valid inference from observed cases to unobserved cases. Yet,
universal laws cover an infinite number of possible cases throughout the
whole of space and time, and therefore necessarily go beyond all actual and
possible experience.
it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a universal proposition by
reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single counter-instance
conclusively falsifies the corresponding universal law.
Every genuine scientific theory then, in Popper's view, is prohibitive, in
the sense that it forbids, by implication, particular events or occurrences.
As such it can be tested and falsified, but never logically verified. Popper
stresses that it should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has
withstood the most rigorous testing, for however long a period of time, that
it has been verified; rather we should recognise that such a theory has
received a high measure of corroboration. and may be provisionally retained
as the best available theory until it is finally falsified (if indeed it is
ever falsified), and/or is superseded by a better theory.
Thus all knowledge is provisional, conjectural, hypothetical - we can never
finally prove our scientific theories, we can merely (provisionally) confirm
or (conclusively) refute them.
Pat Fallon
Chess One
>> Elizabethan argot, spiritual, address on the nature of the author's gift,
>> or
>> how he came by, evolved and sustained it, synchronously with the
>> emergence
>> of the works themselves. This would indeed be a nychthemeronic concinnity
>> and resemble a sincere approach to the subject, rather than the campish
>> clamourings of auteurs-manqué.
>>
>> But no-one will print this letter or echo its sentiment in the NY Times,
>
> ...because letters printed in the _Times_ are generally written in
> English sufficiently coherent
Again you use these redundant phrases, to wit; what is distinguished between
coherent and sufficiently coherent?
And since you are pleased to promote yourself here as some sort of authority
on language use, by whatever means you have convinced yourself including
consistently writing these gaffs, these very common tropes, while not even
recognising the language to which you aspire, at least, in no sufficient way
to engage it, you hoot.
> to permit the editor (and the reader) to
> divine the writer's point (if any).
I do admit writing some munificent words in that paragraph, but surely even
an uptight humorless goon would understand that it is deliberately written
over-the-top for the fine literary folks at New Yawk Times? Has grand
misanthropy coupled with teaching sacked your wit entire?
You might even admire 'nychthemeronic' in the text that I offer it as a fine
figure! Or indeed you can do the other thing, and simply volunteer to us
your continous suggestions and estimations of your own worth.
I see that you are a writer who proposes much about other's writing - yet my
deep suspicion is that you yourself lack any competency to understand much -
which would explain much of your behavior here.
A test would be to parse my paragraph above, not as an exercise in sarcasm -
your usual escape hatch by way of diversionary abuse - but as a test of your
comprehension. Since you are the leader of the Strat-Pack surely you can
make a better attempt than this !
And if you can't write compound sentences resort to making a list - some
attempt at comprehesion is required to be demonstrated when the subject is
Shakespeare, rather than A.A. Milne.
Phil Innes
David L. Webb
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> And what is strangest of all is complete lack of psychological, or in
> >> Elizabethan argot, spiritual, address on the nature of the author's gift,
> >> or
> >> how he came by, evolved and sustained it, synchronously with the
> >> emergence
> >> of the works themselves. This would indeed be a nychthemeronic concinnity
> >> and resemble a sincere approach to the subject, rather than the campish
> >> clamourings of auteurs-manqué.
> >>
> >> But no-one will print this letter or echo its sentiment in the NY Times,
> > ...because letters printed in the _Times_ are generally written in
> > English sufficiently coherent
> Again you use these redundant phrases, to wit; what is distinguished between
> coherent and sufficiently coherent?
Huh? You actually prefer
"...letters printed in the _Times_ are generally written in English
coherent to permit the editor (and the reader) to divine the writer's
point..."
to
"...letters printed in the _Times_ are generally written in English
sufficiently coherent to permit the editor (and the reader) to divine
the writer's point..."?
Perhaps the former is how it's done in the British language.
> And since you are pleased to promote yourself here as some sort of authority
> on language use,
I am not an authority on language use, nor have I ever promoted
myself as one. However, some anti-Stratfordians have difficulties
distinguishing mere competence from actual authority, as they possess
little of the former and none of the latter.
> by whatever means you have convinced yourself including
> consistently writing these gaffs, these very common tropes, while not even
> recognising the language to which you aspire, at least, in no sufficient way
> to engage it, you hoot.
...the language to which I aspire to engage it? Is English not your
native tongue? Or is there some unsuspected orphaned antecedent to the
pronoun "it" lost somewhere in the flotsam of your idiosyncratic and
colorful "British language"?
> > to permit the editor (and the reader) to
> > divine the writer's point (if any).
> I do admit writing some munificent words in that paragraph, but surely even
> an uptight humorless
Humorless?! On the contrary -- I find h.l.a.s. one of the funniest
spectacles that I have ever been fortunate enough to witness.
> goon would understand that it is deliberately written
> over-the-top for the fine literary folks at New Yawk Times?
It you actually think that what you wrote is even a remotely
plausible parody of the language of the "fine literary folks" at the
_Times_, then one wonders whether you have ever so much as looked at
that newspaper.
> Has grand
> misanthropy coupled with teaching sacked your wit entire?
No.
> You might even admire 'nychthemeronic' in the text that I offer it as a fine
> figure! Or indeed you can do the other thing, and simply volunteer to us
> your continous [sic] suggestions and estimations of your own worth.
> I see that you are a writer who proposes much about other's [sic] writing
What "other" do you have in mind?
> - yet my
> deep suspicion is that you yourself lack any competency to understand much -
> which would explain much of your behavior here.
>
> A test would be to parse my paragraph above,
Parsing your prose is almost always well beyond my limited ability.
But English and a few other languages are the only ones in which I am
even competent, so expecting me to be able to parse your British prose
is surely overly exacting.
> not as an exercise in sarcasm -
> your usual escape hatch by way of diversionary abuse - but as a test of your
> comprehension. Since you are the leader of the Strat-Pack
"Leader of the Strat-Pack"?! I am not a member of any "pack," let
alone leader of one.
> surely you can
> make a better attempt than this !
>
> And if you can't write compound sentences resort to making a list - some
> attempt at comprehesion is required to be demonstrated when the subject is
> Shakespeare, rather than A.A. Milne.
If you fail to appreciate the rich humor of gifted writers of
children's books, then you are depriving yourself of one of life's
pleasures.
Bianca Steele
probably not compiled without a lot of help (presumably from people who
knew how their contributions would be used), though to be charitable
probably not plagiarized. Probably innocuous. Does someone want to
argue with him/her so that when he/she is refuted, there will be less
danger of this being taken seriously?
Besides, it's neither what Popper said nor correct. Granted that
Popper had a few odd beliefs -- he thought Plato led in a direct line
to Hitler and Stalin -- his basic insight into why modern science
(i.e., science after the Scientific Revolution) works is universally
accepted: Scientists, when they are doing good science, do not look for
evidence to confirm their theories, but rather try very hard to prove
their hypotheses wrong. Because the more a theory is tested, the
stronger it becomes. However, he did not have the last word, and to
think that every word he wrote must be true displays what Graham
accused bookburn of.
----
Bianca Steele
lariadc
>it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a universal proposition by
>reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single counter-instance
>conclusively falsifies the corresponding universal law.
Philosophers sometimes take logic to its limit, but I'm sure they would
agree that the probability of that limit occurring is often very very
very small.
For example, do you think Hume would have bet any money that the
sun wouldn't rise the next day, which would be a single
counter-instance of a scientific law, an example that he himself gave,
if I recall correctly?
How much money would you bet on it?
C.
Chess One
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
You are an importunate booby Webb, and delight in showing off your
'charms' - a completely illiterate booby as you continuosly demonstrate,
even a mathematician could surely find:-
...are generally written in coherent English to permit the
But these are stupid digressions. You fail at your own task of being a
grammatical school-marm, which itself was an excuse to avoid the subject by
yet another of your serial impositions to this or any subject, the el cheapo
ad hominem post.
>> And since you are pleased to promote yourself here as some sort of
>> authority
>> on language use,
>
> I am not an authority on language use, nor have I ever promoted
> myself as one. However, some anti-Stratfordians have difficulties
> distinguishing mere competence from actual authority, as they possess
> little of the former and none of the latter.
Surely - what is so sure? Surely which "anti-Stratfordians"? I only complain
that you repress other opinion by blathering about other's language - if
indeed that is "Stratfordian" then I am indeed against it, nomatter who
writes it, even if an 'authority' writes it!
>> by whatever means you have convinced yourself including
>> consistently writing these gaffs, these very common tropes, while not
>> even
>> recognising the language to which you aspire, at least, in no sufficient
>> way
>> to engage it, you hoot.
>
> ...the language to which I aspire to engage it? Is English not your
> native tongue?
It is your comprehension which is at fault.
> Or is there some unsuspected orphaned antecedent to the
> pronoun "it" lost somewhere in the flotsam of your idiosyncratic and
> colorful "British language"?
But I thought you were no language authority - no sneaking back now with
equivocal and rhetorical flings! :) As for British language you Webb don't
understand that either.
You refer to a Brennenism where neither of you claimed to understand that
there was a language of the Britons. ROFL!!!
