On Susanna (.Shakespeare) Hall's Enema and Her Illiteracy
John Baker
Nathan would attempt to convince you that Susanna Hall was literate on
the strength of her "signature." I had, in fact, forgotten about this
"evidence."
It is, however, contradicted by the larger picture. Which is why Sam
S. reports only that she could ‘at least sign her name to legal
papers."
Susanna's husband, Dr. John Hall, who was left his father's medical
books, but not his astronomy, astrology or alchemy books (which he
left to a friend) and who left his own books in his will, also left
several manuscripts and notebooks.
One was in Latin, later translated by Dr James Cooke, which described
in considerable detail a "heated pint of sherry" which Hall "treated"
his wife Susanna with "anally...[ater Cooke] tried this same clyster
on the Earl of Northampton..." See Peter Levi, "The Life and Times of
William Shakespeare," p.266.
As it turns out Peter and I had a conversation about this chapter of
Susanna's life and this pint of sherry at Oxford one afternoon during
the summer of 1988, while he was working on this very chapter. Levi
told me in considerable detail of a theory he'd hatched explaining why
Dr James Cooke reported that Susanna was illiterate. It was because
"she was pretending to be illiterate to avoid embarrassment about this
enema..." I suggested to Peter if he was really literate she'd simply
have taken out that page....Peter look at me and said, "by
God...you're right!"
So its a well known fact that both Judith and Susanna Shakespeare were
illiterates.Its supported by a considerable record. Its also a known
fact Shakespeare's father and mother were illiterates.
This wasn't the case with Milton's family or his daughters or with
other literate families during that age. The standard reference on
this period is "English Provincial Society form the Reformation to the
Revolution: Religion, Politics and Society in Kent 1500-1640" by Peter
Clark (1977). He has a heading "Books and their Readers" "Detailed
evidence for grass-roots book ownership can be found from inventories
of personal property taken after death [or from wills]. Clark took
probate inventories for Canterbury, Faversham and Maidstone. He
estimated 30% of those dying during the period (1560-1640)...mainly
"more substantial folk..." of which Shakespeare and his family would
surely be counted. Book ownership went from 8% to 45%
during the period! That was in Canterbury. In the berg of Faversham
it went from 15% to 48.7%. Over all court records, Clark shows "one
in five could sign their own names..." attesting to what he calls
"subscriptional literacy." That's cross the board. In the gentry
class and professional class the percentage was "100.0"! See page
213. Clark found before 1600 "about 16% of all the women who had
inventories had books" after 1600 the figure rose to "26 per cent."
But not Susanna!
And this is the point. Shakespeare's home wasn't just a hovel in the
sticks. It was supposedly the home of the writer! And we're to
believe his family were illiterates!
Literacy is like a fire. It sweeps through a home. This is why
children today are more computer literate than their
parents. You can't keep them from it. Here were these books. They
told stories. Talked of distant lands and places. And we're to
believe that Susanna and Judith couldn't read them?
Not very likely. The reason the actor's children were illiterates was
there weren't any books in the actor's home. He was like those jerks
in Hamlet. No more, no less. And Nathan hates it.
Sorry Nathan but the proposition holds. Its not a lie. Shakespeare's
family were illiterates.
Neuendorffer
>
> Susanna's husband, Dr. John Hall, who was left his father's medical
> books, but not his astronomy, astrology or alchemy books (which he
> left to a friend) and who left his own books in his will, also left
> several manuscripts and notebooks.
"astronomy, astrology or alchemy books" !!!!
Sounds like a 'bona fide' Rosicrucian to me. :-)
Art Neuendorffer
------------------------------------------------------
Timeline of events in the history of alchemy
[ http://www.levity.com/alchemy/timelin2.html ]
1144 Earliest dated Western alchemical treatise - Robert of Chester De
compositione alchemiae
1150 Turba philosophorum translated from Arabic
1235 Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, discusses transmutation of
metals in De artibus liberalibus and De generatione stellarum
1266 Roger Bacon Opus maius
1267 Roger Bacon Opus tertium
1270 Thomas Aquinas is sympathetic to the idea of alchemical transmution
in his Summa theologia
1272 Provincal Chapter at Narbonne forbade the Franciscans to practice
alchemy
1273 Dominican order at Pest warned friars not to study or teach alchemy
1275 Ramon Lull Ars Magna. Aurora consurgens possibly written by Thomas
Aquinas
1310 Dante begins work on his Divine Comedy
1313 Friars Minors' Constitution generales antique forbade the friars to
practice alchemy
1314 Destruction of the Knights Templar
1323 Dominicans in France prohibit the teaching of alchemy at the
University of Paris, and demand the burning of alchemical writings
1358 Francesco Petrarch discussed alchemy in De remediis utriusque
fortunae
1370 William Langland's Piers Plowman criticises alchemists as
deceivers.
1388 Geoffrey Chaucer Canterbury Tales discussed alchemy in the Canon's
Yeoman's Tale
1403 King Henry IV of England issues a prohibition of alchemy and to
stop counterfeit money
1415 Early German MS Buch der heiligen Dreifaltigkeit paralleling the
Christ and the Philosophers' stone
1456 12 men petition Henry VI of England for a license to practise
alchemy
1488 The figure of Hermes Trismegistus is put into the mosaic pavement
in Sienna Cathedral
1494 Sebastian Brandt _The ship of fools_ discussed methods used by
cheating alchemists
1580 Rabbi Loew of Prague makes the Golem
1589 Edward Kelley embarkes on his public alchemical transmutations in
Prague
1591 Reprinting of John Dee's Hieroglyphic Monad
1595 Libavius Alchymia
1599 First appearance of a work of Basil Valentine. Book of Lambspring
included in Barnaud's Triga Chemica
1600 Giordano Bruno executed
1602 Publication of the first volumes of the compendium of alchemical
texts Theatrum Chemicum
1604 Basil Valentine's Triumphal Chariot of Alchemy. Simon Studion's
Naometria ms. Novum lumen chemicum
1609 Main edition of Khunrath's Amphitheatrum sapientae aeternae. Oswald
Croll Basilica chemica
1610 Jean Beguin Tyrocinium chymicum
1611 Ben Jonson's play The Alchemist
1612 Flamel figures hierogliphiques (first publication). Ruland's
Lexicon alchemiae. Jacob Boehme Aurora
1614 Fama fraternitatis. Isaac Casaubon redates the works of Hermes
Trismegistus
1615 Confessio fraternitatis Steffan Michelspacher Cabala, Spiegel der
Kunst unnd Natur
1616 "Chymische Hochzeit Christiani Rosenkreuz 1459"
------------------------------------------------------
JOHN VALENTIN(e sims) ANDREA(wise)
------------------------------------------------------
<<In 1602 or 1603, Lutheran theologian of Würtemberg,
JOHN VALENTIN ANDREA composed the ROSICRUCIAN book,
"Chymische Hochzeit Christiani Rosenkreuz 1459">>
-----------------------------------------------------------
V.(ALENTINE) & A.(NDREW)
printed & sold W.(ise) S.(ims):
--------------------------------------------------------
1597, Richard III (Q1 STC 22314):
THE TRAGEDY OF / King Richard the third. Containing,
His teacherous Plots againft his brother Clarence:
the pittiefull murther of his iunocent nephewes:
his tyrannicall vfurpation: with the whole courfe
of his detefted life, and moft deferued death.
As it hath beene lately Acted by the
Right honourable the Lord Chamber-laine his feruants.
