Shakespeare Without Doubt webinar

205 views
Skip to first unread message

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 26, 2013, 4:56:23 PM4/26/13
to
Apparently the Oxforidians think that Ros Barber wiped the floor with
Edmondson and Wells. They're all celebrating on their FaceBook lairs.
Did anybody listen to it? Impressions?

TR

laraine

unread,
Apr 26, 2013, 5:15:20 PM4/26/13
to
I think she must know those guys. It
sounded like they were having an
animated dinner discussion over
wine and appetizers.

And yet... all were starting to get a
little irritated near the end.

C.

laraine

unread,
Apr 26, 2013, 5:30:00 PM4/26/13
to
On Apr 26, 3:56 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
One big and probably somewhat
unanswerable question:

How does one rank evidence?

C.

Dominic Hughes

unread,
Apr 26, 2013, 5:44:23 PM4/26/13
to
Edmondson and Wells are not good advocates in a debate. They are slow and ponderous and are not particularly effective at presenting evidence in response to points raised.

Ms. Barber simply offered up a rehash of Price's filter to dismiss evidence that doesn't fit with her theory. The evidence is either posthumous or is not "personal" [as if evidence may only be considered valid and relevant if it is generated within the lifetime of the subject and is explicitly "personal"], and, therefore, the evidence is insufficient to prove the proposition that Shakespeare was an author [it doesn't "add up" for her]. There is no evidence where you would expect it to be. Shakespeare was a money lender, a grain merchant, a businessman, maybe a play-broker, etc., but there is no evidence "during his lifetime" that he was an author [title pages don't count, the 'Parnassus' plays don't count, Heywood doesn't count, dedications don't count, accounts of the revels don't count, a monument in Stratford doesn't count, reports of visitors there don't count, Basse's poem doesn't count, the First Folio doesn't count, etc.]. Everything Ben Jonson wrote about Shakespeare was ambiguous and enigmatic, and there are many ways to read a document. She admitted that there is no positive evidence for any other candidate, but fell back on the claim that there is circumstantial evidence, although I don't recall her ever mentioning any specifics in that regard. She didn't appreciate being called a conspiracy theorist or an anti-Shakespearean [as someone pointed out, that really "hit a nerve"]. All in all, it was typical anti-Stratfordian boilerplate...make a god of the gaps and read the evidence that does exist so that it doesn't support the attribution of the works to WS of Stratford.

If this 40-minute hash-fest is a cause for Oxfordian celebration then they must really be desperate for something to celebrate.

Dom

John W Kennedy

unread,
Apr 26, 2013, 6:00:04 PM4/26/13
to
Same old same old. And not always full preparation on the orthodox
side, I'm afraid, e.g., "Judith Shakespeare must have been illiterate
because she signed with a mark on one document," did not, as far as I
could tell, elicit the obvious rebuttal that we all know. Neither was
there any adequate response to the patented Diana Price Evidence
Filter, or to the false claim that Shakespeare's bio is unusually thin
for an Elizabethan bourgeois.

--
John W Kennedy
"...a few centuries earlier... the humans still knew pretty well when a
thing was proved, and when it was not; and if it was proved, they
really believed it."
-- C. S. Lewis. "The Screwtape Letters"

John W Kennedy

unread,
Apr 26, 2013, 6:37:13 PM4/26/13
to
A) With logic. (Oh dear God! Is it possible that, Modern Logic having
been made a subdepartment of Mathematics, Liberal Arts students no
longer receive any instruction in it at all, so that DeMorgan's Laws
and the adventures of Barbara and her Buddies are equally alien to
them? That would explain such a terrible, terrible lot.)

B) In light of other evidence.

--
John W Kennedy
"There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump
of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that
because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in
the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear
I can't see it that way."
-- The last words of Bat Masterson

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 26, 2013, 9:57:25 PM4/26/13
to
So IOW, once you eliminate all the evidence that Shakespeare wrote the
works attributed to him, then absolutely no evidence exists that
Shakespeare ever wrote a word!

Sounds legit.

TR

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 26, 2013, 10:00:46 PM4/26/13
to
It sounds to me that it went like the first Obama-Romney debate, with
the Strat side thinking that sober logic would win the day. Apparently
Wells and Edmondson think they're still in Kansas when they're talking
to anti-Strats.

TR

John W Kennedy

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 12:08:13 AM4/27/13
to
Pretty much. They need someone who's fought in the trenches of HLAS to
serve as Sergeant Major.

ignoto

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 2:35:30 AM4/27/13
to
What an amazing (and completely unwitting) admission of partisanship.
Looks like Reedy has more in common with the anti-stratfordians than he
cares to realize...

Ign.

Peter F.

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 3:42:06 AM4/27/13
to
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Apparently the Oxfordians think that Ros Barber wiped the
> floor with Edmondson and Wells. They're all celebrating on
> their FaceBook lairs.
>
> Did anybody listen to it? Impressions?


In the "Shakespeare Beyond Doubt" thread I warned "If they
assume that Ros will prove to be an easy target, however,
they need to think again!", a warning which, I believe,
proved well-founded.

For any single anti-Stratfordian to be confronted by the
eminent professor Stanley Wells in a debate on the author-
ship question "chaired" (Ha!) by Paul Edmondson has to be
a very daunting experience. Yet in my opinion Ros gave not
only as good as she got, but in nearly all respects much
better. Bear in mind that she could deal only with the
cards she was dealt, and had little or no control over just
what was to be discussed at any time.

It is true that neither Wells nor Edmondson have the sort
of knowledge of the subject which a spell here (or editing
the Wikipedia SAQ pages) would have given, and which would
have considerably strengthened their hand. But neither has
Ros Barber, and I would say that this lack was far more
evident in their case than it was in hers.

Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>

Paul Crowley

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 4:15:43 AM4/27/13
to
On 27/04/2013 02:57, Tom Reedy wrote:

> So IOW, once you eliminate all the evidence that Shakespeare wrote
> the works attributed to him, then absolutely no evidence exists that
> Shakespeare ever wrote a word!
>
> Sounds legit.

It is perfectly legitimate.

There's very little that needs to be eliminated.
An illiterate guy is not going to leave much
evidence that he wrote anything.

Continuing to believe in a proposition just
because you were told it at school is normal.
But it's not rational.


Paul.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 9:37:02 AM4/27/13
to
What is so unwitting about it? Were you imagining that I thought both
sides had parity? What rock have you been under for the past couple of
decades?

TR

Arthur Neuendorffer

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 9:49:05 AM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 12:08 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2013-04-27 02:00:46 +0000, Tom Reedy said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>>> Tom Reedy said:
>
>>>> Apparently the Oxforidians think that Ros Barber wiped the floor with
>>>> Edmondson and Wells. They're all celebrating on their FaceBook lairs.
>>>> Did anybody listen to it? Impressions?

>> John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Same old same old. And not always full preparation on the orthodox
>>> side, I'm afraid, e.g., "Judith Shakespeare must have been illiterate
>>> because she signed with a mark on one document," did not, as far as I
>>> could tell, elicit the obvious rebuttal that we all know. Neither was
>>> there any adequate response to the patented Diana Price Evidence
>>> Filter, or to the false claim that Shakespeare's bio is unusually thin
>>> for an Elizabethan bourgeois.

> Tom Reedy said:
>>
>> It sounds to me that it went like the first Obama-Romney debate, with
>> the Strat side thinking that sober logic would win the day. Apparently
>> Wells and Edmondson think they're still in Kansas when they're talking
>> to anti-Strats.

John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Pretty much. They need someone who's fought
> in the trenches of HLAS to serve as Sergeant Major.
---------------------------------------------------------------
_The Devil's Disciple_ Act III
by George Bernard Shaw
---------------------------------------------------------------
BURGOYNE [enigmatically]: And will you wipe out our enemies in London,
too?

SWINDON: In London! What enemies?

BURGOYNE [forcibly]: Jobbery and snobbery, incompetence and Red Tape.
[He holds up the dispatch and adds, with despair in his face and
voice] I have just learnt, sir, that General Howe is still in New
York.

SWINDON [thunderstruck]: Good God! He has disobeyed orders!

BURGOYNE [with sardonic calm]: He has received no orders, sir. Some
gentleman in London forgot to dispatch them: he was leaving town for
his holiday, I believe. To avoid upsetting his arrangements, England
will lose her American colonies; and in a few days you and I will be
at Saratoga with 5,000 men to face 16,000 rebels in an impregnable
position.

