Edward de Vere is the Real Shakespeare Essay Example for Free

Edward de Vere is the Real Shakespeare Essay Edward de Vere was an Earl of Oxford. There is an ongoing debate whether William Shakespeare’s plays were his or these were the creations of Edward de Vere. This debate continues because literary scholars and historians reject this theory but was supported by theater practitioners and researchers. De Vere, also known as Oxford, was called a playwright and poet but his works did not survive. Some of his poetry was anonymously published in â€Å"Arte of English Poesie† in 1589. This was confirmed by the author George Puttenham. Very many noble gentlemen in the Court that have written commendably and suppressed it again, or else suffered it to be published without their own names to it, as it were a discredit for a gentleman, to seem learned, and to show himself amorous of any good art. † (Nelson, 165) Oxford as a dramatist is given proof through the testimony of Francis Meres in â€Å"Palladis Tamia. † He describes his works as â€Å"the best for comedy. † (Whalen, 361). Nonetheless, few of Oxford’s poems and songs are credited to his own name. The dates of these works are uncertain. Most of which are signed â€Å"Earle of Oxenforde† or â€Å"E. O. † When he was alive, Oxford was always in the company of English poets. In 1920, J Thomas Looney presented facts that Oxford was the real author of Shakespeare’s plays. The facts he presented were: a. ) Oxford’s advanced education and first-hand knowledge of an aristocrat’s life b. ) the law c. ) the military c. ) theater background d. ) high praise of Oxford’s works by his peers and e. ) the countless similarities between Oxford’s life and the setting of the plays. Looney’s hypothesis was that Oxford published his works under a pseudonym since it was disgraceful for an aristocrat like him to be writing plays for public theater. (Nelson, 158). This claim was confirmed by Renaissance scholars. Members of the Tudor aristocracy were recognized as reputable poets but none of them published their works. None of Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Fulke Greville, Sir Edward Dyer and Sir Philip Sidney published their creations despite their recognition in the aristocratic society. (Whalen, 248). Through the ideas presented by Looney, other writers became notable Oxfordians. Sigmund Freud, Mark Twain, columnist Joseph Sobran, biographer and historian David McCullough and actors Orson Welles, Sir Derek Jacobi, Sir John Gielgud and Jeremy Irons all believe that it was Oxford who wrote these plays. (Lindquist, 23) However, there are gaps on Looney’s theory. One is the evidentiary gap such as Oxford’s death in 1604. If he were in fact the real author of Shakespeare’s plays, the he wouldn’t have witnessed the wreck of the Sea Venture in Bermuda and the Gunpowder Plot† which were said to be the allusions to Shakespeare’s dramas â€Å"The Tempest† and â€Å"Macbeth. Then there are writers like Leonard Digges and Ben Jonson who provide concrete evidence that Shakespeare is a reputed poet. (Lindquist, 24) Oxfordians provide proof through the use of modern research that Shakespeare no longer published his plays after 1604. Also, Oxfordian biographers Mark Anderson and William Farina showed research which indicate that the publication of Shakespeare’s plays actually ended in 1604. (Simpson, 34) Aside from Oxford, there are other candidates who are considered to have been the real author of Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets. These are Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon and the Earl of Derby. These theories were rejected by academic establishments. Through the ideas and hypothesis of Looney and the Oxfordians, Oxford as the real author of Shakespeare’s works still stands true. (Nelson, 102) A crucial reasoning of why Oxford is the actual author of Shakespeare’s works come in the political topography of â€Å"Hamlet. † (Propson, 13) The Denmark in the play is identical with the biography Oxford has been accustomed in. The play is an imaginative presentation of what Oxford would have done, based on his other works that were published under a pseudonym. Oxfordians continue to present other arguments with such depth and accurate research to back up their hypothesis and their theories. Oxford mastered the understanding and experience that is evident in Shakespeare’s plays. Oxford’s poems also have the same flow as those of Shakespeare’s. He explored and developed the stanzaic and metric forms when writing poetry, just like Shakespeare and his sonnets. (Propson, 15) And just like any aristocrat, he was status-conscious and he needed recognition for his