Now you pretend that this ignornace on your part does not exist, and the
fault is mine, so continue with "British language" as if you mock me rather
than your professioned ignorance. No modest claim on your part is sincere.
>> > to permit the editor (and the reader) to
>> > divine the writer's point (if any).
>
>> I do admit writing some munificent words in that paragraph, but surely
>> even
>> an uptight humorless
>
> Humorless?! On the contrary -- I find h.l.a.s. one of the funniest
> spectacles that I have ever been fortunate enough to witness.
Many a padded-room has reverberated with such claims.
>> goon would understand that it is deliberately written
>> over-the-top for the fine literary folks at New Yawk Times?
>
> It you actually think that what you wrote is even a remotely
> plausible parody of the language of the "fine literary folks" at the
> _Times_, then one wonders whether you have ever so much as looked at
> that newspaper.
O! does one wonder? I doubt it. What I do not doubt at all is your little
ways to approach any subject - which is to rubbish other people - and I
suggest to you that it is because of your own inferiority that you do so.
Psychologically it is so evidently a transference of status in one field to
that of another.
>> Has grand
>> misanthropy coupled with teaching sacked your wit entire?
>
> No.
>
>> You might even admire 'nychthemeronic' in the text that I offer it as a
>> fine
>> figure! Or indeed you can do the other thing, and simply volunteer to us
>> your continous [sic] suggestions and estimations of your own worth.
>> I see that you are a writer who proposes much about other's [sic] writing
>
> What "other" do you have in mind?
Please don't feel rushed, and go back to the beginning of your criticism and
parse the entire thing. I am calling your own understanding, not offering to
waste my time in further deviations and avoidances.
>> - yet my
>> deep suspicion is that you yourself lack any competency to understand
>> much -
>> which would explain much of your behavior here.
>>
>> A test would be to parse my paragraph above,
>
> Parsing your prose is almost always well beyond my limited ability.
<.>
So much for Webb. It is his own understanding of anything which is at
issue - and comes the test, there is no one home. It is not only that he
can't address the content of a message, but he then has the nerve to pose as
school-marm on grammar as a means to repress it.
I know why he responded to me initially - it was because I wrote something
that he didn't like, more than that, I wroite something he feared - but he
neither has the ability nor any honest habit of discourse to engage it.
Phil Innes
bookburn
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
Should say "the creation-evolution discussion", and "typewriters will
replicate".
Pat Fallon
>>it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a universal proposition by
>>reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single counter-instance
>>conclusively falsifies the corresponding universal law.
> Philosophers sometimes take logic to its limit, but I'm sure they would
> agree that the probability of that limit occurring is often very very
> very small.
as the best available theory until it is finally falsified (if indeed it is
ever falsified), and/or is superseded by a better theory.
> For example, do you think Hume would have bet any money that the
> sun wouldn't rise the next day, which would be a single
> counter-instance of a scientific law, an example that he himself gave,
> if I recall correctly?
In other words, the logical problem of induction arises from (1) Hume's discovery (so well expressed by Born) that it is impossible to justify a law by observation or experiment, since it 'transcends experience'; (2) the fact that science proposes and uses laws 'everywhere and all the time'.
> How much money would you bet on it?
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Spam Scone
Chess One wrote:
>
> > Or is there some unsuspected orphaned antecedent to the
> > pronoun "it" lost somewhere in the flotsam of your idiosyncratic and
> > colorful "British language"?
>
> But I thought you were no language authority - no sneaking back now with
> equivocal and rhetorical flings! :) As for British language you Webb don't
> understand that either.
>
> You refer to a Brennenism where neither of you claimed to understand that
> there was a language of the Britons. ROFL!!!
I'm trying to avoid answering the posts of this disgusting troll, but
since it brought my name up, I thought I'd ask it for an example of
"neither of you claimed to understand that there was a language of the
Britons." The only thing I've claimed to understand is that Innes is an
idiot with overtones of something more vile than idiocy; do a Google
search on rec.games.chess.misc under the word "showa" to see what I
mean.
gangleri
view as the business of all science.
Instead, it concerns that branch of philosophy which evaluates claims
to *knowledge* alias epistemology.
Specifically, since *knowledge* is an attribute of mind, it concerns
the innate ability of our minds to formulate *certain* propositions
with respect to such things as the sun's rising in the East tomorrow.
gangleri
comments on the subject matter a few minutes ago.
Spam Scone
Chess One wrote:
> ...for example a moron is unable to express his ideas...
You've never had a problem with expression, Your I-ness.
lariadc
gangleri wrote:
> Re. the following:
>
> I can see that your views are clouded by religious nonsense and your
> knowledge of science (not to mention scientific method) is barely at an
> elementary school level.
>
> Comment:
>
> What is "scientific method"?
This looks like a good link describing the scientific method:
<http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html>
C.
>
> How does it relate to formulation of no-nonsense scientific "theory"?
gangleri
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively
and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable,
consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Comment:
Here is how Einstein summarized "the process" in the field of
theoretical physics:
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal
elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure
deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition,
resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them."
Hence my questions - for *intuition* is NOT a "method", but an
attribute of a scientist's mind.
Fryzer
P (i have observed the sun rising many times in the past)
Q (the sun will rise tomorrow)
I come to know P and this knowledge induces in me a higher degree of
belief in Q than I had prior to knowing P.
Then it is pointed out that:
R (It is logically posible that however many times i se the sun rise,
however many are the many times refered to in P, P might be true and Q
false)
I accept P and add it to my store of knowledge.
On Hume's account I add R to my premise P and so come to a lower
threshold of bel,ief in Q then I previously had. That is, my belief in
Q is raised by by P, then reduced by the addition of R to P.
However, adding any necessaril;y true R to P is logically equivalent to
P. R therefore can have no bearing for or against Q.
IOW, contra Hume, the addition of R does not mean that I have less
reason to believe Q.
To put it bluntly- There is a chance the sun will not rise tomorrow.
However, having observed the sun rising on numerous previous occasions,
there is no good reason think that it will not rise again tomorrow.
[The above is a loose paraphrase of:
David Stove, Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists Ch 5 at:
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/4118/dcs/popper/chapter-05.html
For the index see:
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/4118/dcs/popper/popper.html]
David L. Webb
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 'charms' - a completely illiterate booby as you continuosly [sic]
Mr. Innes had difficulty with a variant of the same word in his last
post.
> demonstrate,
> even a mathematician could surely find:-
>
> ...are generally written in coherent English to permit the
>
> But these are stupid digressions. You fail at your own task of being a
> grammatical school-marm, which itself was an excuse to avoid the subject by
> yet another of your serial impositions to this or any subject, the el cheapo
> ad hominem post.
> >> And since you are pleased to promote yourself here as some sort of
> >> authority
> >> on language use,
> > I am not an authority on language use, nor have I ever promoted
> > myself as one. However, some anti-Stratfordians have difficulties
> > distinguishing mere competence from actual authority, as they possess
> > little of the former and none of the latter.
> Surely - what is so sure?
Are you actually hallucinating an occurrence of the word "surely" in
the paragraph above?
> Surely which "anti-Stratfordians"? I only complain
> that you repress other opinion by blathering about other's [sic] language - if
> indeed that is "Stratfordian"
Huh?
> then I am indeed against it, nomatter [sic] who
> writes it, even if an 'authority' writes it!
> >> by whatever means you have convinced yourself including
> >> consistently writing these gaffs, these very common tropes, while not
> >> even
> >> recognising the language to which you aspire, at least, in no sufficient
> >> way
> >> to engage it, you hoot.
> > ...the language to which I aspire to engage it? Is English not your
> > native tongue?
> It is your comprehension which is at fault.
> > Or is there some unsuspected orphaned antecedent to the
> > pronoun "it" lost somewhere in the flotsam of your idiosyncratic and
> > colorful "British language"?
> But I thought you were no language authority
Authority is not required to understand the need for antecedents for
pronouns; mere competence is quite sufficient.
> - no sneaking back now with
> equivocal and rhetorical flings! :) As for British language you Webb don't
> understand that either.
>
> You refer to a Brennenism where neither of you claimed to understand that
> there was a language of the Britons. ROFL!!!
>
> Now you pretend that this ignornace [sic] on your part does not exist, and the
> fault is mine, so continue with "British language" as if you mock me rather
> than your professioned [sic] ignorance.
> No modest claim on your part is sincere.
Your insight into the sincerity of others is quite remarkable. You
must share Elizabeth Weird's capacity for creative hallucination -- or
did you consult a medium?
> >> > to permit the editor (and the reader) to
> >> > divine the writer's point (if any).
> >> I do admit writing some munificent words in that paragraph, but surely
> >> even
> >> an uptight humorless
> > Humorless?! On the contrary -- I find h.l.a.s. one of the funniest
> > spectacles that I have ever been fortunate enough to witness.
> Many a padded-room has reverberated with such claims.
It is rather difficult to imagine a well-padded room reverberating.
I can address content, but only when it is written in a familiar
natural language (English, Russian, Spanish, French, etc.); I have never
made a study of the syntax of Innes-speak.