SWINDON [appalled]: Impossible!

BURGOYNE [coldly]: I beg your pardon!

SWINDON: I can't believe it! What will History say?

BURGOYNE: History, sir, will tell lies, as usual.
------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 12:00:56 PM4/27/13
to
Well the last authorship webinor was held on September 1, 2011, and
uploaded to YouTube the same day. Let's see how long it takes for this
one to be uploaded.

TR

Sneaky O. Possum

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 12:49:39 PM4/27/13
to
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6c9bfe46-9a76-44c1...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 27, 1:35�am, ignoto <b...@blahblahblah.blah> wrote:
>> On 27/04/13 12:00 PM, Tom Reedy wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 26, 5:00 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> On 2013-04-26 20:56:23 +0000, Tom Reedy said:
>>
>> >>> Apparently the Oxforidians think that Ros Barber wiped the floor
>> >>> with Edmondson and Wells. They're all celebrating on their
>> >>> FaceBook lairs. Did anybody listen to it? Impressions?
>>
>> >> Same old same old. And not always full preparation on the orthodox
>> >> side, I'm afraid, e.g., "Judith Shakespeare must have been
>> >> illiterate because she signed with a mark on one document," did
>> >> not, as far as I could tell, elicit the obvious rebuttal that we
>> >> all know. Neither was there any adequate response to the patented
>> >> Diana Price Evidence Filter, or to the false claim that
>> >> Shakespeare's bio is unusually thin for an Elizabethan bourgeois.
>>
>> > It sounds to me that it went like the first Obama-Romney debate,
>> > with the Strat side thinking that sober logic would win the day.
>>
>> What an amazing (and completely unwitting) admission of partisanship.
>> Looks like Reedy has more in common with the anti-stratfordians than
>> he cares to realize...
>
> What is so unwitting about it? Were you imagining that I thought both
> sides had parity? What rock have you been under for the past couple of
> decades?

The problem I have with your claim is not your partisanship but rather
the silliness of claiming that your side thought that "sober logic would
win the day" in a candidates' debate. And I hope you're not suggesting
that your candidate actually /used/ sober logic.
--
S.O.P.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 1:18:58 PM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 11:49 am, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
What "claim", exactly? My "candidate" has been dead for almost 400
years. Since I wasn't able to listen to the webinar, I don't know
whether "sober logic" was used by Edmondson or Wells; my comment ("It
sounds to me that it went like the first Obama-Romney debate...),was
based on my impression from other posters here and was meant to convey
that the incumbent side (whether Stratfordians or the sitting
president) greatly misunderstood what the debate was really all about.
Whatever "silliness" that implies to you has no great relevance to
anything.

TR

Sneaky O. Possum

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 2:49:46 PM4/27/13
to
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7e81db6c-2920-4047...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 27, 11:49�am, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:6c9bfe46-9a76-44c1-acca-755a
> 5770...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Apr 27, 1:35�am, ignoto <b...@blahblahblah.blah> wrote:
>> >> On 27/04/13 12:00 PM, Tom Reedy wrote:
[snip]
>> >> > It sounds to me that it went like the first Obama-Romney debate,
>> >> > with the Strat side thinking that sober logic would win the day.
>>
>> >> What an amazing (and completely unwitting) admission of
>> >> partisanship. Looks like Reedy has more in common with the
>> >> anti-stratfordians than he cares to realize...
>>
>> > What is so unwitting about it? Were you imagining that I thought
>> > both sides had parity? What rock have you been under for the past
>> > couple of decades?
>>
>> The problem I have with your claim is not your partisanship but
>> rather the silliness of claiming that your side thought that "sober
>> logic would win the day" in a candidates' debate. And I hope you're
>> not suggesting that your candidate actually /used/ sober logic.
>
> What "claim", exactly?

Your claim that people "thinking that sober logic would win the day" was
"like the first Obama-Romney debate" in some sense.

> My "candidate" has been dead for almost 400 years.

And here I had you pegged as a Democrat.
--
S.O.P.

jaelsheargold

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 3:28:14 PM4/27/13
to
He isn't a candidate. It's the non-Stratfordians who have candidates.


SB.


> Since I wasn't able to listen to the webinar, I don't know whether "sober logic" was used by Edmondson or Wells; my comment ("It
> sounds to me that it went like the first Obama-Romney debate...),was
> based on my impression from other posters here and was meant to convey
> that the incumbent side (whether Stratfordians or the sitting
> president) greatly misunderstood what the debate was really all about.
> Whatever "silliness" that implies to you has no great relevance to
> anything.
>
> TR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 3:49:32 PM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 1:49 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote innews:7e81db6c-2920-4047...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 11:49 am, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:6c9bfe46-9a76-44c1-acca-755a
> > 57705...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Apr 27, 1:35 am, ignoto <b...@blahblahblah.blah> wrote:
> >> >> On 27/04/13 12:00 PM, Tom Reedy wrote:
> [snip]
> >> >> > It sounds to me that it went like the first Obama-Romney debate,
> >> >> > with the Strat side thinking that sober logic would win the day.
>
> >> >> What an amazing (and completely unwitting) admission of
> >> >> partisanship. Looks like Reedy has more in common with the
> >> >> anti-stratfordians than he cares to realize...
>
> >> > What is so unwitting about it? Were you imagining that I thought
> >> > both sides had parity? What rock have you been under for the past
> >> > couple of decades?
>
> >> The problem I have with your claim is not your partisanship but
> >> rather the silliness of claiming that your side thought that "sober
> >> logic would win the day" in a candidates' debate. And I hope you're
> >> not suggesting that your candidate actually /used/ sober logic.
>
> > What "claim", exactly?
>
> Your claim that people "thinking that sober logic would win the day" was
> "like the first Obama-Romney debate" in some sense.

Oh. I misunderstood your point.

> > My "candidate" has been dead for almost 400 years.
>
> And here I had you pegged as a Democrat.

Like most self-deluded Americans, I consider myself an independent.

TR
> --
> S.O.P.

ignoto

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 6:48:51 PM4/27/13
to
I'm talking about you rattling the can for Obama.

Ign.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 7:56:27 PM4/27/13
to
??? Rattling _what_ can? I said Obama was unprepared for his first
debate with Romney, and compared it to Edmondson and Wells' apparent
delusion that logic would carry the day for them. This is not a
political discussion group.

Even if I _were_ "rattling the can for Obama", I fail to see how that
would indicate that I have "more in common with the anti-stratfordians
than [I care] to realize". Political persuasion has absolutely nothing
to do with Shakespeare authorship, although I daresay most
Shakespeareans of whatever stripe are probably moe liberal in their
outlook and politics than those who don't care for Shakespeare, but
that would have more do to with educational attainment than authorship
preference: studies show that the more education one has the likelier
that person is to be liberal. (And neither Obama nor Romney are fool
enough to think that "sober logic" would work in a presidential
election; they know the electorate too well for that.)

TR

ignoto

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 8:34:55 PM4/27/13
to
You drew a comparison between Obama's 'sober logic' and Romney and
anti-stratfordian thought. If you meant to suggest that Wells and
Edmondson were underprepared you elided that from your comment.

IMO only an ideologue could take the view that Obama relied simply on
'sober logic' in his debate with Romney (in any case attempts to tame
'the many headed beast' are never exercises in 'sober logic').

> This is not a
> political discussion group.

You are the one who drew the comparison.

>
> Even if I _were_ "rattling the can for Obama", I fail to see how that
> would indicate that I have "more in common with the anti-stratfordians
> than [I care] to realize".

See above.

> Political persuasion has absolutely nothing
> to do with Shakespeare authorship, although I daresay most
> Shakespeareans of whatever stripe are probably moe liberal in their
> outlook and politics than those who don't care for Shakespeare, but
> that would have more do to with educational attainment than authorship
> preference: studies show that the more education one has the likelier
> that person is to be liberal.

And this is a surprise, how? Education has been politicized since the
1960s with liberal academics making up the vast majority of the teaching
corpus.

> (And neither Obama nor Romney are fool
> enough to think that "sober logic" would work in a presidential
> election; they know the electorate too well for that.)

Again, you are the one who drew the comparison.

