Thanks, starstruck! Ann hath a way with words - Shakespeare's wife with words, too! That's a real compliment!starstruck wrote:I'd just like to say, Ann hath a way with words!
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Ann
Thanks, starstruck! Ann hath a way with words - Shakespeare's wife with words, too! That's a real compliment!starstruck wrote:I'd just like to say, Ann hath a way with words!
Shakespeare's wife was illiterate.Ann wrote:Thanks, starstruck! Ann hath a way with words - Shakespeare's wife with words, too! That's a real compliment!starstruck wrote:
I'd just like to say, Ann hath a way with words!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hathaway_%28Shakespeare%29 wrote:
<<Anne Hathaway is believed to have grown up in Shottery, a small village just to the west of Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, England. She is assumed to have grown up in the farmhouse that was the Hathaway family home, which is located at Shottery and is now a major tourist attraction for the village.>>
Another compliment! This is my lucky day!!!neufer wrote: Shakespeare's wife was illiterate.
You're not quite THAT phoney, Ann.
Remember that long after the Greeks invented atomic theory and scientifically measured the size of the Earth; Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei were convicted of disagreeing with the established wisdom of the day that blindly accepted a literal interpretation of the "historical record."Ann wrote:Another compliment! This is my lucky day!!!neufer wrote: Shakespeare's wife was illiterate.
You're not quite THAT phoney, Ann.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I thought that I was making an argument for the fact that Shakespeare History as practiced is totally anti-scientific.bystander wrote:
Wow, Art! You make a brilliant argument for the Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology !(or whatever)
Apparently they never have any qualms about putting a car park into "a Grade II listed [19th century] building."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe_Theatre wrote:
<<The Globe Theatre was a theatre in London associated with William Shakespeare. It was built in 1599 by Shakespeare's playing company, the Lord Chamberlain's Men, and was destroyed by fire on 29 June 1613. A second Globe Theatre was built on the same site by June 1614 and closed in 1642. The precise location of the building remained unknown until a small part of the foundations, including one original pier base, was discovered in 1989 beneath the car park at the rear of Anchor Terrace on Park Street. As the majority of the foundations lie beneath 67—70 Anchor Terrace, a listed building, no further excavations have been permitted.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solar_System_formation_and_evolution_hypotheses wrote:
<<The nebular hypothesis was first proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg and later elaborated and expanded upon by Immanuel Kant in 1755. A similar theory was independently formulated by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796.
In 1749, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon conceived the idea that the planets were formed when a comet collided with the Sun, sending matter out to form the planets. However, Laplace refuted this idea in 1796, showing that any planets formed in such a way would eventually crash into the Sun. Laplace felt that the near-circular orbits of the planets were a necessary consequence of their formation.
In 1755, Immanuel Kant speculated that observed nebulae may in fact be regions of star and planet formation. In 1796, Laplace elaborated by arguing that the nebula collapsed into a star, and, as it did so, the remaining material gradually spun outward into a flat disc, which then formed the planets.
The nebular hypothesis initially faced the obstacle of angular momentum; if the Sun had indeed formed from the collapse of such a cloud, the planets should be rotating far more slowly. The Sun, though it contains almost 99.9 percent of the system's mass, contains just 1 percent of its angular momentum.
In 1978, astronomer A. J. R. Prentice revived the Laplacian nebular model in his Modern Laplacian Theory by suggesting that the angular momentum problem could be resolved by drag created by dust grains in the original disc which slowed down the rotation in the centre. Prentice also suggested that the young Sun transferred some angular momentum to the protoplanetary disc and planetesimals through supersonic ejections understood to occur in T Tauri stars. However, his contention that such formation would occur in toruses or rings has been questioned, as any such rings would disperse before collapsing into planets.