> but he then has the nerve to pose as
> school-marm on grammar as a means to repress it.
>
> I know why he responded to me initially - it was because I wrote something
> that he didn't like,
On the contrary -- I liked it immensely.
> more than that, I wroite [sic] something he feared -
You have never wroitten anything that I feared; as I said, I do not
read Innes-speak fluently.
lariadc
> >>Pat Fallon wrote:
> >>it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a universal proposition by
> >>reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single counter-instance
> >>conclusively falsifies the corresponding universal law.
>
>
> > Philosophers sometimes take logic to its limit, but I'm sure they would
> > agree that the probability of that limit occurring is often very very
> > very small.
>
> agreed...
> and i did mention that we should recognise that such a theory has
> received a high measure of corroboration. and may be provisionally retained
> as the best available theory until it is finally falsified (if indeed it is
> ever falsified), and/or is superseded by a better theory.
>
>
> > For example, do you think Hume would have bet any money that the
> > sun wouldn't rise the next day, which would be a single
> > counter-instance of a scientific law, an example that he himself gave,
> > if I recall correctly?
>
> yes, you are correct in that Hume stated that just because the sun has risen every day for as long as anyone can remember, doesn't mean that there is any rational reason to believe it will come up tomorrow. There is no rational way to prove that a pattern will continue on just because it has before.
>
> '. . . no observation or experiment, however extended, can give more than a finite number of repetitions'; therefore, 'the statement of a law - B depends on A - always transcends experience. Yet this kind of statement is made everywhere and all the time, and sometimes from scanty material. '
> In other words, the logical problem of induction arises from (1) Hume's discovery (so well expressed by Born) that it is impossible to justify a law by observation or experiment, since it 'transcends experience'; (2) the fact that science proposes and uses laws 'everywhere and all the time'.
Well, I don't disagree with that logically (and it looks like some more
posts have been added to explain the logic), but if every experiment
that has ever been done verifies our scientific axioms, I don't see
why we should lose confidence in science. The only thing that bothered
me is that your language seemed to suggest that we should place little
reliability on science. You have qualified that a bit, but
it still sounds like you lose a little sleep over it.
Hume makes quite a time jump, going from one sunrise to the next, but
there are, of course, steps along the way, the earth rotating a tiny
bit, then a tiny bit more. As you said, we can't prove that that will
happen, but if we accept the axioms dealing with movement, it makes
visual sense that the sun should rise each day.
Another question is what would cause science to fail? The only things
I can think of are Divine intervention or something supernatural.
>
> Popper's reply is characteristic, and ties in with his criterion of falsifiability. He states that while there is no way to prove that the sun will come up, we can theorize that it will. If it does not come up, then it will be disproven, but since right now it seems to be consistent with our theory, the theory is not disproven.
>
> there is no 'justification' for formulating a LAW of nature based upon observations...
> but there are good reasons to propose theories based upon observation
>
> the acceptance by science of a law or of a theory should be tentative only; which is to say that all laws and theories are conjectures, or tentative hypotheses
>
Why not? The word 'law' indicates something that has been tested
so thoroughly that it hasn't been shown to fail for the constraints
you defined. I do agree that you can't call it 'proof', but why not
a law?
>
> > How much money would you bet on it?
>
> the theory that because the sun rose this morning, it will ALWAYS rise, forever, is not logically justifiable.
> but, for somewhat obvious reasons, i'm not going to bet you on it not coming up tomorrow.
>
> it is astonishing to me, however, how often things that "everyone knows to be true" are overturned...
> so i try to keep a healthy rational critical 'tude...
Yes, I was surprised when I heard that no one really had any evidence
that Marie Antoinette had said 'Let them eat cake'. One has to be
'scientifically' careful when judging her, right?
>
> after all...
> There are more things in heaven and earth, lariadc,
> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
If an angel decides to move the earth a bit, I'm ok with that, but
I hope he/she can do it without injuring anyone.
C.
Fryzer
Bianca Steele wrote:
> Pomo nonsense, irresponsibly pretending to be expert knowledge. And
> probably not compiled without a lot of help (presumably from people who
> knew how their contributions would be used), though to be charitable
> probably not plagiarized. Probably innocuous. Does someone want to
> argue with him/her so that when he/she is refuted, there will be less
> danger of this being taken seriously?
>
> Besides, it's neither what Popper said nor correct. Granted that
> Popper had a few odd beliefs -- he thought Plato led in a direct line
> to Hitler and Stalin
That's actually not such an odd belief.
> -- his basic insight into why modern science
> (i.e., science after the Scientific Revolution) works is universally
> accepted: Scientists, when they are doing good science, do not look for
> evidence to confirm their theories, but rather try very hard to prove
> their hypotheses wrong.
'Hypotheses non fingo'
-Isaac Newton
frizer
If there is no rational ground for induction then it does not matter if
i have seen the sun rise 10,000 I have *no reason* (all things being
equal) to think that it will rise 10,001 times.
So the same with an experiment, if I verify something 10,0000 times, i
have no reason to think that it will be the same the next time... this
is why popper relies on falsification rather than verification.
But all falsification says is that something has not been shown to be
false. Think about that next time you are on a plane.
> The only thing that bothered
> me is that your language seemed to suggest that we should place little
> reliability on science. You have qualified that a bit, but
> it still sounds like you lose a little sleep over it.
>
> Hume makes quite a time jump, going from one sunrise to the next, but
> there are, of course, steps along the way, the earth rotating a tiny
> bit, then a tiny bit more. As you said, we can't prove that that will
> happen, but if we accept the axioms dealing with movement, it makes
> visual sense that the sun should rise each day.
You are assuming that the universe is regular. If there is no rational
ground for induction, you have no good reason (habit or custom are not
good reasons) to assume such regularity.
[regularity of eg the planets is derived from an inductive inference
about the motion of the planets]
> Another question is what would cause science to fail? The only things
> I can think of are Divine intervention or something supernatural.
Well, anything *could* happen- the question is, is it *likely* to happen.
>
>
>>Popper's reply is characteristic, and ties in with his criterion of
falsifiability. He states that while there is no way to prove that the
sun will come up, we can theorize that it will. If it does not come up,
then it will be disproven, but since right now it seems to be consistent
with our theory, the theory is not disproven.
>>
>>there is no 'justification' for formulating a LAW of nature based
upon observations...
>>but there are good reasons to propose theories based upon observation
>>
>>the acceptance by science of a law or of a theory should be tentative
only; which is to say that all laws and theories are conjectures, or
tentative hypotheses
>>
>
>
> Why not? The word 'law' indicates something that has been tested
> so thoroughly that it hasn't been shown to fail for the constraints
> you defined. I do agree that you can't call it 'proof', but why not
> a law?
A law implies some kind of regulative order.
Chess One
You have not contributed anything to subject matter, nor demonstrated you
even understood the thing you criticised, you evade a direct challenge to
prove it - in fact you demonstrate an evident ill-will toward any other view
than your own. Instead you pose away and have now attracked the usual
devotees who like such stuff.
I shall restate that Stratfordian 'understanding' as it is represented here
is rarely contentious because it is so negligible a factor in any
investigation that few can even be bothered to take it seriously.
Your own writing is nothing but a serial trashing of other people - and it
is significant that the petty-fascisme method /insists/ upon its own solo
authority, and also to extremes in detailing the perceived crimes of others,
as a means to repress any equanimity of discussion.
You use a childish device in stating that you do not understand other
people, and frequently use quite literal dehumanising expressions that I am
amazed any educator could still exhibit in the USA. What a disgussting
standard!
I re-state the fact that you are afraid of what other people write and have
here demonstrated over several messages no address to the subject, and only
ad hominem comment.
If what you represent is Stratfordian design, its a wonder that hordes of
other candidates do not spring up daily.
Phil Innes
Terry Ross
> Terry.
>
> The earth isn't flat - yet the number of folks who bought/buy into that
> theory must out-number Stratfordian believers by a factor of x to the
> tenth power.
I don't know anybody who truly believes the earth is flat, but I have
managed to meet quite a few who (for whatever lack of reason) believe that
somebody other than William Shakespeare wrote the works commonly
attributed to him by literary history. Circumstances have contrived to
put me in their way, and they into mine -- I have not, as it happens,
sought out true flat-earthers and have not happened to gain their
attention by pointing out the hollowness of their arguments, if they
indeed do have arguments. Do you know people who believe the earth is
flat?
> So William Niederkorn doesn't share your view of the Stratfordian theory
> - or, as you would have it, the "historical facts" of the Shakespeare
> matter.
MOST of the articles Niederkorn has published in the New York Times since
2002 have actively promoted not merely antistratfordianism but more
specifically Oxfordianism.
> Is it possible that Niederkorn IS a serious student of the points at
> issue?
He may take himself seriously, but he knows not whereof he writes. Of
course his occasional articles are quite popular with Oxfordians -- not
because the articles are accurate or fair or intellectually careful but
because they promote antistratfordianism in general and Oxfordianism in
particular. His favorite trope is to pose as the apostle of "openness"
while he scorns the supposed narrow-mindedness of scholars.