Ign.

book...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 8:52:07 PM4/27/13
to
But see
http://faculty.psdomain.ucdavis.edu/bhighton/pubs-and-papers/2009_jop_educ-soph.pdf

(quote)
Benjamin Highton
University of California, Davis

In politics, those who are politically sophisticated are advantaged in
a variety of ways relative to those who are not.
This paper analyzes the causes of political sophistication paying
particular attention to the variable most commonly
identified as the primary cause of differences within the mass public,
educational attainment. Using panel data first
collected before some respondents attended college, I show that there
appears to be no significant effect of attending
and graduating from college on political awareness. Differences in
political sophistication evident after people
attend college are already in place before anyone sets foot in a
college classroom. Explaining political sophistication
therefore requires attention to pre-adult causes. I elaborate an
explanation and find that it accounts for a
substantial portion of the spurious relationship between education and
political sophistication.
(unquote)

Sneaky O. Possum

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 10:39:32 PM4/27/13
to
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:32fee1bc-00ab-4b3c...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 27, 5:48 pm, ignoto <b...@blahblahblah.blah> wrote:
>> On 27/04/13 11:37 PM, Tom Reedy wrote:
>> > On Apr 27, 1:35 am, ignoto <b...@blahblahblah.blah> wrote:
>> >> On 27/04/13 12:00 PM, Tom Reedy wrote:
[snip]
>> >>> It sounds to me that it went like the first Obama-Romney debate,
>> >>> with the Strat side thinking that sober logic would win the day.
>>
>> >> What an amazing (and completely unwitting) admission of
>> >> partisanship. Looks like Reedy has more in common with the
>> >> anti-stratfordians than he cares to realize...
>>
>> > What is so unwitting about it? Were you imagining that I thought
>> > both sides had parity? What rock have you been under for the past
>> > couple of decades?
>>
>> I'm talking about you rattling the can for Obama.
>
> ??? Rattling _what_ can? I said Obama was unprepared for his first
> debate with Romney,

In the Bizarro-HLAS, you may have said that, but not in this one.

> and compared it to Edmondson and Wells' apparent delusion that logic
> would carry the day for them.

Yes, Mr Reedy, when you said they thought that sober logic would win the
day, you meant that they were deluded. Of course you did.

> This is not a political discussion group.

Perhaps you should avoid introducing political comparisons into
previously unpoliticized threads.

> Even if I _were_ "rattling the can for Obama", I fail to see how that
> would indicate that I have "more in common with the anti-stratfordians
> than [I care] to realize". Political persuasion has absolutely nothing
> to do with Shakespeare authorship, although I daresay most
> Shakespeareans of whatever stripe are probably moe liberal

No, Moe libertarian. /Curly/ liberal. (Larry moderate.)

> in their outlook and politics than those who don't care for
> Shakespeare, but that would have more do to with educational
> attainment than authorship preference: studies show that the more
> education one has the likelier that person is to be liberal. (And
> neither Obama nor Romney are fool enough to think that "sober logic"
> would work in a presidential election; they know the electorate too
> well for that.)

It already seemed a tad hypocritical of you to haul out the "this is not
a political discussion group", but now you're compounding the problem.
(And seriously, "they know the electorate too well for that"? Regardless
of what one may think of his political positions, Mr Romney doesn't
deserve to be accused of having excessive knowledge of the electorate -
or even adequate knowledge of it.)
--
S.O.P.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 11:18:21 PM4/27/13
to
> But seehttp://faculty.psdomain.ucdavis.edu/bhighton/pubs-and-papers/2009_jop...
That is untrue, and whoever wrote that should have known it. The
variable most commonly identified as the primary cause of differences
of political outlook within the mass public is the political
persuasion of parents.

TR

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 11:26:11 PM4/27/13
to
It appears that you have lost whatever reading comprehension you once
had once a political comparison was made.

> If you meant to suggest that Wells and
> Edmondson were underprepared you elided that from your comment.

And it appears that whatever abilities of inference you had went the
same way.

> IMO only an ideologue could take the view that Obama relied simply on
> 'sober logic' in his debate with Romney (in any case attempts to tame
> 'the many headed beast' are never exercises in 'sober logic').
>
> > This is not a
> > political discussion group.
>
> You are the one who drew the comparison.

Which did not extend into changing the topic. If I had said that
Edmondson and Wells had met their Waterloo do you fantasize that I was
changing the topic to military matters?

>
> > Even if I _were_ "rattling the can for Obama", I fail to see how that
> > would indicate that I have "more in common with the anti-stratfordians
> > than [I care] to realize".
>
> See above.
>
> > Political persuasion has absolutely nothing
> > to do with Shakespeare authorship, although I daresay most
> > Shakespeareans of whatever stripe are probably moe liberal in their
> > outlook and politics than those who don't care for Shakespeare, but
> > that would have more do to with educational attainment than authorship
> > preference: studies show that the more education one has the likelier
> > that person is to be liberal.
>
> And this is a surprise, how? Education has been politicized since the
> 1960s with liberal academics making up the vast majority of the teaching
> corpus.

I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but education, as well
as every other thing having to do with human social intercourse, has
always been politicized.

TR

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 27, 2013, 11:32:58 PM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 9:39 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote innews:32fee1bc-00ab-4b3c...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 5:48 pm, ignoto <b...@blahblahblah.blah> wrote:
> >> On 27/04/13 11:37 PM, Tom Reedy wrote:
> >> > On Apr 27, 1:35 am, ignoto <b...@blahblahblah.blah> wrote:
> >> >> On 27/04/13 12:00 PM, Tom Reedy wrote:
> [snip]
> >> >>> It sounds to me that it went like the first Obama-Romney debate,
> >> >>> with the Strat side thinking that sober logic would win the day.
>
> >> >> What an amazing (and completely unwitting) admission of
> >> >> partisanship. Looks like Reedy has more in common with the
> >> >> anti-stratfordians than he cares to realize...
>
> >> > What is so unwitting about it? Were you imagining that I thought
> >> > both sides had parity? What rock have you been under for the past
> >> > couple of decades?
>
> >> I'm talking about you rattling the can for Obama.
>
> > ??? Rattling _what_ can? I said Obama was unprepared for his first
> > debate with Romney,
>
> In the Bizarro-HLAS, you may have said that, but not in this one.
>
> > and compared it to Edmondson and Wells' apparent delusion that logic
> > would carry the day for them.
>
> Yes, Mr Reedy, when you said they thought that sober logic would win the
> day, you meant that they were deluded. Of course you did.

Perhaps that doesn't make sense to you, Mr. Steese, but it is
perfectly clear to me, and I think probably most people.

> > This is not a political discussion group.
>
> Perhaps you should avoid introducing political comparisons into
> previously unpoliticized threads.

See my reply to Ignoramus above.

> > Even if I _were_ "rattling the can for Obama", I fail to see how that
> > would indicate that I have "more in common with the anti-stratfordians
> > than [I care] to realize". Political persuasion has absolutely nothing
> > to do with Shakespeare authorship, although I daresay most
> > Shakespeareans of whatever stripe are probably moe liberal
>
> No, Moe libertarian. /Curly/ liberal. (Larry moderate.)

That was a typo, but both Shakespeare and the Beatles have written
"moe" for "more".

> > in their outlook and politics than those who don't care for
> > Shakespeare, but that would have more do to with educational
> > attainment than authorship preference: studies show that the more
> > education one has the likelier that person is to be liberal. (And
> > neither Obama nor Romney are fool enough to think that "sober logic"
> > would work in a presidential election; they know the electorate too
> > well for that.)
>
> It already seemed a tad hypocritical of you to haul out the "this is not
> a political discussion group", but now you're compounding the problem.
> (And seriously, "they know the electorate too well for that"? Regardless
> of what one may think of his political positions, Mr Romney doesn't
> deserve to be accused of having excessive knowledge of the electorate -
> or even adequate knowledge of it.)

Thanks for agreeing with me that he, like Obama, is not fool enough to
think that "sober logic" would work with the electorate.

TR

> --
> S.O.P.

ignoto

unread,
Apr 28, 2013, 1:49:49 AM4/28/13
to
eh? Here is your statment, again:

"It sounds to me that it went like the first Obama-Romney debate, with
the Strat side thinking that sober logic would win the day."

