The strength of this urge to conform can silence even those who have good reason to think the majority is wrong. You’re an expert because all your peers recognize you as such. But if you start to get too far out of line with what your peers believe, they will look at you askance and start to withdraw the informal title of “expert” they have implicitly bestowed on you. Then you’ll bear the less comfortable label of “maverick,” which is only a few stops short of “scapegoat” or “pariah.” (See Source, below)
Monday, July 27, 2009
Oberon Chairperson Tom Hunter, PhD, commented online today on Michael Shermer's pro-Stratfordian essay in the August 2009 Scientific American at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptics-take-on-the-life&page=2&posted=1#comments
Mr. Shermer gets it wrong about Oxfordians.
Justice Steven’s decision for Oxford as the true Shakespeare beyond a reasonable doubt was not the granting of some baseless wish. It was the inevitable discovery, by someone who could not be ignored, a justice of the United States Supreme Court, about where the considerable evidence for Oxford reasonably leads us. Justice Scalia has come to the same conclusion. Two Supreme Court justices. It is fine for Mr Shermer to dissent. We welcome dissent. But we need stronger dissent than the well-worn uninformed, erroneous, blustery reasons he gives, such as that there is zero evidence that Edward de Vere wrote under a pseudonym. Shermer needs to do his reading. He needs to read The Art of English Poesy, 1589:
. . . some courtiers write well but suppress it & or else suffered it to be published without their won names to it, as it were a discredit for a gentleman to seem, learned and to show himself amorous of any good art. And some noble-men have written excellently well, as it would appear if their doings could be found out and made public with the rest, of which number is first that noble gentleman Edward, Earl of Oxford.
In all, the Scientific American – that revered journal which in 1940 gave us Charles Wisner Barrell’s brilliant analysis of so-called Shakespeare portraits at the Folger – can do much better. Oh, yes. Barrell was an Oxfordian. His work has been updated recently by Oxfordians such as Barbara Burris, as covered by The New York Times. But anyone who would know Oxfordian research well enough to criticize it would know that.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Some anti-Stratfordians question Shakespeare’s existence, but the number of references to him from his own time could only be accounted for by a playwright of that name (unless de Vere used Shakespeare as a nom de plume, for which there is zero evidence).
And although Shakespeare’s skeptics note that there are no manuscripts, receipts, diaries or letters from him, they neglect to mention that we have none of these for Marlowe, either.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
- a report of the thirteenth Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference by Richard Joyrich, MD and
- a commentary on the April 2009 Wall Street Journal article on Justice John Paul Stevens’ Oxfordian point-of-view by R. Thomas Hunter, PhD