Barber and Price demolish Wells and Edmondson

After mopping the floor with Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson on the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust’s “Proving Shakespeare” web-based seminar lastweek, Marlovian Ros Barber has emerged as a passionate and compelling advocate for the anti-Stratfordian viewpoint.

The May 1, 2013 seminar was held to celebrate the launch of the Trust’s refinement of the Stratfordian viewpoint, Shakespeare Beyond Doubt, that will be published by Cambridge University Press this month. The book is part of the trust’s ongoing response to Roland Emmerich’s 2010 anti-Stratfordian film, Anonymous – a response that began with their online “Sixty Minutes with Shakespeare” one-minute refutations of various complaints against the attribution of Shakespeare’s works to the man from Stratford.

At the online seminar, Barber appeared to astound Wells and Edmondson with her articulate defense of the anti-Stratfordian position. Although she authored The Marlowe Papers -- due out May 24 by Sceptre -- a fictional work proposing Christopher Marlowe as the author of the pseudononymous Shakespeare works; and wrote her doctoral thesis defending Marlowe’s candidacy, they seemed genuinely flummoxed by her willingness to defend the anti-Stratfordian heresy. From the transcript of the seminar:

Edmondson: But all of this argument, really, is, you’re wanting to gainsay these references to Shakespeare in his lifetime, to say that he’s not the William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, and why, why do you want to do that? Why don’t you want it to be Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon?

Barber: This is an interesting thing about your approach, and I know James Shapiro’s as well, that’s you’re ‘why don’t you want it to be’ and what is it about my psychology, or even, my pathology, that makes me doubt Shakespeare, you’re always looking at that. I mean there’s two chapters devoted to Delia Bacon in your book, and looking at the psychology of Delia Bacon, and why does she doubt, because I’m pretty sure this is something you don’t understand. But I have to tell you, the answer is, that the evidence isn’t sufficient, that the evidence doesn’t add up, that there isn’t the evidence for Shakespeare as a writer, Shakespeare of Stratford as a writer, that there is for other writers of the period -

Wells: There is, for example, the, there is the fact that people visited Stratford soon after Shakespeare died, to look at his monument, because they knew he was a writer. There is the manuscript on William Basse’s elegy on William Shakespeare, which is headed ‘William Shakespeare died in Stratford-upon-Avon, the time of his birth, 1616’, and that is an elegy that refers specifically to Shakespeare as a great tragedian, it uses the word tragedian, which might mean either an actor or a writer -

Edmondson: So you see the alternative scenario is that all of the evidence, and we’ve only just touched on a little bit of it, the mostly likely outcome of that evidence is that the plays were written by Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. Now if, if, if you want to rewrite history, if you want to rewrite evidence, if you want to pitch in and say actually let’s look again, let’s tell a different story, that is something you can do, but please don’t expect people who are interested in truth of history, and what the past tells us through documentation, to go along with it.

Barber: Well actually I have to say the people that you call anti-Shakespeareans, who are actually non-Stratfordians in my book, they’re very interested in the truth, they’re very interested in the evidence, and it’s not about rewriting the evidence, it’s about looking at it in a different perspective.

A full-text of “Proving Shakespeare” web-based seminar held May 1, 2013 is available at http://rosbarber.com/proving-shakespeare-webinar-transcript/ 

In one of the exchanges during the seminar, Barber referenced work by Diana Price in her Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography (Greenwood Press, 2001):

Barber: Why, why can’t we account for extraordinary – and it is extraordinary, Price has shown that – extraordinary lack of evidence? She compares 24 other writers of the period who all do have a literary paper trail, and he – he has none.

Edmondson: Well Shakespeare does actually, and Diana Price is wrong.

Barber: On which points?

Edmondson: And Stanley can we, I’m sorry, can we hear from Stanley Wells, co-editor of the book, . . . (changes subject)

On May 8, Stanley Wells responded to Barber's question by posting an article "An unorthodox and non-definitive biography" on the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust's web-log wherein Wells describes the "fatal weaknesses" in Price's argument. Price responded with her signature clarity in a long comment appended to the post by Price's husband Pat Dooley. She said, in part:

In his review on Blogging Shakespeare (May 8, 2013), Prof. Wells takes issue with any number of details in my book, but he does not directly confront the single strongest argument I offer: the comparative analysis of documentary evidence supporting the biographies of Shakespeare and two dozen of his contemporaries. That analysis demonstrates that the literary activities of the two dozen other writers are documented in varying degrees. However, none of the evidence that survives for Shakespeare can support the statement that he was a writer by vocation.