success. He was determined to have his way and would have made it sure to have received credit for his plays or his poetry. So why then would he have allowed this to happen if he actually wrote the plays? Scholars who studied Oxford as a man and the possible Shakespeare describe him as â€Å"a puzzle to his generation. † Oxford was eccentric and creative and he showed varying moods, subtle movements and fierce passions. His words as seen in his poetry are inexplicable and extraordinary. The knowledge and insight of these works cannot be discussed easily, as confirmed by Looney. â€Å"The poetic genius has more or less always been a man apart. † (Whalen, 183) However, those who believe that Shakespeare was the real author of his works scrutinized Oxford’s works as lacking the depth and the conscious knowledge that Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets are known for. (Lindquist, 28). His poetry did not have the level of knowledge or the comprehension of philosophies and advance consciousness of the characters as evident in Shakespeare’s plays. But these facts do not stop Oxfordians from seeing De Vere as the candidate for Shakespeare’s actual authorship. They strongly believe that his capability as a dramatist and poet â€Å"conforms to the mind and capacity and character of Shakespeare. (Simpson, 23) Oxford was generous and often funded patronage to projects that benefited literacy, religion, medicine, philosophy, science and music. Not only was he a poet and playwright, he was also a patron. This proves that Oxford made sure he was recognized. Another question mark is that ten other Shakespearean plays were published after 1604, which was the year Oxford died. (Lindquist) The strongest claim that Oxford is in fact the real Shakespeare is the cumulative parallels of the earl’s life to the works and the specificity of his personal references and concerns as seen in the plays and the poems. Oxford was a pure-bred aristocrat and he has been educated along with other noble families. He had profound literary tastes and through this, has become a lyrical poet. He was a traveler and is quite fashionable. He loved music. This is set alongside the fact that Shakespeare was illiterate. Oxfordians say that Shakespeare would have had a hard time writing his own signature, what more composing plays and sonnets. They also reasoned that in Shakespeare’s will, he never mentioned anything about his plays. The same can be said to Oxford. If he in fact wrote the plays, then why did he not state this in his will? The date and the circumstances of Oxford is the dispute among scholars. The historical records and his way of life are concrete proof that he is aware of the aristocrat’s way of life, compared to Shakespeare, who did not lead a life of luxury. Oxford’s uncle, The Earl of Surrey, originated the sonnet form today which has been used in Shakespeare’s sonnets. (Propson, 46). The question on who wrote this becomes more and more difficult to answer because of this. Oxford received his BA from Cambridge University and his masters from Oxford University. He was also sent to study law at Gray’s Inn. This only comes to show that he is absolutely knowledgeable of the topics that have been discussed in Shakespeare’s 37 plays. Like most of the characters in Shakespeare’s plays, Oxford was not domesticated by marriage. He was famous for getting in trouble which initiated the wrath of his father-in-law. As a young man, Oxford accidentally killed another man. A lot of Shakespeare’s plays show one character killing another. Historical records show that Oxford and his companions traveled on the road from Gravesend to Rochester. This is similar to â€Å"Henry the Fourth, Part One. † For some reason, the account in the play also provides the full detail of the assault that is similar to Oxford and his men. Once Oxfordians dug this information up, they used it as another important bullet point in their hypothesis. Oxford was also notorious for his martial prowess. He excelled in sports. He was also good with words. He knew how to provide a vast content of narrative using vocabulary, metaphor and imagery. This is evident in Shakespeare’s plays. Another factor that adds up to the confirmation of the Oxfordian’s claim is that Oxford conceived theatrical entertainment for the Queen of Whitehall. He was given a lease to the Blackfriars Theater. He was the patron of other writers and he was known by members of various acting companies. He was one of the first recipients of the literary dedications written by writers Edmund Spenser and John Lyly. He was regarded to be one of England’s most excellent writers. To give more proof on the thesis statement