It is a very strange beat he has managed to carve out for himself at the
Times. Niederkorn's recent article was the ONLY piece of any kind to
appear under his name this year. The ONLY piece of any kind published in
the Times last year under Niederkorn's name was about antistratfordianism
at the new Globe in England, and like this week's propaganda, last year's
story also promoted the view that genuine scholars of literary history
ought to be "more open to the question." Sure; and evolutionary
biologists ought to be "more open" to "Intelligent Design." The old
aphorism might apply here: it's good to have an open mind, but not so open
that your brains fall out.
Niederkorn in his own small way is a modern Walter Duranty.
Bianca Steele
> Bianca Steele wrote:
> > Besides, it's neither what Popper said nor correct. Granted that
> > Popper had a few odd beliefs -- he thought Plato led in a direct line
> > to Hitler and Stalin
>
> That's actually not such an odd belief.
Yes, it is.
----
Bianca Steele
Bianca Steele
> Hume's point has nothing to do with *prediction* which Popper et al.
> view as the business of all science.
I don't know what you're talking about, but to be fair, neither do you.
----
Bianca Steele
Fryzer
Bianca Steele wrote:
> Fryzer wrote:
> > Bianca Steele wrote:
> > > Besides, it's neither what Popper said nor correct. Granted that
> > > Popper had a few odd beliefs -- he thought Plato led in a direct line
> > > to Hitler and Stalin
> >
> > That's actually not such an odd belief.
>
> Yes, it is.
Have you read the republic?
David L. Webb
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Dear Webb,
>
> You have not contributed anything to subject matter, nor demonstrated you
> even understood the thing you criticised,
That was the point -- "the thing" was incomprehensible.
> you evade a direct challenge to
> prove it - in fact you demonstrate an evident ill-will toward any other view
> than your own. Instead you pose away and have now attracked [sic]
"Attracked"? This must be more of that fabled "British language"
whose lexicon and syntax are so alien to speakers of modern English.
> the usual
> devotees who like such stuff.
[Farcical fulminations snipped]
> You use a childish device in stating that you do not understand other
> people,
There are a handful of people whom I genuinely do not understand.
> and frequently use quite literal dehumanising expressions that I am
> amazed any educator could still exhibit in the USA. What a disgussting [sic]
> standard!
I agree -- disgussting!
> I re-state the fact that you are afraid of what other people write
How can one fear what is incomprehensible?
> and have
> here demonstrated over several messages no address to the subject, and only
> ad hominem comment.
>
> If what you represent is Stratfordian design,
I have never claimed to represent "Stratfordian design," whatever
that may be.
> its [sic] a wonder that hordes of
Bianca Steele
> Bianca Steele wrote:
> > Fryzer wrote:
> > > Bianca Steele wrote:
> > > > Besides, it's neither what Popper said nor correct. Granted that
> > > > Popper had a few odd beliefs -- he thought Plato led in a direct line
> > > > to Hitler and Stalin
> > >
> > > That's actually not such an odd belief.
> >
> > Yes, it is.
>
> Have you read the republic?
Are you saying that you read the Republic once and on this evidence
alone you knew Popper's entire theory about Plato and totalitarianism
was correct?
----
Bianca Steele
gangleri
I don't know what you're talking about,
Precludes reasoned conclusion to this effect:
John W. Kennedy
No, he is suggesting that he has read "The Republic", asking whether you
have read "The Republic" (which you have not answered), and pointing out
that "The Republic" does, in fact, advocate a totalitarian state, a fact
that should recognized by anyone who has, in fact, read it. (This is not
to say that "The Republic" is a worthless book.)
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have
always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> > > > Niederkorn surveys a number of books related to Shakespeare, including
> > > > a
> > > > two that are absolutely worthless (*Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and
> > > > Coded Politics of William Shakespeare* by Clare Asquith, and
> > > > *"Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of
> > > > Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare* by Mark Anderson).
> > > Thanks, Terry. I knew I could rely on you for a fair summary. I hope
> > > you've read the books before pronouncing on them.
> > Surely you know Terry well enough by now not to have serious doubts
> > on that score, don't you, Lynne?
> Frankly, I was a little surprised that Terry had already managed to
> read both _Shadowplay_, which came out in May, and _Shakespeare by
> Another Name_, which came out about three weeks ago.
I've often found that anti-Stratfordians profess to be surprised that
their interlocutors have actually *read* something. In most cases --
although not in yours, Lynne -- this surprise appears to have its roots
in the fact that the anti-Stratfordians in question demonstrably have
*not* read the pertinent text, and they apparently judge others by their
own example; Nabokov's putative anti-Stratfordian disclosures in _Bend
Sinister_ are a case in point.
I would certainly not be surprised if Terry had read both books.
Indeed, quite the contrary -- I would be *very* surprised if Terry had
characterized as "absolutely worthless" two books that he had *not*
read. Since you evidently know Terry far better than I do, Lynne, I
would expect that your assumption, like mine, would be that Terry had
indeed read both books, and that his trenchant characterization of the
books was in fact based upon that reading.
I generally try to afford my interlocutors the presumption of
honesty, assuming that they have indeed read texts upon whose content
they offer commentary. I realize from experience that this practice is
ridiculously naïve in the case of many anti-Stratfordians, but I
nonetheless try to adhere to it, at any rate until it is proven pretty
decisively that my interlocutor has not read the text in question --
e.g., Okay Fine on Terry's online essay, Mr. Streitz on the Shakespeare
canon, Mr. Multhopp on Sobran, or Elizabeth Weird on virtually
everything -- Akrigg, Poincaré, Rips, Wang-Dogariu-Kuzmich, Dave
Kathman's online essay on dating _The Tempest_, Montaigne, _As You Like
It_, etc.
> I always envision
> a huge stack of books on Terry's bedside table that he needs to read at
> some point as he's interested in so many subjects.
What you "envision" in your mental recreation of Terry's bedside
table has scant bearing upon whether or not Terry has read the books in
question. When a new anti-Stratfordian book appears, anyone with a
sense of humor might well elect to read it at once, deferring any
reading in which he or she may have been engaged at the time; this is
quite a sensible practice, since so much of the anti-Stratfordian
literature is so very funny! I did exactly that when Mr. Streitz's book
came out, and I certainly was not disappointed. I did the same in the
case of Dr. Stritmatter's thesis, and although I confess that I *was*
disappointed in that instance, it certainly was not because the document
was devoid of amusement; rather, my disillusionment arose from the fact
that I was naïvely expecting more than the humor afforded by howlers. I
would not be at all surprised if Terry dropped whatever else he was
reading and read both books as soon as he could obtain copies. It is
now over three months since _Shadowplay_ came out, and surely three
weeks is more than adequate time to read Mr. Anderson's book.
> But he could have
> read them, of course.
You are *still* expressing skepticism, at the very least by employing
the conditional mood, Lynne! *Of course* Terry could have read them --
any literate person could have done so. Both books are quite readily
obtainable, and anti-Stratfordian tracts rarely impose excessive demands
upon the reader's time, skill, or expertise. Do you *really* doubt --
enough to warrant your use of the conditional mood -- that Terry has
read them, after he commented upon their content?! If so, you appear to
be underestimating Terry in a way that I would find quite surprising
even in someone whose only acquaintance with Terry was via his track
record in this forum, and in a way that I find shocking in someone who
actually knows Terry personally.
[...]
LynnE
> In article <1125584430.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > > > Niederkorn surveys a number of books related to Shakespeare, including
> > > > > a
> > > > > two that are absolutely worthless (*Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and
> > > > > Coded Politics of William Shakespeare* by Clare Asquith, and
> > > > > *"Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of
> > > > > Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare* by Mark Anderson).
>
> > > > Thanks, Terry. I knew I could rely on you for a fair summary. I hope
> > > > you've read the books before pronouncing on them.
>
> > > Surely you know Terry well enough by now not to have serious doubts
> > > on that score, don't you, Lynne?
>
> > Frankly, I was a little surprised that Terry had already managed to
> > read both _Shadowplay_, which came out in May, and _Shakespeare by
> > Another Name_, which came out about three weeks ago.
>
> I've often found that anti-Stratfordians profess to be surprised that
> their interlocutors have actually *read* something.
I am never surprised at what anyone says he or she has read unless it
is blatantly obvious that he or she has not done so.
In most cases --
> although not in yours, Lynne -- this surprise appears to have its roots
> in the fact that the anti-Stratfordians in question demonstrably have
> *not* read the pertinent text, and they apparently judge others by their
> own example; Nabokov's putative anti-Stratfordian disclosures in _Bend
> Sinister_ are a case in point.
I have read what I've said I've read (and often a great deal more that
no doubt I've forgotten), although my saying I'd read certain books did
occasion someone's doubt on this forum on at least one occasion.
Reading texts does not appear to me to be solely a "Stratfordian"
occupation. Indeed, I am aware of many people who don't doubt the
traditional attribution but who also read nothing, and many who do
doubt that WS of Stratford is Shakespeare and read a tremendous amount.
I am not, alas, among the latter group lately, except maybe for my work
on The Tempest.