Price's comments are also available on her website at: http://shakespeare-authorship.com/Reviews/reviews.asp#OnlinePeerReviews. On May 13, 2013, Wells responded to Price's comments in a post on the SBT site titled "Beyond Doubt for All Time". Diana Price's Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography is now available in a paperback edition with corrections and additions, published this year by Shakespeare-Authorship.com and available on Amazon. 

On May 8, 2013, Roz Barber posted her review of the SBT compendium, Shakespeare Beyond Doubt, titled “Scholarship orpropaganda?” of Shakespeare Beyond Doubt on the comments page of The Guardian’s book review where she iterates her concerns about the book’s usefulness and closes with this comment:

Throughout the volume [Shakespeare Beyond Doubt], and despite significant developments in non-Stratfordian research in the last fifteen years, only arguments advanced prior to 1960 are acknowledged. Paul Edmondson claims that those he perceives as his ‘antagonists’ ignore evidence, yet himself presides over a volume of essays that demolishes straw men while skilfully eliding the more challenging work of contemporary researchers. Weighing this approach against the accepted principles of academic argument, one must ask whether Shakespeare Beyond Doubt is genuinely a work of scholarship, or simply a skilful piece of propaganda.

Another version of Barber's review is available on her website at: http://rosbarber.com/review-shakespeare-beyond-doubt/

Anti-Stratfordian Robin Fox named to National Academy of Sciences April 20, 2013

Anthropologist Robin Fox -- who wrote the book on Shakespeare’s Education (Laugwitz Verlag, 2012) from an Oxfordian perspective -- was named to the National Academy of Sciences on April 20, 2013. Fox's anti-Stratfordian book is available from Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Education-Robin-Fox/dp/3933077303/. Read more about Fox on his website at http://robin-fox.com/home.htm

Australian Peter McIntosh, PhD publishes new work on sonnet authorship

by Linda Theil

Australian geologist Peter McIntosh, PhD, has published Every word doth almost tell my name: The Authorship of Shakespeare's Sonnets (McFarland, 2013) a full-length treatment of his thesis of Shakespeare authorship. 

McIntosh said:

[I present] evidence to show that Queen Elizabeth I is the most likely author of the Sonnets. There is not only an impeccable correlation of the subject matter of the Sonnets with the known history of the relationship between Elizabeth and her favorite, the second Earl of Essex, but also many indicators of her authorship in other sources, including the Sonnets' dedication and the signature SS on a poem written in her own hand.

McIntosh also wrote Who Wrote Shakespeare's Sonnets? (Ginninderra, 2011). The new work is available in softcover and Kindle edition from Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Every-Word-Doth-Almost-Tell/dp/0786473711/ and McFarland at http://www.mcfarlandbooks.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-7371-7

McIntosh sent the following information about his book:

Shall I compare thee to a Summer’s day? With these immortal lines Shakespeare begins his most famous sonnet and perhaps the most famous love poem of all time. But this poem, and more than 100 others, first published 400 years ago in a slim volume entitled Shakespeare’s Sonnets, was written by Shakespeare not about a beautiful young woman, but about a beautiful young man, whom Shakespeare addresses as "my lovely boy." If Shakespeare was infatuated with a lovely boy, who was he? If he was a rich aristocrat, as the sonnets seem to suggest, how did Shakespeare make his acquaintance? Who was the Dark Lady described in the later sonnets? And what is the meaning of the Sonnets’ enigmatic dedication that refers to the mysterious Mr.W.H.? These questions and innumerable others have perplexed scholars for centuries. No comprehensive answers to the immensely puzzling questions raised by the poems have ever been presented. This book takes a fresh approach to the difficult issues presented by the Sonnets and upsets many cherished assumptions about the handsome young man, the Dark Lady, Mr.W.H. and Shakespeare himself.
About the Author: Peter McIntosh has published widely in the scientific literature and has previously written two short books on Shakespeare’s sonnets as well as publishing articles on the dates and sources of Coriolanus and The Tempest. He lives in Hobart, Australia.  