of this paper is the fact that Oxford traveled extensively. He visited France and Italy. Sicily provided the backdrop for Shakespeare’s plays set in Italy. Oxford had a home in Venice. His ship was once attacked by pirates during one voyage. Again, this is another scene from one of Shakespeare’s plays – â€Å"Twelfth Night. † Another historical account of Oxford as Shakespeare is when his brother-in-law Peregrin Bertrie reports upon his return that while having a banquet at Elsinore, â€Å"a whole volley of all the great shot of the castle discharged. † This very account is the line of Shakespeare’s Cluadius in â€Å"Hamlet. † (Propson, 42) However, there are still gaps, especially toward the later years of his life. In 1958, there had been anonymous publications and performances of Shakespearean plays like Titus Andronicus, Richard the second and Romeo and Juliet. That time, the first quarto bore the name William Shakespeare as the author. That very year, Francis Meres published his works â€Å"Palladis Tamia† and credits â€Å"Shakespeare. † At the same time, he identifies the playwright Edward de Vere as â€Å"the best for comedy amongst us. † The 1604 problem will always prevent Oxfordian scholars to completely conclude that Oxford is the real Shakespeare but that does not stop them from presenting concrete facts in what they believe in. They reach a point wherein they count the number of plays Shakespeare release in a year. They wondered about the inconsistency. They say that in 1593 to 1603, Shakespeare published two plays in a year. Then he stopped writing in 1604 and started publishing five years later. (Propson, 45) Other Oxfordian claims is the fact that Shakespeare was not mourned for in his death. Upon Mark Twain’s observation, â€Å"When Shakespeare died in Stratford, it was not an event. It made no stir in England than the death of any other forgotten theater-actor would have made. Nobody came down from London; there were no lamenting poems, no eulogies, no national tears – there was merely silence, and nothing more. A striking contrast with what happened when Ben Jonson, and Francis Bacon, and Spencer, and Raleigh and the other literary folk of Shakespeare’s time passed from life! No praiseful voice was lifted for the lost Bard of Avon. † (Simpson, 138) Until now, the Oxfordian theory is popular amongst writers, scholars, researchers and actors. The debate between the Oxfordians and the Stratfordians (those who believe that Shakespeare is the real author of his works) continue.

Bears :: Animals Wildlife Nature Essays

Bears â€Å"If you talk to the animals, they will talk to you, and you will know each other. If you do not talk to them, you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear. What one fears, one destroys.† This was said by Chief Dan George and is common with many wild animals here in North America; one animal in particular, the bear. There are three different types of bears in North America: brown (or grizzly), polar, and black. The most common in the Northern Virginia area are black bears (Palmer & Lickley, 2001). Though the Native Americans respected and even revered bears, they became a symbol of danger, aggression, violence, and fear for the white man as he moved onto Native American lands. Today, people fear bears because of stories they’ve heard about attacks, movies they’ve watched, or various personal reasons, but here is a different story. Bear attacks are very rare. Over the past one hundred years, fewer than fifty people have died from grizzly bear attacks, and only one hundred and fifty such attacks have been reported as serious (Animal Planet, 2004). Bears do not attack just because they are bears and it’s their nature; in fact, they are not naturally aggressive. Past and current events have affected bears and the way people view them, but bears are not vicious creatures that attack at will. Encounters with bears do not have to be horrible; there are steps a person can take to ensure their own safety and the safety of the bear. First, why do bears attack? Bears are animals and act instinctively in order to survive. They are omnivores, so they eat both meat and plants, such as berry or flowered plants, rodents, and fish. Bears are social, predictable (if you understand them), curious about their environment, and they don’t have an agenda. They live in a dominance hierarchy and they are not territorial, but they will defend their personal space (Emerald Air Service, 2004). Every bear varies and has a different comfort zone. Some bears, usually younger ones, will approach objects they are curious about within two inches, while other bears don’t get within two miles of something new.