Um, _Shadowplay_ is not, I believe, non-Stratfordian.
I did exactly that when Mr. Streitz's book
> came out, and I certainly was not disappointed. I did the same in the
> case of Dr. Stritmatter's thesis, and although I confess that I *was*
> disappointed in that instance, it certainly was not because the document
> was devoid of amusement; rather, my disillusionment arose from the fact
> that I was naïvely expecting more than the humor afforded by howlers. I
> would not be at all surprised if Terry dropped whatever else he was
> reading and read both books as soon as he could obtain copies. It is
> now over three months since _Shadowplay_ came out, and surely three
> weeks is more than adequate time to read Mr. Anderson's book.
>
> > But he could have
> > read them, of course.
>
> You are *still* expressing skepticism, at the very least by employing
> the conditional mood, Lynne! *Of course* Terry could have read them --
> any literate person could have done so. Both books are quite readily
> obtainable, and anti-Stratfordian tracts rarely impose excessive demands
> upon the reader's time, skill, or expertise. Do you *really* doubt --
> enough to warrant your use of the conditional mood -- that Terry has
> read them, after he commented upon their content?! If so, you appear to
> be underestimating Terry in a way that I would find quite surprising
> even in someone whose only acquaintance with Terry was via his track
> record in this forum, and in a way that I find shocking in someone who
> actually knows Terry personally.
No, I haven't said I doubt that he has read both books. I said that in
spite of my imaginary scenario he could have done so OF COURSE. I
often use the conditional, something that drives my kids mad. But you
have written an awful lot on this subject, David. Surely one little
throwaway comment of mine doesn't necessitate bringing in the heavy
artillery? Especially as it would be so easy for Terry to answer for
himself as he is a member of HLAS. It's curious lately how some respond
for others on this forum whilst those others are perfectly capable of
responding for themselves.
My knowing Terry personally has nothing to do with what I said, by the
way. He never said that he HAD read the books in question, and I
believe my first comment was that I hoped he had done so before
pronouncing on them. Therefore I wasn't doubting his word. Nor would I
ever, because, as you say, I know him personally and am *personally*
very fond of him. I also know him to be a person of integrity.
To be clear, I have read most of Mark Anderson's book, in various
drafts. I haven't read _Shadowplay_, nor am I particularly interested
in it. Judging by critiques I've seen, it's the kind of book I don't
like, whether it's written by someone of the traditional or
non-Stratfordian persuasion.
Love,
Lynne
>
> [...]
LynnE
> In article <1125584430.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > > > Niederkorn surveys a number of books related to Shakespeare, including
> > > > > a
> > > > > two that are absolutely worthless (*Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and
> > > > > Coded Politics of William Shakespeare* by Clare Asquith, and
> > > > > *"Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of
> > > > > Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare* by Mark Anderson).
>
> > > > Thanks, Terry. I knew I could rely on you for a fair summary. I hope
> > > > you've read the books before pronouncing on them.
>
> > > Surely you know Terry well enough by now not to have serious doubts
> > > on that score, don't you, Lynne?
>
> > Frankly, I was a little surprised that Terry had already managed to
> > read both _Shadowplay_, which came out in May, and _Shakespeare by
> > Another Name_, which came out about three weeks ago.
>
> I've often found that anti-Stratfordians profess to be surprised that
> their interlocutors have actually *read* something.
I am never surprised at what anyone says he or she has read unless it
is blatantly obvious that he or she has not done so.
In most cases --
> although not in yours, Lynne -- this surprise appears to have its roots
> in the fact that the anti-Stratfordians in question demonstrably have
> *not* read the pertinent text, and they apparently judge others by their
> own example; Nabokov's putative anti-Stratfordian disclosures in _Bend
> Sinister_ are a case in point.
I have read what I've said I've read (and often a great deal more that
no doubt I've forgotten), although my saying I'd read certain books did
occasion someone's doubt on this forum on at least one occasion.
Reading texts does not appear to me to be solely a "Stratfordian"
occupation. Indeed, I am aware of many people who don't doubt the
traditional attribution but who also read nothing, and many who do
doubt that WS of Stratford is Shakespeare and read a tremendous amount.
I am not, alas, among the latter group lately, except maybe for my work
on The Tempest.
>
Um, _Shadowplay_ is not, I believe, non-Stratfordian.
I did exactly that when Mr. Streitz's book
> came out, and I certainly was not disappointed. I did the same in the
> case of Dr. Stritmatter's thesis, and although I confess that I *was*
> disappointed in that instance, it certainly was not because the document
> was devoid of amusement; rather, my disillusionment arose from the fact
> that I was naïvely expecting more than the humor afforded by howlers. I
> would not be at all surprised if Terry dropped whatever else he was
> reading and read both books as soon as he could obtain copies. It is
> now over three months since _Shadowplay_ came out, and surely three
> weeks is more than adequate time to read Mr. Anderson's book.
>
> > But he could have
> > read them, of course.
>
> You are *still* expressing skepticism, at the very least by employing
> the conditional mood, Lynne! *Of course* Terry could have read them --
> any literate person could have done so. Both books are quite readily
> obtainable, and anti-Stratfordian tracts rarely impose excessive demands
> upon the reader's time, skill, or expertise. Do you *really* doubt --
> enough to warrant your use of the conditional mood -- that Terry has
> read them, after he commented upon their content?! If so, you appear to
> be underestimating Terry in a way that I would find quite surprising
> even in someone whose only acquaintance with Terry was via his track
> record in this forum, and in a way that I find shocking in someone who
> actually knows Terry personally.
No, I haven't said I doubt that he has read both books. I said that in
LynnE
Or one of the dogs resent it. ;) Apologies.
Chess One
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> In article <vLXRe.5760$Re1.2639@trndny04>,
> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear Webb,
>>
>> You have not contributed anything to subject matter, nor demonstrated you
>> even understood the thing you criticised,
>
> That was the point -- "the thing" was incomprehensible.
The point was that Webb found it beyond his wit to respond. That he
continues to remonstrate does nothing to recommend his honesty, and only to
report further cheap retorts, as will influence Brennen, eg.
>> you evade a direct challenge to
>> prove it - in fact you demonstrate an evident ill-will toward any other
>> view
>> than your own. Instead you pose away and have now attracked [sic]
>
> "Attracked"? This must be more of that fabled "British language"
> whose lexicon and syntax are so alien to speakers of modern English.
What use to further address this fellow? Not only is he a coward in respect
of context, but he now professes to know British syntax better than a
Briton. What next - will he deny I am a Briton - deny me entire? Shit! Is he
some Mussolini or Longshanks to write like this? This is exactly the means.
>> the usual
>> devotees who like such stuff.
>
> [Farcical fulminations snipped]
Of course one should snip that which is inimical to one's self. This is
understood. In fact this is the essence of what is a modern "Strat" no?
>> You use a childish device in stating that you do not understand other
>> people,
>
> There are a handful of people whom I genuinely do not understand.
>
>> and frequently use quite literal dehumanising expressions that I am
>> amazed any educator could still exhibit in the USA. What a disgussting
>> [sic]
>> standard!
>
> I agree -- disgussting!
He, as an academic person from a college not noted for any liberality at
all - in fact the opposite, [one kills liberals there, no? especially German
ones] - here demonstrates a level of petty foible that becomes his cause. He
would trivialise any subject whatever, and as a scholar represent the
ultimate dumbing-down possible, an address to a subject conducted ad
hominem, any other opinion.
He is generally beyond comment because he is genuinely beyond any sincerity.
>> I re-state the fact that you are afraid of what other people write
>
> How can one fear what is incomprehensible?
He does not demonstrate that he can understand the language, but prefers
these rhetorical devices, but which are witless; he understand enough to
object but not enough to fear... zzzzzz
I repeat these are essential FASCIST means - Webb gives no examples of his
understanding of the passage to which he objects - despite 3 offers to him
to address it, and some 1,000 of his own words.
His Institution is rather vulnerable to these exclamations and it is a
wonder that his own sexpressions have not made it into the public arena. It
is certainly possible to make tem so - and to challenge the relevant
'authorities' there of their support of such standards of expression.
It is my understnading that the Insititution for which he works could hardly
stand a further shift to the right, since this arena would then be an
hypothtical one, beyond even his example. Is this is actually his own
position: I state it specifically - that in FACT his responses to these
matters in the HUMANITIES is to seek to repress the speaker, to dehamanise
the speaker, rather than to address the message spoke.
This this this is disgusting. And we all know it is, but for some reason
cannot say so.
Since he is so brave as to challenge me, so I shall now challenge him, and
his institution.
Please let me know Webb, in respect to these, your own orientations and may
I select at random from your past 500 posts as example {?}, to shall we say,
fascist means of expression by which there is an insistenance in
dehumanising another person, while inisisting on one and only one point of
view, your own; and some fellow in your administration with whom I might
correspond?
>> and have
>> here demonstrated over several messages no address to the subject, and
>> only
>> ad hominem comment.
>>
>> If what you represent is Stratfordian design,
>
> I have never claimed to represent "Stratfordian design," whatever
> that may be.