Printed by V.(ALENTINE) S.(ims), for A.(NDREW) W.(ise),
dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the
Signe of the Angell. 1597.
--------------------------------------------------
1600, Henry IV Part II (Q1 STC 22288a):
THE Second part of Henrie the fourth,
continuing to his death, and coronation of Henrie the fift.
With the humours of fir Iohn Fal-ftaffe, and fwaggering Piftoll.
As it hath been fundrie times publikely acted by
the right honourable, the Lord Chamberlaine his feruants.
Written by William Shakefpeare. LONDON
Printed by V.S. for Andrew Wise, and William Aspley. 1600.
--------------------------------------------------
1600, Much Ado About Nothing (Q STC 22304):
Much adoe about Nothing. As it hath been fundrie times publikely
acted by the right honourable, the Lord Chamberlaine his feruants.
Written by William Shakespeare. LONDON
Printed by V.S. for Andrew Wise, and William Aspley.1600.
----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Caius Marcius
(John Baker) writes:
>
>
>As it turns out Peter and I had a conversation about this chapter of
>Susanna's life and this pint of sherry at Oxford one afternoon during
>the summer of 1988, while he was working on this very chapter.
Name dropper!
- CMC
Richard Nathan
>On Susanna (n. Shakespeare) Hall's High Colonic and Her Illiteracy
>
>Nathan would attempt to convince you that Susanna Hall was literate on
>the strength of her "signature." I had, in fact, forgotten about this
>"evidence."
>
I don't believe I ever argued that Susanna Hall's signature was absolute
evidence of her literacy. I said there was no proof she was illiterate.
Baker claimed that neither of Shakespeare's daughters could sign her name.
On February 15, 1999, Baker posted the following, under the Subject head
"Re: On Richard Nathan's Ignorance"
Baker: Stratfordians, knowing that the actor's family were illiterates,
have claimed this was common during the period. It wasn't. In families
headed by a literate father, and the author was literate, the family was
literate. In families where the father read, it was actually more likely
that the daughters read than that the sons read... boys being boys even in
those distant days.
Nathan: We don't know his family was illiterate. And where do you get
your information about literate duaghters, which is contrary to everything
I've ever read on the subject?
Baker: Nathan, you can't be for real. Tell me you aren't for real. We
know his daughters were illiterate because they never signed their own
names. They used xa! Even S.S. concedes the point. Where have you been
boy?
Nathan: Another Baker lie. Everyone knows one daughter signeher her
name. I can't recall at the moment if it was Judith or Susanna.
Baker: You are wrong Nat. Again I'll kiss your rear if you can prove it.
More evidence Baker is a liar.
John Baker: And where do you
>It is, however, contradicted by the larger picture. Which is why Sam
>S. reports only that she could ‘at least sign her name to legal
>papers."
>
> Susanna's husband, Dr. John Hall, who was left his father's medical
>books, but not his astronomy, astrology or alchemy books (which he
>left to a friend) and who left his own books in his will, also left
>several manuscripts and notebooks.
>
>One was in Latin, later translated by Dr James Cooke, which described
>in considerable detail a "heated pint of sherry" which Hall "treated"
>his wife Susanna with "anally...[ater Cooke] tried this same clyster
>on the Earl of Northampton..." See Peter Levi, "The Life and Times of
>William Shakespeare," p.266.
>
>As it turns out Peter and I had a conversation about this chapter of
>Susanna's life and this pint of sherry at Oxford one afternoon during
Richard Nathan
follows:
mar...@localaccess.com (John Baker) wrote:
Shakespeare's family were illiterate.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
become in the few short months that he's mastered the term, but I'm
pretty good with it, good enough to now diagnose John Baker as fairly
certainly a rigidnik, at least so far as the athorship question is
concerned. Here is the evidence:
Peter Levi (author of a book on Shakespeare) and Baker had a
conversation about a pint of sherry Dr. Hall, according to his
medical journal, had administered to his wife while Levi was
working on a chapter that discusses that event. According to
John, "Levi told me in considerable detail of a theory he'd
hatched explaining why Dr James Cooke reported that Susanna
was illiterate. It was because "she was pretending to be
illiterate to avoid embarrassment about this enema..." I
suggested to Peter if he was really literate she'd simply
have taken out that page....Peter look at me and said, 'by
God...you're right!'"
John goes on to say, "So its a well known fact that both Judith
and Susanna Shakespeare were illiterates. It's supported by a
considerable record. Its also a known fact Shakespeare's father
and mother were illiterates.
Point #1: Cooke did not report that Susanna was illiterate, only
that she failed to recognize or claimed not to recognize, a book
her husband had written in Latin as his. John's persistence in
making the absolutist claim that Cooke reported Susanna to be
illiterate is evidence of rigidnikry--both the absolutism of it
and the erroneousness of it.
Point #2: John contends that if the page in Susanna's husband's journal
bothered her, she could have removed it. The implication that
this was the only way she could have reacted to the circumstance
had she known what was in the book is strong evidence of John's
rigidnikry. Possible human behavior, for healthy people, always
covers a continuum. In this case, Susanna--not liking what was on
one page of the journal--could, indeed, have destroyed the page.
But that is not the only reaction available to her. She may have
been against destroying pages, or not against destroying pages but
of destroying something her husband had written. She may not have
thought about the page until the prospect of its being sold reminded
her of it, too late.
Point #3: John shows similarly rigidnikal anti-continuumism in
assuming that because, in his own mind, he has defeated Levi's
explanation of Susanna's behavior that he has won the argument:
no other explanations exist. But dozens exist, such as the one
about her thinking she'd get more money for the book if it was not
her husband's; her not reading it or examining the handwriting
when she denied it to be her husband's; her doing either of
these things but being emotionally incapable of believing her
husband had written a whole book without her awareness; her simply
being confused by the presence of a book she knew about in a place
she hadn't expected it to be; etc.
Point #4: John may be right that Susanna was an illiterate but his
claim that the Cooke anecdote proves that Susanna, despite her signature,
was illiterate is rigidnikally over-certain. I, a non-riginik, do
not claim that Susanna, who could write her name, was therefore
definitely literate, for instance. I believe she probably was,
but do not consider the question closed.
Point #5: John's saying that "it's a well known fact that both
Judith and Susanna Shakespeare were illiterates. It's supported by a
considerable record. Its also a known fact Shakespeare's father
and mother were illiterates," is simple stupidity, but his repeatedly
having said this despite being shown that he's wrong, is rigidnikal.
I refuse to say anything about Peter Levi's suggestion without
hearing from him about it (and the accuracy of John's report)
except that it sounds pretty daft--and that I wonder why he
didn't convert to Oxfordianism immediately upon learning that
Susanna MUST have been illiterate.
--Bob G.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John Baker
Bob claims that my claim that Shakespeare's parents were illiterates
shows my stupidity.
Well check out page 38 of Sammy's Documented Life and you'll
find their marks!
Not many people who can read and wright use marks for their
names...unless they are Stratfordians, that is.
Bob also claims that being unable to recognize if your husband
wrote a given book or papers isn't proof that you aren't able to
read...
in my book it certainly is.
Bob invents a few other reasons, I've even heard Stratfordians
claim that Judith, John and Mary Shakespeare were literate and could
sign their names but didn't...because it would have been impolite
in their village!
