humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 26, 2:37=EF=BF=BDpm, Elizabeth wrote:
> On Mar 25, 8:06 pm, lackpurity wrote:
>
>
> To the charge that I have offered 'no proof' that
> Simonton has escaped Looney's cult, I offered
> Simonton's own proof:
>
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDStratfordian chronologies, when lagged just
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDtwo years, yield substantively meaningful
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDassociations between thematic content and
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDpolitical context, whereas Oxfordian chronologies
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDyield no relationships, however lagged. Hence,
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDONLY the Stratfordian results are consistent with
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDprevious research indicating that artistic creativity
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDis responsive to conspicuous political events.
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=
=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD=
=EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD(emphasis mine).
>
> Are we to believe that Waugaman would find that
> Simonton suffers from 'multiple personality disorder'
> and therefore believes that both Stratfordian and
> Oxfordian studies are valid?
>
> No. =EF=BF=BDSimonton has found that Strat dating of the
> Shakespeare chronology is valid, and that
> Oxfordian dating is invalid.
>
> Since Simonton is an expert in the area of stylometric
> studies of creativity and genius, while Waugaman
> specializes in psychiatric studies, Simonton's results
> carry more weight than Waugaman's opinion.
>
> I'm not sure why Stritmatter introduced Waugaman
> into this discussion. =EF=BF=BDWaugaman's subjective account
> of his conversion to Oxfordianism after rejecting
> Freudianism only raises the question of why he would
> fall for something as pseudoscientific as Freudianism
> in the first place.
>
> The Oxfordian chronology, as Farey has so ingeniously
> shown, is completely chaotic.
>
> The chronology doesn't reflect topical events, it doesn't
> account for the complete reversal of thematic parallels
> at the accession of James I from Elizabethan republican-
> ism to a subversive 'support' of imperialism in the
> Jacobean plays. =EF=BF=BD(One of Verulam's political problems
> is that he supported the politics of Prince Henry, while
> James I's hatred of his son was so public that many
> Englishmen not to speak of a few scholars believed that
> James I had Prince Henry assassinated),
>
> Oxford died within a month or a few months of the
> submission of James I's imperialist act to Parliament
> in which he demands that Parliament incorporate
> England, Ireland, and Wales under the name 'Great
> Britain' (Scotland would apparently remain an inde-
> pendent kingdom).
>
> Parliament denounced the act, James I didn't give up,
> he simply used the name 'Great Britain' on official
> documents. England, Ireland and Wales only became
> 'Great Britain in the early 18th century. =EF=BF=BD1718? .
>
> There's no way that Oxford could have written the
> dozen imperialist Jacobean plays unless he crammed
> them into a three month period between April 1 and
> June 30 of 1604.
>
> That's how wildly far off the Oxfordian chronology is.

MM:
That's right, Elizabeth, and that is what is important. Bob Grumman
and David Webb are out tiptoeing through the tulips, it seems. You
mentioned that Simonton took down the Oxfordian stuff, and based on
this post he must have switched to Stratfordianism.

What I've noticed recently is that Oxfordians are aiming too high, or
too low. In both cases they miss the target. By "aiming too high," I
mean Oxfordians, such as Art Neuendorffer, who want to make Oxford
live past 1604.

The Oxfordians who "aim too low," are the ones who change the dating
of the plays. They have them starting in 1577, when William
Shakespeare was only 13 years old, and his predecessor, Christopher
Marlowe was only 13. Bacon must have been 16, so they're not doing
him any favors, either. Did you notice that, Elizabeth?

Even after aiming too high, or aiming too low, then the problem of
stylometrics raises its ugly head to the Oxfordians. Then there is
the lack of character, as see in the tennis court fiasco. I don't see
how anyone could put their faith in Oxford, quite frankly. Thanks for
all the information, Elizabeth. I read your posts.

Michael Martin