See also:

http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2011/07/peter-mcintosh-who-wrote-shakespeares.html

http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2011/12/mcintosh-proposes-sarmiento-as-source.html

Peter Sturrock approaches authorship question mathematically with book, AKA Shakespeare

by Linda Theil

The anti-Stratfordian faction of Shakespeare lovers is replete with those who have been trained to study evidence: lawyers, doctors, and scientists of all fields. Peter A. Sturrock, PhD -- emeritus professor of applied physics and emeritus director of the Center for Space Science and Astrophysics at Stanford University -- has brought his mathematical genius to bear on the topic of the Shakespeare authorship with his self-published book, AKA Shakespeare: a Scientific Approach to the Authorship Question (EXO Science, 2013).

Even though I sat through a calculus course in high school, this reader must confess that the mathematics involved in Professor Sturrock’s thesis eluded my understanding, so I cannot comment on its value as ammunition in the authorship battle. I can attest, however, to the lucidity of Sturrock’s prose and the freshness of his approach.

In an article titled “Who wrote Shakespeare's plays? Stanford professor lets you decide” by Stanford news intern Paul Gabrielsen in the March 18, 2013 Stanford Report, Gabrielsen said:

In his new book, AKA Shakespeare: A Scientific Approach to the Authorship Question, Sturrock explores the argument through the eyes of four fictional characters, each with a different perspective on the debate. They voice their opinions on 25 pieces of evidence, but Sturrock invites readers to weigh in as well and arrive at their own conclusion. . . .  Years before, while studying pulsars, Sturrock devised a new method to process information using statistics. His method was based on a statistical concept known as Bayes' theorem, which states that probabilities change depending on the information you have.Sturrock describes the concept in his book: If you reach into a bag with 99 white balls and 1 black ball, you would say that the odds of picking the black ball are 1 in 100. But if you know the black ball is cracked, you have new information, and your odds improve dramatically. Using Bayesian statistics, Sturrock can incorporate information from both theory and data in his analysis. . . .
 As his book progresses, Sturrock's characters weigh in on 25 questions surrounding the authorship controversy. Was the writer of the plays educated or not? Could Shakespeare write legibly, given the quality of his known signatures? Is there a secret message on a monument in the Holy Trinity Church at Stratford-upon-Avon? Each response is factored into the character's "degree of belief" in each of the three candidates. Sturrock invites readers to tabulate their own responses and beliefs into charts in the book. An online tool, "Prospero," connected to the book's website, allows readers to calculate their final degrees of belief. (Ed.:The website is located at http://www.aka-shakespeare.com/)

Sturrock, 88, who lives in Palo Alto, says he has had positive response from colleagues about his book and he anticipates publishing the data from readers in six to eight months. The book is available in a $9.99 Kindle version as well as paperback from Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/AKA-Shakespeare-Scientific-Approach-Authorship/dp/0984261419. The book was preceded by a 2008 article titled “Shakespeare: the Authorship Question, a Bayesian Approach” published by Sturrock in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 529-537. The article is available at Shakespeare: the Authorship Question, a Bayesian Approach by P.A. Sturrock in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 529–537, 2008

Biography:

Peter A. Sturrock, PhD, is emeritus professor of applied physics and emeritus director of the Center for Space Science and Astrophysics at Stanford University. He has received numerous awards, including prizes from the American Astronomical Society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Cambridge University, the Gravity Foundation, and the National Academy of Sciences. His other publications include five edited volumes, three monographs, and three hundred scientific articles and reports.

sturrock@stanford.edu

http://www.stanford.edu/group/Sturrock/Peter/

Showerman says teach authorship at local universities lifelong learning programs

by Linda Theil

Shakespeare Fellowship trustee and immediate past president Earl Showerman  kicked off his fourth year teaching the Shakespeare authorship question at Southern Oregon University’s Osher Lifelong LearningInstitute with a class titled, titled, "The Shakespeare Authorship Challenge: State of the Debate 2013". Following the first day of class on April 17, 2013, Showerman said:

I have about 20 in class, half-of-whom are already converts. Not exactly preaching to the converted, but it is fun to see how people really light up when they get an idea about what is at stake and the terms of the discussion. . . . The SBT (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust) polemic, “Shakespeare Bites Back” was discussed yesterday as a way [of] showing them how threatened and vitriolic are our critics. We'll use Steve McClarran's second edition of  I Come to BuryShaksper, (2011) (available later this month I understand) as a primary text.  