So, the webinar 'went like' the first Obama-Romeny debate in that the
losing Strat side, like the losing Obama side, went into the debate
thinking that 'sober logic' would win the day.

>> If you meant to suggest that Wells and
>> Edmondson were underprepared you elided that from your comment.
>
> And it appears that whatever abilities of inference you had went the
> same way.

Garbage. The notion that the reason for Obama's defeat in the first
debate was due to under-preparedness cannot - without accepting further
un-articulated presuppositions - be inferred from your statement.

Those 'unarticulated presuppositions' may be part of your (to steal a
phrase from Stanley Fish) 'interpretive community' (ie your latte
sipping liberal buddies and you) but they are not part of anyone else's,
so you should not be surprised if, on an objective reading of your
statement, your own subjective presuppositions do not form a part of its
meaning.

>
>> IMO only an ideologue could take the view that Obama relied simply on
>> 'sober logic' in his debate with Romney (in any case attempts to tame
>> 'the many headed beast' are never exercises in 'sober logic').
>>
>>> This is not a
>>> political discussion group.
>>
>> You are the one who drew the comparison.
>
> Which did not extend into changing the topic. If I had said that
> Edmondson and Wells had met their Waterloo do you fantasize that I was
> changing the topic to military matters?

Clearly anti-stratfordianism is an ideology, so if you present yourself
as an ideologue in another cause I think that is a relevant topic to
this NG, yes.

>>
>>> Even if I _were_ "rattling the can for Obama", I fail to see how that
>>> would indicate that I have "more in common with the anti-stratfordians
>>> than [I care] to realize".
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>> Political persuasion has absolutely nothing
>>> to do with Shakespeare authorship, although I daresay most
>>> Shakespeareans of whatever stripe are probably moe liberal in their
>>> outlook and politics than those who don't care for Shakespeare, but
>>> that would have more do to with educational attainment than authorship
>>> preference: studies show that the more education one has the likelier
>>> that person is to be liberal.
>>
>> And this is a surprise, how? Education has been politicized since the
>> 1960s with liberal academics making up the vast majority of the teaching
>> corpus.
>
> I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but education, as well
> as every other thing having to do with human social intercourse, has
> always been politicized.

Not purposively in the manner it has been over the last 50 years.

However, I see that you have now conceded that discussion of political
matters in this NG is 'on topic' for HLAS surely falls within the realm
of 'human social intercourse' (if not education).

Ign.

ignoto

unread,
Apr 28, 2013, 2:17:27 AM4/28/13
to
On 28/04/13 1:32 PM, Tom Reedy wrote:
> On Apr 27, 9:39 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote innews:32fee1bc-00ab-4b3c...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

[snip]

>> It already seemed a tad hypocritical of you to haul out the "this is not
>> a political discussion group", but now you're compounding the problem.
>> (And seriously, "they know the electorate too well for that"? Regardless
>> of what one may think of his political positions, Mr Romney doesn't
>> deserve to be accused of having excessive knowledge of the electorate -
>> or even adequate knowledge of it.)
>
> Thanks for agreeing with me that he, like Obama, is not fool enough to
> think that "sober logic" would work with the electorate.

Too bad that's not what you actually wrote.

Ign.

> TR
>
>> --
>> S.O.P.
>

ignoto

unread,
Apr 28, 2013, 3:00:40 AM4/28/13
to
See, e.g.:

Moral homicide: illiberal education in America by Roger Kimball, here:

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Moral-homicide--illiberal-education-in-America-5454

who opens with with a quote by Searle:

"The idea that the curriculum should be con verted to any partisan
purposes is a perversion of the ideal of the university. The objective
of converting the curriculum into an instrument of social transformation
(leftist, rightist, cen trist, or whatever) is the very opposite of
higher education." �John Searle, �The Storm Over the Universities� (1991)

Ign.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 28, 2013, 8:51:45 AM4/28/13
to
I'll leave you to your pole-vaulting over rat turds.

TR

Sneaky O. Possum

unread,
Apr 28, 2013, 2:52:06 PM4/28/13
to
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5bbd2b78-2f6f-4da1...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 27, 9:39�pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:32fee1bc-00ab-4b3c-ad00-8f5c
> b03e...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>> > This is not a political discussion group.
>>
>> Perhaps you should avoid introducing political comparisons into
>> previously unpoliticized threads.
>
> See my reply to Ignoramus above.

Which one? The one where you likened your posts to rat turds, or the one
where you hilariously implied that the first debate between Obama and
Romney has, in the space of less than a year, attained the metaphorical
status of the Battle of Waterloo?

(As it happens, it took Waterloo a while to achieve that status. In
1818, New York State Senator Martin van Buren named a new town in his
home county "Austerlitz" in revenge for a political opponent's having
named a new town in Seneca County "Waterloo.")

>> > Even if I _were_ "rattling the can for Obama", I fail to see how
>> > that would indicate that I have "more in common with the
>> > anti-stratfordians than [I care] to realize". Political persuasion
>> > has absolutely nothing to do with Shakespeare authorship, although
>> > I daresay most Shakespeareans of whatever stripe are probably moe
>> > liberal
>>
>> No, Moe libertarian. /Curly/ liberal. (Larry moderate.)
>
> That was a typo, but both Shakespeare and the Beatles have written
> "moe" for "more".

We don't know whether Shakey wrote "moe," of course, and we can't infer
that he did, either. Of the 25 instances of "moe" in his works (27 if
you believe he wrote /A Lover's Complaint/), some are modern emendations
- in the First Folio, Cloten says "there is no mo such Caesars," not "no
moe." Others are variant readings that appear in only a single source:
in the First Folio, Hamlet says there will be no more marriages, and in
Quartos 2 through 5 he says there will be no mo; only in Q6 does he say
'moe'. Conversely, Scroop says "many moe corrivals" in the Folio, but
"many mo corivals" in Q1.

Against this handful of moes, there are over 2,400 instances of "more"
in the current version of the canon. (Sadly, there isn't a single
instance of "curly" in Shakey's works.)

>> > in their outlook and politics than those who don't care for
>> > Shakespeare, but that would have more do to with educational
>> > attainment than authorship preference: studies show that the more
>> > education one has the likelier that person is to be liberal. (And
>> > neither Obama nor Romney are fool enough to think that "sober
>> > logic" would work in a presidential election; they know the
>> > electorate too well for that.)
>>
>> It already seemed a tad hypocritical of you to haul out the "this is
>> not a political discussion group", but now you're compounding the
>> problem. (And seriously, "they know the electorate too well for
>> that"? Regardless of what one may think of his political positions,
>> Mr Romney doesn't deserve to be accused of having excessive knowledge
>> of the electorate - or even adequate knowledge of it.)
>
> Thanks for agreeing with me that he, like Obama, is not fool enough to
> think that "sober logic" would work with the electorate.

In the same spirit in which you offer thanks, I shall say you're
welcome.
--
S.O.P.

John W Kennedy

unread,
Apr 28, 2013, 3:36:21 PM4/28/13
to
On 2013-04-28 18:52:06 +0000, Sneaky O. Possum said:
> We don't know whether Shakey wrote "moe," of course, and we can't infer
> that he did, either. Of the 25 instances of "moe" in his works (27 if
> you believe he wrote /A Lover's Complaint/), some are modern emendations
> - in the First Folio, Cloten says "there is no mo such Caesars," not "no
> moe." Others are variant readings that appear in only a single source:
> in the First Folio, Hamlet says there will be no more marriages, and in
> Quartos 2 through 5 he says there will be no mo; only in Q6 does he say
> 'moe'. Conversely, Scroop says "many moe corrivals" in the Folio, but
> "many mo corivals" in Q1.
>
> Against this handful of moes, there are over 2,400 instances of "more"
> in the current version of the canon. (Sadly, there isn't a single
> instance of "curly" in Shakey's works.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaUqLrfEMU

--
John W Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"

marco

unread,
Apr 28, 2013, 3:47:57 PM4/28/13
to
in the debate,
extraordinary gaps, and exceptional gaps were mentioned

wouldn't a person [brought up] in a lower class,
have more missing records,
than a person being born into an upper class family?

and that idea could be extended to a person's career,
such as an actor-writer's personal things

i'm sure this can be elaborated upon

marc

John W Kennedy

unread,
Apr 28, 2013, 6:24:20 PM4/28/13
to
It has been, endlessly.