People generally don't pretend to be dumber than they are, usually
as with Stratfordians, it the other way around....
john
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, John Baker wrote:
<snip>
> Susanna's life and this pint of sherry at Oxford one afternoon during
> the summer of 1988, while he was working on this very chapter. Levi
> told me in considerable detail of a theory he'd hatched explaining why
> Dr James Cooke reported that Susanna was illiterate. It was because
> "she was pretending to be illiterate to avoid embarrassment about this
> enema..." I suggested to Peter if he was really literate she'd simply
> have taken out that page....Peter look at me and said, "by
> God...you're right!"
Latin skills were very unusual in Elizabethan women. I'd have thought
that Peter Levi would have known that.
> So its a well known fact that both Judith and Susanna Shakespeare were
> illiterates.Its supported by a considerable record. Its also a known
> fact Shakespeare's father and mother were illiterates.
Quite an exaggeration. Like most anti-Stratfordians, you've ignored
that the facts indicate that many Elizabethans could read but not write.
> This wasn't the case with Milton's family or his daughters or with
> other literate families during that age.
One of Milton's daughters appears to have been illiterate.
<snip>
Rob
Remove the Xs to reply.
volker multhopp
> Quite an exaggeration. Like most anti-Stratfordians, you've ignored
> that the facts indicate that many Elizabethans could read but not write.
This is not a fact, but a Stratfordian myth-- indeed, this distortion
of history is one of the conseqences of holding onto the entire
Stratfordian mythology. Despite my requests, no Strat has posted
credible evidence of this bizarre condition.
--Volker
Nigel Davies
"Education, like diet, costume and shelter, was socially and culturally
stratified, and the proliferation after the Reformation of a wide range of
educational institutions from small private establishments, often kept by a
single master, to well-endowed Grammar schools, exaggerated rather than reduced
inequalities. Literacy, however, increased during the 1560s and 1570s, and
although its rate of growth may have slackened off between then and the end of
the century, there is evidence that 47% of at least one major social group, the
criminal class of London, could read soon after the beginning of the next."
"A Social History of England" - Asa Briggs
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
volker multhopp
> > > Quite an exaggeration. Like most anti-Stratfordians, you've ignored
> > > that the facts indicate that many Elizabethans could read but not write.
> criminal class of London, could read soon after the beginning of the next."
Irrelevant.
--Volker
Nigel Davies
Of course it is. Utterly irrelevant. Facts don't have any bearing atall, do
they? 47% of the criminal class in London being able to read by 1600 is
irrelevant to a question of whether people were able to read but not necessarily
write in Elizabethan times. How could a fact on literacy possibly be relevant to
a question on literacy? Why dignify a factual, researched answer to a plea for
Stratfordians to support a contention on literacy when that old escape hatch
stamped "Irrelevant" can be grabbed?
New Place had a study full of valuable books. Irrelevant.
The author wouldn't write a "you" sonnet demeaning the Queen. Irrelevant.
The poet explicitly states he alone wrote verse for the subject. Irrelevant.
And so on.
If it's not hot air about de Vere limping across the stage in drag as a painted
monster just to perform to his detested commoners, its almost illiterate
one-word rejection of the discomforting facts.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
volker multhopp
> > > > > Quite an exaggeration. Like most anti-Stratfordians, you've ignored
> > > > > that the facts indicate that many Elizabethans could read but not write.
>
> > > the century, there is evidence that 47% of at least one major social group, the
> > > criminal class of London, could read soon after the beginning of the next."
> they? 47% of the criminal class in London being able to read by 1600 is
> irrelevant to a question of whether people were able to read but not necessarily
> write in Elizabethan times. How could a fact on literacy possibly be relevant to
> a question on literacy? Why dignify a factual, researched answer to a plea for
> Stratfordians to support a contention on literacy when that old escape hatch
> stamped "Irrelevant" can be grabbed?
How is any literacy figure relevant to the Strat notion the people
could read but not write?
--Volker
Nigel Davies
> > Of course it is. Utterly irrelevant. Facts don't have any bearing atall, do
> > they? 47% of the criminal class in London being able to read by 1600 is
> > irrelevant to a question of whether people were able to read but not necessarily
> > write in Elizabethan times. How could a fact on literacy possibly be relevant to
> > a question on literacy? Why dignify a factual, researched answer to a plea for
> > Stratfordians to support a contention on literacy when that old escape hatch
> > stamped "Irrelevant" can be grabbed?
>
> How is any literacy figure relevant to the Strat notion the people
> could read but not write?
The evidence quoted is specifically confined to people's ability to read in
Elizabethan times. It identifies a distinct social class that was lower than
Shakespeare's where almost half of the people in that class could read by 1600.
It does not extend its analysis to those people's ability to write. It is
explicit in this. It therefore directly supports the statement (Rob's, I think)
that "the facts indicate that many Elizabethans could read but not write". In
fact, it goes beyond that by citing that almost half could, rather than just
"many".
Maybe you've not had children yet but the faculty to read always precedes that
of being able to write intelligibly. I can't write any Arabic to save my life
but I can recognise and read Arabic words and have to to find my way around.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
volker multhopp
> > How is any literacy figure relevant to the Strat notion the people
> > could read but not write?
> The evidence quoted is specifically confined to people's ability to read in
> Elizabethan times. It identifies a distinct social class that was lower than
> Shakespeare's where almost half of the people in that class could read by 1600.
> It does not extend its analysis to those people's ability to write. It is
> explicit in this. It therefore directly supports the statement (Rob's, I think)
> that "the facts indicate that many Elizabethans could read but not write". In
> fact, it goes beyond that by citing that almost half could, rather than just
> "many".
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. To show "many Elizabethans could read
but not write" you need to provide figures for both readers and
writers. To give a number just of readers does not advance your
argument.
> Maybe you've not had children yet but the faculty to read always precedes that
> of being able to write intelligibly.
We're not talking about young children. (I remember the first step of
my learning to read, was learning to form the individual letters, but
I'm sure that's not a universal technique.)
>I can't write any Arabic to save my life
> but I can recognise and read Arabic words and have to to find my way around.
I'm sure if you can really read Arabic (as opposed to just "recognizing
and reading [some?] Arabic words"), you could pick-up writing very
quickly, esp if it was to save your life.
--Volker
Nigel Davies
> > The evidence quoted is specifically confined to people's ability to read in
> > Elizabethan times. It identifies a distinct social class that was lower than
> > Shakespeare's where almost half of the people in that class could read by 1600.
> > It does not extend its analysis to those people's ability to write. It is
> > explicit in this. It therefore directly supports the statement (Rob's, I think)
> > that "the facts indicate that many Elizabethans could read but not write". In
> > fact, it goes beyond that by citing that almost half could, rather than just
> > "many".
>
> I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. To show "many Elizabethans could read
> but not write" you need to provide figures for both readers and
> writers. To give a number just of readers does not advance your
> argument.
Come off it. This discussion is an extension of the literacy myth that you and
others have been peddling for months. You've been presented with evidence of
half of a social class (as low as the criminal class) being able to read by
1600. The evidence is explicitly confined to those who can read. Are you really
trying to pretend with this latest twaddle of yours that somebody who can write
is unable to read what they've written? "Ah, you've just written 'Volker'. What
does it say? Err, I don't know". It's blatantly obvious that the number of
people who could write is less than or equal to those that could read. The
evidence proves 2 points: that literacy by 1600 was such that 47% of even the
criminal class could read; that people could read "The Globe Theatre" sign
outside the theatre itself but not necessarily be able to write it correctly.