Review of New Types of Relation Extraction Methods

This is explained by the fact that patterns do not tend to uniquely identify the given relation. The systems which participated in MUCH and deal with relation extraction also rely on rich rules for identifying relations (Fought et al. 1 998; Gargling et al. 1998; Humphreys et al. 1998). Humphreys et al. 1998) mention that they tried to add only those rules which were (almost) certain never to generate errors in analysis; therefore, they had adopted a low recall and high precision approach. However, in this case, many relations may be missed due to the lack of unambiguous rules to extract them.To conclude, knowledge-based methods are not easily portable to other domains and involve too much manual labor. However, they can be used effectively if the main aim is to get results quickly in well-defined domains and document collections. 5 Supervised Methods Supervised methods rely on a training set where domain-specific examples eave been tagged. Such systems automatically learn extractors for relations by using machine-learning techniques. The main problem of using these methods is that the development of a suitably tagged corpus can take a lot of time and effort.On the other hand, these systems can be easily adapted to a different domain provided there is training data. There are different ways that extractors can be learnt in order to solve the problem of supervised relation extraction: kernel methods (Shoo and Grossman 2005; Bunches and Mooney 2006), logistic regression (Kamala 2004), augmented parsing (Miller et al. 2000), Conditional Random Fields CRY) (Calcutta et al. 2006). In RE in general and supervised RE in particular a lot of research was done for IS-A relations and extraction of taxonomies.Several resources were built based on collaboratively built Wisped (YOGA – (Issuance et al. 2007); Depended – (Rue et al. 2007); Freebase – (Blacker et al. 2008); Wicking (Instates et al. 2010)). In general, Wisped is becoming more and more popula r as a source for RE. E. G. (Opponent and Strobe 2007; Unguent et al. AAA, b, c). Query logs are also considered a valuable source of information for RE and their analysis is even argued to give better results than other suggested methods in the field (Passes 2007, 2009). 5. 19 Weakly-supervised Methods Some supervised systems also use bootstrapping to make construction of the training data easier. These methods are also sometimes referred to as â€Å"huckleberries information extraction†. Bring (1998) describes the DIPPER (Dual Iterative Pattern Relation Expansion) method used for identifying authors of the books. It uses an initial small set of seeds or a set of hand- constructed extraction patterns to begin the training process. After the occurrences of needed information are found, they are further used for recognition of new patterns.Regardless of how promising bootstrapping can seem, error propagation becomes a serious problem: mistakes in extraction at the initial stag es generate more mistakes at later stages and decrease the accuracy of the extraction process. For example, errors that expand to named entity recognition, e. G. Extracting incomplete proper names, result in choosing incorrect seeds for the next step of bootstrapping. Another problem that can occur is that of semantic drift. This happens when senses of the words are not taken into account and therefore each iteration results in a move from the original meaning.Some researchers (Korea and How 2010; Hove et al. 2009; Korea et al. 2008) have suggested ways to avoid this problem and enhance the performance of this method by using doubly- anchored patterns (which include both the class name and a class member) as well as graph structures. Such patterns have two anchor seed positions â€Å"{type} such as {seed} and *† and also one open position for the terms to be learnt, for example, pattern â€Å"Presidents such as Ford and {X}† can be used to learn names of the presidents .Graphs are used for storing information about patterns, found words and links to entities they helped to find. This data is further used for calculating popularity and productivity of the candidate words. This approach helps to enhance the accuracy of bootstrapping and to find high-quality information using only a few seeds. Korea (2012) employs a similar approach for the extraction Of cause-effect relations, where the pattern for bootstrapping has a form of â€Å"X and Y verb Z†, for example, and virus cause Human-based evaluation reports 89 % accuracy on 1500 examples. Self-supervised Systems Self-supervised systems go further in making the process of information extraction unsupervised. The Knolling Web II system (Edition et al. 2005), an example of a self-supervised system, learns â€Å"to label its own training examples using only a small set of domain-independent extraction patterns†. It uses a set of generic patterns to automatically instantiate relation-specif ic extraction rules and then