You're new to this game, and have no idea how much the Shakespeare
deniers "forget" unpleasant truths, such as that we actually know more
about Shakespeare than virtually anyone else living in Elizabethan
England below the rank of knight.

--
John W Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface

Paul Crowley

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 6:56:26 AM4/29/13
to
On 28/04/2013 23:24, John W Kennedy wrote:
> On 2013-04-28 19:47:57 +0000, marco said:

>> in the debate,
>> extraordinary gaps, and exceptional gaps were mentioned
>>
>> wouldn't a person [brought up] in a lower class,
>> have more missing records,
>> than a person being born into an upper class family?
>>
>> and that idea could be extended to a person's career,
>> such as an actor-writer's personal things
>>
>> i'm sure this can be elaborated upon
>
> It has been, endlessly.
>
> You're new to this game, and have no idea how much the
> Shakespeare deniers

"Stratman deniers" please. Propagandist
tactics like this are counter-productive.

> "forget" unpleasant truths, such as that we actually know
> more about Shakespeare than virtually anyone else living
> in Elizabethan England below the rank of knight.

The reason that little is known about almost
every slave, villein, farm labourer, peasant or
yeoman, is that they were all illiterate, and few
records were kept about them. When they were,
the clerks often got the names "wrong" -- the
quotes are necessary, since who was to say
(for example) how a surname should be spelt.
Certainly not William Shagsper, who was
obliged to walk 25 miles to Worcester (and
later walk 25 miles back) to get a marriage
certificate, and had one issued for an "Anne
Whateley" when the name of his (already
pregnant) prospective wife was "Anne
Hathaway".

Another instance involves the Stratman's
daughter, Susanna. This is what was originally
recorded on the gravestone of her husband.
Someone later read it out to her (being illiterate,
she could not read it herself). She was appalled
at an obvious omission, and so got a mason to
fix it. See if you can guess what the omission
was.

HEERE LYETH YE BODY OF JOHN HALL
GENT: HEE MARR: SUSANNA, YE DAUGH
TER, OF WILL: SHAKESPEARE, GENT.
HEE DECEASED NOVER 25. A0. 1635, AGED 60.


Paul.
Message has been deleted

jaelsheargold

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 9:15:15 AM4/29/13
to
On Apr 29, 11:56 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 28/04/2013 23:24, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2013-04-28 19:47:57 +0000, marco said:
> >> in the debate,
> >> extraordinary gaps, and exceptional gaps were mentioned
>
> >> wouldn't a person [brought up] in a lower class,
> >> have more missing records,
> >> than a person being born into an upper class family?
>
> >> and that idea could be extended to a person's career,
> >> such as an actor-writer's personal things
>
> >> i'm sure this can be elaborated upon
>
> > It has been, endlessly.
>
> > You're new to this game, and have no idea how much the
> > Shakespeare deniers
>
> "Stratman deniers" please.  Propagandist
> tactics like this are counter-productive.
>
> > "forget" unpleasant truths, such as that we actually know
> > more about Shakespeare than virtually anyone else living
> > in Elizabethan England below the rank of knight.
>
> The reason that little is known about almost
> every slave, villein, farm labourer, peasant or
> yeoman, is that they were all illiterate, and few
> records were kept about them.


"All illiterate"? Plenty of men of yeoman stock successfully pleaded
benefit of clergy in the assize records.


> When they were, the clerks often got the names "wrong" -- the
> quotes are necessary, since who was to say
> (for example) how a surname should be spelt.



What are you on about? There was no consistency in spelling by anybody
of words or names back then.



> Certainly not William Shagsper, who was obliged to walk 25 miles to Worcester (and
> later walk 25 miles back)  to get a marriage
> certificate, and had one issued for an "Anne
> Whateley" when the name of his (already
> pregnant) prospective wife was "Anne
> Hathaway".


The dopey clerk misheard 'Wet-lay' for 'Het(h)-way'. Just like people
write 'blithering idiot' for 'Paul Crowley'. And what's his bird being
up the stick got to do with anything? Wasn't your bloke dropping
sprogs outside of wedlock all over the place?

Crowley's grasp of history is about as firm as his grasp would be on a
hot poker.


SB.


>
> Another instance involves the Stratman's
> daughter, Susanna.  This is what was originally
> recorded on the gravestone of her husband.
> Someone later read it out to her (being illiterate,
> she could not read it herself).  She was appalled
> at an obvious omission, and so got a mason to
> fix it.  See if you can guess what the omission
> was.
>
> HEERE LYETH YE BODY OF JOHN HALL
> GENT: HEE MARR: SUSANNA, YE DAUGH
> TER, OF WILL: SHAKESPEARE, GENT.
> HEE DECEASED NOVER 25. A0. 1635, AGED 60.
>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -

Tom Reedy

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 10:42:15 AM4/29/13
to
On Apr 29, 8:15 am, jaelsheargold <jaelshearg...@hushmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> The dopey clerk misheard 'Wet-lay' for 'Het(h)-way'.  Just like people
> write 'blithering idiot' for 'Paul Crowley'.

Bad comparison; the second is no mistake.

TR

Paul Crowley

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 12:42:35 PM4/29/13
to
On 29/04/2013 14:07, jaelsheargold wrote:

>> The reason that little is known about almost
>> every slave, villein, farm labourer, peasant or
>> yeoman, is that they were all illiterate, and few
>> records were kept about them.
>
> "All illiterate"? Plenty of men of yeoman stock successfully
> pleaded benefit of clergy in the assize records.

" . . . Unofficially, the loophole was even larger, because the
Biblical passage traditionally used for the literacy test was
inevitably and appropriately Psalm 51 (Psalm 50 according to the
Vulgate and Septuagint numbering), Miserere mei, Deus,
secundum misericordiam tuam ("O God, have mercy upon me,
according to thine heartfelt mercifulness"). Thus, an illiterate
person who had memorized the appropriate Psalm could also
claim the benefit of clergy, and Psalm 51 became known as the
"neck verse" because knowing it could save one's neck by
transferring one's case from a secular court, where hanging was a
likely sentence, to an ecclesiastical court, where both the
methods of trial and the sentences given were more lenient.[1] If
the defendant who claimed benefit of clergy was particularly
deserving of death, courts occasionally would ask him to read a
different passage from the Bible; if, like most defendants, he was
illiterate and simply had memorized Psalm 51, he would be
unable to establish the defence and would be put to death. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_of_clergy


>> When they were, the clerks often got the names "wrong" -- the
>> quotes are necessary, since who was to say
>> (for example) how a surname should be spelt.
>
> What are on about? There was no consistency in spelling by
> anybody of words or names back then.

There was, of course, SOME consistency. A reader
could usually tell when the writer meant 'dog' as
against 'cat', or 'sheep' as against 'cow', or 'hawk' as
against 'handsaw'.

>> Certainly not William Shagsper, who was
>> obliged to walk 25 miles to Worcester (and
>> later walk 25 miles back) to get a marriage
>> certificate, and had one issued for an "Anne
>> Whateley" when the name of his (already
>> pregnant) prospective wife was "Anne
>> Hathaway".
>
>
> The dopey clerk misheard 'Wet-lay' for 'Het(h)-way'

The point is that Will Shagsber did not check
since, for all he could tell, the clerk might as
well have been writing in Mandarin. The clerk
knew he was just another illiterate yeoman,
and unable to check. So he did not think to
ask him, nor to show him his script.


Paul.

book...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 1:35:00 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:56:26 +0100, Paul Crowley
<dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:


>The reason that little is known about almost
>every slave, villein, farm labourer, peasant or
>yeoman, is that they were all illiterate, and few
>records were kept about them. When they were,
>the clerks often got the names "wrong" -- the
>quotes are necessary, since who was to say
>(for example) how a surname should be spelt.
>Certainly not William Shagsper, who was
>obliged to walk 25 miles to Worcester (and
>later walk 25 miles back) to get a marriage
>certificate, and had one issued for an "Anne
>Whateley" when the name of his (already
>pregnant) prospective wife was "Anne
>Hathaway".

By this logic, Stratman must have walked the 25 miles four times in
two days, since his marriage to Anne Whateley was registered the
previous day. Seems like people with �40 surety with them would have
had horses.