The mis-spellings during Elizabethan times are well enough evidence of that.
Look back on Deja News and find any instance of you actually being man enough to
admit that new information presented to this group alters your understanding of
the times that Shakespeare was living in and Shakespeare of Stratford's position
in it. Your absolute antithesis to any positive evidence in favour of the
Stratfordian man does far more damage to your own position than the status of
the Stratford man himself.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
volker multhopp
> > I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. To show "many Elizabethans could read
> > but not write" you need to provide figures for both readers and
> > writers. To give a number just of readers does not advance your
> > argument.
> Come off it. This discussion is an extension of the literacy myth that you and
> others have been peddling for months.
First it was nonsense, now this is outrageous! You deliberately
wrenched your reply out of its position in the thread, and stuck it on
one of Art's msgs to try to cover up what we were arguing. Furthermore,
you snipped the quoted material in contention. You not getting away
with it-- here it is:
[quote]
> > Quite an exaggeration. Like most anti-Stratfordians, you've ignored
> > that the facts indicate that many Elizabethans could read but not write. [ND]
> This is not a fact, but a Stratfordian myth-- indeed, this distortion
> of history is one of the conseqences of holding onto the entire
> Stratfordian mythology. Despite my requests, no Strat has posted
> credible evidence of this bizarre condition. [VM]
[endquote]
>You've been presented with evidence of
> half of a social class (as low as the criminal class) being able to read by
> 1600. The evidence is explicitly confined to those who can read.
Ok, so far.
>Are you really
> trying to pretend with this latest twaddle of yours that somebody who can write
> is unable to read what they've written?
Stop right here. This is another outrage. Where have I said anything
like that? Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us.
Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us.
Show us.
>"Ah, you've just written 'Volker'. What
> does it say? Err, I don't know". It's blatantly obvious that the number of
> people who could write is less than or equal to those that could read. The
> evidence proves 2 points: that literacy by 1600 was such that 47% of even the
> criminal class could read; that people could read "The Globe Theatre" sign
> outside the theatre itself but not necessarily be able to write it correctly.
It says absolutely nothing about whether they could write it or not.
You've made the positive statement that many of the readers could not
write it. You still haven't presented a scintilla of evidence to that.
> The mis-spellings during Elizabethan times are well enough evidence of that.
Mis-spellings have nothing to do with it. Your statement was not "Many
Elizabethans could read but they could not spell perfectly."
--Volker
John W Kennedy
>
> Maybe you've not had children yet but the faculty to read always precedes that
> but I can recognise and read Arabic words and have to to find my way around.
I remember clearly that I had "reading" in school for at least one year
before "writing", and I also remember that IBM, in the 80's, was pushing
heavily in the K-12 market a program called, "Writing to Read", the
basis of which was that children theoretically learn to read better when
they learn to write at the same time (the one reinforcing the other),
but that, little children not having sufficient coordination to write,
the experiment had always failed until now, when they could be taught to
"write" using a simple word processor until they had the dexterity to
use a pencil.
Word processors, of course, were not available in Tudor England, and
quill pens are a good deal nastier to work with than mechanically
sharpened pencils.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
John W Kennedy
> The evidence quoted is specifically confined to people's ability to read in
> Elizabethan times. It identifies a distinct social class that was lower than
> Shakespeare's where almost half of the people in that class could read by 1600.
> It does not extend its analysis to those people's ability to write. It is
> explicit in this. It therefore directly supports the statement (Rob's, I think)
> that "the facts indicate that many Elizabethans could read but not write". In
> fact, it goes beyond that by citing that almost half could, rather than just
> "many".
No, Volker's right:
1. A > B
2. No, A = B
1. No, A > B, because A is larger than one would imagine
is not an argument.
I have no doubt that A > B, but _this_ statistic ain't proof.
volker multhopp
> I remember clearly that I had "reading" in school for at least one year
> before "writing", and I also remember that IBM, in the 80's, was pushing
Even if we get the pedagogy right, that tells us nothing about whether
ever there were many adult readers who could not write.
--Volker
Tom Reedy
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Stop right here. This is another outrage. Where have I said anything
> like that? Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us.
> Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us.
> Show us.
>
> --Volker
>
Has anyone besides me noticed Volker's growing hysteria and shrillness? Must
be tough never winning an argument, and it meaning so much to one's
delusional world view.
TR
volker multhopp
> > Stop right here. This is another outrage. Where have I said anything
> > like that? Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us.
> > Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us.
> > Show us.
> be tough never winning an argument, and it meaning so much to one's
> delusional world view.
It means I know damn well Nigel will neither respond to my request nor
admit his lie, but I just want to make sure every one else knows it too.
--Volker
Nigel Davies
> First it was nonsense, now this is outrageous!
You know, it really is sad when your posts reduce to that of a 3-year old
throwing a tantrum. When your argument evaporates it always results in a torrent
of shrieking tautology. This thrashing about doesn't obscure the issue, Volker.
You still have the argument to address no matter how excitable you get about it.
> You deliberately
> wrenched your reply out of its position in the thread, and stuck it on
> one of Art's msgs to try to cover up what we were arguing. Furthermore,
> you snipped the quoted material in contention.
I didn't do anything of the sort as Deja News shows. Why is the substance of
your posts always inversely proportional to your shrieking?
> > > Quite an exaggeration. Like most anti-Stratfordians, you've ignored
> > > that the facts indicate that many Elizabethans could read but not write. [ND]
>
> > This is not a fact, but a Stratfordian myth-- indeed, this distortion
> > of history is one of the conseqences of holding onto the entire
> > Stratfordian mythology. Despite my requests, no Strat has posted
> > credible evidence of this bizarre condition. [VM]
> [endquote]
>
>
> >You've been presented with evidence of
> > half of a social class (as low as the criminal class) being able to read by
> > 1600. The evidence is explicitly confined to those who can read.
>
> Ok, so far.
Yes. So why all his shrieking?
> >Are you really
> > trying to pretend with this latest twaddle of yours that somebody who can write
> > is unable to read what they've written?
>
> Stop right here. This is another outrage. Where have I said anything
> like that? Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us.
> Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us. Show us.
> Show us.
Err, I didn't quite catch your meaning here. Are you sure you have enough
instances of "Show us"? I was asking you a question here. Your premise is that
"many Elizabethans could read but not write" is wrong. You are apparently
claiming that people are able to write but not read. Or that the 2 separate
abilities to read and write are mutually inclusive. A person who can read must
also be capable of writing. You need to SHOW US how this is the case. And you
don't have the escape hatch labeled "batty theory" to get out of this, you have
to demonstrate in the real world how it is not possible for people who have the
capacity to read and comprehend a section of text be unable to write it
themselves. Whether it is what they have written or somebody else.
> It says absolutely nothing about whether they could write it or not.
> You've made the positive statement that many of the readers could not
> write it. You still haven't presented a scintilla of evidence to that.
The evidence explicitly states that 47% of a low social class of England by 1600
had the ability to read. It does not go beyond that by including writing skills
in their capacity. The evidence is confined to their ability to read. The onus
is on you to present evidence that conflicts with reality that an ability to
read is always matched by an equal ability to write. You cannot do so. Your
theory is as batty as some of your others.
