Robert Detobel loses (again)
Tom Reedy
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
> > kenkap wrote:
> > > "Citations" as far as they are possible are coming. Robert will post.
> > > You are making an issue where there is none. There is a consistent
> > > practice seen in all records for hundreds of years. Not "this law
> > > firm's practice" or "that law firm's practice". "Sealing" or "sealing
> > > and signing". Signing on the document. Not on the tab. No surnames
> > > abbreviated on deeds where signed.. End of story.
> >
> > It if is so well-known, it should be easy to document. Without
> > documentation, there is no reason to accept it. End of story.
> >
> > And please don't top-post.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
>
> You say, "boilerplate". Surely, the authenticating clause was
> formulaic. But there were two variants: a) "Have set their hand and
> seals." b) "Have set their seals." a) means that the deed would
> be both signed and sealed, b) means that it would only be sealed. Why
> were there two variants?
>
> Why then does a) occur when the signatures are on the deed and b) when
> the signatures are on the tag?
>
> In one of his posts Tom Reedy has declared that in 1605 Raffe Huband
> signed his name because only his first name is on the tag. But the
> authenticating clause contradicts that. And what Tom quotes about the
> bond leaves no doubt that he only sealed.
>
> Tom has also stated somewhere that in the deed of 1618, where a) is
> used, Jackson's signature is partly on the deed, partly on the tag.
> This is a misrepresentation. Jackson signs: Jo Jackson. Only the loop
> of the "J" of "Jo" enters the tag.
>
> In my theory the deed marked by Shakespeare's mother was legally only
> signed. And the same would apply to the deed signed by Susan Hall and
> her daughter on the tag. Hence, the authenticating clause would read:
> set his/her seal or their seals. Is this clause reprinted in Park
> Honan's biography? If so, I would ask Tom to quote it? If it is
> stated "set hand and seal", he has already won.
Please go to
http://www.search.windowsonwarwickshire.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/default.asp?theme=1903&originator=%2Fengine%2Ftheme%2Fdefault%2Easp&page=&records=&direction=&pointer=499&text=0&resource=10062
and enlarge the document that coveyed the Snitterfield property from
John and Mary Shakespeare on Oct. 15, 1579.
The "authenticating clause," as you put it, reads "In Witinesse whereof
the p[ar]ties abovesaid to these p[re]sent Indentures Interchangeblie
have Putte their handes & Seales."
Both John and Mary Shakespeare marked on the tab, and on either side of
the tabs, it is written "The marke" and on the other "of John
Shacksper" and "of Marye Shacksper."
And if you go to
http://www.search.windowsonwarwickshire.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/default.asp?theme=1903&originator=%2Fengine%2Ftheme%2Fdefault%2Easp&page=1&records=21&direction=2&pointer=8917&text=0&resource=10072,
you will see a 1572 lease of a barn and garden in Chapel Lane in
Stratford upon which the parties signed on the seal tabs.
Go to
http://www.search.windowsonwarwickshire.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/default.asp?theme=1971&originator=%2Fengine%2Ftheme%2Fdefault%2Easp&page=&records=&direction=&pointer=347&text=0&resource=11501
and see an annuity signed over the seal tab and deed proper also, and
another example of the same at
http://www.search.windowsonwarwickshire.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/default.asp?theme=1971&originator=%2Fengine%2Ftheme%2Fdefault%2Easp&page=2&records=73&direction=1&pointer=1362&text=0&resource=11491.
Go to
http://www.search.windowsonwarwickshire.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/default.asp?theme=1971&originator=%2Fengine%2Ftheme%2Fdefault%2Easp&page=2&records=73&direction=1&pointer=1362&text=0&resource=11505
to see a signature completely on the seal tab on a 1560 document.
So your theory, that a signature on a tab wasn't legally a signature,
bites the dust.
I've never know any antiStratfordians let a few petty details deter
them from a pet theory that they think proves William Shakepeare was
illiterate, so I await the adjustment of your theory.
TR
Tom Reedy
Tom Reedy wrote:
<snip>
> Go to
> http://www.search.windowsonwarwickshire.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/default.asp?theme=1971&originator=%2Fengine%2Ftheme%2Fdefault%2Easp&page=2&records=73&direction=1&pointer=1362&text=0&resource=11505
> to see a signature completely on the seal tab on a 1560 document.
I forgot to mention that the above signature is an abbreviation.
TR
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Nice work, Tom. You and Terry are a shoo-in for this year's Yelworc.
(note to those not in The Trust: the Yelworc Prize is given annually
by The Trust to the person or persons who that year
carried out the best scholarly reversal of Crowleyism.
--Bob G.
Mouse
I'm sure you mean the Best Scholarly Replication of Crowleyism as Voted
for by Those in the Trust with Dyslexia--that would include most
members, I believe.
Love,
Lynne
>
> --Bob G.