The mis-spellilng of surnames by clerks was probably a joke practiced
when they spelled by sound approximations and pretended to write in
Latin. They would spell "Shaxpere" and "Shagspere" on purpose to
cover all the bases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Whateley

(quote)
Episcopal register at Worcester which states in Latin "Anno Domini
1582...Novembris...27 die eiusdem mensis. Item eodem die supradicto
emanavit Licentia inter Wm Shaxpere et Annam Whateley de Temple
Grafton." The entry states that a marriage licence has been issued to
Shakespeare and Anne Whateley to marry in the village of Temple
Grafton. The day afterwards, Fulk Sandells and John Richardson,
friends of the Hathaway family from Stratford-upon-Avon, signed a
surety of �40 as a financial guarantee for the wedding of "William
Shagspere and Anne Hathwey".[4][5]
(unquote)

jaelsheargold

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 2:39:40 PM4/29/13
to
Mea maxima culpa. I realised my error shortly after I'd written it!


SB.

jaelsheargold

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 3:08:13 PM4/29/13
to
I've had this conversation with you before, and I said all that lot.
Of course some faked their claim to literacy and if the magistrate was
suspicious, he'd give them another text to read. However sometimes
magistrates turned a blind eye to the fakery - they didn't always
think the defendant deserved to die for some petty crime. Death
sentences weren't always carried out anyway.

But the point is, just because some faked it doesn't mean they all
did.


>
> >> When they were, the clerks often got the names "wrong" -- the
> >> quotes are necessary, since who was to say
> >> (for example) how a surname should be spelt.
>
> > What are on about? There was no consistency in spelling by
> > anybody of words or names back then.
>
> There was, of course, SOME consistency.  A reader
> could usually tell when the writer meant 'dog' as
> against 'cat', or 'sheep' as against 'cow', or 'hawk' as
> against 'handsaw'.


That doesn't make for consistency, it simply means that spelling
wasn't so variable that the reader didn't know what was meant.


>
> >> Certainly not William Shagsper, who was
> >> obliged to walk 25 miles to Worcester (and
> >> later walk 25 miles back)  to get a marriage
> >> certificate, and had one issued for an "Anne
> >> Whateley" when the name of his (already
> >> pregnant) prospective wife was "Anne
> >> Hathaway".
>
> > The dopey clerk misheard 'Wet-lay' for 'Het(h)-way'
>
> The point is that Will Shagsber did not check
> since, for all he could tell, the clerk might as
> well have been writing in Mandarin.


Do you check every time a person writes your name down for you, or
that of someone you know? Actually I expect you do - you seem that
type of character.


> The clerk knew he was just another illiterate yeoman,
> and unable to check.  So he did not think to
> ask him, nor to show him his script.
>
> Paul.


Oh you know the clerk, do you? He must be older than bloody
Methuselah.



SB.

Sneaky O. Possum

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 6:02:23 PM4/29/13
to
jaelsheargold <jaelsh...@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:23249500-ec41-4cfb...@b10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 29, 11:56 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
>> On 28/04/2013 23:24, John W Kennedy wrote:
>> Certainly not William Shagsper, who was obliged to walk 25 miles to
>> Worcester (and later walk 25 miles back) to get a marriage
>> certificate, and had one issued for an "Anne Whateley" when the name
>> of his (already pregnant) prospective wife was "Anne Hathaway".
>
> The dopey clerk misheard 'Wet-lay' for 'Het(h)-way'.

And misheard 'Stratford' as 'Temple Grafton'?

We don�t know what name appeared on the actual licence, which is no
longer extant. The incorrect name in the register is most likely a
transcription error, not an instance of mishearing.

In his book /Shakespeare's Marriage, His Departure from Stratford, and
Other Incidents in his Life/ (London: Chapman & Hall, 1905), Joseph
William Gray noted that the register contains other discrepancies:
in 1583 a couple was recorded with the terminal parish 'Evesham' even
though the groom resided in Pershore and the bride in All Saints,
Worcester (229). Gray also noted that the name �Whateley� occurs several
times in the Consistory Court records for 1582 and 1583 - for example,
William Whateley, the vicar of Crowle, brought suit against one Arnold
Leight over the non-payment of tithes on the same day Shakespeare�s
marriage licence was granted. "It therefore appears probable that the
occurrence of this name in the bishop's register is due to an error, the
origin of which may be traced to indistinct writing in one of the
original documents, probably the allegation, together with the scribe's
remembrance of a name frequently under his notice and having some
similarity to that for which it was substituted" (27 - 28).
--
S.O.P.

T.M. Sommers

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 6:41:24 PM4/29/13
to
On 4/29/2013 6:56 AM, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 28/04/2013 23:24, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
>> You're new to this game, and have no idea how much the
>> Shakespeare deniers
>
> "Stratman deniers" please. Propagandist
> tactics like this are counter-productive.

What about propagandist tactics like referring to Shakespeare as
"Stratman"? In all fairness, shouldn't you refer to Oxford as "Oxman"?

--
T.M. Sommers -- ab2sb

T.M. Sommers

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 6:45:07 PM4/29/13
to
On 4/29/2013 12:42 PM, Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> The point is that Will Shagsber did not check
> since, for all he could tell, the clerk might as
> well have been writing in Mandarin. The clerk
> knew he was just another illiterate yeoman,
> and unable to check. So he did not think to
> ask him, nor to show him his script.

The real point is that in all likelihood, Shakespeare was not present
when the entry in the register was made.

jaelsheargold

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 8:06:40 PM4/29/13
to
On Apr 29, 11:02 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> jaelsheargold <jaelshearg...@hushmail.com> wrote innews:23249500-ec41-4cfb...@b10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Apr 29, 11:56 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> >> On 28/04/2013 23:24, John W Kennedy wrote:
> >> Certainly not William Shagsper, who was obliged to walk 25 miles to
> >> Worcester (and later walk 25 miles back)  to get a marriage
> >> certificate, and had one issued for an "Anne Whateley" when the name
> >> of his (already pregnant) prospective wife was "Anne Hathaway".
>
> > The dopey clerk misheard 'Wet-lay' for 'Het(h)-way'.
>
> And misheard 'Stratford' as 'Temple Grafton'?


Maybe.


>
> We don’t know what name appeared on the actual licence, which is no
> longer extant. The incorrect name in the register is most likely a
> transcription error, not an instance of mishearing.


Yes, I know about the mistranscription theory and that is most likely
what happened.


>
> In his book /Shakespeare's Marriage, His Departure from Stratford, and
> Other Incidents in his Life/ (London: Chapman & Hall, 1905), Joseph
> William Gray noted that the register contains other discrepancies:
> in 1583 a couple was recorded with the terminal parish 'Evesham' even
> though the groom resided in Pershore and the bride in All Saints,
> Worcester (229). Gray also noted that the name ‘Whateley’ occurs several
> times in the Consistory Court records for 1582 and 1583 - for example,
> William Whateley, the vicar of Crowle, brought suit against one Arnold
> Leight over the non-payment of tithes on the same day Shakespeare’s
> marriage licence was granted. "It therefore appears probable that the
> occurrence of this name in the bishop's register is due to an error, the
> origin of which may be traced to indistinct writing in one of the
> original documents, probably the allegation, together with the scribe's
> remembrance of a name frequently under his notice and having some
> similarity to that for which it was substituted" (27 - 28).
> --
> S.O.P.


Yes, the two names would have visual and aural similarities if they
were written without due care or spoken colloquially.


SB.

laraine

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 8:47:06 PM4/29/13
to
On Apr 26, 5:37 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2013-04-26 21:30:00 +0000, laraine said:
>
> > On Apr 26, 3:56 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Apparently the Oxforidians think that Ros Barber wiped the floor with
> >> Edmondson and Wells. They're all celebrating on their FaceBook lairs.
> >> Did anybody listen to it? Impressions?
>
> >> TR
>
> > One big and probably somewhat
> > unanswerable question:
>
> > How does one rank evidence?
>
> A) With logic. (Oh dear God! Is it possible that, Modern Logic having
> been made a subdepartment of Mathematics, Liberal Arts students no
> longer receive any instruction in it at all, so that DeMorgan's Laws
> and the adventures of Barbara and her Buddies are equally alien to
> them? That would explain such a terrible, terrible lot.)

Maybe philosophy is not "cool" anymore.
Or considered too atheistic.