Showerman also intends to discuss the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust’s refutation of arguments against Stratfordian authorship, ShakespeareBeyond Doubt, to be published this month (May 31, 2013) by Cambridge University Press. The weekly class runs until May 29, 2013. For those who are not fortunate to attend, a comprehensive and fascinating syllabus of Showerman’s class including an extensive bibliography and links to Showerman’s published research on Greek influences in Shakespeare is available on the SOU site at: http://www.sou.edu/olli/docs/olli-classes-lang102-shakespeare-syllabus.pdf The weekly class runs until May 29. Showerman encourages other authorship researchers to investigate teaching this topic as a lifelong learning class at their local universities:

Oxfordians who have a repertoire of teaching experience, or simply an avid interest in the argument over the Shakespeare attribution, should get involved with the university or college lifelong learning programs in their area. Volunteer to teach a course and use what is already available in print and on-line to help support the effort. Open-minded elders, who love Shakespeare and have a cultivated skepticism, are ideal targets for our enterprise.

Earl Showerman is a retired emergency physician -- a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Michigan Medical School. Over the past decade, he has published and presented a number of papers on the topic of Shakespeare’s Greek literary sources and on the playwright’s medical knowledge. This past November, he gave the keynote address at the Shakespearean Authorship Trust Conference at Shakespeare’s Globe in London. His most recent publication is a letter published in Brief Chronicles, Vol. IV explicating a point in his article, “Shakespeare’s Greater Greek” published in the previous volume of Brief Chronicles. This work is available online at:

Letter by Earl Showerman in Brief Chronicles Vol. IV (2012-13) 137

"Shakespeare’s Greater Greek: Macbeth and Aeschylus’Oresteia", Earl Showerman 37-70 Brief Chronicles Vol. III (2011)

Course description from the SOU/OLLI website:

LANG102 The Shakespeare Authorship Challenge: State of the Debate 2013

7 Sessions Ashland: Wed, 1-3:00, Room E April 17-May 29 Earl Showerman

This spring both the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition are publishing competing books, one intended to defend and the other to deconstruct the traditional attribution of the Shakespeare canon. The course will examine these and other recent publications and projects that address the Shakespeare authorship question. The course will include Power

Point presentations, videos, and discussions based on the recently published critical polemic, I Come to Bury Shaksper (2011). Optional Material: I Come to Bury Shakesper by Steven McClarren (2011), ISBN: 9781469956527. This is available as an e-book or by print-on-demand. . . . 

Source: http://sou.edu/olli/docs/olli-course-descriptions.pdf

See also on this topic:

http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2012/03/showerman-will-teach-authorship-class.html

http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2011/06/oberon-colleague-susan-nenadic-will.html

Shakespeare Fellowship Responds to Shakespeare Beyond Doubt

by Richard Joyrich

As many of you know, the Authorship Question is about to enter another phase. In what I consider to be somewhat of a triumph of the growing collection of "Authorship Doubters" or "Antistratfordians" (or "AntiShakespeareans" as the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust would have it in an obvious attempt at ad hominem attack), the "academic establishment" has finally realized that ignoring the doubters will not make them go away.

The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust is trying again (somewhat pathetically in my opinion) to silence the doubters and show that there is "no doubt" that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon is the author of over 37 plays and several narrative poems.

They failed miserably with James Shapiro's book and, despite their best efforts to sabotage the recent movie Anonymous, the word continues to get out.

The latest attempt is a new book called Shakespeare Beyond Doubt by Paul Edmonson and Stanley Wells, to be published by Cambridge University Press at the end of May.

There are sure to be many responses to this book by various "doubters" in the coming weeks and months, which will again show that the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust can only respond by evading the question and instead attacking the doubters. They can point to no real evidence to support their man.

Their favorite tactic (which you will  see in their book when it comes out) is to automatically assume that anytime the name "Shakespeare" is used by someone in the Elizabethan or Jacobean era in writing about the plays or poems that they are referring to William Shakespeare of Stratford. Then they can say that "it is obvious that everyone at that time knew the author to be from Stratford". Of course, this is the whole point of the Authorship Question, whether in fact we are dealing with one or two men. To automatically equate them in the way the Birthplace Trust does is to end the argument by just assuming the conclusion.

The first response to Shakespeare Beyond Doubt that I have become aware of (even before the book has been published) is the one prepared by the Shakespeare Fellowship. It can be found by using this link: www.shakespearefellowship.org/doubt.htm.

The response is particularly to the chapter by Professor Alan Nelson in Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (excerpts of which have already been released).