The birth of the modern widely accepted theory of planetary formation—the Solar Nebular Disk Model (SNDM)—can be traced to the works of Soviet astronomer Victor Safronov. His book Evolution of the protoplanetary cloud and formation of the Earth and the planets, which was translated to English in 1972, had a long-lasting effect on the way scientists thought about the formation of the planets. In this book almost all major problems of the planetary formation process were formulated and some of them solved. Safronov's ideas were further developed in the works of George Wetherill, who discovered runaway accretion. By the early 1980s, the nebular hypothesis in the form of SNDM had come back into favour, led by two major discoveries in astronomy. First, a number of apparently young stars, such as Beta Pictoris, were found to be surrounded by discs of cool dust, much as was predicted by the nebular hypothesis. Second, the Infrared Astronomical Satellite, launched in 1983, observed that many stars had an excess of infrared radiation that could be explained if they were orbited by discs of cooler material.>>
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer wrote: ....................................................
All truth passes through three stages:
- As cited in Truth : Resuming the Age of Reason (2006) by Mahlon Marr; the earliest attribution of this to Schopenhauer yet found dates to around 1986; it is also sometimes misattributed to George Bernard Shaw, and a similar statement is often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
- First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
--------------------------------------------------------
It has been said that the reception of an original contribution to knowledge may be divided into three phases:
[a note at the bottom of the page adds: This saying seems to have originated from Sir James Mackenzie
- during the first it is ridiculed as not true, impossible or useless;
during the second, people say that there may be something in it but it would never be of any practical use;
and in the third and final phase, when the discovery has received general recognition, there are usually people who say that it is not original and has been anticipated by others.
(The Beloved Physician, by R. M. Wilson, John Murray, London)]
- William Ian Beardmore Beveridge, in The Art of Scientific Investigation (1955), p. 113
....................................................
The four stages of acceptance:
- J. B. S. Haldane, Journal of Genetics 1963 (Vol 58, p.464) in a review of 'The Truth About Death'.
- 1. This is worthless nonsense.
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
3. This is true, but quite unimportant.
4. I always said so.
--------------------------------------------------------
The prestigious Shakespeare Quarterly doesn't explicitly state that it will reject authorship question articles but they clearly do.geckzilla wrote:
So why isn't peer-review of authorship questions allowed?
Most egregious of all, perhaps, is the fact that diehard Stratfordians (e.g., Stanley Wells, Ernst Honigman, Jonathan Bate, Park Honan, etc.) regularly award each other the annual Hoffman Prize that was set up specifically by a Marlovian to promote Marlovian research:http://www.folger.edu/whatsonsub.cfm?wotypeid=9&season=p&CFID=10844401&CFTOKEN=62036517 wrote:
James Shapiro: April 16, 2010
Shakespeare's Birthday Lecture 2010: Jonathan Bate: April 26, 2010
Words on Will: Bill Bryson: October 29, 2007
To its credit, at least, the prestigious Global Electronic Shakespeare Conference named _SHAKSPER_ is honest about rejecting articles that "are clearly irresponsible, offensive, or apart from SHAKSPER’s purpose, including those concerning the so-called 'Authorship Question.'"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlovian_theory#The_Hoffman_Prize wrote:
<<Calvin Hoffman, author of The Murder of the Man who was Shakespeare (1955), died in 1987, still absolutely convinced that Marlowe was the true author of Shakespeare's works. Anxious that the theory should not die with him, he left a substantial sum of money with the King's School, Canterbury—where Marlowe went as a boy—for them to administer an annual essay competition on this subject. The Trust Deed stipulated that the winning essay should be the one:
...which in the opinion of the King's School most convincingly authoritatively and informatively examines and discusses in depth the life and works of Christopher Marlowe and the authorship of the plays and poems now commonly attributed to William Shakespeare with particular regard to the possibility that Christopher Marlowe wrote some or all of those poems and plays or made some inspirational creative or compositional contributions towards the authorship of them. (Emphasis added)
The adjudication of the prize has always been delegated to an eminent professional Shakespearean scholar and, despite Hoffman's clear intentions, the winning essay has very seldom espoused the Marlovian cause, the prize usually going to essays along entirely orthodox lines. The prize is of several thousand pounds (UK). A further stipulation of the initial Trust Deed was that:
If in any year the person adjudged to have won the Prize has in the opinion of The King's School furnished irrefutable and incontrovertible proof and evidence required to satisfy the world of Shakespearian scholarship that all the plays and poems now commonly attributed to William Shakespeare were in fact written by Christopher Marlowe then the amount of the Prize for that year shall be increased by assigning to the winner absolutely one half of the capital or corpus of the entire Trust Fund...