>
> B) In light of other evidence.

And that's where it gets more difficult...

C.

>
> --
> John W Kennedy
> "There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump
> of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that
> because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in
> the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear
> I can't see it that way."
>   -- The last words of Bat Masterson

Sneaky O. Possum

unread,
Apr 29, 2013, 9:49:33 PM4/29/13
to
"T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote in news:klmsui$o7l$1
@news.albasani.net:
Eddie de Vere was born at Castle Hedingham, so he should be �Hedingman�,
�Hedinghamians� is a bit ungainly for his advocates - perhaps they should
just be �Hedinghams.� (Marlowe�s advocates should properly be called
�Canterburians�; Francis Bacon was born at York House, so his advocates may
be called �Yorkies.�)
--
S.O.P.

neonprose @ gmail.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2013, 12:22:51 AM4/30/13
to
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 1:15:43 AM UTC-7, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 27/04/2013 02:57, Tom Reedy wrote:
>
>
>
> > So IOW, once you eliminate all the evidence that Shakespeare wrote
>
> > the works attributed to him, then absolutely no evidence exists that
>
> > Shakespeare ever wrote a word!
>
> >
>
> > Sounds legit.
>
>
>
> It is perfectly legitimate.
>
> Paul writes:
>
> There's very little that needs to be eliminated.
>
> An illiterate guy is not going to leave much
>
> evidence that he wrote anything.
>
>
>
> Continuing to believe in a proposition just
>
> because you were told it at school is normal.
>
> But it's not rational.
>
>
> neon...@gmail.com writes:
>
> The problem is that four centuries have passed
>
> since Bacon posed for the comical Droeshout
>
> engraving. I'm assuming that the Stratfordians
>
> believe that the "figure that thou seeist cut"
>
> is that of Shappere although Bacon & Jonson
>
> have left hysterically funny clues to the fact
>
> that the Droeshout is of Bacon, not the Broker.
>
>
> Four hundred years is quite a long span of time
>
> and this fracas with Ros Barber only emphasizes
>
> how INDIFFERENT the Strats have been over the
>
> past four centuries.
>
> neon...@gmail.com writes:
>
> I don't see any scholarly papers or articles on Jonson's
>
> production of the Front Matter of the ORIGINAL First
>
> Folio but you can find at least part of it online.
>
> When I first saw the announcement that a consortium
>
> of scholars was going to prove that Shakespeare wrote
>
> the Shakespeare works I laughed out loud only
>
> because they don't have SHAKESPEARE'S FOLIO, he
>
> didn't write one because he didn't write anything.
>
> He was superbly illiterate, he couldn't write his own
>
> name, see Prof. Delahoyde of WSU's website.
>
> It's a perfect illustration of Shappere's jabs and
>
> scratches.
>
> All thirty six plays in the FIRST FOLIO were written
>
> by Bacon, then edited by his scribe Ben Jonson,
>
> Bacon and Jonson lived together hilariously for
>
> years (well, Bacon didn't have an income after
>
> his Spectacular Fall).
>
> More to follow . . . in which I will speculate on
>
> the reasons these academics don't REALIZE that
>
> FOUR CENTURIES HAVE PASSED WITHOUT A
>
> THOUGHT ABOUT THE .FIRST FOLIO FRONTMATTER
>
> WHICH WAS CERTAINLY COMPOSED BY JONSON
>
> SINCE HIS NAME IS ON A VERY FINE VERSE.
>
> That's where it is.
> Paul.

Paul Crowley

unread,
Apr 30, 2013, 6:39:44 AM4/30/13
to
On 29/04/2013 23:41, T.M. Sommers wrote:

>>> You're new to this game, and have no idea how much the
>>> Shakespeare deniers
>>
>> "Stratman deniers" please. Propagandist
>> tactics like this are counter-productive.
>
> What about propagandist tactics like referring to Shakespeare
> as "Stratman"?

It's hardly propagandistic -- if you allow that a
debate about the authorship of the canonical
works (as well as other similar ones of the day)
is a discussable subject. Strats, of course,
commonly do not. To them, merely to discuss
the subject is to be heretical, and they regard
all such discussion in much the way the Church
regarded any debate on Transubstantiation or
the existence of the Devil.

Assuming that you allow for the possibility of a
discussion, then you are obliged to distinguish
between the author of the canon, and potential
candidates for the authorship. No one disputes
that -- at least theoretically -- one of them is the
Man from Stratford -- who might be referred to
'William Shagsper', or with any of the other
surnames applied to the family before the first
public use of the poet's authorial name (or
pseudonym -- probably in 1593 with V&A).
But a name like "William Shaksper" would still
allow for confusion, and/or make for difficult
reading, and those surnames are so numerous
and so varied, that agreement would be hard
to get.

> In all fairness, shouldn't you refer to Oxford
> as "Oxman"?

Potential candidates should be referred to by
their usual names, except where that might
result in confusion.

What name would you prefer for the "Man from
Stratford" in this discussion? Or do you regard
the discussion itself as logically impermissible?


Paul.

Paul Crowley

unread,
Apr 30, 2013, 6:40:40 AM4/30/13
to
You should try to remember what you say -- or look
it up, instead of wasting all our time.

> Of course some faked their claim to literacy and if the
> magistrate was suspicious, he'd give them another text to
> read.

That is NOT what this text states, nor is it historically
true. Your reading ability is failing rapidly.

> However sometimes magistrates turned a blind eye to the
> fakery - they didn't always think the defendant deserved to
> die for some petty crime.

They ROUTINELY turned a blind eye. The death
penalty was there to scare potential offenders.
But when it did not work in that respect, the
legal system was left with few options. Prison
sentences were rare -- prison was far too
expensive (as Anglo-Saxon countries are finding
out again) and the Americas and other colonies
did not yet provide convenient places for dumping
troublesome or unwanted souls.

> But the point is, just because some faked it doesn't mean
> they all did.

The faking was ROUTINE. You cannot use 'evidence'
from the use of the 'neck verse' to show that there
was a high (or any significant) level of literacy.

>>>> When they were, the clerks often got the names "wrong" -- the
>>>> quotes are necessary, since who was to say
>>>> (for example) how a surname should be spelt.
>>
>>> What are on about? There was no consistency in spelling by
>>> anybody of words or names back then.
>>
>> There was, of course, SOME consistency. A reader
>> could usually tell when the writer meant 'dog' as
>> against 'cat', or 'sheep' as against 'cow', or 'hawk' as
>> against 'handsaw'.
>
> That doesn't make for consistency, it simply means that
> spelling wasn't so variable that the reader didn't know what
> was meant.

Consistency and variability are the two ends of
this ONE spectrum. There was SOME consistency.
[..]


Paul.

Paul Crowley

unread,
Apr 30, 2013, 6:41:50 AM4/30/13
to
None of us were there, and we can make up
whatever story suits our conceptions of the man
and the prevailing practices.

But, this is YET ANOTHER example where the
theory that the man was educated falls down.
If he had been literate, he'd have known well the
sloppiness and laziness of clerks when dealing
with illiterate yeomanry. For the great bulk of
their clients, these clerks would have little or no
risk of a come-back for their mistakes. But with
the few literate ones, they would know that there
could be consequences if they worked with their
usual carelessness.

Given the importance of the matter, and the trouble
he had been obliged to go to, in order to get
permission to marry outside the normally permitted
times, he'd very likely have carefully put all the
relevant matter into writing, and left that with the
clerk -- and with his superior -- making sure, as far
as he could, that the clerk had correctly noted the
relevant particulars.


Paul.

laraine

unread,
Apr 30, 2013, 1:06:52 PM4/30/13
to
I try to take a trip to the community
college bookstore at least once a year
to see what is being read. This time
(a few months ago), the philosophy dept.
had the most interesting books. It seems
ethics is now the thing to study.

Wrote down the names of some of the
books in various classes:

-Happily Godless by Paul Donovan

-Intervention and Reflection: Basic
Issues in Bioethics by Ronald Munson

-Gay Marriage: Why It is Good for Gays,
Good for Straights, and Good for America
by Jonathan Rauch

as well as the usual intro texts, and
yes, something in logic as well.

I think some lawyers get minors or
majors in philosophy. Paralegal
dept. here requires a course in ethics,
criminal justice I don't see anything-
detectives would need logic, I'd think.