You have never claimed anything in a POSITIVE sense about your soul, or your
own orientation,. you have identifified yourself entirely in NEGATIVA. Your
latest response is just such an example.
>> its [sic]
I should wonder that this person's adjustments to others writing should go
unremarked. I object to someone writing to change my own message, especially
in respect of "its" for Christ's sake! And not all these corrections are so
innocent!
The sick issue here is that I have caught this person out in the same act -
when he did not even acknowledge his own typographical error, except that he
continued for post after to post to note those errors of other people - even
after a year! though never his own!
This person has a PhD and more importantly is a teacher. Does Dartmough
employ hypocrits based only on their academic credentials rather than their
practice - I should have thought that Dartmouth - particularly - could not
afford to do so.
This person excludes all mention of any topic and plows ahead with his
abuse - in respect of one woman poster - some 1,000 abusive messages, and
his self-acclaimed authority - which is gained him by virtue of a PhD in
mathematics not in literature, and certainly not in the humanities - since
any human in contact with this 'material' would surely provide 'direct
feedback'.
This is is almost pure Mussolini via Ezra Pound. As Elizabethan history it
ranks the same. And this is the answer to why there are vehement
anti-Stratfordians, the incumbents are as bent as nine-bob notes.
Phil Innes
lariadc
>John W. Kennedy wrote:
>"The Republic" does, in fact, >advocate a totalitarian state, a fact
>that should recognized by anyone >who has, in fact, read it. (This is not
>to say that "The Republic" is a >worthless book.)
There is a difference, though, between
Hitler and Stalin, and the group of wise philosophers (women as well as
men) throughly trained in politics and other fields for many years whom
Plato proposes as rulers.
This book does advocate eugenics, but I don't think of race; I think I
recall it is just an effort to improve intelligence and other positive
qualities--excessively rationalistic and idealistic, but Plato didn't
have knowledge of modern psychology and sociology.
Plato is very concerned with the 'good' and thinks everything will fall
into place when the government is set up in such a way so that people
can follow their natural talents and find the real and the good. I've
heard that Plato's ideas were useful to Christians (as well as possibly
to totalitarians).
C.
John W. Kennedy
Of course. Plato essentially opens the door to philosophy as we know it.
(There were philosophers before Plato, of course -- most notably
Socrates himself -- but it is Plato that first gets it down in writing.)
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"
gangleri
(There were philosophers before Plato, of course -- most notably
Socrates himself -- but it is Plato that first gets it down in
writing.)
Comment:
Last spring my twelve-year old grandson - near the top of his class -
asked me about Plato and Socrates, about whom he had been reading.
I suggested that, most likely, Socrates was Plato's own "inner voice" -
or ION.
That made sense to my grandson and, as he told me a few days later, to
his teacher.
As it happens, the Plato/Socrates hypothesis has a bearing on what,
incongruously, has become the Shakespeare Authorship Issue rather than
the POINT of the Shakespeare Opus.
For Plato, there was no question that Man was a composite of Mortal
Coil and Spirit.
A viewpoint which permeates Shakespeare's play Hamlet - a dramatized
version of Man's passage from Ignorance to Knowledge.
As in 'To be, or not to be; that is the Quest, Ion."
Let me leave it at that - these things can't be force-fed!
Spam Scone
Chess One wrote:
>
> The point was that Webb found it beyond his wit to respond. That he
> continues to remonstrate does nothing to recommend his honesty, and only to
> report further cheap retorts, as will influence Brennen, eg.
>
Sorry Philsy, I thought you were a humbug and a fop long before I ever
read a Webb post.
Fryzer
No. I was asking you if you had read the republic. It is plain from the
text of that book that plato was an authoritarian.
The following quotes, one from plato, one from pericles, both found at
the beginning of poppers ''open society and its enemies'' demonstrates
succinctly the distinction between pericles democracy and platos
authoritariansim:
For the Open Society (about 430 B.C.):
"Although only a few may originate a policy,
we are all able to judge it."
Pericles of Athens.
Against the Open Society (about 80 years later):
"The greatest principle of all is that nobody,
whether male or female, should be without
a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody
be habituated to letting him do anything at
all of his own initiative; neither out of
zeal, nor even playfully. But in war and in
the midst of peace - to his leader he shall
direct his eye and follow him faithfully. And
even in the smallest matter he should stand
under leadership. For example, he should
get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals
. . only if he has been told to do so, by long
habit, never to dream of acting independently,
and to become utterly incapable of it."
Plato of Athens.
Bianca Steele
> Bianca Steele wrote:
> > Fryzer wrote:
> > > Bianca Steele wrote:
> > > > Fryzer wrote:
> > > > > Bianca Steele wrote:
> > > > > > Besides, it's neither what Popper said nor correct. Granted that
> > > > > > Popper had a few odd beliefs -- he thought Plato led in a direct line
> > > > > > to Hitler and Stalin
> > > > >
> > > > > That's actually not such an odd belief.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is.
> > >
> > > Have you read the republic?
> >
> > Are you saying that you read the Republic once and on this evidence
> > alone you knew Popper's entire theory about Plato and totalitarianism
> > was correct?
>
> No. I was asking you if you had read the republic. It is plain from the
> text of that book that plato was an authoritarian.
Oh. I thought the question was rhetorical. I wonder why I came to
that conclusion.
----
Bianca Steele
Fryzer
Plato thinks that ethical goods are to be discovered by the philosopher
kings who will then direct the people how to live a good life... the
only good that a common craftsman might be able to discover is how to
make a good shoe!
lariadc
>Plato thinks that ethical goods are to be discovered by the
>philosopher kings who will then direct the people how to live
>a good life... the only good that a common craftsman might be
>able to discover is how to make a good shoe!
I agree that it is not a democracy, but the positions are won
on merit, not inheritance. Plus it takes a certain talent to make a
good shoe--no industrial factories here--these are
called artisans, not 'common craftspeople'. Don't assume that the
philosophers are necessarily living in large luxurious palaces either.
C.
Elizabeth
"I generally try to afford my interlocutors the
presumption of honesty, assuming that they have
indeed read texts upon whose content they offer
commentary."
That is u n b e l i e v a b l e coming from you,
Webb.
What about that "precis" you copped from the past lives
therapy website?
Have you forgotten that your alleged source Martin West
translated H O M E R but the "precis" you attributed
to West turned out to be from H E S I O D?
THAT, Webb, suggests that you DID NOT READ Martin West's
translation before you misattributed it to West.
I'm afraid Webb, that the people who you verbally assault
in HLAS ("e.g., Okay Fine on Terry's online essay, Mr. Streitz
on the Shakespeare canon, Mr. Multhopp on Sobran, or Elizabeth
Weird on virtually everything") cannot extend to you the
"PRESUMPTION OF HONESTY" in "TEXTS" you did not "READ" upon
which you "OFFER COMMENTARY."
<http://tinyurl.com/dt2b3>
<http://tinyurl.com/cbx9q>
<http://tinyurl.com/c2qg2>
<http://tinyurl.com/7t6qm>
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Mark Cipra
partially addressed, but I'm just back from vacation and catching up on
literally hundreds of postings, so forgive me if I repeat someone.
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11h8ujo...@corp.supernews.com...
>
[snip]
>
> IMO evolution is not even a theory but a tentative theory: "A
You are right - evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. This is
acknowledged by the vast preponderance of people who understand enough
biology and paleontology to make valid critical judgements, and by most of
the rest of us as well. As I understand it, even Behe, the leading
proponent of Intelligent Design (ID), doesn't try to dispute this - he
merely argues that certain detailed structures such as the bacteria's
flagellum cannot have arisen by natural selection (NS). I presume if he
ever makes any headway with that argument - he hasn't - he'll use it as a
wedge, but so far, I believe he leaves the rest of evolution alone. (If I
thought it would make him happy, I'd give him the damn flagellum and tell
him to shut up until someone demonstrates how it could have arisen through
NS).
*How* evolution takes place is the realm of theory. By contrast, and as
someone else pointed out, gravity is a fact, but Newton's and Einstein's
explanations of gravity are theories. (The interesting thing is that
Einstein didn't show that Newton was *wrong*, really - more that he had a
simpler, narrower perspective. You can still use Newton's math to calculate
the effects of gravity, as long as you do it for large enough bodies on the
earth's surface; for other things, too, as long as you can tolerate minor
errors.)
Darwin proposed a mechanism for evolution to occur - natural selection. By
the early part of the last century, it was widely accepted, with only a few
hold outs (in the Soviet Union, for example); it has never been successfully
challenged, although it continues to be refined and modified. NS has been
"proven" by the primary means available - it has been used to predict,
successfully, things we didn't know before - paleontologists can predict the
probable location of fossils by the strata, medical researchers can predict
the behaviour of pathogens and drugs, etc. It is worth pointing out that
the great bulk of medical advance in the last fifty years would not have
taken place without an understanding of evolution and NS; let me amend
that - it *could* have taken place by trial and error, but the tremendous
advances were enormously benefitted by a coherent theory to guide them.