learns domain-specific extraction rules and the whole process is repeated iteratively. The Intelligence in Wisped (IPP) project (Weld et al. 2008) is another example of a self-supervised system.It bootstraps from the Wisped corpus, exploiting the fact that each article corresponds to a primary object and that any articles contain infusions (brief tabular information about the article). This system is able to use Wisped infusions as a starting point for training 20 the classifiers for the page type. IPP trains extractors for the various attributes and they can later be used for extracting information from general Web pages. The disadvantage of IPP is that the amount of relations described in Wisped infusions is limited and so not all relations can be extracted using this method. . 1 Open Information Extraction Edition et al. (2008) introduced the notion of Open Information Extraction, which is opposed to Traditional Relation Extraction. Open information e xtraction is â€Å"a novel extraction paradigm that tackles an unbounded number of relations†. This method does not presuppose a predefined set of relations and is targeted at all relations that can be extracted. The Open Relation extraction approach is relatively a new one, so there is only a small amount of projects using it. Texturing (Bank and Edition 2008; Bank et al. 2007) is an example of such a system.A set of relinquishment's lexicon-syntactic patterns is used to build a relation- independent extraction model. It was found that 95 % Of all relations in English can be described by only 8 general patterns, e. G. â€Å"El Verb E â€Å". The input of such a system is only a corpus and some relation-independent heuristics, relation names are not known in advance. Conditional Random Fields (CRY) are used to identify spans of tokens believed to indicate explicit mentions of relationships between entities and the whole problem of relation extraction is treated as a problem of sequence labeling.The set of linguistic features used in this system is similar to those used by other state of-the-art relation extraction systems and includes e. G. Part-of-speech tags, regular expressions for detection of capitalization and punctuation, context words. At this stage of development this system â€Å"is able to extract instances of the four most frequently observed relation types: Verb, Noun+Prep, Verb+Prep and Infinitive†. It has a number of limitations, which are however common to all RE systems: it extracts only explicitly expressed relations that are primarily word-based; relations should occur between entity names within the same sentence.Bank and Edition (2008) report a precision of 88. 3 % and a recall of 45. 2 Even though the system shows very good results the relations are not pacified and so there are difficulties in using them in some other systems. Output Of the system consists Of tepees stating there is some relation between two entities, but there is no generalization of these relations. Www and Weld (2010) combine the idea of Open Relation Extraction and the use of Wisped infusions and produce systems called Weepers and Weeps . Weepers improves Texturing dramatically but it is 30 times slower than Texturing.However, Weeps does not have this disadvantage and still shows an improved F-measure over Texturing between 1 5 % to 34 % on three corpora. Fader et al. 201 1) identify several flaws in previous works in Open Information Extraction: â€Å"the learned extractors ignore both â€Å"holistic† aspects of the relation phrase (e. G. , is it contiguous? ) as well as lexical aspects (e. G. , how many instances of this relation are there? )†. They target these problems by introducing syntactic constraints (e. G. , they require the relation phrase to match the POS tag 21 pattern) and lexical constraints.Their system Revere achieves an AUK which is 30 % better than WOE (Www and Weld 201 0) and Texturing (Bank and Denton 2008). Unshackles et al. (AAA) approach this problem from another angle. They try to mine for patterns expressing various relations and organism then in hierarchies. They explore binary relations between entities and employ frequent items mining (Augural et al. 1993; Syrians and Augural 1 996) to identify the most frequent patterns. Their work results in a resource called PATTY which contains 350. 69 pattern sunsets and substitution relations and achieves 84. 