(And in English dept., Shakespeare is
still taught, didn't see anything on
authorship.)

C.

laraine

unread,
Apr 30, 2013, 1:16:18 PM4/30/13
to
On Apr 26, 5:37 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2013-04-26 21:30:00 +0000, laraine said:
>
> > On Apr 26, 3:56 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Apparently the Oxforidians think that Ros Barber wiped the floor with
> >> Edmondson and Wells. They're all celebrating on their FaceBook lairs.
> >> Did anybody listen to it? Impressions?
>
> >> TR
>
> > One big and probably somewhat
> > unanswerable question:
>
> > How does one rank evidence?
>
> A) With logic. (Oh dear God! Is it possible that, Modern Logic having
> been made a subdepartment of Mathematics, Liberal Arts students no
> longer receive any instruction in it at all, so that DeMorgan's Laws
> and the adventures of Barbara and her Buddies are equally alien to
> them? That would explain such a terrible, terrible lot.)
>
> B) In light of other evidence.
>
> --
> John W Kennedy
> "There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump
> of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that
> because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in
> the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear
> I can't see it that way."
>   -- The last words of Bat Masterson

I've not really encountered the Barbara
info. before, though I know I've seen it
in another form.

Here, it's under "syllogism::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

C.

jaelsheargold

unread,
Apr 30, 2013, 2:47:15 PM4/30/13
to
Hark to who's talking - the king of contradiction and repetition.


> -- or look it up,


Just like you do - not?


> instead of wasting all our time.


"Our"? I didn't realise I was talking to Brenda. How goes it, Yer Maj?

Here are your past lessons on literacy in the law courts and
elsewhere. This is me on 5/12/2010:

"Court records show that yeomen used benefit of clergy to escape
severe punishment when convicted. That means they could read. Some of
them may simply have memorised the
relevant biblical passage, but the magistrates had the option of
asking them to read another section if they suspected fakery".

Me on 1/6/2012:

The Act for the Advancement of True Religion in 1543 forbad the
following to read the Bible:

'no woman, nor artificers, apprentices, journeymen, serving-men under
the degree of yeomen, nor no husbandmen, or labourers...'

If none of them could read, what was the point of this clause?

Did not the author of The Cobler of Canterburie in 1590 write of his
book?:

'When the Farmer is set in his chair turning (in a winter's evening)
the crab in the fire, here he may hear, how his son can read, and when
he hath done, laugh while his belly aches'.

Did not John Rhodes write of his publication The Countrie Man's
Comfort (1588)?:

'If therefore it happens to light into hands that are wise and
learned; know this that I doe not count it so fit a book for thee as
for the Scholler of pettie Schooles the poor Countrieman and his
familie..'

Did not Thomas Nashe complain in 1592?

'The pride of peasants sprung up of nothing......some such obscure
upstart gallants, as without desert or service, are raised from the
plough to be checkmate with Princes..'

Some random examples from the annals of the courts:

Richard Rawlinson husbandman and horse-thief, escaped the death
penalty by benefit of clergy (Mercy and Authority in the Tudor State.
Krista J. Kesselring).

In 1430 John Carpenter, a Sussex husbandman, murdered his young wife
and the authorities feared he would escape hanging by claiming benefit
of clergy (Identity and Insurgency in the late Middle Ages. Simon
Paling).

All this proves you wrong.

Me on 8/6/2012:

"In 1538, Thomas Cromwell ordered all parish churches to possess an
English bible so that the local people could "most commodiously resort
to the same and read it." No persons excluded. Just five years later,
the Act for the Advancement of True Religion forbad access to the
'lower classes'. Why? Because the 'privilege' had, according to the
Act, been "abused" by the "lower sorte" who "have therbye growen and
increased in divers naughtie and erronyous opynions". (from Reading
Material in Early Modern England: Print, Gender, and Literacy. Heidi
Brayman Hackel).

It was banned because some of your 'peasants' had read it and started
to get.....IDEAS, you know, like the nobs were selling them a pup.

You won't know this, but a good deal of anti-riot legislation was
passed in Tudor times. The 'lower orders' were thought by the
legislators to be potentially rebellious if not controlled. An Act of
1553 - forbidding unlawful assembly and such like - included penalties
for "setting up and casting of any bills, or writing" which might
incite the mob to violence. Obviously, the lawmakers knew that certain
of the 'peasants' could pen and/or read placards or libels - say, akin
to those posted at the Dutch church in 1592. And that wouldn't do at
all.


>
> > Of course some faked their claim to literacy and if the
> > magistrate was suspicious, he'd give them another text  to
> > read.
>
> That is NOT what this text states,


Yes it bloody well does, are you sight-impaired as well as daft?:

"If the defendant who claimed benefit of clergy was particularly
deserving of death, courts occasionally would ask him to read a
different passage from the Bible; if, like most defendants, he was
illiterate and simply had memorized Psalm 51, he would be unable to
establish the defence and would be put to death."

The magistrate could ask for a different passage to be read if he
thought the defendant had merely memorised Psalm 51 rather than that
he was truly literate.


> nor is it historically true.


What isn't? That passage? If so, why have you quoted it?


>Your reading ability is failing rapidly.


That thing between your lugholes is failing rapidly.


>
> > However sometimes magistrates turned a blind eye to the
> > fakery - they didn't always think the defendant deserved to
> > die for some petty crime.
>
> They ROUTINELY turned a blind eye.


No they bloody didn't. What are you basing that on? It would depend on
factors like whether you had an enlightened judge and/or the defendant
was previously of good character and unlikely to reoffend - stuff like
that.


"Until 1575, pleas for benefit of clergy were submitted prior to the
commencement of the trial in the lay court. However, under a new
statute introduced in that year, an accused person could plead benefit
of clergy even after being convicted by the lay court, so long as
sentence had not yet been passed.This did not nullify the conviction,
but it did give the lay court the opportunity of imposing a lesser
sentence. Under these circumstances, the reading test became something
of an arbitrary criterion; judges could be lenient or strict in their
expectations of what was an acceptable level of reading, depending on
their view of the desirability or otherwise of imposing the death
penalty in the specific case". (From One End of the Earth to the Other
by Jeremy I. Pfeffer).


Did you get that?...."judges could be lenient....in their expectations
of what was an acceptable level of reading....."


> The death penalty was there to scare potential offenders.
> But when it did not work in that respect, the
> legal system was left with few options.  Prison
> sentences were rare --


I think long ones were, not so much shorter ones - they'd usually be
coupled with another punishment such as a whipping or a go on the
pillory. But as I've already said, sentences often weren't carried out
so by default the convicted would serve lengthy jail terms anyway.
They'd simply be forgotten and die in prison or if lucky they might
eventually get a pardon or obtain money to buy their way out or just
get quietly released after a certain amount of time had passed.


> prison was far too expensive (as Anglo-Saxon countries are finding
> out again) and the Americas and other colonies
> did not yet provide convenient places for dumping
> troublesome or unwanted souls.
>
> > But the point is, just because some faked it doesn't mean
> > they all did.
>
> The faking was ROUTINE.


Where's your evidence for that? Oh yes, in your imagination.


> You cannot use 'evidence' from the use of the 'neck verse' to show that there
> was a high (or any significant) level of literacy.


I haven't - your reading ability is failing rapidly. It shows that not
ALL of the 'lower classes' were illiterate as you always claim. If you
are saying they ALL faked it, provide some evidence. You won't.


>
> >>>> When they were, the clerks often got the names "wrong" -- the
> >>>> quotes are necessary, since who was to say
> >>>> (for example) how a surname should be spelt.
>
> >>> What are on about? There was no consistency in spelling by
> >>> anybody of words or names back then.
>
> >> There was, of course, SOME consistency.  A reader
> >> could usually tell when the writer meant 'dog' as
> >> against 'cat', or 'sheep' as against 'cow', or 'hawk' as
> >> against 'handsaw'.
>
> > That doesn't make for consistency, it simply means that
> > spelling wasn't so variable that the reader didn't know what
> > was meant.
>
> Consistency and variability are the two ends of
> this ONE spectrum.  There was SOME consistency.


You'll be able to give some examples then, won't you? You won't.



SB.




> [..]

David L. Webb

unread,
Apr 30, 2013, 4:21:39 PM4/30/13