I urge all of you to look at the Fellowship Response. It is very well reasoned and provides a great introduction to what we will be seeing in the near future.

Important Observations from a "Crackpot"

by Richard Joyrich

I would like to direct everyone's attention to a new e-book published by Keir Cutler. As readers of this blog will be aware, Keir is a celebrated author and actor, whose one-man show Is Shakespeare Dead (an adaptation of the work by Mark Twain) has been performed all over Canada and at several places in the United States (including at two of the past Joint SOS/SF Authorship Conferences). This play is available to view on You Tube.

Keir is a spokesman for the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare (www.doubtaboutwill.org) and has made a wonderful five minute You Tube video about it, entitled "Why Was I Never Told This". This You Tube video is embedded at the very bottom of the Oberon blog page and I encourage everyone to check it out.

Now, Keir has collected information from various articles of his to produce his new e-book, The Shakespeare Authorship Question: A Crackpot's View. It is available for Kindle (www.amazon.com/The-Shakespeare-Authorship-Question-ebook/dp/B00BV7DVVG) for $2.99.

In this book, Keir details his top ten reasons to doubt the traditional story about the authorship of the works of Shakespeare. He also has very harsh words about the failure of academia to take the question seriously and not allow students the ability to learn critical thinking and be exposed to the "questionable facts" about William Shakespeare.

In the book, Keir also offers some biting criticism of three recent books, Bill Bryson's Shakespeare: The World as Stage, Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World, and James Shapiro's Contested Will-Who Wrote Shakespeare?

Keir also offers a very good description about the rise of the "Shakespeare Industry", particularly as it relates to Stratford-Upon-Avon and the "shams" practiced by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust on unsuspecting tourists.

All in all, this is a book that everyone interested in Shakespeare and the real purpose of academic pursuit and teaching should be familiar with.

I cannot recommend it too highly.

SARC conference April 11-14, 2013

The Richard Paul and Jane Roe Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre Director Daniel Wright, PhD of Concordia University in Portland, Oregon reminds us that the seventeen annual Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference will be held April 11-14 at Concordia University in Portland Oregon. At the conference Anonymous screenwriter John Orloff will be awarded the university's Vero Nihil Verius Award for Distinguished Achievements in the Shakespearean Arts. and Oxfordian scholar Ramon Jimenez and James Warren -- author of Index to Oxfordian Newsletter and Journal Articles -- will both receive the university's Vero Nihil Verius Distinguished Shakespearean Scholarship Award. All three will present at the conference. 

Wright said: "The program . . . will be highlighted by this year's keynote speaker, William Ray, on Friday, and John Orloff - scriptwriter of Anonymous (and other great works like the acclaimed HBO series, Band of Brothers) on Saturday."

A schedule of events is published below. Participants may register online at https://acme.cu-portland.edu/ecomm/shakespeare/. 

Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference April 11-14, 2013 Concordia U/Portland OR
Thursday, 11 April
5:00pm - 6:00pm           Prof Daniel Wright, "Richard II's Stillborn Majesty"
6:00 - 6:15                       Welcome
6:15 - 7:00                       Hank Whittemore, "The 'Rival Poet' Series"
7:00 - 8:00                       Ramon Jimenez, "The 50-Play Canon and When It Was Written"
8:00 - 9:00                       A forum on responding to the forthcoming book, Shakespeare Beyond Doubt -panel led by Patricia Urquhart (chair), James Gaynor and William Boyle
Friday, 12 April
9:00 - 9:45                       Katherine Chiljan, "Shakespeare: Favorite Dramatist of Queen Elizabeth and the Courtiers"
9:45 - 10:00                    Break
10:00 - 11:00                 Ian Haste, "Richard the Second, Henry the Fourth, and Robert the Last"
11:00  - 12:00                 Prof Michael Delahoyde, "Edward de Vere's The Two Noble Kinsmen Unwrapped"
12:00 - 1:00                    Lunch
1:00 - 2:30                       Keynote Address: William Ray, "The Factual Desert of Stanley Wells"
2:30 - 3:00                       Break
3:00 - 4:00                       Prof Alan Nelson, "Hyphenating Shakespeare: New Evidence from Archival Sources"
4:00 - 5:30                       Prof Daniel Wright, ""I am I, howe'er I was begot": King John's Bastard Prince
Saturday, 13 April
9:00 - 10:00                    Ian Haste, ""Vere in Venice" - A Family's Capital Idea to Resurrect the True Bard
10:00 - 10:15                 Break
10:15 - 11:15                 James Warren, "The Overlooked But Critical Significance of the Two Dedications to Southampton"
11:15 - 12:00                 Prof Daniel Wright and Prof Alan Nelson, "Oxford's Indenture of 1585: Discovery and Transcription"
12:00 - 1:00                    Lunch
1:00 - 2:30                       John Orloff, "Writing History Like Shakespeare: Scripting Anonymous"
2:30 - 3:00                       Break
3:00 - 4:30                       Prof Michael Delahoyde, "Oxfordian Twelfth Night Epiphanies"
4:30 - 4:45                       Break
4:45 - 5:30                       17th Annual SARC Awards Ceremony
Sunday, 14 April
9:00 - 10:00                    Richard Whalen, "What Happens (or Doesn't Happen) in Macbeth: A Case Study"
10:00 - 10:15                 Break
10:15 - 12:00                 Film: Coriolanus
12:00 - 1:00                    Lunch
1:00 - 3:00                       A forum on the meaning of Coriolanus -panel led by Prof Roger Stritmatter (chair), William Boyle and Prof Michael Delahoyde
3:00 - 3:30                       Break
3:30 - 4:30                       Hank Whittemore, "The Implications of the Discovery of the Prison Poem of the 3rd Earl of Southampton"
4:30 - 5:00                       Closing of the Conference

