Re: Churchill -- Man or Myth?

On May 7, 11:19=A0am, xhos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 6:45=3DA0pm, Greg Johnson <greg....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > It's not all that bizarre, since until 2005 there were lots of
> > > competing arguments about who the woman in the painting actually
was.
> > > Obviously the person who wrote this article never got the news.
>
> > But was there ever any suggestion that she wasn't a real person:
=A0that=

> > Leonardo painted her from his imagination?
>
> Yes. =A0Or at least, there was speculation that it was an imaginative
> self-****trait, imagining what Leo would look like if he were female.

That is evidence either of the dibilitating effects on the academy of
a publish-or-perish mandate, or of the ability for crackpots to get
published.

There are loads of speculation about who, other than Shakespeare,
wrote the works of Shakespeare.  Some of this speculation is by people
whom we might have heard of, and some is published in journals with
footnotes and bibliographies.  None of this makes the speculation less
stupid.

Richard R. Hershberger