7 % accuracy. Unlike Revere (Fader et al. 201 1) which constrains patterns to verbs or verb phrases that end with prepositions, PATTY can learn arbitrary patterns. The authors employ so called syntactic- ontological-lexical patterns (SOL patterns). These patterns constitute a sequence of words, POS-tags, wildcats, and ontological types. For example, the pattern â€Å"persons [ads] voice * song† would match the strings my Heinousness soft voice in Rehab and Elvis Presley solid voice in his song All shook up.Their approach is based on collecting dependency paths from the sentences where two named entities are tagged (YACHT (Hoffa et al. 2011) is used as a database of all Ones). Then the textual pattern is extracted by finding the shortest paths connecting two entities. All of these patterns are transformed into SOL (abstraction of a textual pattern). Frequent items quinine is used for this: all textual patterns are decomposed into n-grams (n consecutive words). A SOL pattern contains only the n-grams that appear frequently in the corpus and the remaining word sequences are replaced by wildcats.The support set of the pattern is described as the set of pairs of entities that appear in the place Of the entity placeholders in all strings in the corpus that match the pattern. The patterns are connected in one sunset (so are considered synonymous) if their supporting sets coincide. The overlap of the supporting sets is also employed to identify substitution relations between various sunsets. . 2 Di stant Learning Mint et al. (2009) introduce a new term â€Å"distant supervision†. The authors use a large semantic database Freebase containing 7,300 relations between 9 million named entities.For each pair of entities that appears in Freebase relation, they identify all sentences containing those entities in a large unlabeled corpus. At the next step textual features to train a relation classifier are extracted. Even though the 67,6 % of precision achieved using this method has room for improvement, it has inspired many researchers to further investigate in this direction. Currently there are a number of papers ring to enhance â€Å"distant learning† in several directions. Some researchers target the heuristics that are used to map the relations in the databases to the texts, for example, (Takeouts et al. 01 2) argue that improving matching helps to make data less noisy and therefore enhances the quality of relation extraction in general. Hay et al. (2010) propose us ing an undirected graphical model for relation extraction which employs â€Å"distant learning' but enforces selection preferences. Ridded et al. (2010) reports 31 % error reduction compared to (Mint et al. 2009). 22 Another problem that has been addressed is language ambiguity (Hay et al. 01 1, 2012). Most methods cluster shallow or syntactic patterns of relation mentions, but consider only one possible sense per pattern.However, this assumption is often violated in reality. Hay et al. (201 1) uses generative probabilistic models, where both entity type constraints within a relation and features on the dependency path between entity mentions are exploited. This research is similar to DIRT (Line and Panatela 2001 ) which explores distributional similarity of dependency paths in order to discover different representations of the same semantic relation. However, Hay et al. (2011) employ another approach and apply IDA (Belie et al. 2003) with a slight modification: observations are re lation tepees and not words.So as a result of this modification instead of representing semantically related words, the topic latent variable represents a relation type. The authors combine three models: Reel-LAD, Reel-LDAP and Type-LAD. In the third model the authors split the features of a duple into relation level features and entity level features. Relation level features include the dependency path, trigger, lexical and POS features; entity level features include the entity mention itself and its named entity tag. These models output clustering of observed relation tepees and their associated textual expressions.

The Case Of Sally Walden Of Resintech - 1628 Words

Society is full of creative minds that has help shaped our world. These creative minds have invented such things as electricity, automobile, television, and the development of new innovations that improves a generation. According to Hohenberg, Innovation commercialization is an important managerial challenge which depends heavily on the sales force for its success (Hohenberg 114). In the case of Sally Walden of ResinTech, a new innovation has been developed but not fully accepted. Walden is faced with evaluating the company’s present situation, what she should do with this new idea, and how her managers will decided whether or not to continue supporting her idea for the foam-dome concept. Innovation is essential to firms if they want to maintain competitive advantage, fulfill customer s needs, wants, and expectations and perform well in the market. It s important for firms to know how to identify innovative opportunities such as developing a new product or transforming existing products into new product development. â€Å"Innovation is the multi-stage process whereby organizations transform ideas into new/improved products, services or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in their marketplace† (Baregheh, Rowley, Sambrook, 2009, p. 1334). In order for a firm to be successful in new product development they must take into account that this development is divided into five critical stages. The process begins with stage one idea