Meanwhile, science continues to discover oddities in nature, and, yes, this
leads them to test aspects of NS. 99% of this testing has confirmed the
original 1920's era "synthesis" of NS, but occasionally anomalies lead to
refinement in the theory. There is still much to be learned.
This is not to say that someday someone couldn't come up with a
revolutionary new understanding of evolution, just as Einstein superceded
Newton. It could imagine this happening, for example, if we ever discover
life on other planets which operates under very different rules. But if
they do, the new theory will actually have to be better than the old one.
It's a safe bet that it will not *overturn* NS, but *incorporate* it.
(Personally, I doubt that this will happen - I think NS will stand - but
history is littered with the corpses of people who said things like "heavier
than air flight is impossible".)
The thing about Creationism in general and ID in particular is that they are
utterly worthless as scientific theories. If the differences we see in life
are the result of an unseen finger flipping genes or an unseen hand molding
clay, there is *no way to employ this knowledge usefully*.
The reason NS has triumphed over rival theories, and the reason it is taken
seriously in the scientific world, has nothing to do with the musings of
Popper. It is because the theory works, and this, I believe, is the goal of
the scientific method - finding something that works.
Now, I know next to nothing about the "right" way to educate youngsters. My
recollection of my high school years was that those of us in the advanced
science classes could probably have handled and would have benefitted from
discussions of alternative theories, as long as it did not take a
significant amount of time from actually learning the facts of biology; you
can, after all, give a rigorous introduction to ID in a matter of minutes
("it happened; we don't know how"). I can imagine that a carefully
constructed introduction to the philosophy of science could also work for
the general population, who took science only because it was required of
them.
But could ID or any alternative theory be taught in schools? Despite my
joking suggestion elsewhere that biblical science should be the starting
point of the science curriculum and the remainder of the curriculum be
devoted to disproving it, no, not as such. There's no there there.
Clarification: You mention elsewhere "100 monkeys", but I couldn't tell
from context whether or not you suggest that random mutation is the
beginning and end of NS. It is only the beginning. "Mutation is the raw
material of evolution", but selection is the guiding force. Just how
powerful it is has been demonstrated repeatedly in the field, in the lab,
and in silicon.
> tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet
> verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena."
> An accepted theory would "incorporate facts and laws and tested
> hypotheses"; and I don't think Science closes the book on testing
> hypotheses. More than one theory can "explain" the same circumstances
> and be true at the same time. More than one way to pick up a cat?
>
> The notion that there is a single theory of evolution is misleading, I
> think, since the concept can refer to various ones described
> throughout history. There is even more than one Darwin who proposed a
> theory of evolution.e records. That those failing to discriminate
> between evolution and Darwinism argue against another concept such as
> creationism, also undefined, is Jonathan Swift stuff for Gulliver's
> Travels encountering Creationism and Evolution in the country of
> Science.
>
> | "On both sides of the authorship controversy, the arguments are
> | conjectural. Each case rests on a story, and not on hard evidence.
> Either
> | side, or both, might eventually be proved wrong. Meanwhile, and it
> could
> | be a very long meanwhile, perhaps an eternal meanwhile, things will
> | continue as they are.
>
> The joke is assuming that there are two sides to a controversy, and
> that truth depends on evidence we now assemble and arrange in a trial
> judged by ? Both science and literary history might do well by
> imitating the "Joe Friday" approach of "just getting the facts, mam"
> and turning the case over to the prosecuting attorney for trial, or
> the Grand Jury, which is us. Even the US Supreme Court sometimes
> reverses itself.
>
> | "Or perhaps not. What if authorship studies were made part of the
> standard
> | Shakespeare curriculum?"
>
> Well, it already is, of course. The 6 semester hours of Shakespeare I
> took included a few class discussions of author adversary attribution
> scholarship, and we were expected to be able to demonstrate knowledge
> of the positions of Bacon, Oxford, Marlowe, and Shakespeare as well as
> familiarity with the arguments.
>
> | Niederkorn is, of course, as wrong as ever about the nature of the
> | evidence. There is more than enough evidence to support the
> attribution
> | of the great bulk of Shakespeare's works to William Shakespeare, the
> | glover's son from Stratford. A short summary of the evidence is
> available
>
> What seems constructive, though, is the ongoing discussion of
> alternate hypotheses--about both evolutionary theory and Shakespeare
> authorship.
>
> No question at all that Darwinism is not a closed book, that the
> mechanisms he is famous for illustrating are not sufficient and more
> is being done to flesh out his ideas. No doubt other individuals will
> advance hypotheses that will be included in the concept of
> evolutionary theory.
>
> And I would like to see more about the Shakespeare canon described in
> terms of creationism and evolution. Was Shakespeare's environment the
> determining factor in his survival and success? Did he tap into some
> creative forces that functioned as muses and used him for Purposes
> according to some Plan? Perhaps he was a failure in an evolutionary
> sense because he didn't succeed in reproducing himself or influencing
> local history, at the time. Perhaps he was a success in terms of
> Creationism by replicating himself in poetic fame, inspiring others,
> changing our concept of ourselves, entertaining secular values but
> supporting deism, etc.. bookburn
>
> | in Tom Reedy and David Kathman's essay "How We Know That Shakespeare
> | Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts," which is available at
> | http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html
> |
> | --------------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> David L. Webb wrote:
> > In article <1125584430.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > > > > Niederkorn surveys a number of books related to Shakespeare,
> > > > > > including
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > two that are absolutely worthless (*Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > Coded Politics of William Shakespeare* by Clare Asquith, and
> > > > > > *"Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of
> > > > > > Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare* by Mark Anderson).
> > > > > Thanks, Terry. I knew I could rely on you for a fair summary. I hope
> > > > > you've read the books before pronouncing on them.
> > > > Surely you know Terry well enough by now not to have serious doubts
> > > > on that score, don't you, Lynne?
> > > Frankly, I was a little surprised that Terry had already managed to
> > > read both Shadowplay , which came out in May, and Shakespeare by
> > > Another Name , which came out about three weeks ago.
> > I've often found that anti-Stratfordians profess to be surprised that
> > their interlocutors have actually *read* something.
> I am never surprised at what anyone says he or she has read unless it
> is blatantly obvious that he or she has not done so.
Then why did you say above "Frankly, I was a little surprised that
Terry had already managed to read both Shadowplay, which came out in
May, and Shakespeare by Another Name, which came out about three weeks
ago."? You appear to be implying by your professed surprise a suspicion
that Terry has not read the books in question. As I have noted already,
it would be shockingly out of character and utterly at variance with his
track record in h.l.a.s. for Terry to have ventured such a dismissive
opinion -- or indeed, *any* opinion -- of books that he had not read.
> > In most cases --
> > although not in yours, Lynne -- this surprise appears to have its roots
> > in the fact that the anti-Stratfordians in question demonstrably have
> > *not* read the pertinent text, and they apparently judge others by their
> > own example; Nabokov's putative anti-Stratfordian disclosures in Bend
> > Sinister are a case in point.
> I have read what I've said I've read (and often a great deal more that
> no doubt I've forgotten), although my saying I'd read certain books did
> occasion someone's doubt on this forum on at least one occasion.
> Reading texts does not appear to me to be solely a "Stratfordian"
> occupation.
Of course not. However, even within the confines of h.l.a.s., the
number of instances of anti-Stratfordians holding forth upon works that
they demonstrably had not read is nothing short of staggering. I
recommend
<http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/46
a7c8bbea2242af?dmode=source&hl=en>,
<http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/38
e4bc54a07cb953?dmode=source&hl=en>,
<http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/f6
d38e0fb3b1f353?dmode=source&hl=en>,
and
<http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/22
8552ef711141d2?dmode=source&hl=en>
as especially salient examples, although there are many other amusing
ones as well.
> Indeed, I am aware of many people who don't doubt the
> traditional attribution but who also read nothing, and many who do
> doubt that WS of Stratford is Shakespeare and read a tremendous amount.
> I am not, alas, among the latter group lately, except maybe for my work
> on The Tempest.
> > I would certainly not be surprised if Terry had read both books.
> > Indeed, quite the contrary -- I would be *very* surprised if Terry had
> > characterized as "absolutely worthless" two books that he had *not*
> > read. Since you evidently know Terry far better than I do, Lynne, I
> > would expect that your assumption, like mine, would be that Terry had
> > indeed read both books, and that his trenchant characterization of the
> > books was in fact based upon that reading.
> >
> > I generally try to afford my interlocutors the presumption of
> > honesty, assuming that they have indeed read texts upon whose content
> > they offer commentary. I realize from experience that this practice is
> > ridiculously naïve in the case of many anti-Stratfordians, but I
> > nonetheless try to adhere to it, at any rate until it is proven pretty
> > decisively that my interlocutor has not read the text in question --
> > e.g., Okay Fine on Terry's online essay, Mr. Streitz on the Shakespeare
> > canon, Mr. Multhopp on Sobran, or Elizabeth Weird on virtually
> > everything -- Akrigg, Poincaré, Rips, Wang-Dogariu-Kuzmich, Dave
> > Kathman's online essay on dating The Tempest , Montaigne, As You Like
> > It , etc.