Contact: 
Prof Daniel Wright, Ph.D.
Director, The Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre
Concordia University
Portland, OR 97211-6099
http://www.authorshipstudies.org

See also:
http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2012/07/orloff-jimenez-and-warren-to-receive.html

Was King Richard III a Control Freak?

Science News

... from universities, journals, and other research organizations

 

Mar. 4, 2013 — University of Leicester psychologists believe Richard III was not a psychopath -- but he may have had control freak tendencies.

University of Leicester psychologists have made an analysis of Richard III's character -- aiming to get to the man behind the bones.

Professor Mark Lansdale, Head of the University's School of Psychology, and forensic psychologist Dr Julian Boon have put together a psychological analysis of Richard III based on the consensus among historians relating to Richard's experiences and actions.

They found that, while there was no evidence for Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III as a psychopath, he may have had "intolerance to uncertainty syndrome" -- which may have manifested in control freak tendencies.

The academics presented their findings on Saturday, March 2 at the University of Leicester.

Their analysis aims to humanise Richard -- to flesh out the bones and get to the character of the man who became one of the most controversial kings in English history.

Firstly, they examined one of the most persistent and critical depictions of Richard's personality -- the suggestion that he was a murdering psychopath. This reputation -- portrayed most famously in Shakespeare's play -- does not seem to have any basis in the facts we have about his life.

He showed little signs of the traits psychologists would use to identify psychopaths today -- including narcissism, deviousness, callousness, recklessness and lack of empathy in close relationships.

However, the academics speculate that Richard may have exhibited a common psychological syndrome know as an intolerance to uncertainty.

Professor Mark Lansdale said: "This syndrome is associated with a need to seek security following an insecure childhood, as Richard had. In varying degrees, it is associated with a number of positive aspects of personality including a strong sense of right and wrong, piety, loyalty to trusted colleagues, and a belief in legal processes -- all exhibited by Richard.

"On the negative side it is also associated with fatalism, a tendency to disproportionate responses when loyalty is betrayed and a general sense of 'control freakery' that can, in extreme cases, emerge as very authoritarian or possibly priggish. We believe this is an interesting perspective on Richard's character."

 

In addition, the pair examined how his disability -- evident in the curvature of the spine of the King's remains -- may have had an impact on his character -- and specifically on the way he interacted with people who he did not know well.

In medieval times, deformation was often taken as a visible indication of a twisted soul. As a result, it is possible that this would have made him cautious in all his interactions with others.

 

Professor Lansdale added: "Overall, we recognise the difficulty of drawing conclusions about people who lived 500 years ago and about whom relatively little is reliably recorded; especially when psychology is a science that is so reliant upon observation.