Tom Reedy
news:1154433699.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I believe neither Robert nor I replicated any type of Crowleyism. Robert at
least did a little bit of research, just not the right kind and not enough
of it. Crowley does all his research from the comfort of his easy chair, or
maybe from the comfort of his toilet. His ideas all come from his
imaginings. Robert at least had some real-world basis for his idea.
TR
>
> Love,
> Lynne
>>
>> --Bob G.
>
Mouse
I don't believe either Bob or I mentioned Robert at all, as he's
certainly not a member of the Trust. We were speaking of you and Terry,
great nominees for the Backward Crowley Award. It's one of the few
times the Bunny and I are in agreement.
>Robert at
> least did a little bit of research, just not the right kind and not enough
> of it. Crowley does all his research from the comfort of his easy chair, or
> maybe from the comfort of his toilet. His ideas all come from his
> imaginings. Robert at least had some real-world basis for his idea.
I'm glad you realised that much at least. ;)
Mouse
Tom Reedy
Since Bob said Terry and I deserved a prize that recognized "the best
scholarly reversal of Crowleyism," he implied that Robert used
Crowley's methods to construct his argument.
TR
Mouse
But I pointed out that what Bob really meant with his Crowley spelled
backwards was Best Scholarly Replication of Crowleyism as Voted
for by Those in the Trust with Dyslexia.
O, never mind. The argument is clearly too subtle for thee ;) and I'm
busy packing for Stratford anyway.
Mouse
Tom Reedy
Well, you know how we Stratfordians are: we're always missing subtleties
that indicate someone else wrote Shakespeare that you and other special
people are attuned to, so what can you expect from us?
TR
Mouse
"For truth is truth, though never so old, and time cannot make that
false which was once true." (Eddy de Vere)
Tom Reedy
>
> "For truth is truth, though never so old, and time cannot make that
> false which was once true." (Eddy de Vere)
And the truth here is that Robert Detobel's essay has been proved to be
based on an erroneous interpretation of too few samples.
When will Oxfordians ever present a theory that stands up under
scrutiny? Probably not in our lifetimes.
TR
Mouse
Tom Reedy wrote:
> Mouse wrote:
> >
> > "For truth is truth, though never so old, and time cannot make that
> > false which was once true." (Eddy de Vere)
>
> And the truth here is that Robert Detobel's essay has been proved to be
> based on an erroneous interpretation of too few samples.
Not so fast, TR. Nothing has been proven or disproven yet.
>
> When will Oxfordians ever present a theory that stands up under
> scrutiny? Probably not in our lifetimes.
Do tell David Kathman that. If our theory on Tempest doesn't stand up
under scutiny, why hasn't he demolished it in one swell foop?
And by the way, I was simply agreeing with you that "[you, Tom and
Stratfordians in general, are] always missing subtleties that indicate
someone else wrote Shakespeare that [I, Lynne] and other special people
are attuned to, so what can [I] expect from you?"
It sounded like a truthful and admirably-worded statement, but now you
appear to have changed your mind; however, you might win this bout, not
from any surplus of wit, but because I have to leave tomorrow.
Love,
Mouse
>
> TR
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
mean what you want them to instead of what they straightforwardly mean.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Well, Robert is nowhere near as wacked-out or as unreceptive to rival
views as
Paul, so I suppose the trust should have called the award the Yeraf.
But Paul is
the, uh, Shakespeare of authorship, uh, alternative theorists, so I can
see why
the trust named the award after him.
--Bob G.
Mouse
One thing I never do, Bun, is exemplify Crowleyism. Not insulting Mr.
Crowley, of course. It is just that we are so different in our
approaches, for which both Mr. Crowley and I are profoundly grateful;
however, if the name of the award for which you're nominating Terry
and Tom--both dear friends of mine--is Crowley spelled backwards,
perhaps your message was not as straightforwardish as you thought you
straightforwardly imagined.
You, of course, are another dear friend of mine. So dear, in fact, that
I cannot refrain from suggesting that neither Terry or Tom is a shoe-in
for the Yelworc while you're around.
Loivke,
Mouse
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dang, Mouse, your backing just cost me the thing.
boB ,ekvioL
Tom Reedy
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:1154554137.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mouse wrote:
<snip>
What Lynne is doing, Bob, is to distract you from the main point of my
original post: Robert Detobel's theory is dead in the water. I'm waiting for
him, or Lynne, or any Oxfordian, to acknowledge that.
TR
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Haw, do you know that the latest SOS Newsletter features an article
whose author uses Henslowe's diary to prove Shakespeare was not a
playwright? But maybe some Oxfordians have acknowledged in print that
Henslowe's jottings are not evidence that Shakespeare was not a
playwright and I've missed it. If so, maybe you won't have to wait
forever for them to acknowledge that Robert's theory has been
overthrown--and his essay good for nothing but to serve as one more
example of delusional Oxfordian thinking. Actually, I'm pretty sure
Ken will come around to tell you he agrees with much of what you've
said and given him a lot to think about, then drop the subject--until
Shakespeare's literacy comes up again, whereup, he'll send people to
Robert's essay as if you and Terry had never said anything about it.
--Bob G.