You're a one-trick pony. All you ever do when presented with evidence that sits
uncomfortably with your belief system is to reverse reality: Writing of The
Tempest? Reverse it; Sonnets 79/80? Reverse them; "You/thou" usage? Reverse
them. Cloten was a noble? Reverse him; Posthumus was a commoner? Reverse him;
Plays written after de Vere died? Reverse them; Oxenford always referred to
himself as Oxenford not Oxford? Reverse it; Etc., etc..
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
volker multhopp
> Volker wrote:
> > You deliberately
> > wrenched your reply out of its position in the thread, and stuck it on
> > one of Art's msgs to try to cover up what we were arguing. Furthermore,
> > you snipped the quoted material in contention.
> I didn't do anything of the sort as Deja News shows.
DejaNews shows you're lying and I'm right. All we have to do is look
at the threads. Gladly.
> > >Are you really
> > > trying to pretend with this latest twaddle of yours that somebody who can write
> > > is unable to read what they've written?
> Err, I didn't quite catch your meaning here. Are you sure you have enough
> instances of "Show us"? I was asking you a question here.
Desparately trying to extract yourself?
>Your premise is that
> "many Elizabethans could read but not write" is wrong.
That's YOUR damned premise.
>You are apparently
> claiming that people are able to write but not read.
I am not. Show us, etc. I mean it-- show us that I claimed that.
>Or that the 2 separate
> abilities to read and write are mutually inclusive. A person who can read must
> also be capable of writing.
You lack the ability to logically reduce. My position is there are
(very) few people who can read and not write.
>You need to SHOW US how this is the case.
No, I don't. Your position "many Elizabethans could read but not
write" came first, was posited as fact, and I challenged it. You have
to show your evidence. Your only evidence was a single figure for
literacy of E criminals, which I rightly pointed was irrelevant to
proving your point.
> > It says absolutely nothing about whether they could write it or not.
> > You've made the positive statement that many of the readers could not
> > write it. You still haven't presented a scintilla of evidence to that.
> The evidence explicitly states that 47% of a low social class of England by 1600
> had the ability to read. It does not go beyond that by including writing skills
> in their capacity. The evidence is confined to their ability to read. The onus
> is on you to present evidence that conflicts with reality that an ability to
> read is always matched by an equal ability to write.
See above. It's your case to make, not mine.
--Volker
John W Kennedy
Oh come now. I quite support you on the meaninglessness of the
"criminal class" statistic, but it is notorious (just yesterday -- and
perhaps today, too, if the imbecilic e-mail he sent me was also posted
-- we had the example of the idiot Corey Warren) that a vast number of
people will never learn to read or write unless compelled to it, and
that is far and away most likely to happen at school.
You seem to think that writing, as an extension of reading, is easy.
Have you ever used a quill pen? A steel dip pen? Or even a modern
fountain pen? I think you have forgotten what a chore writing was in,
say, 1st through 4th grade. My wife (a MCL graduate of Barnard),
reading over my shoulder, remarked at this point that she still finds
writing a far more difficult task than reading.
In fact, how much do any of us actually write in a day, apart from our
signatures?
(I may be more conscious of this because I've been able to read music
almost all my life, but until I got my hands on appropriate software,
I've been unable, for all practical purposes, to write it.)
Nigel Davies
> Oh come now. I quite support you on the meaninglessness of the
> "criminal class" statistic
Why is a statistic that quantifies the reading capability of a social class of
Elizabethan people "meaningless"?
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Nigel Davies
> Even if we get the pedagogy right, that tells us nothing about whether
> ever there were many adult readers who could not write.
Robert Burns' tutor John Murdoch wrote of his pupil that he "made rapid progress
in reading and was just
tolerable at writing". I still can't see how you seem to think that reading and
writing are mutually inclusive parallel capabilities.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
KQKnave
<nda...@emirates.net.ae> writes:
>I still can't see how you seem to think that reading and
>writing are mutually inclusive parallel capabilities.
>_________________
Because Volker knows that you can't PROVE it, so he can say
anything he wants. The authorship question isn't like, say,
Euclidean geometry, where everything is derived from a few
basic axioms, rather than common sense and life experience.
The fact that reading and writing are two separate activities, and
that reading ability does not require that the subject also have
the ability to write, (although writing (not copying, writing) requires
the ability to read) is obvious from the point of view of life experience.
But because no one can PROVE that it's obvious (using the deductive
sense of proof), we can only SAY that it's obvious, that allows a
dissenter to claim anything he or she wants, even if it creates a
bizarro world of nobles prancing in tights across the stage anonymously,
and a population which either reads AND writes, or does neither.
Jim
Rut1999
<<I still can't see how you seem to think that reading and writing are mutually
inclusive parallel capabilities.>>
Probably, because that is how it is taught in modern society. We are taught
both these abilities as part of the same process. Of course, this has not
always been true.
As an interesting sidenote, many scholars believe that the first written
languages were not seen as a code for spoken language, but as a wholly separate
form of communication.
The convergence came later.
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
> > Even if we get the pedagogy right, that tells us nothing about whether
> > ever there were many adult readers who could not write.
> perhaps today, too, if the imbecilic e-mail he sent me was also posted
> -- we had the example of the idiot Corey Warren) that a vast number of
> people will never learn to read or write unless compelled to it, and
> that is far and away most likely to happen at school.
Perhaps so. That has nothing to with the alleged existence of many
adult readers who cannot write.
> You seem to think that writing, as an extension of reading, is easy.
> Have you ever used a quill pen?
No.
>A steel dip pen?
Oh, yes. I had fun playing around awhile with different nibs. It was
simply more tiresome and sloppy (scratchy) than other writing-- there
wasn't one whit more intellectual acumen involved.
>Or even a modern
> fountain pen?
A pleasure watching that crisp line flow from the point. For a while I
kind of snobbishly affected a nice Pelikan pen, but I simply didn't use
it enough to keep the nib from drying out.
>I think you have forgotten what a chore writing was in,
> say, 1st through 4th grade. My wife (a MCL graduate of Barnard),
> reading over my shoulder, remarked at this point that she still finds
> writing a far more difficult task than reading.
Look, the average American can read a newspaper article, that doesn't
mean he can write one. But hold a gun to his head, and he can still
write a 500 word essay on what he did last summer. This has nothing to
do with quality of writing, simply the absolute yes/no ability. Even an
unschooled adult reader knows the shapes of the letters, can approximate
some kind of spelling from a word-sound, and has the hand-eye
coordination to put it on paper-- he can write.
> In fact, how much do any of us actually write in a day, apart from our
> signatures?
Grocery lists. But my significant other still hand-writes notes, even
real letters.
> (I may be more conscious of this because I've been able to read music
> almost all my life, but until I got my hands on appropriate software,
> I've been unable, for all practical purposes, to write it.)
--Volker
volker multhopp
> Robert Burns' tutor John Murdoch wrote of his pupil that he "made rapid progress
> in reading and was just
> writing are mutually inclusive parallel capabilities.
He could write. The quality thereof is not the issue.
--Volker
volker multhopp
Nigel Davies wrote:
> > Oh come now. I quite support you on the meaninglessness of the
> Why is a statistic that quantifies the reading capability of a social class of
> Elizabethan people "meaningless"?
Wake up! You have to show many people could read but not write.
--Volker
Greg Reynolds
found it interesting that in 1997, Princess Diana reportedly spent an inordinate
amount of money on what was termed, "colonic irrigation."
Also, I was in Ireland and wanted to find an OTB, an off-track betting parlor, to
place a bet on a horse I had heard of, and was directed to the "Turf Accountant,"
exactly what I had had in mind though I'd have never guessed the name meant what it
did.