> > > I always envision
> > > a huge stack of books on Terry's bedside table that he needs to read at
> > > some point as he's interested in so many subjects.
> > What you "envision" in your mental recreation of Terry's bedside
> > table has scant bearing upon whether or not Terry has read the books in
> > question. When a new anti-Stratfordian book appears, anyone with a
> > sense of humor might well elect to read it at once, deferring any
> > reading in which he or she may have been engaged at the time; this is
> > quite a sensible practice, since so much of the anti-Stratfordian
> > literature is so very funny!
> Um, Shadowplay is not, I believe, non-Stratfordian.
But Mark Anderson's book reputedly is. Indeed, if I had the time, I
would read it right away -- the genre is almost invariably entertaining.
> > I did exactly that when Mr. Streitz's book
> > came out, and I certainly was not disappointed. I did the same in the
> > case of Dr. Stritmatter's thesis, and although I confess that I *was*
> > disappointed in that instance, it certainly was not because the document
> > was devoid of amusement; rather, my disillusionment arose from the fact
> > that I was naïvely expecting more than the humor afforded by howlers. I
> > would not be at all surprised if Terry dropped whatever else he was
> > reading and read both books as soon as he could obtain copies. It is
> > now over three months since Shadowplay came out, and surely three
> > weeks is more than adequate time to read Mr. Anderson's book.
> > > But he could have
> > > read them, of course.
> > You are *still* expressing skepticism, at the very least by employing
> > the conditional mood, Lynne! *Of course* Terry could have read them --
> > any literate person could have done so. Both books are quite readily
> > obtainable, and anti-Stratfordian tracts rarely impose excessive demands
> > upon the reader's time, skill, or expertise. Do you *really* doubt --
> > enough to warrant your use of the conditional mood -- that Terry has
> > read them, after he commented upon their content?! If so, you appear to
> > be underestimating Terry in a way that I would find quite surprising
> > even in someone whose only acquaintance with Terry was via his track
> > record in this forum, and in a way that I find shocking in someone who
> > actually knows Terry personally.
> No, I haven't said I doubt that he has read both books.
But you expressed both hope that he had done so:
"I hope you've read the books before pronouncing on them."
and surprise:
"Frankly, I was a little surprised that Terry had already managed to
read both Shadowplay, which came out in May, and Shakespeare by
Another Name, which came out about three weeks ago."
> I said that in
> spite of my imaginary scenario he could have done so OF COURSE. I
> often use the conditional, something that drives my kids mad. But you
> have written an awful lot on this subject, David. Surely one little
> throwaway comment of mine doesn't necessitate bringing in the heavy
> artillery?
What "heavy artillery" is that, Lynne? I merely expressed my stunned
surprise that, in view of Terry's long track record of knowing whereof
he speaks, *anyone* who had read this forum for very long, least of all
someone who knows Terry personally, would harbor the slightest doubt
that Terry had indeed read the books of which he had expressed an
opinion.
I am frequently amazed at the readiness of anti-Stratfordians to trot
out expressions like "heavy artillery," "abuse," "fascism," etc. in
response to the mere marshaling of facts and quotations. If you want
heavy Art-raillery, you will have to wait until Art returns from his
Labor Day holiday. No doubt he will soon resume his posts, whose
content often seems redolent of heavy indulgence in the product of an
Art-stillery.
You may well disagree with Terry about the *interpretation* of
factual matters, and you may thereby reach an assessment that differs
markedly from Terry's of texts that you both have read, but there are
few people in this forum whose command of the material approaches
Terry's, and I know of no reason that would occasion anyone familiar
with his track record the slightest surprise that Terry had managed to
read a 640-page book in three weeks; indeed, as I already noted,
anti-Stratfordian books are seldom overly exacting, and often very
entertaining.
Incidentally, I notice that at amazon.com, the first entry in the
list headed "Customers who bought this item also bought..." is
_Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I_ by Paul Streitz,
which I enthusiastically recommend to you. It belongs on the shelf of
anyone with a sense of humor.
> Especially as it would be so easy for Terry to answer for
> himself as he is a member of HLAS. It's curious lately how some respond
> for others on this forum whilst those others are perfectly capable of
> responding for themselves.
Why should Terry respond to an insinuation that nobody even remotely
familiar with his track record would take seriously? In any case, I
certainly am not responding "for Terry," or for anyone else. I speak
solely for myself. I expressed my *own* stunned surprise that anyone
familiar with Terry's track record would react as you did.
> My knowing Terry personally has nothing to do with what I said, by the
> way. He never said that he HAD read the books in question,
Nobody said that Terry had made any such claim. However, I am quite
surprised that anybody familiar with Terry's track record, least of all
someone who knows Terry personally, would express the slightest doubt
that Terry had indeed read books upon which he offered a trenchant
opinion, whether he said explicitly that he had read the books in
question or not; it would be completely out of character -- indeed, it
would be utterly unprecedented -- for Terry to characterize as
"absolutely worthless" two books that he had not read. I realize that
this sort of thing goes on a great deal in anti-Stratfordian circles,
which may explain to some extent your reaction, but it would be a grave
mistake to judge Terry by anti-Stratfordian standards.
> and I
> believe my first comment was that I hoped he had done so before
> pronouncing on them. Therefore I wasn't doubting his word.
"I hope you've read the books before pronouncing on them" doesn't
exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of your firm belief that Terry
had indeed read the books.
> Nor would I
> ever, because, as you say, I know him personally and am *personally*
> very fond of him. I also know him to be a person of integrity.
Indeed. Hence my surprise that you would address a sentence like "I
hope you've read the books before pronouncing on them" to a person of
such obvious integrity. What person of integrity would characterize as
"absolutely worthless" books that he or she had never read?
> To be clear, I have read most of Mark Anderson's book,
I don't doubt it for a moment, Lynne. That you may have reached a
different conclusion concerning the book's putative worthlessness has no
bearing upon whether Terry read it before pronouncing it worthless.
> in various
> drafts. I haven't read Shadowplay , nor am I particularly interested
LynnE
Lovely and spirited--although rather long--defence on Terry's behalf,
David, for a very slight slight, if any. Shall we say, in the absence
of Terry's having spoken, that you win?
You will forgive me for not responding further, but I actually have
some reading to do. I have not, for example, finished a few bits of
Mark's book. And there's a novel called _The Gift_, which believe it or
not, I've been trying to get to for months. It's been piled up with
about twenty others on my bedside table...and I have some criticism on
Nabokov to read also...
All love, of course,
Lynne
> >
> > >
> > > [...]
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> Lovely and spirited--although rather long--defence on Terry's behalf,
> David, for a very slight slight, if any. Shall we say, in the absence
> of Terry's having spoken, that you win?
>
> You will forgive me for not responding further, but I actually have
> some reading to do. I have not, for example, finished a few bits of
> Mark's book. And there's a novel called The Gift , which believe it or
> not, I've been trying to get to for months. It's been piled up with
> about twenty others on my bedside table...and I have some criticism on
> Nabokov to read also...
You interrupted your reading of Nabokov's most sublime Russian novel
to read Mark Anderson's book?! I'm even *more* shocked then eVER, Lynne!
ben-Jonson
> gangleri wrote:
> > Terry.
> >
> > So William Niederkorn doesn't share your view of the Stratfordian
> > theory - or, as you would have it, the "historical facts" of the
> > Shakespeare matter.
> >
> > Is it possible that Niederkorn IS a serious student of the points at
> > issue?
>
> If he is, he has done a very good job of disguising the fact.
>
> http://shakespeareauthorship.com/nyt.html
>
> Dave Kathman
> dj...@ix.netcom.com
The critique has just begun, Dave.
lariadc
>frizer wrote:
>You are assuming that the universe is regular. If there is no rational
>ground for induction, you have no good reason (habit or custom are not
>good reasons) to assume such regularity.
>[regularity of eg the planets is derived from an inductive inference
>about the motion of the planets]
>>lariadc wrote:
>> Another question is what would cause science to fail? The only things
>> I can think of are Divine intervention or something supernatural.
>Well, anything *could* happen- the question is, is it *likely* to happen
>>>Pat Fallon wrote:
>>>there is no 'justification' for formulating a LAW of nature based
upon observations...
>>>but there are good reasons to propose theories based upon observation
>>lariadc wrote:
>> Why not? The word 'law' indicates something that has been tested
>> so thoroughly that it hasn't been shown to fail for the constraints
>> you defined. I do agree that you can't call it 'proof', but why not
>> a law?
>frizer wrote:
>A law implies some kind of regulative order.
Also being assumed is that a law applies to the future as well as
to present and past. I don't see why we couldn't call certain
scientific theories 'laws' of the past and present.
As for the future, it seems that there is more evidence (i.e. the past)
that it will be regular than that it will not be so.
C.
lariadc
Also, how can you theorize that the future has nothing to do with
the past?
C.
ignoto
According to Hume our observations of past causal connexions are just
constant conjunctions-... we see a flame and it happens to be hot, but
there is nothing necessary in the conjunction for flames and heat- we
only think that there is such a connexion because it is custom to do
so. On this view the past is not evidence for future occurences because
it is custom, not nature that ties events together..