The amount in this case would run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The original hopes of Hoffman himself may have been largely ignored.>>
You have a point here, Art. My colleague Arnost, who is not only a teacher but also a geologist, has told me that there was a professor of geology here in Sweden whose influence was such that students of geology at Swedish universities were told that continental drift was a myth, just because the professor didn't believe in it. Of course, this farce couldn't be upheld for long, and when the professor died (which he did before he retired, I think) his many critics at the universities took over completely, and continental drift became the established truth practically overnight. Or at least that's the way Arnost tells it. Perhaps he exaggerates. I don't doubt for a moment, however, that there is a grain of truth in his story.Art wrote:
Remember that long after the Greeks invented atomic theory and scientifically measured the size of the Earth; Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei were convicted of disagreeing with the established wisdom of the day that blindly accepted a literal interpretation of the "historical record."
Some time after that John Thomas Scopes was convicted of disagreeing with the established wisdom of the day that blindly accepted a literal interpretation of the "historical record."
Let me question your claim that I accept the scholarly view of Shakespeare "blindly".You and owlice appear to be firmly on the side of the established wisdom of the day that blindly accepts a literal interpretation of the "historical record."
But we can and should try to stop a cabal of diehard Stratfordians from entirely running the show as they have for centuries:Ann wrote:
We may never know the truth about Shakespeare. We can argue in favor of our personal "favorite", but we can't "make him the author of the works of Shakespeare" by voting for him.
You are absolutely right, AnnAnn wrote:
So sometimes it definitely is critically important to stand up and fight for the truth when lies are being spread by powerful people. However, Art, I don't really see how a lot of people may suffer unless they can be convinced that the glover's son from Stratford didn't author the works of Shakespeare, but that the 17th Earl of Oxford wrote them?
Wouldn't it be nice if we all could.neufer wrote:At the same time, it would be nice if I could convince myself that I am not entirely mad.
Sometimes I'm scrutable.rstevenson wrote:
Art is not mad. Art is inscrutable!
Well, Art, I'm impressed. I think. Sort of devoting your life to understanding Finnegan's Wake... I would never, ever, even think of doing that.Art wrote:
My personal interests are somewhat more convoluted however:
1) understanding James Joyce's Finnegans Wake;
2) understanding Shakespeare and
3) understanding why I and so many other intellectuals evolved into becoming liberal humanists.
Beyond wrote:
After thinking about it all day.... I find that i have to agree with Rob.
Art is inscrutable to everyone, but himself... sometimes.
Sometimes I think that Freud was right too.rupifragum1 wrote:
People.... it´s a normal book wrote by a human person.
No secrets behind the book, no "Aliens", no plants from another planet.
Stop "conspiracy theorys", please.
Sometimes I think that Freud was right.
"A big proportion of people in this world need psicological treatement [sic]".
Beyond wrote:
Well, whom[sic]ever Shakespeare really was,an alien he was right about one thing... the whole world is a stage and we are but actors playing out our parts... I hope we have a better ending than the death & destruction & misery the script has been full of so far
Orson Welles wrote:
“I think Oxford wrote Shakespeare. If you don’t agree, there are some awfully funny coincidences to explain away…”
[As quoted in Kenneth Tynan’s Persona Grata
(London : Allen Wingate Ltd., 1953).]