Love that language!
volker multhopp
> Volker wrote:
> > >Your premise is that "many Elizabethans could read but not write" is wrong.
> > That's YOUR damned premise.
> http://x5.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=448258242&CONTEXT=920059603.1783234569&hitnum=2
> you said:
> "I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. To show "many Elizabethans could read but not
> write" you need to provide figures for both readers and writers."
Right!
> Please show us how the statement: "'many Elizabethans could read but not write'
> is wrong"
>
> is inconsistent with:
>
> the statement: "many Elizabethans could read but not write" is "nonsense".
>
> The only difference in the words is "wrong" for "nonsense". Are they not both
> negative?
They're not inconsistent. "many Elizabethans could read but not write"
is YOUR position, not MINE, or are you trying to deny that now???
> > >You are apparently
> > > claiming that people are able to write but not read.
> >
> > I am not. Show us, etc. I mean it-- show us that I claimed that.
>
> My statement comprised 2 sentences that you have deliberately separated and
> presented as though they are independent assertions - the one above and the one
> below. The 2 sentences are clearly associated by the word "Or".
>
> My sentence above contains the word "apparently" in which I am clearly trying to
> understand what the root of your objection is with the statement that has been
> made. You are expending so much energy screaming like a banshee that you have
> failed to read the words I have written. The normal response to someone saying
> "You are apparently claiming..." is to correct that appearance, not to throw a
> fit that what you "appear" to be claiming is definitive and an "outrageous"
> "lie".
Bunk. Your "apparently" means it is apparent to you that I made that
statement. I challenged you on that-- I resented that you would put
such an idiocy in my mouth. It was apparent to you-- you either show
it, or you retract it-- it wouldn't have been such a big deal-- except
you'd have to admit error. Now you have the gall to suggest that my
usages of "outrageous" and "lie" were in direct and immediate
conjunction with this incident.
My "outrageous" was in a different msg, and was a reference your
blatant attempt to alter the bone of our contention-- an attempt which
included your tearing replies out their proper threads. When are you
going to own up to that, or even address this deception of yours?
My "lie" was also in different msg.
> In
> http://x5.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=447995148&CONTEXT=920059603.1783234569&hitnum=6
> you said:
>
> "How is any literacy figure relevant to the Strat notion the people could read
> but not write?"
Right!
> In this statement you make an absolute rejection of the "notion that people
> could read but not write".
I do not! Here we go again. You're fanaticizing. Look at the
statements.
> If you are accepting this distinction then we are in the realm of quantifying
> how commonplace it was. You believe it constitutes "(very) few" people. I have
> presented evidence that shows that 47% of a low Elizabethan class could read.
You haven't yet shown one person who could read but not write. Your
47% figure, by itself, remains irrelevant.
> the
> contempoary evidence quantifies as many as 47% of just one low Elizabethan class
> as having reading capability; the same source does not present any evidence of
> their ability to write;
Right, so it's irrelevant to the point.
> Please explain why you think only a "(very) few" fall into this category.
No, I only "think" that. You're the one who says "many Elizabethans
could read but not write" is a fact, and have yet to present one iota of
evidence to substantiate that. You have wasted enormous bandwidth on
this molehill. You have been multiply duplicitous in your
representations of my arguments and yours. I cannot recall a less
satisfying encounter.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> << Even an unschooled adult reader
> knows the shapes of the letters, can approximate some kind of spelling from a
> word-sound, and has the hand-eye
> coordination to put it on paper-- he can write.>>
> spontaneously compose octovo rima in perfect Castillean Spanish, and perform
> perfectic caligraphic figures with you feet, in Chinese and Greek with the left
> and right foot, respectively.
I don't know why you're saying this-- is it from something I said?
Look at my explanation above. What part of it would not apply to an
Elizabethan?
--Volker
Nigel Davies
> >Your premise is that "many Elizabethans could read but not write" is wrong.
>
> That's YOUR damned premise.
In
http://x5.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=448258242&CONTEXT=920059603.1783234569&hitnum=2
you said:
"I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. To show "many Elizabethans could read but not
write" you need to provide figures for both readers and writers."
Please show us how the statement: "'many Elizabethans could read but not write'
is wrong"
is inconsistent with:
the statement: "many Elizabethans could read but not write" is "nonsense".
The only difference in the words is "wrong" for "nonsense". Are they not both
negative?
> >You are apparently
> > claiming that people are able to write but not read.
>
> I am not. Show us, etc. I mean it-- show us that I claimed that.
My statement comprised 2 sentences that you have deliberately separated and
presented as though they are independent assertions - the one above and the one
below. The 2 sentences are clearly associated by the word "Or".
My sentence above contains the word "apparently" in which I am clearly trying to
understand what the root of your objection is with the statement that has been
made. You are expending so much energy screaming like a banshee that you have
failed to read the words I have written. The normal response to someone saying
"You are apparently claiming..." is to correct that appearance, not to throw a
fit that what you "appear" to be claiming is definitive and an "outrageous"
"lie".
If you said to me that I "appear to be saying that..." I would reply "No, what I
am saying is..." not respond with a pleonastic "Show us Show us Show us Show us
Show us Show us Show us..." rant.
> >Or that the 2 separate
> > abilities to read and write are mutually inclusive. A person who can read must
> > also be capable of writing.
This is the second part of my search to understand what you were "apparently"
saying.
> You lack the ability to logically reduce. My position is there are
> (very) few people who can read and not write.
In
http://x5.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=447995148&CONTEXT=920059603.1783234569&hitnum=6
you said:
"How is any literacy figure relevant to the Strat notion the people could read
but not write?"
In this statement you make an absolute rejection of the "notion that people
could read but not write". You make no relative qualification. I can find
nothing on Deja News in which you do so. All your past comments are consistent
with an unqualified rejection of the notion that people can have the capacity to
read but not to write. You now change that by saying that there are "(very) few"
people who can read but not write. Correct me if I'm wrong but you have now
modified your argument from absolute rejection of the notion to acceptance of it
with a relative qualification.
You now appear to be accepting that the faculty to "read" is distinct from the
faculty to "write". (Correct me if what you "appear" to be saying is not the
case and show how it isn't.) You now appear to be saying that people can read
but not write but that in your opinion there are only "(very) few" people who
fall into that category. You appear to be accepting that when Robert Burns'
tutor gives an account of Burns' literacy he makes an explicit distinction
between the 2 capabilities. He goes on to unequivocally state that his writing
capability was inferior to his reading capability.
If you are accepting this distinction then we are in the realm of quantifying
how commonplace it was. You believe it constitutes "(very) few" people. I have
presented evidence that shows that 47% of a low Elizabethan class could read.
(John Kennedy may wish to reject this as meaningless as is his right, but
fortunately we have the right to reject what he has to say as meaningless too
(even if his wife appears to be surgically attached to his shoulder.)) The
contemporary evidence is deliberately confined to their reading ability and does
not go on to quantify writing skills.
My contention is that: reading and writing skills are distinct; they are
separately identified by authorities such as Robert Burns' personal tutor; they
are separately quantified by authorities such as Burns' personal tutor; the
contempoary evidence quantifies as many as 47% of just one low Elizabethan class
as having reading capability; the same source does not present any evidence of
their ability to write; the notion that people can read but not write is sound;
Elizabethan people's reading potential for various cultural reasons (e.g. Bible
reading, massive increase in printed material) existed but their need to write
was less; therefore the notion that many during this time could read but not
write is fair.