"However, noting that this is the problem historians work with as a matter of routine, we argue that a psychological approach provides a distinct and novel perspective: one which offers a different way of thinking about the human being behind the bones."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130304105201.htm

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

Share on redditShare on stumbleuponShare on pinterest_shareShare on bloggerShare on diggShare on farkShare on linkedinShare on myspaceShare on newsvine|14 

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Leicester, via AlphaGalileo.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

University of Leicester (2013, March 4). Was King Richard III a control freak?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2013/03/130304105201.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmind_brain+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Mind+%26+Brain+News%29

Bottom of Form

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Richard Waugaman reports on his authorship presentation at Kreeger Museum in January

by Richard Waugaman, MD

I appreciate Oberon’s invitation to tell you about my presentation on Edward de Vere at the Kreeger Museum in Washington, DC on January 24, 2013. The full title of the program was “Shakespeare: Oxfordian and (Ox)Freudian Perspectives—Exploring Psychological Dimensions of the Authorship Question.” It was videotaped and may be available from the Kreeger Museum.

My fellow presenter was Peter Kline, and the moderator was his wife Syril Kline. They have been Oxfordians for many years. Syril has written a novel on the topic, and Peter has completed a manuscript outlining his theory that Shakspere served as de Vere’s research assistant for his history plays.

Syril was exemplary in serving as a neutral moderator. She explained to the sold-out audience that we Oxfordians do not always agree with one another. I admitted, for example, that I would personally be surprised if Shakspere knew how to read and write. I’m in a small minority of Oxfordians who are not convinced he was an actor, either. Since the record of the actor “William Shakespeare” in Ben Jonson’s 1616 First Folio stops in 1603, the year before de Vere’s death, I wonder if the name was equivalent to the author’s name: a sort of stage name that alluded to de Vere’s performances at court.

As I told the audience, Stratfordians are engaged in a disinformation campaign against de Vere. I gave an example of a local Stratfordian, upon meeting Roger Stritmatter, asking him “Well, are you for Shakespeare or against him?” This is an instance of the Stratfordian insistence on merging Shakspere with Shakespeare, insinuating that disagreement about authorship means disrespect of the works of Shakespeare. I made it clear that learning about the real author enriches our enjoyment of his stupendous literary works.

I warned the audience that information from the likes of James Shapiro, author of Contested Will (Scribners, 2010), ) leaves out essential facts: he was known as the best courtier poet of the early years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign; he was known as the best author of comedies; and, crucially, some knew that he wrote anonymously. Some of this information comes from the anonymous 1589 Arte of English Poesie. I briefly mentioned a few reasons I believe de Vere wrote that important but widely neglected book. (Waugaman’s two publications on the Arte, along with the text of many of his 50 other publications on Shakespeare are available on his website, The Oxfreudian, at http://www.oxfreudian.com.

I told the audience that Oxfordians have to try harder, and that, personally, I have often felt like the boy in the Johnny Cash ballad, “A Boy Named Sue.” That is, being the object of some degree of ridicule toughens one, and teaches one to fight back. With fresh evidence backing the Oxfordian authorship theory, that is.

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnnycash/aboynamedsue.html

The Kreeger Museum and its director, Judy Greenberg, have been admirably loyal to its founder’s interest in the Shakespeare Authorship Question (SAQ). David Kreeger, who was CEO of Geico insurance company, became so deeply interested in this topic that he funded the moot trial on the SAQ held at American University in 1987, that was moderated by three Supreme Court justices. David Kreeger’s son was Peter Kline’s student in an English class at the Maret School in Washington, and introduced Peter to his father. That launched Peter Kline’s several decades as an Oxfordian.

As the audience was gathering, an audio recording of the 1987 event was played. The museum also displayed the signed Simon Simpson print of de Vere and Shakesper given to David Kreeger by Lord Vere of Hanworth, to commemorate the 1987 moot trial. I brought with me a copy of Kreeger’s fascinating article on the event from the 1988 American University Law Review, and gave it to a Geico employee who introduced himself to me after the presentation.

The audience reacted warmly and enthusiastically to our presentations, and raised many friendly questions in the discussion afterwards. However, not a single person questioned our authorship theory. The Stratfordians apparently stayed home, or at least stayed silent.

In her gracious introduction, Judy Greenberg mentioned that I was recently named a Faculty Expert on Shakespeare for Media Contacts at Georgetown University. The day after I received this news, I was invited to review a book on Shakespeare by the book review editor of the Renaissance Quarterly.The Folger Theater in Washington, DC had me discuss The Taming of the Shrew last June, and I was just invited by the Shakespeare Theater in Washington to sit on a panel discussing the psychology of Coriolanus on April 28.