Please explain why you think only a "(very) few" fall into this category.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Rut1999
<<Look, the average American can read a newspaper article, that doesn't mean he
can write one. But hold a gun to his head, and he can still write a 500 word
essay on what he did last summer. This has nothing to do with quality of
writing, simply the absolute yes/no ability. Even an unschooled adult reader
knows the shapes of the letters, can approximate some kind of spelling from a
word-sound, and has the hand-eye
coordination to put it on paper-- he can write.>>
Volker, you can't use twentieth century individuals as an analogy. It's
absurd.
In our Schools we are taught in a specific way which combines reading and
writing in a way that wasn't even imagined during the 16th and 17th century.
Do you remember how poorly you wrote when you first attempted it? And it took
years of writing everyday before you developed a hand with any fluidity.
Absent instruction and a time and place to practice you would never have
developed the ability, no matter how well you could read.
Nigel Davies
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Rut1999 wrote:
>
> > << Even an unschooled adult reader
> > knows the shapes of the letters, can approximate some kind of spelling from
a
> > word-sound, and has the hand-eye
> > coordination to put it on paper-- he can write.>>
>
> > spontaneously compose octovo rima in perfect Castillean Spanish, and perform
> > perfectic caligraphic figures with you feet, in Chinese and Greek with the
left
> > and right foot, respectively.
>
> Look at my explanation above. What part of it would not apply to an
> Elizabethan?
>
write as you say above (and as Charlemagne was said not to be able
to), why can't any adult familiar with the drawings of Rembrandt
be able to copy them? Why can't John W. Kennedy and I, who can
read music, write it? Answer: because there is a difference in
being able to recognize and in being able to imitate. To put
it briefly, it's like the difference between being able to do well
on a multiple-choice test and and being able to do well on a test
that asks directly for answers. It's easy to know that Thomas
Heywood was the playwright contemporary with William Shakespeare
whose poems were included with Shakespeare's in an edition of
The Passionate Pilgrim if I see his name--but (for me, at any rate)
not if I'm asked out of the blue for his name.
I don't have time to figure out how to make it clearer than that
(and I don't claim that that is clear, only that it ought to give
you some idea of where I'm going). It reduces to the simple fact that
you need to access more data in your brain to write something than
you do to recognize what a piece of writing means. And it's not
just eye-and-hand co:ordination, it's a large SET of particular
hand-and-eye co:ordinations.
--Bob G.
Rut1999
specific set of instructions and practice, which have nothing to do with
reading.
If someone was only taught to read, they wouldn't be able to write. Just as
being able to look at an architectural drawing, does not mean you can duplicate
it.
volker multhopp
> Volker, you seem to be suggesting that writing is not a skill that requires a
> specific set of instructions and practice, which have nothing to do with
> reading.
You did not address the question I put to you. Furthermore, you
snipped out it and the context. Communication some 2-way exchange and
give and take. I'll restore the context, and give you another chance:
> << Even an unschooled adult reader
> knows the shapes of the letters, can approximate some kind of spelling from a
> word-sound, and has the hand-eye
> coordination to put it on paper-- he can write.>>
Look at my explanation above. What part of it would not apply to an
Elizabethan?
-----------
> If someone was only taught to read, they wouldn't be able to write. Just as
> being able to look at an architectural drawing, does not mean you can duplicate
> it.
Rendering an architectural drawing requires a wide of special technical
skills, and even special appliances. Furthermore, the symbol set goes
way, way beyond the 26 letters of the alphabet. The drawing reader does
not need to know the entire symbol set, because he can either directly
visualize the component, or he can logically deduce the detail, perhaps
on basis of the handy little notes often right there.
The text reader can't do anything like that. If he doesn't recognize
the letters he can't read. If he recognizes the letters, but not the
word, he can try to pronounce the word by rules, and thus figure it
out. If he knows the rules and the letters and can physically form
them, he can write a given word, even though the spelling might not be
right.
--Volker
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
rut...@aol.com (Rut1999) wrote:
> Volker sayeth:
>
> <<Look, the average American can read a newspaper article, that doesn't mean
he
> can write one. But hold a gun to his head, and he can still write a 500 word
> essay on what he did last summer. This has nothing to do with quality of
> knows the shapes of the letters, can approximate some kind of spelling from a
> word-sound, and has the hand-eye
> coordination to put it on paper-- he can write.>>
>
> absurd.
>
> In our Schools we are taught in a specific way which combines reading and
> writing in a way that wasn't even imagined during the 16th and 17th century.
>
> Do you remember how poorly you wrote when you first attempted it? And it took
> years of writing everyday before you developed a hand with any fluidity.
>
> Absent instruction and a time and place to practice you would never have
> developed the ability, no matter how well you could read.
>
> spontaneously compose octovo rima in perfect Castillean Spanish, and perform
> perfectic caligraphic figures with you feet, in Chinese and Greek with the
left
> and right foot, respectively.
>
what Volker snipped.
Tom Reedy
Nigel's original statement: Your premise is that "many Elizabethans could read
but not write" is wrong.
Perhaps it would have been clearer if he had said: Your premise is that the
statement "many Elizabethans could read but not write" is wrong.
Nigel is not stating that your premise is wrong. He is stating that your
premise is that the statement in quotations is wrong.
Technically his sentence is correct, but it has too much ambiguity.
TR
Nigel Davies
> Even an unschooled adult reader
> knows the shapes of the letters, can approximate some kind of spelling from a
> word-sound, and has the hand-eye
> coordination to put it on paper-- he can write.>>
Writing is an intellectual capacity, not simply holding a writing device and
approximating letter shapes.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
John W Kennedy
> As an interesting sidenote, many scholars believe that the first written
> languages were not seen as a code for spoken language, but as a wholly separate
> form of communication.
> The convergence came later.
Many scholars say that this is at least half true of modern Chinese,
and, of course, anyone deaf or who works with the deaf knows of the vast
difference between real Sign and the pidgin English Sign that is often
taught to hearing parents of deaf children.
John W Kennedy
>
> John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> > Oh come now. I quite support you on the meaninglessness of the
> > "criminal class" statistic
>
> Why is a statistic that quantifies the reading capability of a social class of
> Elizabethan people "meaningless"?
As a pure matter of mathematics and logic, NO statistic on the number of
readers has, taken in itself, any bearing on the relative number of
writers (save, of course, that, apart from a very few cases of brain
damage, all writers are readers).
volker multhopp
> > The convergence came later.
> Many scholars say that this is at least half true of modern Chinese,
All of which is irrelevant to whether there were readers not writers.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> Is this relevant? Here is an excerpt from Sir Frank Stenton's "Anglo-
> ...
> should be sent to school until they could AT LEAST READ ENGLISH
> WRITING. Thereafter, those who were needed for another calling
> should leave school, and those for whom the priesthood was designed
No, because it doesn't tell us they couldn't write.
--Volker
KQKnave
writes:
AT LEAST - that means that they went to school until they could, -at
the very minimum- READ. It doesn't say IN ADDITION TO or ALONG
WITH, it says AT LEAST. AT LEAST in the sentence above means that
READING was the ONLY thing they learned, it was not something they
learned IN ADDITION TO something else.
Jim
volker multhopp
> > No, because it doesn't tell us they couldn't write.
> the very minimum- READ. It doesn't say IN ADDITION TO or ALONG
> WITH, it says AT LEAST. AT LEAST in the sentence above means that
> READING was the ONLY thing they learned, it was not something they
> learned IN ADDITION TO something else.
If this is the tack you want to take, then show us that writing is
disjoint from reading among adult practitioners. Writing requires the
skills already present in reading, plus the fairly trivial skill of
drawing the 26 letters. If there were many Elizabethans who could read,
not write, show us a reference to them. So far, you Strats haven't
shown *one single* reader-not-writer, let alone many of them. This
whole matter would not be an issue, except for the pathetic need of
Strats to believe that John and Mary, Anne, and Judith were not
illiterate-- so Strats have erected this delusion of the strange beast
who can read, not write. Show us. How tragic!
--Volker
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
who can read, not write."
Volker, I for one have no need whatsoever to believe that anyone in
Shakespeare's family other than he for nine generations forward or
back could read or write. Even he need not have been able to read
or write for my theory of the authorship to hold, though I do suspect
that if he dictated his plays, someone would have said something
about it. Nonetheless I feel fairly certain that Susannah and at
least two of Shakespeare's brothers could write, and that John may
have been able to read, and may have been able to write.
As for a "beast who can read, not write," I need NO evidence. Simple
common sense would have to tell you that such a beast would HAVE to
have existed. They are different skills. And everyone speaks of
learning to read AND write, not of learning to read, as if that would
necessarily include learning to write.
--Bob G.
Nigel Davies
> > Why is a statistic that quantifies the reading capability of a social class of
> > Elizabethan people "meaningless"?
>
> As a pure matter of mathematics and logic, NO statistic on the number of
> readers has, taken in itself, any bearing on the relative number of
> writers (save, of course, that, apart from a very few cases of brain
> damage, all writers are readers).
You've excellently failed to read the evidence and centred your attention on
just
one component which is the statistic itself. The evidence is that by 1600, 47%
of the criminal class could read. It does not offer a quantification of writing
abilities in that social class. It deliberately excludes writing from the skills
being measured. The statistic is not being presented on its own. It's being
presented as distinct from the ability to write which it does not venture to
quantify. Therefore, by implication, the ability to read in that social class
was greater than their ability to write.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
THopeB
<<<<<<47% of the criminal class in London being able to read by 1600 is
irrelevant to a question of whether people were able to read but not
necessarily write in Elizabethan times.>>>>>
The book I read did indeed say that that three-quarters of the London
population was literate in the late Tudor period but that over the country as a
whole, two-thirds of the people were still illiterate.
Tracey
volker multhopp
And I'm still waiting for a reference to a reader-but-not-writer.
--Volker
John W Kennedy
I'm sorry, but that's simply hand-waving to cover a non-sequitur. You
don't know that "it deliberately excludes writing", and even if it did,
it would not be evidence that the two numbers are different, especially
since you give no description whatsoever of when and how this figure was
obtained, or by whom. And you damn well can't argue (which I half
suspect you are by now) that it must be true because an Oxfordian says
it's false. Don't go over to the dark side! (Or, to continue the SF
theme at a more elevated level, when you become obsessed with the enemy,
you become the enemy.)
I half suspect (now that my wife has given me a nudge) that you're going
after statistics based on Benefit of Clergy. If so, I'd want to know a
_lot_ more about methodology before I'd even accept that 47% figure as
remotely meaningful with respect to reading, but, even apart from that,
I can guarantee that ability to write wouldn't be measured _at_ _all_.
volker multhopp
> > And I'm still waiting for a reference to a reader-but-not-writer.
> father by reading aloud a newspaper. Of course, I couldn't really understand
> it the way an adult could, but I had no trouble reading. I didn't learn to
> write until the 1st grade, and I was still working on it for several grades
> after that.
This matter of young children not writing has been brought before. We
need adults here, sorry.
--Volker
KQKnave
writes:
>
> And I'm still waiting for a reference to a reader-but-not-writer.
>
> --Volker
>
When I was 5 years old, before I was in the first grade, I amazed my
father by reading aloud a newspaper. Of course, I couldn't really understand
it the way an adult could, but I had no trouble reading. I didn't learn to
write until the 1st grade, and I was still working on it for several grades
after that.
Jim
KQKnave
writes:
>
>This matter of young children not writing has been brought before. We
>need adults here, sorry.
>
> --Volker
>
The fact that everyone learns to read before they write,
coupled with the fact that King Alfred wanted everyone to
go to school until they could AT LEAST read is enough for
the rational minds among us. Do you expect a person who
can only read to leave a written testimony to his skills? Do
you expect to find evidence of such people in documents, like
letters of the time, the few of which we have were written by
nobility or government clerks? Do you expect someone to state
in a will: "I leave 5 pounds to my neice Mary, who, by the way,
can read but not write."? I don't expect to find any written documents
that say that some people ate broiled fish for lunch, yet I expect
that some did just the same. When are you going to provide us
withsome evidence that there were no people who could only read,
not write?
Jim
volker multhopp
> The fact that everyone learns to read before they write,
> coupled with the fact that King Alfred wanted everyone to
> go to school until they could AT LEAST read is enough for
> the rational minds among us.
And if they can read, they can write.
>Do you expect a person who
> can only read to leave a written testimony to his skills?
No, I expect writers to mention them, just as they mention non-readers.
--Volker
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, volker multhopp wrote:
<snip>
> And I'm still waiting for a reference to a reader-but-not-writer.
Check out the thread entitled "Reading but not writing."
Rob
Remove the Xs to reply.
helenmi...@gmail.com
There is discussion of this in Greer's Shakespeare's Wife where is concluded that Susannah could both read and write. This is a furphy created by Oxfordians and the like to support their loonery and need not waste anyone's emotional energy.
Paul Crowley
> In the early modern period (and later) it was common enough for
> people to be able to read but not to be able to write.
of this to prove that you're not just regurgitating academic
nonsense.
> The idea that the two go together is an anachronism.
When Tudor children were being taught to write
they could not use those awkward and expensive
quill pens. So they sat on their hands, and paid
attention to what their teacher said, minute after
minute, hour after hour,
In fact, it's kids that have changed. Modern kids
could never do that . . . they're have degenerated
in some genetic fashion. It's the same for the 13-
year-olds. Grammar-school boys (such as Shagsper)
left school at 13, fluent in Latin, knowing most of the
classics off by heart. Who in the modern world
knows any 13-year-old with such capacities?
> Common sense should tell you btw that even signing with a mark
> is not necessarily proof of being unable to write, just of not being
> enough of a habitual writer to have a distinctive signature.
is far too stupid and too ignorant to parody.
1) Only the upper-classes were literate;
2) People liked to pretend that they were closer
to upper-classes than to the lower;
3) People liked to pretend that they had more
abilities (of a general social nature) than they
in fact had;
4) People frequently learnt how to write their
'signatures' when that was the sole thing that
they learned to "write";
5) People did NOT make a mark on important
documents when they could write their names
in full.
> There is discussion of this in Greer's Shakespeare's Wife where
> is concluded that Susannah could both read and write.
his death, lieutenant Dr James Cooke -- a local man
from Warwick -- asked her for some of his manuscript
books which had been lying around her house for years.
She did not know what they were. Interestingly, he
_expected_ her to be literate (given her wealth and
social status). But she clearly wasn't.
http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/Resources/Literacy.ASP
Nor did anyone think of asking her for any of her
father's papers. Something strange there?
Paul.